TennisEdge's AI model finds no betting value in K. Swan vs M. Keys (Wimbledon on 2026-07-02) — the market is efficient, with M. Keys favoured at 1.10.
Independent estimates of who wins, each from a different method. The blend is what the bot prices against the market.
| Method | K. Swan | M. Keys |
|---|---|---|
| Elo ratings-based, surface-weighted |
18.4% | 81.6% |
| Machine learning 29-feature gradient-boosted model |
19.8% | 80.2% |
| Serve / return point-by-point simulation |
34.8% | 65.2% |
| Blend what the bot actually prices off |
21.2% | 78.8% |
| Market implied de-vigged from the opening odds |
13.3% | 86.7% |
We publish how well these score against the closing market, including where they lose: how accurate are tennis predictions?
Our own ratings, computed from match results since 2018. Players with fewer than 5 rated matches are omitted rather than shown at a provisional starting value. Last updated May 17, 2026.
M. Keys leads 3–0 over 3 meetings. Full record.
| Date | Event | Surface | Winner | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 2, 2026 | Wimbledon | grass | M. Keys | 2 - 0 |
| Jan. 4, 2023 | WTA United Cup | hard | M. Keys | 2 - 1 |
| June 28, 2021 | Wimbledon | grass | M. Keys | 2 - 0 |
| L | M. Keys | 0 - 2 | July 2, 2026 |
| W | I. Begu | 0 - 2 | June 30, 2026 |
| W | V. Golubic | 0 - 2 | June 12, 2026 |
| L | A. Krueger | 0 - 1 | June 12, 2026 |
| W | T. Martincova | 0 - 2 | June 10, 2026 |
| L | L. Samsonova | 2 - 1 | July 27, 2026 |
| L | L. Noskova | 0 - 2 | July 6, 2026 |
| W | A. Anisimova | 1 - 2 | July 4, 2026 |
| W | K. Swan | 0 - 2 | July 2, 2026 |
| W | K. Day | 1 - 2 | June 30, 2026 |
All July 2, 2026 results & picks →
═══════════════════════════════════════ K. Swan (A) vs M. Keys (B) — Wimbledon 1/32-finals (grass) ═══════════════════════════════════════ ODDS: Swan 7.2 (imp 13.3%) | Keys 1.10 (imp 86.7%) | value_pick A, edge +8.0% MODELS (prob Swan): ELO 18.4% ML 19.8% S/R 34.8% MODEL 21.2% | Market 13.3% -> Both ELO & ML lean Swan HIGHER than market. Nominal +8% edge on the 7.2 dog. FORM — SWAN (A): Wimbledon R1 6/30: beat I. Begu (1613, Avg) 6-4 6-4 -> GRIND (only real WTA scalp) Grass lead-in (Ilkley/Birmingham): mostly LOSSES to Strong (Krueger 1703 ret, Preston, Tomljanovic) ITF titles W75 Kurume (5/17) & W35 Fukuoka (5/10): DOM but vs sub-1600/weak fields Read: form is padded against ITF-level opponents; no DOM vs Strong/Elite on grass. FORM — KEYS (B): Wimbledon R1 6/30: beat K. Day 6-7 6-4 6-3 (dropped set, 3-set grind) EASTBOURNE TITLE 6/27: d. Maria (1824, Strong) in Final -> grass title, quality wins Berlin QF 6/19, beat Muchova/Wang en route Elite grass form, real top-tier class. FATIGUE: Swan: 1 match/14d, ~64 min court time — FRESH. Keys: 9 matches/14d, ~570 min, 5 back-to-back days — HEAVILY loaded. -> Large court-time gap (>60 min): fatigue DISADVANTAGE on Keys. Real edge component. NARRATIVE: TITLE: Eastbourne 3d ago (grass) — Keys won Final 6/27 -> POSSIBLE let-down spot. Plus a 3-set R1 the day before this match. Legit tiredness/let-down catalyst on the fav. Venue: no Wimbledon momentum edge for either. VERDICT: LEAN (no bet). The +8% model edge on Swan is genuine, and Keys carries a real fatigue + possible let-down catalyst (title 3d ago, exhausting 14-day block, dropped-set R1). That is enough to note — but NOT enough to fire. Swan's form is built entirely on weak ITF fields; she has zero evidence she can punish an Elite grass champion (no DOM-vs-quality signal). Class gap outweighs the tired-favorite angle. Small lean toward Swan value, hold fire. ═══════════════════════════════════════