M. Sawangkaew vs R. Sramkova — Prediction & Analysis

TennisEdge's AI model finds no betting value in M. Sawangkaew vs R. Sramkova (Toronto on 2026-08-01) — the market is efficient, with M. Sawangkaew favoured at 1.45.

Model probabilities

Independent estimates of who wins, each from a different method. The blend is what the bot prices against the market.

We publish how well these score against the closing market, including where they lose: how accurate are tennis predictions?

Elo ratings

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 Aug. 1, 2026.

Head to head

R. Sramkova leads 2–0 over 2 meetings. Full record.

Recent form

All Aug. 1, 2026 results & picks →

Full analysis

═══ Sawangkaew (A, #175) vs Sramkova (B, #29→#118) — Toronto, hard, Final ═══

MODELS vs MARKET
  ELO A 59.1% | ML A 63.0% | blend A 61.9%  →  A = 38.1% for B
  Market: A @1.45 (raw 69.0%), B @2.63 (raw 38.0%); devigged A 64.5% / B 35.5%.
  All three models sit BELOW market on A (elo notably). Expressed on B: model 38.1%.
  Edge on B vs EXECUTABLE book price (1/2.63=38.0%) = +0.06% — essentially zero.
  Even against devigged 35.5% the gap is only +2.5%, well under the 5% bar.
  No exchange price (alt_markets betfair_ml null) → book-priced ML needs edge >=8%. Miss.

RECENT FORM (last 5)
  A Sawangkaew: Vancouver run this week R32 W / R16 W(3set) / QF W(vs Jones 1756) /
    SF 07-31 LOST 3-set to Preston(1748); prior Evansville W100 QF loss. Deep venue run
    but heavy grind, several tight/ugly scorelines vs mid fields. Shape STABLE/FADING
    (lost 3-set SF yesterday).
  B Sramkova: Washington SF/Final W then R16 loss to Tjen(1780); Wimbledon SF run
    (lost to Kostovic). Fresher, fewer matches. Shape STABLE.

PATH / FATIGUE
  A: matches_7d 4, matches_14d 7, 21 sets, back_to_back 5 (five straight match days,
     rising), 556 court-min, played a 3-set SF YESTERDAY (07-31, a LOSS so no
     3-set-hangover winner haircut applies). Age 24 → baseline recovery. This is an
     EXTREME fatigue spot (5 consecutive match days). Match-sharp but deeply loaded.
  B: matches_7d 3, 9 sets, 200 court-min, last match 07-27 (5 days rest). Much fresher.
  Fatigue clearly disadvantages A — BUT this is context, not an edge: the market already
  prices A at only 1.45 and models already sit below market. Fatigue cannot CREATE the
  staked edge (G1).

NARRATIVE / ELO-RANK
  ELO favours A despite A ranked #175 vs B #118 — A's rating partly built on W100/ITF and
  a jumbled grass run; possibly slightly farmed → discount, not lean on. No title-recency
  or surface-transition edge that moves the number materially (both on hard now).

GATES
  G1 edge-origin: FAIL — pre-narrative model-vs-market edge on B is +0.06% at the
     executable price (2.5% even devigged), below the 5% / 8%-book bar. Any case for B
     rests on fatigue, which G1 forbids as the edge source.
  G2 consensus:   n/a (stake-tier only; no bet to tier).
  G3 fatal-risk:  n/a (ML; not a margin bet).

MARKET CHOICE
  alt_markets: none at analysis time
  AH: not quoted
  ML only. No exchange price; book edge ~0. No qualitative edge can rescue a zero
  numeric gap in an illiquid segment.

VERDICT: PASS. Models agree with the market direction (A favoured, marginally softer than
priced); the only pro-B argument is A's heavy fatigue, which is context not edge. Zero
executable edge + no exchange liquidity = textbook pass.