Matchboard
AI tennis predictions: professional match breakdown
The page gathers the upcoming matches of the selected sport, model probabilities, odds, results and AI breakdowns in a single match center.
Live win probability (market-implied) — how often it wins, not a profit forecast.
Liu H. (Kit)
Utida K. (Iapo)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 66.2% / 33.8%
Market 1 / 2: 38.6% / 61.4%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 1 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Zhangjiagang (China), Hard
Sun F
Vu Tun-Lin (Tvn)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 42.3% / 57.7%
Market 1 / 2: 42.1% / 57.9%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Zhangjiagang (China), Hard
Watanuki Y
Pankin, Semen
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 68.4% / 31.6%
Market 1 / 2: 68.8% / 31.2%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Zhangjiagang (China), Hard
Cui Jie
Trotter J. K. (Iapo)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 54.2% / 45.8%
Market 1 / 2: 54.1% / 45.9%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Zhangjiagang (China), Hard
Jasika O
Peliwo F
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 80.1% / 19.9%
Market 1 / 2: 80.6% / 19.4%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Zhangjiagang (China) - Qualification, Hard
Vales, Amit
Parisca I
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 36.7% / 63.3%
Market 1 / 2: 36.4% / 63.6%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Plovdiv 3 (Bulgaria) - Qualification, Clay
Iannakkone F. (Ita)
Fajta P
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 65.0% / 35.0%
Market 1 / 2: 65.1% / 34.9%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Plovdiv 3 (Bulgaria) - Qualification, Clay
Ovcharenko, Oleksandr
Ribero F
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 77.2% / 22.8%
Market 1 / 2: 77.8% / 22.2%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Plovdiv 3 (Bulgaria) - Qualification, Clay
Mashtakov N
Opitts Ia. (Ger)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 64.8% / 35.2%
Market 1 / 2: 65.1% / 34.9%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Plovdiv 3 (Bulgaria) - Qualification, Clay
Popovich S. (Ser)
Tolev A. (Bol)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 86.8% / 13.2%
Market 1 / 2: 87.8% / 12.2%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Plovdiv 3 (Bulgaria) - Qualification, Clay
Iannaccone F
Fajta P
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 62.6% / 37.4%
Market 1 / 2: 62.6% / 37.4%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: International Plovdiv 3
Bernet, Henry
Napolitano S
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 56.5% / 43.5%
Market 1 / 2: 56.2% / 43.8%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Komo (Italy), Clay
Dodig, Matej
Poljicak M
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 58.5% / 41.5%
Market 1 / 2: 58.7% / 41.4%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Komo (Italy), Clay
Arnaboldi F
Bondioli, Federico
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 36.2% / 63.8%
Market 1 / 2: 36.0% / 64.0%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Komo (Italy), Clay
Brancaccio R
Ajdukovic D
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 62.1% / 37.9%
Market 1 / 2: 62.2% / 37.8%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 2 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Komo (Italy), Clay
Bueno G
Reis da Silva J L
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 62.6% / 37.4%
Market 1 / 2: 62.6% / 37.4%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Komo (Italy), Clay
Varillas J P
Kumstat, Jan
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 27.0% / 73.0%
Market 1 / 2: 26.5% / 73.5%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Komo (Italy), Clay
Soto M. (Chil)
Feldbausch K
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 24.1% / 76.0%
Market 1 / 2: 23.2% / 76.8%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Komo (Italy), Clay
Jianu F C
Squire H
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 40.9% / 59.1%
Market 1 / 2: 40.5% / 59.5%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 2 · total 0
Tournament: International Komo
Seyboth Wild T
Krumich M
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 55.5% / 44.5%
Market 1 / 2: 55.7% / 44.3%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: International Komo
Nedic A
Lokoli L. (Fra)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 56.4% / 43.6%
Market 1 / 2: 56.9% / 43.1%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Komo (Italy) - Qualification, Clay
Gombos N
Gulin S
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 54.7% / 45.3%
Market 1 / 2: 54.4% / 45.6%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Komo (Italy) - Qualification, Clay
Nikles J
Rottoli L
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 61.9% / 38.1%
Market 1 / 2: 62.3% / 37.7%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Komo (Italy) - Qualification, Clay
Boitan G A
Maxted, Lui
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 39.4% / 60.6%
Market 1 / 2: 39.1% / 60.9%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Mayorka (Spain) - Qualification, Hard
Gueymard Wayenburg S
Almazan Valiente, Izan
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 58.0% / 42.0%
Market 1 / 2: 58.5% / 41.5%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Mayorka (Spain) - Qualification, Hard
Lajal M
Abe M. (Iapo)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 94.7% / 5.3%
Market 1 / 2: 95.8% / 4.2%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 33%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Mayorka (Spain) - Qualification, Hard
Hernandez Alex
Gengel M
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 41.1% / 58.9%
Market 1 / 2: 40.6% / 59.4%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Mayorka (Spain) - Qualification, Hard
Visker N
Kelan S. (Pol)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 80.9% / 19.1%
Market 1 / 2: 81.9% / 18.1%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Porto 2 (Portugal) - Qualification, Clay
Carballes Baena R
Vives Markos P. (Isp)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 74.2% / 25.8%
Market 1 / 2: 74.9% / 25.1%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: Challenger Men - Singles: Porto 2 (Portugal) - Qualification, Clay
Tenti F. (Arg)
Kupcic J. (Sln)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 59.5% / 40.5%
Market 1 / 2: 45.9% / 54.1%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 1 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Men - Singles: M15 Buzau (Romania), Clay
Analytics
Why are PropickAI tennis predictions effective?
Tennis is a sport of individual matchups, so the model considers more than just player ranking. It factors in court surface, form in recent tournaments, head-to-head records, serve and return quality, draw density and possible fatigue. AI tennis predictions help you see where ATP and WTA statistics match the market line and where there is a discrepancy.


