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.
Milic, Ognjen
Ratti, Lucio
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 49.3% / 50.7%
Market 1 / 2: 48.1% / 51.9%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Sion, Switzerland Men Singles
Brunold M
Zahraj P
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 67.2% / 32.8%
Market 1 / 2: 69.2% / 30.8%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Sion, Switzerland Men Singles
Dellen Velasko M. (Bol)
Nijboer R
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 43.7% / 56.3%
Market 1 / 2: 43.3% / 56.7%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Sion, Switzerland Men Singles
Compagnucci T
Dahlin, Max
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 44.6% / 55.4%
Market 1 / 2: 44.0% / 56.0%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Sion, Switzerland Men Singles
Mena F
La Serna, Juan Manuel
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 53.0% / 47.0%
Market 1 / 2: 54.0% / 46.0%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Sion, Switzerland Men Singles
Staeheli L
Chepelev A
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 53.1% / 46.9%
Market 1 / 2: 53.1% / 47.0%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Sion, Switzerland Men Singles
Broska F
Cuenin S
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 41.3% / 58.7%
Market 1 / 2: 41.2% / 58.8%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Krutykh O
Siniakov D
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 61.0% / 39.0%
Market 1 / 2: 62.0% / 38.0%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 44%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Soto M. (Chil)
Molleker R
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 38.3% / 61.7%
Market 1 / 2: 36.0% / 64.1%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Zoldakova D
Teixido Garcia A. (Isp)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 60.3% / 39.7%
Market 1 / 2: 61.5% / 38.5%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W50 Prague (Czechia), clay
Zolotareva A
Serban R G
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 56.9% / 43.1%
Market 1 / 2: 57.4% / 42.6%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W50 Prague (Czechia), clay
Meir L. (Ita)
Kotliar Y
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 26.6% / 73.4%
Market 1 / 2: 25.0% / 75.1%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W50 Prague (Czechia), clay
Havlickova L
Bervid V
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 83.8% / 16.2%
Market 1 / 2: 86.7% / 13.3%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W50 Prague (Czechia), clay
Zeltina B
Fruhvirtova B
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 48.8% / 51.2%
Market 1 / 2: 48.7% / 51.4%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W50 Prague (Czechia), clay
Siskova A
Pulchartova L. (Chekh)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 62.1% / 37.9%
Market 1 / 2: 90.7% / 9.3%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 18%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 1 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W50 Prague (Czechia), clay
Feistel G. (Pol)
Gniewkowska O
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 43.0% / 57.0%
Market 1 / 2: 90.7% / 9.3%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 1 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W35 Krakow (Poland), clay
Straszewska B. (Pol)
Zelnickova R
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 41.8% / 58.2%
Market 1 / 2: 10.1% / 89.9%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 1 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W35 Krakow (Poland), clay
Samir S
Leikina P. (Mir)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 42.6% / 57.4%
Market 1 / 2: 57.9% / 42.1%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 1 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W35 Krakow (Poland), clay
Burylo M./Chastang Cooper A.
Gniewkowska O./Podlinska M.
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 15.2% / 84.8%
Market 1 / 2: 12.4% / 87.6%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 18%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 2 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Doubles: W35 Krakow (Poland), clay
Gorshka D./Paszun A.
Affelt N./Kmiecik A.
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 60.6% / 39.4%
Market 1 / 2: 61.5% / 38.5%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 18%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Doubles: W35 Krakow (Poland), clay
Gusar S./Straszewska B.
Garsiia-Peres G./Turini V.
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 28.3% / 71.7%
Market 1 / 2: 25.6% / 74.4%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 18%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Doubles: W35 Krakow (Poland), clay
Sakellaridi S./Vilar G.
Leikina P./Vysochanska K.
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 31.3% / 68.7%
Market 1 / 2: 29.5% / 70.5%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 18%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 2 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Doubles: W35 Krakow (Poland), clay
Kuczer D./Samir S.
Maduzzi G./Pace F.
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 39.7% / 60.3%
Market 1 / 2: 37.6% / 62.4%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 18%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 2 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Doubles: W35 Krakow (Poland), clay
Michalik R
Crivellaro G
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 34.4% / 65.6%
Market 1 / 2: 33.0% / 67.0%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Men - Singles: M15 Mistelbach (Austria), clay
Rivera L. (Nor)
Mashtakov N
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 23.3% / 76.7%
Market 1 / 2: 19.1% / 81.0%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Men - Singles: M15 Mistelbach (Austria), clay
Shylov H. (Ukr)
Zimmer F. (Avt)
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: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Men - Singles: M15 Mistelbach (Austria), clay
Daems J
Eigelsbach E V
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 55.9% / 44.1%
Market 1 / 2: 57.4% / 42.6%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W35 Erwitte (Germany), clay
Park Sohyun
Berri M. (Nzl)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 88.1% / 11.9%
Market 1 / 2: 91.6% / 8.4%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 18%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 2 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W35 Erwitte (Germany), clay
Fontenel Ch. (Shva)
Tsygourova K
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 24.9% / 75.1%
Market 1 / 2: 21.4% / 78.6%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W35 Erwitte (Germany), clay
Koeliu D. (Por)
Bolangi B
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 49.0% / 51.0%
Market 1 / 2: 74.3% / 25.7%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 18%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 1 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Men - Singles: M25 Idanha-a-Nova 2 (Portugal), hard
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.