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.
Forejtek J
Torres J B
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 42.4% / 57.6%
Market 1 / 2: 41.2% / 58.9%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Martin B
Barranco Cosano J
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 44.7% / 55.3%
Market 1 / 2: 45.2% / 54.8%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Paulson A
Gombos N
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 34.1% / 65.9%
Market 1 / 2: 33.4% / 66.6%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Ambrogi L E
Krutykh O
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 45.4% / 54.6%
Market 1 / 2: 45.7% / 54.3%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Papoe, Radu Mihai
Cerny M
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 77.2% / 22.8%
Market 1 / 2: 78.7% / 21.3%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Fatic N
Donald M W
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 59.5% / 40.5%
Market 1 / 2: 60.7% / 39.3%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 5 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Ribeiro, Eduardo
Nagal S
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: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Sachko V
Siniakov D
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 68.7% / 31.3%
Market 1 / 2: 71.4% / 28.6%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Filip J
Hardt N
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 25.2% / 74.8%
Market 1 / 2: 22.8% / 77.2%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Campana Lee G
Papamalamis, Theo
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 57.7% / 42.3%
Market 1 / 2: 58.8% / 41.2%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Sion, Switzerland Men Singles
Wiedenmann L. (Ger)
Cigarran T
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 72.1% / 27.9%
Market 1 / 2: 73.5% / 26.5%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Sion, Switzerland Men Singles
Marti Puiolras A. (Isp)
Bocchi L
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 62.8% / 37.2%
Market 1 / 2: 64.7% / 35.3%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Sion, Switzerland Men Singles
Nesterov, Pyotr
Hemery C
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 55.3% / 44.7%
Market 1 / 2: 55.0% / 45.0%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
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
Martin Andrej
Barranco Cosano J
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 49.0% / 51.0%
Market 1 / 2: 45.4% / 54.6%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 1 · total 0
Tournament: International ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Paul J
Molleker R
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 47.3% / 52.7%
Market 1 / 2: 47.5% / 52.6%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: International ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Ribeiro E
Nagal S
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 29.5% / 70.5%
Market 1 / 2: 27.5% / 72.5%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: International ATP Challenger Prague, Czech Republic Men Singles
Hassan B
Raquillet L
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 58.1% / 41.9%
Market 1 / 2: 59.4% / 40.6%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: International Son
Ehrenschneider N
Wehnelt K
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 44.1% / 55.9%
Market 1 / 2: 42.9% / 57.1%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 2 · total 0
Tournament: International Son
Sakellaridis D
Ovcharenko O
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 46.0% / 54.0%
Market 1 / 2: 44.7% / 55.3%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: International Son
Makk P
Walters, Marcus
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 80.3% / 19.7%
Market 1 / 2: 81.9% / 18.1%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 6 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Roehampton, Great Britain Men Singles
Peliwo F
Tepmahc N
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 45.5% / 54.5%
Market 1 / 2: 44.7% / 55.3%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Roehampton, Great Britain Men Singles
Echeverria J
Blaydes B
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 60.0% / 40.0%
Market 1 / 2: 61.3% / 38.7%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 3 · total 0
Tournament: ATP Challenger Roehampton, Great Britain Men Singles
Kovackova A. (Chekh)
Voracek E. M. (Ger)
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 78.6% / 21.4%
Market 1 / 2: 80.7% / 19.3%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 29%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 2 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W50 Prague (Czechia), clay
Shinikova I
Herrero Linana A
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 28.0% / 72.0%
Market 1 / 2: 25.7% / 74.3%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 4 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W50 Prague (Czechia), clay
Siskova A
Kucmova A
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 79.1% / 20.9%
Market 1 / 2: 81.6% / 18.4%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 29%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 2 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W50 Prague (Czechia), clay
Dellien M
Nijboer R
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 63.4% / 36.6%
Market 1 / 2: 42.1% / 57.9%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 39%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 1 · total 0
Tournament: International ATP Challenger Sion, Switzerland Men Singles
Kmiecik A. (Pol)
Dittmann G M
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 30.5% / 69.5%
Market 1 / 2: 27.2% / 72.8%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 2 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W35 Krakow (Poland), clay
Maduzzi G
Sakellaridi S
All stats and model conclusions
Model vs market
Glicko 1 / 2: 49.7% / 50.3%
Market 1 / 2: 49.2% / 50.8%
Favourite trap: no
Data completeness: 24%
Match context
Bookmaker coverage: 1×2 2 · total 0
Tournament: ITF Women - Singles: W35 Krakow (Poland), 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.