Jesper De Jong vs Vilius Gaubas
Outside band — cautionATP · ATP Bastad, Sweden Men Singles · Clay2026-07-13 12:45 UTC
Model-favored side: Jesper De Jong · board of 2026-07-13
Edge outside the validated 5–12% band. A gap above 12% usually means a stale line or bad data, not a stronger signal — shown as caution, never conviction.
The math, in the open
- Our model P (Jesper De Jong)
- 79.9%
- Pinnacle fair P (vig removed, two-sided)
- 67.3%
- Pinnacle raw implied P (Jesper De Jong)
- 69.3%
- Best price implied P (1 ÷ odds)
- 69.4%
- Edge (model P − best implied P)
- +10.5%
- Books priced
- 3
Vig removal: Pinnacle's two prices imply more than 100% combined; normalizing them out gives the fair line. This row is outside the validated filter (5–12% disagreement, odds 2.0–3.0, ATP) — shown for transparency, not flagged.
What the model is weighing
The model's own per-feature contributions for this matchup (LightGBM TreeSHAP) — the largest inputs first. Each bar shows the factor's pull, toward Jesper De Jong or toward Vilius Gaubas. These explain the raw model score; the published probability then passes through a per-surface calibration step and a small schedule adjustment, shown beneath.
- Market fair probability 67.3%→ Jesper De Jong
Pinnacle's two prices with the vig removed — the market's own estimate.
- Market fair probability vs 50/50 +17.3pp→ Jesper De Jong
- Surface Elo gap +145→ Jesper De Jong
Surface-specific Elo blended with overall Elo, difference between the players.
- Return points won gap +4.7pp→ Jesper De Jong
- Style data available (player 2) no→ Jesper De Jong
- First-serve points won gap +8.1pp→ Jesper De Jong
- Raw model P (Jesper De Jong)
- 78.6%
- After per-surface calibration
- 79.9%
- Schedule/context adjustment
- +0.0%
- Published P (Jesper De Jong)
- 79.9%
Contributions are in the model's internal units (log-odds); bar lengths are relative within this match. Model v6-stacked. Values marked “neutral” are features the live pipeline doesn't populate — the model sees them at their neutral value, and we show that rather than hide it.
Head-to-head & recent form
No prior meetings in our results database.
Jesper De Jong: our results table ends 2024-11-04 — too stale to present as current form, so we omit it rather than show it.
Vilius Gaubas: our results table ends 2024-11-25 — too stale to present as current form, so we omit it rather than show it.
Clay Elo: Jesper De Jong 1610 (n=23) vs Vilius Gaubas 1484 (n=11)
Context is shown for orientation. What the model actually used is the factor list above plus the schedule/context adjustment; a 2–1 head-to-head is an anecdote, not a signal.
The market picture — Jesper De Jong price by book
| Book | Price | Implied P | Move since first snapshot |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pinnaclefair-line source | 1.44 | 69.3% | — |
| Unibetbest price | 1.44 | 69.4% | — |
| Bet365 | 1.40 | 71.4% | — |
Pinnacle fair P (vig removed): 67.3%. Implied P here is raw 1 ÷ odds per book. Only one snapshot per book is stored so far — movement appears after the evening capture.
Analyst read
Written analysis for this match hasn't been published yet.
Sizing, as education: if you act on filter matches at all, professionals size them flat (a fixed ~1% of bankroll) or by fractional Kelly (we model 0.15× Kelly with an uncertainty discount). Never more because a number looks big — a bigger gap above 12% usually means a stale line, not a better bet.
We don't beat Pinnacle — nobody reliably does. We find the books that disagree with it, and we grade every pick against the close, publicly — the receipts, including what we got wrong. Not betting or financial advice. 21+ where legal. About Baseline.