Estimated outcome probability. A likely winner can still be overpriced.
← Decision briefsTennis · Oct 17, 9:00 PM PDT YOUR RESEARCH TASK FORECASTClaire Liu RELIABILITY4/4 model reports MARKET VALUENot established
Maddison Inglis vs Claire Liu
64.6%Claire Liu
NOT LOCKED4/4 independent models select Claire Liu; all four oriented probabilities average 64.63%.
Check the evidence
The most important gap and your next source check.
- Read the model reasons and reported limits.
- Inspect available source context; record missing sources.
- Identify what remains unverified and your next action.
20 reported evidence limits. Agreement alone does not establish accuracy.
A probability difference alone does not account for forecast error, fees, spread, or available liquidity.
Why the models lean this way
These are reasons recorded by the models. They are not independently verified facts or measured causes of a probability change.
- Grok: Claire Liu current rank 96 vs Maddison Inglis rank 130
- Gemini: Claire Liu's higher WTA ranking (96 compared to 130 for Inglis).
- Claude: Liu ranked 96 vs Inglis 130 (789 vs 571 points)
- GPT: Claire Liu has the higher current rank: 96 vs Maddison Inglis at 130.
Read all four model reports
Grok · Claire Liu · 62.0%
Claire Liu holds the superior current rank (96 vs 130), higher ranking points (789 vs 571), and a stronger season singles record (36-18 vs 15-14). These supplied metrics indicate Liu as the stronger player on paper. Surface form, injuries, head-to-head, travel, and market odds are unavailable per the evidence package and are not factored into the estimate.
xai/grok-4.3 · Oct 17, 2:05 AM PDTGemini · Claire Liu · 70.5%
Claire Liu holds a distinct advantage in both ranking and season performance. She is ranked 34 places higher than Maddison Inglis (96 vs 130) and has accumulated significantly more ranking points (789 vs 571). Additionally, Liu's season win-loss record of 36-18 (66.7% win rate) is markedly superior to Inglis's 15-14 record (51.7% win rate), suggesting greater consistency and form.
google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview · Oct 17, 2:05 AM PDTClaude · Claire Liu · 63.0%
Claire Liu holds a modest but consistent edge on both supplied metrics: a higher current ranking (96 vs 130, with 789 vs 571 ranking points) and a substantially better season singles record (36-18, .667) versus Inglis (15-14, .517). A ~34-place ranking gap at this level typically translates to roughly a 60-65% win expectancy, and Liu's larger match volume suggests more match-hardening and deeper draws. Inglis is trending up (140 to 130), which tempers the gap slightly. Surface-specific form, injury status, head-to-head history, travel/fatigue, and market odds are not available in this evidence package, so the estimate rests solely on ranking and season win-loss data and is held near the modest-favorite range rather than a strong edge.
anthropic/claude-opus-5 · Oct 17, 2:05 AM PDTGPT · Claire Liu · 63.0%
Claire Liu is the stronger choice on the supplied immutable evidence. She has the better current ranking (96 vs 130), more ranking points (789 vs 571), and a much stronger 2026 singles record (36-18 vs 15-14). Both players have slightly improved from their previous ranks, but Liu’s overall season volume and win rate are materially better. Since the evidence scope is limited to current ranking and season singles record only, this estimate cannot account for match-specific factors. Surface form, injuries, head-to-head, travel, and market odds are unavailable in the evidence package.
openai/gpt-5.4 · Oct 17, 2:05 AM PDTWhat remains uncertain
- Surface form unavailable
- Injuries unavailable
- Head-to-head unavailable
- Travel unavailable
- Market odds unavailable
- Surface-specific form is unavailable.
- Player injury status is not supplied.
- Head-to-head records are absent.
What to watch next
Wait for all required evidence and the pre-event lock. This view is not final.
Open the event and source context →What changed before the lock
- First recorded forecast
First prospective probability state captured for this source and competition.
Record hash
f42f27acf42bbfaf86fb6003287736f140d78b7c487bca68b86d90a2ab12da20
Reasons are shown as they were recorded. The ledger does not establish that a specific fact caused a probability change.
The saved method comparison
This event has no eligible record in the new comparison cohort. Historical or late forecasts are not filled in after the event.
Inspect the methods and progress →Available source context
site.api.espn.com ↗sports.core.api.espn.com ↗sports.core.api.espn.com ↗sports.core.api.espn.com ↗sports.core.api.espn.com ↗sports.core.api.espn.com ↗sports.core.api.espn.com ↗
These links provide event context. They do not verify every claim in a model report.
Finish your review
Record whether this brief helped, how long the review took, and your next action.
Return to your review →