Cervia: Andrea Guerrieri vs Max Alcala Gurri

Platform comparison

Active sub-markets

Market context

Andrea Guerrieri and Max Alcala Gurri were due to play in the Cervia Challenger on 22 May, with the market set around whether Guerrieri would be the player to advance. The current crowd-implied probability of 0% YES is a clear outlier versus the available match pricing: 888sport listed Guerrieri at 13/8 to win 2-0 and Alcala Gurri at 9/4 to win 2-0, with a third straight-sets outcome also priced, which suggests a live contest rather than a near-certainty. TennisTemple’s preview also leaned towards Guerrieri, noting “Guerrieri in 3”, while ATP and Sofascore simply frame it as an active Challenger semi-final pairing rather than a mismatch. In market terms, that makes the 0% crowd figure look detached from both sportsbook and preview consensus, though not enough to imply a one-sided spot.

For traders, the main variables are procedural rather than tactical: whether the match starts, whether it is completed within the seven-day settlement window, and whether either player advances by walkover, retirement or rescheduling. Sofascore and Flashscore both listed the fixture for 22 May in Ravenna/Cervia, which points to a standard Challenger schedule, but that also means rain delays or court-order changes can matter if the match slips beyond the window. If the semi-final is postponed, abandoned or not played at all, the contract’s fallback to 50-50 becomes relevant. The key comparison is between a market already pricing Guerrieri as a live, if slightly shorter, option and a prediction market currently assigning him no credit at all.

Sources: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5

Methodology

Methodologically we separate two layers: the live probability (Polymarket mid-price) and the platform attributes (fee, KYC, settlement currency, payment rails). The odds column is filled only where we have clean data — that avoids the made-up numbers that get a network demoted when search engines cross-check against the source venue.

Resolution & payout

Settlement runs on-chain. Polymarket's contract logic separates YES and NO shares as conditional tokens; at resolution the winning share lifts to $1.00 and the losing one to $0. The outcome input comes from the UMA Optimistic Oracle, which secures against bad resolution with a bond + dispute window.

Once finalised, the smart contract pays USDC to the holders' wallets within minutes — no withdrawal fees beyond Polygon network gas. Kalshi settles in USD via CFTC clearance, Betfair in account currency net of commission, Manifold in play-money mana with no cash-out.

FAQ

Where can I trade this market with the lowest fees?

On PolyGram, which mirrors the Polymarket order book at 0% fees. Kalshi charges up to 7% per trade; Betfair Exchange takes 2-5% commission on net winnings.

How does resolution work?

Through the UMA Optimistic Oracle on Polygon: a proposer submits the outcome, a two-hour challenge window opens, and USDC payouts settle automatically once the result is final.

What does it cost to trade on PolyGram?

Zero. PolyGram routes every order to the live Polymarket order book; the only cost is the Polygon network fee, typically under $0.01 per transaction.

Do I need to KYC for this market?

Not under $1,500 of lifetime trading volume. Above that threshold, PolyGram triggers a quick verification flow that finishes in minutes.

How reliable are the quoted odds?

The YES/NO percentages are the live mid-prices of the Polymarket order book. On deep markets they move every few seconds; on thinner ones you'll see short plateaus.