Roland Garros, Qualification ATP: Nerman Fatic vs Kyrian Jacquet

Platform comparison

Active sub-markets

Market context

Nerman Fatic and Kyrian Jacquet are scheduled to meet in Roland Garros qualifying, a straight two-player market on who advances from the match. For a programme or bot that prices tennis outcomes, the useful baseline is the bracket state rather than the headline name: ATP qualifying markets can move quickly from near-liveness to void risk if a match is postponed, shortened by weather, or not completed inside the settlement window. That matters here because the current crowd-implied price is effectively none for a Jacquet win, so any system using this market needs to distinguish between a genuine upset move and a procedural change that pushes the event into the 50-50 fallback.

The only prior meeting in the available data favours Fatic, who beat Jacquet on clay 7-5, 6-4, and the surface is relevant because both are playing in Paris qualifying on clay rather than in a neutral hard-court setting. Recent results also suggest both arrived through qualifying in reasonable form: Jacquet beat Lorenzo Giustino 6-3, 7-6 in the opening round, while Fatic beat Luka Mikrut 6-4, 6-4. Odds markets currently lean to Jacquet, with some books pricing him around 1.56 and Fatic around 2.5, so the discrepancy between exchange sentiment and book pricing is the main comparative input for a trader modelling entry and exit levels.

From a trading workflow point of view, the key catalysts are the official start time, any rain-related delay in Paris, and whether the ATP/organiser updates confirm the match is played to completion within seven days of the scheduled date. ESPN’s live entry still lists the qualifying tie as pending around the scheduled slot, which is useful for checking whether a no-show, walkover, or suspension is developing. Programmatically, the cleanest approach is to watch for completed-set status and advance confirmation rather than raw point score, since a partial match can still resolve differently from a cancelled one under the market rules.

Sources: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5

Methodology

This page is a comparison snapshot: one live quote (Polymarket), four reference venues with their key attributes, and a single execution path — every trade button routes to PolyGram, which mirrors the Polymarket order book directly.

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.

How fast are USDC deposits?

Polygon credits deposits after 12 confirmations — usually under 30 seconds. Withdrawals follow the same path and land back in your wallet within minutes.

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.