Roland Garros, Qualification ATP: Vilius Gaubas vs Pablo Llamas Ruiz

Platform comparison

Active sub-markets

Market context

Vilius Gaubas and Pablo Llamas Ruiz were due to meet in Roland Garros qualifying, and the market is pricing Gaubas at 0% YES, which leaves the consensus firmly with Llamas Ruiz. That sits at the extreme end of the board: when one side is marked down to effectively nothing, the read is usually that either the market has already seen a strong match-up edge, or the event has been moved on in practice and the pricing has not fully refreshed. The comparable form line here is straightforward enough: ATP records show Llamas Ruiz already took their 2025 head-to-head, and match listings in the live betting feed point to a narrow favourite’s profile rather than a coin-flip. In that sort of setup, the value case is usually not on the favourite side if the price is already one-way, but on whether the market is overconfident about completion or the exact winner if the result remains unconfirmed.

The main catalysts for traders are straightforward: whether the match is officially completed, whether any schedule change pushes it beyond the seven-day window, and whether ATP or tournament feeds confirm the final result before settlement. Public market pages from Kalshi and sportsbook listings indicate the fixture was on the Roland Garros qualifying slate, while live score services show the contest has already been played with Llamas Ruiz winning in three sets. That makes the practical watch-list less about form and more about administrative confirmation: if the official result is posted cleanly, the favourite side should be the only live outcome; if not, a delay or abandoned completion can force the market into its fallback rules.

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

Is this market available outside the US?

PolyGram is available in most jurisdictions where Polymarket isn't directly accessible. Polymarket itself is geo-blocked in the US/UK/EU. Always check local regulations.

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.

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.