Roland Garros, Qualification ATP: Roberto Carballes Baena vs Hugo Dellien

Platform comparison

Active sub-markets

Market context

Roberto Carballés Baena and Hugo Dellien are scheduled to meet in Roland Garros qualifying, with the market resolving on who advances. The current 100% YES price is best read as a settlement-led outcome rather than a live view on tennis quality, because the event has already been played or is in the process of being confirmed by tournament reporting. In a market like this, the key question is whether an official result was recorded inside the settlement window; if not, the fallback rules can matter more than pre-match odds.

For context, qualification markets on major tennis events often move to the shortest possible duration once a winner is reported, while cancellations, walkovers and schedule slippage can force binary markets into conditional settlement. ATP reporting on Friday said Dellien advanced, beating Carballés Baena 6-3, 3-6, 6-1, which is the sort of contemporaneous match report traders rely on when assessing whether a market is likely to resolve cleanly. Comparable cases at Roland Garros qualifying tend to turn on whether the score is formally posted, not on betting sentiment or rank gap.

From a regulatory and access perspective, German GlüStV rules are relevant because they can restrict or complicate access to certain online betting-style products for users located in Germany, while US CFTC reach is a separate issue for US-facing participants if a venue is deemed to fall within derivatives oversight. Where a platform advertises “no-KYC up to $1,500”, that generally means small withdrawals or positions may be available with limited identity checks, but it does not remove geo-restrictions, sanctions screening, or the operator’s own verification triggers for this specific market. The main practical catalysts are the official match result, any ATP or Roland Garros correction, and whether the settlement window closes without a recorded winner.

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.

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.

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.

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.