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

Platform comparison

Active sub-markets

Market context

Roberto Carballes Baena and Hugo Dellien were due to meet in Roland Garros qualifying on 22 May, with the market set to resolve on whichever player advances, or to 50-50 if the match is not completed in time under the contract terms. At a crowd-implied 100% YES, the price is effectively assuming the match has already been played and a winner will be recorded before the 29 May settlement deadline. In practice, that leaves little room for a delay, walkover, retirement before completion, or administrative rescheduling that pushes the result beyond the seven-day window.

The cleanest comparator is the normal behaviour of qualifying-round tennis markets: once a match is on the schedule, they usually resolve quickly, but they can flip to the fallback outcome if rain, court backlog, or a late withdrawal prevents completion. This pairing has also been listed by multiple live-score and sportsbook pages, including Sofascore and FanDuel, which supports the view that the contest was part of the published qualifying draw rather than a speculative or exhibition event. The ATP head-to-head page is the most relevant historical reference for player matchup context, but it does not change the contract mechanics: only an official advance determines the winner side.

For traders, the main catalysts are procedural rather than performance-related: whether the French Open qualifying order of play holds, whether the match actually starts on schedule, and whether any retirement or suspension occurs before completion. Because the market settles in USDC, there is also no direct linkage to BTC or ETH price action unless broader crypto volatility affects overall book behaviour or hedging activity. If the match is delayed by weather or court congestion, the key clock is the seven-day fallback rule, not the original start time, so any cancellation or prolonged postponement would matter more than pre-match form.

Sources: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5

Methodology

Methodologically this overview focuses on on-chain pricing: Polymarket's live mid comes from the Polygon conditional-token order book and settles automatically in USDC. The other three venues — Kalshi, Betfair, Manifold — are listed with their platform attributes, because they operate off-chain and a 1:1 comparison of contract mechanics isn't possible.

Resolution & payout

Settlement is on-chain via UMA Optimistic Oracle. A proposer posts the outcome with a bond, a two-hour dispute window opens, then the smart contract lifts winning conditional tokens to 1 USDC and sends payments to holders' wallets automatically. No withdrawal fees beyond Polygon gas.

Off-chain venues (Kalshi, Betfair, Smarkets) settle in local fiat through bank-side clearing — faster than SWIFT, slower than on-chain. Manifold pays no real cash.

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.

What's the difference between YES and NO shares?

A YES share pays $1.00 if the event happens, $0 otherwise. A NO share pays $1.00 if the event doesn't happen. The market price between 0¢ and 100¢ is the implied probability.

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.