Fixed Matches Safe Football

Fixed Matches Safe Football

Fixed Matches Safe Football

Ticket fixed bets big odds weekend
Day: Monday    Date: 29.08.2022

League: NORWAY OBOS-ligaen
Match: Start – Grorud
Tip: Over 2.5 Goals
Odds: 1.50    Result: 5:0 Won

weekend fixed matches betting [email protected]

WhatsApp support: +43 681 10831491

Betting 100% sure fixed match 1×2

With the Fixed Matches Safe Football, do you know why fixed games 1×2 betting on your favourite team is a bad idea? It’s for the same reason lotteries are so popular and people find judging the likelihood of rare events, like a hole-in-one, so difficult. It comes down to skewed perception resulting from what are known as the possibility and certainty effects.

Many bettors don’t measure the value of a bet by its Fixed Matches Safe Football, but instead consider what they feel about the potential returns. For example, try rating the importance of the following increases in your chance to win €1 million:


Though all of the options represent the same quantitative change (a 5% improvement) they produce different qualitative impressions – in other words, each option generates a different emotional reaction. See the below:

Option (a) moves you from no chance of winning the €1 million to having a chance. And though it is a small one – with a probability of 0.05 – the move into the realms of possibility is a crucial trigger to positive emotion. This feeling is known as the possibility effect, which generally leads gamblers to overweight long shots, and is a driving force behind lottery participation which, for a small outlay, offers the a chance of a huge win.

Options (b) and (c) tend to have less dramatic impressions. Even though with (b) your chance of winning actually doubles, it still doesn’t provide a qualitative impact – it doesn’t push the same mental buttons.

Soccer fixed matches betting weekend

With option (d) the outcome moves to certainty (100%), producing an inverse of the possibility effect. This is known as the certainty effect, which means that, in the absence of EV calculations, outcomes close to certainty are generally underweight in relation to their probability.

Vividness – thinking the ball into the net

Despite the benefits of weighting the probabilities, Fixed Matches Safe Football still tend to choose to bet on team A over team B because they believe it is a more likely occurrence, not from a calculation of superior value.

Further to this, studies have shown that the objective use of probability in assessing outcomes declines where subject matter evokes a vivid emotional representation of an outcome, or the phrasing of a bet demands specific focus.

In relation to our lottery example, who hasn’t had the following idle discussion – “what would you do if you won the lottery?” This is an example of generating a vivid fantasy of an unlikely outcome. This inevitably leads you to overweight the probability of scooping the jackpot.

For the same reason, betting fixed odds winning tips on your favourite team or player is a bad idea as your emotional attachment generates more vivid projections of the desired outcome – thinking the ball into the net – overweighting the probability.


When a bet is worded in clear terms, it’s easier to make an Expected Value calculation – estimate or explicitly work out – so weighting will be close to or match probability. Subtle variations in the way bets are phrase can however make a difference to the interpretation.

Hot fixed match single bet

For example, outright markets can be phrased as either, ‘Player A vs. the field’, or as a long list of all participants including Player A (e.g. Player A: 3.201, Player B: 9.454, Player C: 11.232, etc.).

The first option offers a simplistic presentation of the task for Player A, which causes a cognitive overweighting of his probability of success. The second option – despite being exactly the same probability – seems a more daunting prospect, simply because the opponents that Player A must overcome are listed. This leads to an underweighted assessment.

Focus is important for FIXED MATCHES SAFE FOOTBALL

Similarly, focus is critically important to misjudging probability. It is common to see the following bets:

“Will Team A score?”

Odds Yes/Odds No

“Will Team B score?”

Odds Yes/Odds No

Bettors judgments are overweight when focus on each option in isolation as oppose to a combination of both questions:

Fixed Matches Safe Football

“Will both Team A & Team B score”

Odds Yes/Odds No

One study in 1999 by Craig Fox and the late psychologist Amos Tversky clearly demonstrates this. They asked a group of US basketball fans to assess the individual chances of the eight quarter-finalists in the NBA Playoffs.

Judgement without recourse to proper calculation, leads to underweighting of probability.

As the focus was solely upon assessing the chances of just one team at a time, and because as NBA fans they generate vivid impressions of each team, the aggregate probability for the outcomes was significantly overweight at 240% for the eight teams. Of course, it should have been 100%.

When asked to just assess the chances of a winner from the Fixed Matches Safe Football or the Western Conference probabilities were very close to 100%. This was because the two options generated less emotional response and were equally specific.

VIP Fixed Matches 1×2 Ticket

Rare events & underweighting – the hole in one gang

An infamous betting coup by two punters in 1991, who became known as the Hole In One Gang, neatly illustrates how the inability to visualise a rare event, and how judgement without recourse to proper calculation, leads to underweighting of probability.

The pair, after intensively analysing statistics, calculated that the odds of a hole-in-one occurring at a European Golf Tour event were roughly 2.25. Armed with this knowledge, they tour the country targeting independent bookmakers and requesting odds for a hole-in-one being record at televise golf tournaments. These small operations didn’t have sophisticated risk assessors so put their finger in the air – i.e. simply relied on an intuitive judgement.

The bookmakers figure that a hole-in-one was a rare event, as they had little or no experience of one happening either personally (for those that played golf) or from television, where limit coverage meant that every tee-shot wasn’t guarantee to be air. As a result, quotes ranged from 4.00 up to 101.00. It was a perfect example of underweighting a rare event.

One of the golden rules of betting

One of the golden rules of betting is that any bet should be assess in terms of Expected Value – the average of outcomes each weight by probability.

Unfortunately, bettors tend to assign weightings to bet options based on how they feel about the probabilities, resulting in the possibility and certainty effects, which can prove very costly.

Soccer free tips 1×2 today

In 2016, bookmakers largely misjudged the chances of President Trump and Brexit occuring. In 2017, France, Germany and the Netherlands are going to the polls in a round of elections that is set to cause an earthquake at the core of the EU as we know it. With political betting more popular than ever among’s bettors, don’t place a bet on politics before reading the five reasons why bookmakers fail in political predictions.

Lack of big data

Let’s start with a crash course on how bookmakers set the odds. Betting companies employ a team of people, called traders or odds compilers who calculate the statistical probabilities of outcomes based on past results. Although this common practice works in sports where every second of action is monitored and registered by various parties interested in sports data, it is easier said than done for politics betting.

Before 2016, when was the last time Donald Trump campaign for the US Presidency or the British people were ask to decide whether they want to leave the Fixed Matches Safe Football? Exactly. This is why normal rules don’t apply in politics betting. The below chart shows the proof is in the pudding – it analyses the implied probability of Trump and Clinton to win the 2016 US elections based on’s odds.

Betting markets vs. Reality

It wasn’t until the vote counting was under way for the fixed matches winning betting odds to get in sync with reality, which brings us to the second reason why bookmakers fail in political predictions.

Fixing Matches 1×2 UK Betting

Inaccurate polling

When bookmakers don’t have enough data, they inevitably rely on gauging the Fixed Matches Safe Football. This is where polling comes into play. Polling has previously proven a reliable guide fixed matches in political voting, however, confidence in survey results could not be lower at the moment. The Brexit-Trump shock results brought home a point – people poll in one way and act in another. Wondering why that is?

To paraphrase Mark Twain: “There are lies, damn lies and polls.” Statistics don’t lie, people do. The truth about lying, according to Fixed Matches Safe Football, is that lying in surveys could be the result of social desirability bias. In plain English, when people are ask to give an opinion on sensitive topics, they are prone to giving misleading information out of the fear of what they will look like if they say the truth. But even when they do give truthful answers, polling can still miss the mark. How come? Indecision plays a big part.

Hope this article answered all the queries that you might have regarding Fixed Matches Safe Football. Our experts thrive to bring you the best fixed matches predictions to our clients because we want that all our clients win all their bets and earn great profits through fixed matches betting and making accurate fixed matches predictions.

The Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *