Tag: matches fixed

matches fixed

matches fixed

Fixed Games Big Odds

Fixed Games Big Odds

Fixed Games Big Odds


Rigged fixed matches Sources
Day: Monday    Date: 22.09.2025

League: TURKEY Super Lig
Match: Galatasaray – Konyaspor
Tip: Over 2.5 Goals
Odds: 1.50    Result: 3:1 Won

Secure sources fixed bets big odds [email protected]

Telegram support: +46 73 149 05 68
Username for Telegram: @robertweldon

Due to an overwhelming amount of work, this weekend we truly had a large number of clients around +47 new clients and we did not manage to publish the proofs from our Weekend Fixed Matches during the week. We sincerely apologize for the delay and hope that in the coming weekends the number of new colleagues in our team will increase, so that we can be more active on our website FixedMatch.Bet. We kindly ask for your understanding, as we are really working with a very high number of clients. This applies to everyone visiting our website without purchasing fixed matches. Everyone who buys a football fixed match from us immediately receives all the latest proofs privately in chat. That is the advantage of being our client you get expert support!

VIP Fixed Bets Ticket Tips 1×2

The Kelly Criterion is often a hot topic of debate amongst bettors. fixedmatch.bet has published numerous articles on the Fixed Games Big Odds, from simple explanations to complex analyses. How does a fractional approach to the Kelly Criterion work and is it the best option for serious bettors? Read on to find out.

We already discussed revisited the Fixed Games Big Odds as a means of money management. To recall, Kelly advocates staking in proportion to the probability of winning and your perceived advantage you hold over the bookmaker’s odds.

Rather surprisingly, I found that Kelly was able to accommodate the risks of not knowing precisely your advantage so long as you are accurate on average. However, it was still clear that Joe Peta had a point when he wrote: “no matter what you calculate your expected return to be, your variance will be ridiculously and uninvestably high” in his analysis of the Kelly Criterion.

In this follow up I investigate what we can do to reduce those variance risks and what impact that will have on expected profitability.

The FIXED GAMES BIG ODDS

It is frequently commented that a big problem with Kelly is that bankroll growth will be erratic, with profits interrupted by sometimes significant losses. In other words, the evolution of the bankroll is volatile.

If we remind ourselves how a Kelly stake size is calculated (edge – 1 / odds – 1), sudden and large drawdowns will arise where a short price bet, which we believe holds significant positive expectation, loses.

Halftime Fulltime Fixed matches, Big odds fixed matches bets, Ticket fixed matches 1×2

Double betting fixed matches ht-ft

A Ligue 1 match from this month provides us with an example of the above. A rival bookmaker priced PSG at 1.35 to beat Caen, whilst fixedmatch.bet had 1.20. After accounting for the margin, this implied an expected advantage of 11.5% (assuming the fixedmatch.bet market is wisest) and a Kelly stake percentage of 32.8%.

PSG’s match against Caen end in a draw and nearly a third of a Fixed Games Big Odds would have been wipe out in a single bet ht/ft fixed match. Understandably, this is not the sort of drawdown that most bettors can tolerate, even if there are other opportunities available to grow the bank by a similar magnitude.

Losses hurt more than gains are enjoyed

For most people, even risk-seeking people, losses of this magnitude hurt significantly more than gains of a similar magnitude. In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman explains how with a simple thought experiment.

A)You have been given $1,000 in addition to your existing wealth. You are now asked to choose one of two options:

1) 50% chance to win $1,000

2) Get $500 for sure

B)You have been given $2,000 in addition to your existing wealth. You are now asked to choose one of two options:

1) 50% chance to lose $1,000

2) Lose $500 for sure

The outcomes for problems A and B are identical

In terms of absolute wealth, the outcomes for problems A and B are identical. If you choose the sure thing in either A or B you will end up with $1,500 (in addition to your existing wealth). If you choose to gamble, you will end up with either $2,000 or $1,000, depending on the outcome. Which did you choose?

Safe fixed matches betting tips 1×2

When Kahneman and his colleague Amos Tversky experimented with this teaser they found that the majority of respondents preferred risk aversion (and took the sure thing) when faced with the gain in A and risk-seeking (and took the gamble) when faced with a loss in B.

Equivalent statements of the same decision-making problem should yield identical choices. Since in this example they don’t, respondents were obviously not behaving rationally. The explanation is that problems A and B have different starting or reference points.

In A it was existing wealth + $1,000; in B it was existing wealth + $2,000. Kahneman proposes that, since few of us pay much attention to these reference points, our attitudes to gains and losses are not derive from our evaluation of absolute states of wealth, but rather relative ones. And in terms of the utility of gains and losses, we dislike losing more than we like winning fixed matches ticket tips 1×2.

Fixed Games Big Odds

Would you accept a fair even-money bet that could grow your Fixed Games Big Odds by a third if it won, but shrink it by a third if it lost? If you wouldn’t, like I suspect most of us, then you are demonstrating loss aversion. How high would the win probability have to be before you’d consider changing your mind? 60%? 70%? 95%? Higher?

An evolutionary explanation for FIXED GAMES BIG ODDS

From an evolutionary perceptive, it’s unsurprising that losses motivate us more the gains. As Kahneman has explained, living things that evaluate threats more urgently than opportunities have a better chance of surviving and reproducing.

FIXED MATCHES 100% SURE BETTING

Since we represent the winners in the line of evolution (we are here after all), it necessarily implies that loss aversion is a preferentially select adaptation according to natural selection.

Ticket fixed Matches 1×2, Soccer fixed ht/ft matches, Free fixed matches betting

Via evolution our neural circuits have become finely tuned to detect relative changes in stimuli rather than absolute values. You can confirm this yourself using three glasses of water, one hot, one cold and the other with a temperature in between.

For a minute or so, leave your left hand in the hot glass and your right hand in the cold, before immersing both simultaneously into the one in between. Despite both hands experiencing the same absolute temperature, your left hand will feel colder and your Fixed Games Big Odds, by virtue of the different reference points each hand started at.

Refining the Kelly Criterion with fractions

If our predisposition to loss aversion necessarily makes the volatility risks associated with full Kelly staking uninvestably high, the obvious solution is to reduce the size of the Kelly stakes. But exactly how will influence the expected profitability of this money management strategy?

Numerous sources suggest that by halving the Fixed Games Big Odds sizes the bettor can significantly reduce the volatility in the evolution of the bankroll yet maintain most of the expected returns. Let’s run some simulations to find out if that’s correct. Following the same series of 250 even-money wagers where the bettor holds a 4% advantage (expected win percentage 52%) the first chart below shows an example of one simulation.

BETTING 100% SAFE FIXED MATCHES 1X2

Four staking plans are compare: full-Kelly, half-Kelly, quarter-Kelly and eighth-Kelly. If a fully Kelly stake was 8%, then the half-, quarter- and eighth-Kelly stakes would be 4%, 2% and 1% respectively. Unsurprisingly, the volatility or variance in the evolution of the bankroll is greatest for full-Kelly and least for eighth-Kelly.

Our performance is luckier than expected

The next chart also illustrates that when our performance is luckier than expected, full-Kelly will perform much better relatively speaking than its fractional counterparts.

But equally, when we are unlucky, full-Kelly will face much greater losses. The third chart below shows a series of 10 sequential losses which reduced the bankroll by 30%. For eight-Kelly staking, this was only 3.75%. As already explained, those sorts of losses are particularly unpalatable to most bettors, despite the greater rewards on offer from full-Kelly.

But these are just three possible histories for an even-money bettor holding a 4% advantage. Winning fixed matches… We need to run another Monte Carlo simulation to determine what to expect on average.

I ran another 10,000-run Monte Carlo simulation comparing the four fractional Kelly plans for their likelihood of finishing with less than you started with. Remember, we found that about 14% of histories finished with less than 60% of the starting bankroll, confirming Joe Peta’s original criticism of the strategy.

In this new simulation, this result was replicate within the bounds of chance. The full set of probabilities is show in the table below.

Whilst reducing your Kelly stake sizes doesn’t significantly influence the probability of failing to show some sort of profit after 250 even-money wagers, it does protect against significantly bigger losses over and above 20%.

Halftime Fulltime Fixed Matches Betting weekend

Halving Kelly stakes halves the probability of losing 20% of your bankroll. Halving the stakes again reduces it almost to zero. For losses of 40%, the risk reduction is even more significant. But at what cost to expected profitability?

The table shows the mean and median bankrolls

The next table shows the mean and median bankrolls after 250 wagers for each of the four strategies.

Whilst the mean expected profit for half-Kelly is significantly lower than for full-Kelly, the median expectation is only about one-quarter reduce. Remember that since proportional staking plans skew the expected mean profitability on account of a few very large finishing bankrolls, the median arguably provides a better measure of what one should typically expect to happen. A median of 116 for example implies that about 50% of finishing bankrolls will be less than or equal to 116 and about 50% more than 116. It would appear, then, that reducing the risks by halving Kelly stakes (or more) is a price worth paying.

Manipulated fixed matches, free accurate fixed bets matches, 1×2 fixed betting matches today

The final table shows the results from a second Monte Carlo simulation where the bettor holds an 8% advantage (54% win probability). The conclusions are broadly similar: one can reduce the risks of failure significantly by giving up only a small proportion of expected (median) profitability.

Is FIXED GAME BIG ODDS the best staking method?

Fixed Games Big Odds appears to offer the bettor a solution to the volatility risks associated with full Kelly. Without giving up too much of the advantage that the Kelly strategy offers over fixed staking. For those averse to large losses, that will hopefully come as welcome news.

Of course, as always, the much tougher battle is to be sure you hold the advantage over the published odds. Believing and knowing that you do is not the same thing. Do not let overconfidence in that respect fool you.

Football Betting

Football Betting

Football Betting


Soccer winning Fixed Matches 1×2
Day: Saturday     Date: 07.11.2020

League: NORWAY Division 2 – Group 1 – Winners stage
Match: Fredrikstad – Alta
Tip: Over 2.5 Goals 
Odds: 1.50    Result: 2:1 Won

League: NORWAY Division 2 – Group 1 – Winners stage
Match: Hodd – Brattvag
Tip: Over 2.5 Goals
Odds: 1.50    Result: 1:1 Lost

Today, Saturday, we decided to publish a little more matches than on other days. But all this matches are just predicted tips and please don’t expect to win all matches because this are not fixed matches like the matches what we selling. If you want to bet and to make sure profit then you must buy fixed matches, you can do it HERE!

League: GERMANY Bundesliga
Match: RB Leipzig – Freiburg
Tip: Over 2.5 Goals
Odds: 1.50    Result: 3:0 Won

League: NORWAY OBOS-ligaen
Match: Ham-Kam – Ull/Kisa
Tip: Over 2.5 Goals
Odds: 1.50    Result: 3:1 Won

Result about this and all other Games you can find on FlashScore

soccer fixed matches 1x2 tips [email protected]

Coordinated football betting is a technique where an individual can earn cash by placing bets on fixed matches by online bookmakers. After placing a single bet, you need to depend on your luck to win. You can also place bets on both sides to ensure your win. There are equations and programming that can compute the cash you have to bet to make a profit.

How does coordinated betting work?

Most of the times, coordinated betting works by using  strategies that convert betting cash into genuine cash. Coordinating bets confirm your win regardless of the result. Of fixed matches With the increasing number of people betting, you can have advantage by betting on both sides.

In the coordinated betting you don’t need to worry about losing,  you can bet on the two sides called a lay bet. Thus, regardless of what is the outcome you will dominate the match. Be that as it may, in coordinated betting, on the off chance that you win the bet you will wind up with 80% of the free bet sum.

Soccer 1×2 Fixed Matches

For instance, a $30 free bet will transform into a $24 benefit. You can coordinating betting alone, but some people may find it difficult. In case you find it difficult, we are here for you . We can help you understand the programming and how things work. This is creator coordinated betting less complex.

football betting

What amount of profit would you be able to make?

You can get more advantages in coordinating betting than any other betting. In other kinds of betting, your win always uncertain and losing will get you nothing. The organization cuts a part of profit in the coordinated betting. The bookmakers charge commissions on the profit of each of the fixed matches. The commission shifts from site to site and every single one of them has its own principles. In coordinating betting, you don’t need to pay any tax to government.

What’s the risk?

There no undeniable danger in coordinated football betting as it is a basic cycle and anybody can do it all alone. When you have a solid handle on coordinated football betting then you don’t need to stress over anything. This is because you win no matter which team wins and there is no chance of you losing. In any case, there is a danger that you may need to search forward for. As a beginner, you may miss certain details of coordinating football betting as it is difficult. Also, you need to be very much aware of the bet that you are placing. Other than this, there is no danger in it. Along these lines, when you are new in the game you must be somewhat cautious.