FISO FPL Fixture Difficulty Planner Updated: Best and Worst Fixtures from GW5 to GW14

Posted on by admin

Gameweek 4 is complete and the opening weeks of the 2026/27 Fantasy Premier League season have already changed our view of several Premier League clubs.

That means it is also time for a significant update to the FISO Fixture Difficulty Planner (FDR).

The planner now covers GW5 to GW14, giving FPL managers a ten-Gameweek view of the fixtures ahead. More importantly, we have substantially revised our club Strength ratings.

Our original ratings were heavily influenced by the final 2025/26 Premier League table. After four Gameweeks of the new season, we now have enough evidence to make 2026/27 performances the main influence on our ratings, while still retaining some weighting for what we knew about the teams before the season began.

The result is a very different-looking FDR.

Try the updated FISO Fixture Difficulty Planner:
https://www.fiso.co.uk/games/fdr/

New FISO Strength ratings after GW4

Some of the biggest changes have come from clubs whose opening four matches have challenged their pre-season expectations.

Leeds have risen to a Strength rating of 77 following their excellent start, culminating in their 4-1 victory over Newcastle.

Brighton have climbed to 78, while promoted Hull are now rated 72 and Ipswich have moved up to 65.

At the other end, Manchester United have dropped to 76, while Coventry are now our lowest-rated team at 48.

At the top, Arsenal remain our strongest side at 95, just ahead of Manchester City on 93.

These ratings aren’t designed to remain static. We’ll continue reviewing them as the season develops and the evidence from 2026/27 becomes increasingly reliable.

Man City have the best next five fixtures

For this week’s analysis, we’ve sorted the FDR according to GW5-GW9, giving us a useful five-Gameweek planning period.

Manchester City come out on top with an Avg 5 fixture rating of +23.4.

Their next five are:

Sunderland (H)
Liverpool (A)
Ipswich (H)
Aston Villa (A)
Brighton (H)

The Liverpool trip is the obvious complication, but the other fixtures look extremely attractive according to our current Strength ratings.

Sunderland at home scores +29, Ipswich at home is +30, Villa away is also +30, and Brighton at home scores +17.

Looking further ahead makes City even more interesting. They subsequently face Nottingham Forest, Fulham, Arsenal, Leeds and Brentford, giving them an Avg 10 of +20.6.

For FPL managers considering City assets, this isn’t simply a short run to target. The fixtures remain strong virtually all the way through to GW14.

Arsenal are close behind

Arsenal rank second over the next five with an Avg 5 of +19.8.

Their GW5-GW9 fixtures are:

Brighton (A)
Leeds (H)
Nottingham Forest (A)
Everton (H)
Liverpool (A)

The FISO ratings make Leeds at home +20, Forest away +25 and Everton at home +26.

Liverpool away is harder, but still only scores +13 because of Arsenal’s very high Strength rating.

Arsenal also have the best Avg 10 score at +20.8, narrowly ahead of City’s +20.6.

After Liverpool they face Hull, Newcastle, Manchester City, Brentford and Tottenham. Spurs away in GW14 currently receives an extraordinary +36 rating.

That final number demonstrates an important feature of the FISO FDR: fixture difficulty is relative to the Strength of the team you own.

A fixture against Tottenham is considerably more attractive for a team rated 95 than it would be for an average Premier League side.

Chelsea complete the top three

Chelsea’s next five produce an Avg 5 of +13.4.

They face Brentford away, Bournemouth at home, Everton away, Tottenham at home and Manchester United at home.

Tottenham at home is the standout at +27, while Bournemouth at home scores +17.

Chelsea’s fixtures also remain attractive over the longer period. Their Avg 10 is +12.6, with Sunderland, Leeds, Nottingham Forest and Crystal Palace all appearing before GW14.

Manchester United have good fixtures despite their Strength downgrade

One interesting consequence of the new ratings is Manchester United.

We’ve downgraded United’s Strength to 76 following their opening four matches, but their upcoming schedule is still attractive.

Their Avg 5 is +7.0, with Fulham, Tottenham, Leeds, Bournemouth and Chelsea next.

They also finish the ten-Gameweek period with Aston Villa, Liverpool, Brentford, Newcastle and Coventry.

Coventry at home in GW14 receives a +30 rating.

So while our assessment of United themselves has weakened, their fixtures remain potentially useful for FPL managers who believe particular United players can outperform the team’s early-season form.

Newcastle look better in the short term than the long term

Newcastle are a good example of why we’ve included three different averages in the FDR.

Their figures are:

Avg 3: +8.3
Avg 5: +5.6
Avg 10: -0.5

Hull, Coventry and Aston Villa make the immediate schedule attractive.

However, the longer period eventually brings Arsenal, Brighton and Manchester United.

Newcastle therefore look much more interesting as a short-term fixture play than as a team to target throughout GW5-GW14.

Leeds’ improved rating changes their FDR dramatically

Leeds are perhaps the clearest example of why updating the Strength ratings matters.

They were originally treated as one of the weaker Premier League sides based largely on last season. Four Gameweeks into 2026/27, that no longer looks appropriate.

Their new Strength rating of 77 means fixtures that previously looked relatively difficult now become much more manageable.

Leeds’ Avg 5 is +3.4 and their Avg 10 is +5.9.

The next five include Crystal Palace at home (+17), Sunderland away (+9) and Bournemouth away (+8), although Arsenal away is understandably difficult at -20.

Further ahead, Tottenham at home is rated +22 and Coventry at home +31.

For FPL managers, Leeds are no longer simply a team whose opponents should automatically receive a green fixture.

Everton begin a much tougher group

At the other end of our GW5-GW9 rankings, Everton have an Avg 5 of -5.8.

Ipswich at home is favourable, but that is followed by Hull away, Chelsea at home, Arsenal away and Newcastle away.

The Arsenal match receives a -26 rating.

Interestingly, Everton’s Avg 10 improves to +0.5, demonstrating again why managers should consider the period that best matches their transfer plans.

Sunderland face an immediate problem

Sunderland have one of the least attractive short-term schedules.

Their Avg 3 is -14.0 and Avg 5 is -7.0.

The biggest problem comes immediately: Manchester City away in GW5 scores -29.

Brighton, Bournemouth and Leeds follow before Coventry provide a much more attractive fixture in GW9.

The longer-term picture remains difficult, with Sunderland’s Avg 10 at -5.5.

Crystal Palace have a difficult five-Gameweek run

Palace have an Avg 5 of -8.0.

Their next five are Leeds away, Nottingham Forest at home, Brighton away, Newcastle at home and Tottenham away.

Brighton away is currently rated -18, while Leeds away is -17.

Things don’t improve dramatically afterwards, with Liverpool and Chelsea among their later opponents.

Palace’s Avg 10 of -7.5 therefore suggests this isn’t simply a short-term fixture problem.

Ipswich have improved – but the fixtures haven’t

Ipswich are another promoted side we’ve upgraded substantially, moving from 52 to a Strength rating of 65.

However, they still have a difficult immediate schedule.

Their Avg 5 is -8.2, including Everton away, Manchester City away and Hull away.

City away receives a -30 rating.

The longer-term picture is more encouraging. Tottenham, Aston Villa and Coventry appear between GW11 and GW13, helping their Avg 10 recover to -2.8.

Tottenham’s ten-Gameweek run stands out for the wrong reasons

Tottenham’s immediate Avg 3 of -4.0 isn’t disastrous.

Look further ahead, though, and the picture deteriorates considerably.

Their Avg 5 is -8.4, while their Avg 10 is -11.8.

Manchester United away (-21), Chelsea away (-27) and Leeds away (-22) all appear before the particularly difficult GW14 meeting with Arsenal.

That Arsenal fixture is rated -36, the reverse of Arsenal’s +36 rating for the same match.

Spurs therefore have one of the least attractive longer-term schedules in the entire FDR.

Coventry have the hardest fixture run

Coventry sit at the bottom of our five-Gameweek ranking with an Avg 5 of -15.4.

They also have an extraordinary Avg 10 of -19.0.

Their next ten are Nottingham Forest, Newcastle, Tottenham, Fulham, Sunderland, Everton, Crystal Palace, Leeds, Ipswich and Manchester United.

Although those club names might not initially appear to represent an exceptionally difficult run, Coventry’s Strength rating of only 48 changes the calculation dramatically.

Forest away is -22, Newcastle at home -18, Sunderland at home -16, Everton away -25, Leeds away -31 and Manchester United away -30.

It is another good illustration of why fixture difficulty cannot really be judged by the opponent alone.

Why use Avg 3, Avg 5 and Avg 10?

There isn’t one correct period over which to judge fixtures.

A manager considering a one- or two-week punt might care primarily about the Avg 3 column.

For normal FPL transfer planning, Avg 5 provides a useful medium-term view. That’s why we’ve used GW5-GW9 to rank the clubs in this article.

Meanwhile, Avg 10 can be particularly useful when considering goalkeepers, defenders or premium players you hope to keep for a substantial part of the season.

The ability to switch between these periods can reveal teams that have good immediate fixtures but a difficult longer-term schedule – or vice versa.

Don’t agree with the FISO ratings? Create your own

Our new default option is FISO ratings – after GW4.

But these ratings are our assessment rather than a statement of fact.

If you think Leeds should be higher than 77, change them.

If you think Manchester United’s 76 is too low, increase it.

If you believe Spurs will recover quickly and shouldn’t be rated only 57, adjust their Strength.

Select User custom and the planner will recalculate the fixture scores, colours and Avg 3, Avg 5 and Avg 10 figures according to your ratings.

You can also change the home-advantage setting and share your customised version.

That’s the main difference between the FISO planner and a conventional static FDR: you decide how strong the teams are.

FPL fixture planning from GW5

Using the FISO post-GW4 Strength ratings, Manchester City and Arsenal clearly have the outstanding five-Gameweek fixture runs.

Chelsea are also very well placed, while Manchester United, Newcastle and Hull sit towards the favourable end of the GW5-GW9 rankings.

At the other extreme, Coventry have comfortably the toughest schedule according to our model. Aston Villa, Bournemouth, Tottenham, Ipswich, Crystal Palace and Sunderland also face difficult five-Gameweek periods.

But the opening four Gameweeks have already shown how quickly perceptions can change.

We’ll therefore continue updating both the ten-Gameweek fixture window and the FISO Strength ratings as the 2026/27 season develops.

Use the FISO Fixture Difficulty Planner:
https://www.fiso.co.uk/games/fdr/

Join the FPL discussion on the FISO FPL Forum:
https://www.fiso.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=18

What Transfer Deadline Day means for the Premier League season

Posted on by admin

The 2026/27 summer transfer window has closed its doors, having posed far more questions about the Premier League’s emerging order than it answered. Anyone checking the top betting sites in the UK for title and relegation prices this week will have watched those markets move almost as fast as the deals themselves.

It began sluggishly, the usual-suspect clubs circling their targets without conviction. Then deadline day arrived, and the pace transformed. 

There was a familiar sense of theatre as the clock ticked towards the deadline. Agents moved between hotels and training grounds. 

Clubs tried to find solutions for problems that had been allowed to linger most of the summer, and managers waited for the calls that could alter the complexion of their squads and ultimately where sports betting sites will have their sides down to finish come May. 

Panic buys filled the void where genuine strategy had failed. Managerial philosophies collided with the financial reality of leaving your business until the last minute.

The early Premier League campaign has already delivered surprises. Coventry City, Hull City and Ipswich Town have begun their return to the top flight with mixed results. 

Five of the traditional “big six” have different managers than the ones who started the 2025/26 season. Fulham, Crystal Palace, Nottingham Forest and Bournemouth have all turned to fresh leadership in the dugout, too. 

The unpredictability feels genuine. Teams can’t strengthen again until January, which means deadline-day mistakes are amplified and shrewd recruitment becomes currency. 

With that reality in mind, the picture emerging from the final hours of the transfer market reveals which clubs genuinely planned for this campaign and which ones simply reacted to circumstance.

Maresca’s Man City midfield rebuild 

There was never going to be a gentle transition from Pep Guardiola to Enzo Maresca. Pep’s departure brought an end to one of the defining managerial eras in Premier League history, but the more immediate problem facing his successor was the loss of the player who had come to symbolise the control at its heart. 

Rodri’s departure meant City were not simply replacing an influential midfielder. They were losing the player around whom their rhythm, security and possession game had been organised for years.

Maresca’s response has been anything but conservative. City led the Premier League spending charts after investing around £458m during the summer, with £125m of that arriving on Deadline Day in the form of Enzo Fernández from Chelsea. 

Iliman Ndiaye followed from Everton for £65m, while Elliot Anderson had already arrived from Nottingham Forest in a £116m deal.

Those numbers tell you something about the expectations placed on Maresca. City are building for Maresca’s tactical philosophy rather than simply maintaining what came before. Jack Grealish departed for Everton. Téjani Reijnders left after just one season.

The question hovering over City isn’t whether they’ll adapt quickly. It’s whether the adaptation will take so long that the season slips away early.

Liverpool lacks the depth to sustain anything serious 

Liverpool’s summer told a different story entirely. Mohamed Salah’s departure in May created an enormous void that Andoni Iraola had to try to fix in just three months at Anfield. 

The Reds needed attacking reinforcements at scale. Instead, they acquired Bradley Barcola from Paris Saint-Germain and essentially hoped the rest would sort itself out.

Cody Gakpo remains. Harvey Elliott joined Valencia on loan, freeing up squad space but surrendering attacking depth. Ismaila Sarr from Crystal Palace eluded their grasp. 

The goalkeeping department welcomed Lucca Brughmans for £30 million, but he won’t arrive until next summer, which raises questions about Iraola’s time frame at Anfield. Stefan Bajčetić departed for Spain after three years without a meaningful contribution.

It’s a transfer window that suggests either extraordinary confidence in Iraola’s ability to develop youth or extraordinary complacency about the demands facing a new manager in his opening campaign. 

Winless across two opening matches with only encouraging performances to hang onto, Liverpool looks underprepared for a title charge. That was supposed to be different under Iraola. The summer window suggested otherwise.

Real Fulham under Arbeola? 

Álvaro Arbeloa is one of the first names to be sacked in the betting markets, and as ruthless as the managerial gauntlet is, there’s only so much the former Liverpool defender can rely on his links with Real Madrid. 

The Spaniard arrived at Craven Cottage following Marco Silva’s departure with an opportunity to change the identity of the club. 

Silva had spent several seasons turning Fulham into one of the Premier League’s more sustainable sides, built on organisation, transition and an ability to make west London an uncomfortable place to visit.

Arbeloa wants something different. The early recruitment suggests a more technical, possession-oriented side. 

Manuel Ángel has followed his former coach from Los Blancos, while Hugo Larsson and David Affengruber have also arrived as part of a summer designed to give Arbeloa the personnel required to impose his football.

There is an obvious appeal to the project. Arbeloa comes with a reputation forged inside one of Europe’s great academies, and Fulham have spent the summer investing not merely in players but in a different footballing philosophy.

But after two losses in the opening two games, reputation and ideas alone won’t give a manager the time they need. Results have to come in quickly, or it’s the chopping block. 

Tottenham’s chaotic window 

If any club needed a transformative summer, it was Tottenham Hotspur. The previous campaign left the club with little room for sentiment. 

Roberto De Zerbi arrived late in the season to rescue Spurs from trouble and was then tasked with rebuilding a squad that had fallen well short of expectations.

Arsenal lifted the title for the first time in 22 years while Spurs remained in limbo, directionless under previous management, though they can take some comfort knowing they’ve splashed the cash for the first time in a few years, while their neighbours failed to land their marquee acquisition in Julian Alvarez. He joins Morgan Rogers and Vinicius Junior in not moving to the Premier League champions this summer.

Early spending at Spurs seemed coherent. Jan Paul van Hecke and Sandro Tonali arrived for substantial fees. The club appeared to have identified targets and executed deals. Then deadline day arrived, and Tottenham’s summer became something altogether more frantic and reactive.

After signing City duo Savio and Omar Marmoush, it was a deadline-day double raid on Chelsea that brought in Mykhailo Mudryk on loan and Tosin Adarabioyo permanently. 

Both represent quality, but the timing felt desperate. Mudryk carries the baggage of previous underperformance at Chelsea and is being positioned as a panic buy after Spurs failed to land both Ndiaye and Gakpo.  

Kevin Danso departed for Sunderland as part of the reorganisation.  Richarlison remained in limbo following his own failed exit. Dane Scarlett joined Leyton Orient to seek regular football. The window ultimately cost Tottenham over £320 million, a considerable investment that felt less like strategy and more like a reaction.

De Zerbi is supposed to be in control. The erratic late moves suggested otherwise. Only time will tell if the new players sit the ground running. 

The transfer window’s closure revealed something uncomfortable about the Premier League’s power dynamics heading into the 2026/27 season. Big clubs with clear philosophies got their work done early. Manchester City moved deliberately. Tottenham panicked late. Liverpool appeared to hope rather than plan.

The unpredictability of the season won’t be sorted by January recruitment. Teams that got this window right will benefit all season. Teams that got it wrong will spend six months wishing they’d acted differently.

For continued analysis as fitness news and squad rotations start shaping matchday selections through the autumn, our Team News & Injuries forum is tracking every fitness update club by club.

What the World Cup told us about both defences

Posted on by admin

(Stock ID: 2192950463)

England and Spain both reached the last four in North America, and they got there in completely different ways. Spain won the tournament by conceding once in eight matches. England finished third by winning a bronze final 6-4. Anyone reading the England vs Spains odds for Wembley on 26 September is pricing a meeting between the meanest defence in World Cup history and one that shipped 10 goals in five knockout ties.

Spain won five knockout matches and conceded once

Spain beat Austria 1-0 in the round of 32, then Portugal 1-0 in the round of 16 through a Mikel Merino goal in the first minute of stoppage time. Belgium got the only goal anyone managed against them in a 2-1 quarter-final. France were beaten 2-0 in the semi-final and Argentina 1-0 in extra time in the final, Ferran Torres scoring in the 106th minute at MetLife Stadium.

That is a World Cup record

One goal conceded across an eight-match tournament is the fewest by any winner. The previous best was two, shared by Spain in 2010, Italy in 2006 and France in 1998. Unai Simon kept seven clean sheets, more than any goalkeeper at a single World Cup, and went 650 minutes without conceding, beating a mark Walter Zenga had held since 1990.

The back four barely changed

Luis de la Fuente finished the tournament with Pedro Porro and Marc Cucurella as full-backs, Pau Cubarsi and Aymeric Laporte in the middle and Rodri screening them. Cubarsi was 19 throughout. Spain conceded nothing in three group games and nothing in either match against Kylian Mbappe or Lionel Messi.

England conceded in every knockout round

England beat DR Congo 3-1, then Mexico 3-2 at the Azteca with Jarell Quansah sent off after 54 minutes. Norway took them to extra time before a 2-1 defeat, and Argentina won the semi-final 2-1 with goals in the 85th minute and in stoppage time. Add the bronze final and it comes to 10 goals in five matches.

The 6-4 was two different games

England led France 4-0 at half time in Miami Gardens through Declan Rice, an Ezri Konsa header and two from Bukayo Saka. It was the first time France had been four down at the break in any international since 1930. Then Mbappe scored in the 48th minute, Bradley Barcola made it 4-2 six minutes later and Mbappe’s second brought France within one. The lead England built in 45 minutes almost vanished in 18.

What held it together

Saka completed his hat-trick from the penalty spot and Jude Bellingham ran through in stoppage time for 6-4 after Ousmane Dembele had pulled France back to 5-4. Saka became the second England player to score a knockout hat-trick at a World Cup, after Geoff Hurst in 1966. England scored 15 goals in five knockout matches, which is why the defensive numbers were survivable.

Wembley asks a narrower question

Spain will not give England a 4-0 head start, and England will not get 15 knockout goals out of a single match. Jordan Pickford’s back four in the semi-final was Reece James, John Stones, Marc Guehi and Djed Spence, and it held a 1-0 lead until the 85th minute before conceding twice. Spain punish that window better than Argentina did.

The market and the evidence

Spain arrive as world champions who conceded one goal in eight games. England arrive with a third-place medal, their best finish since 1966, and the highest-scoring bronze final ever played. Anyone comparing the football odds available for the opener should start with the same question the tournament left open, which is whether England can keep a clean sheet against a team that has forgotten how to concede.

Big Bass Bonanza vs Big Bass Splash: What’s the Difference?

Posted on by admin

Big Bass Bonanza and Big Bass Splash belong to the same Pragmatic Play slot series and share a similar fishing theme and core setup. Big Bass Splash builds on the original Big Bass Bonanza formula with additional bonus mechanics and a higher maximum-win ceiling. This article will compare: 1. Core gameplay, 2. Free spins, 3. Bonus mechanics, 4. RTP and volatility, 5. Maximum win, and 6. Overall gameplay style. We will not explore the broader franchise history here; instead, you can read our existing Big Bass Bonanza series overview for that context.

Big Bass Bonanza vs Big Bass Splash: Key Differences at a Glance

The comparison table below outlines the primary mathematical and structural distinctions between the two games so players can immediately understand the main differences.

FeatureBig Bass BonanzaBig Bass Splash
Release20202022
Layout5×35×3
Paylines10 fixed10 fixed
Published RTPUp to 96.71%Up to 96.71%
VolatilityHigh/Medium-HighHigh
Max Win2,100x5,000x
Gameplay StyleSimplerFeature-heavy
Bonus VariationStreamlinedModifiers/Nudges

Note: Exact RTP configurations can differ between operators, so players should check the information displayed within the specific version of the game they are using to confirm the active payout percentage.

Big Bass Bonanza provides the simpler baseline for understanding how the series works. Readers who want to see those original mechanics firsthand can play Big Bass Bonanza before comparing how Big Bass Splash expands on the formula. The original title relies on a straightforward progression, establishing the foundation that later entries use as a launching pad for more complex modifier systems.

What Do Big Bass Bonanza and Big Bass Splash Have in Common?

Before examining the differences, it is helpful to establish the shared foundation of both games. Both titles utilize a standard 5×3 reel layout with 10 fixed paylines. They share a similar fishing theme and use the same core Money Fish collection mechanic.

The core bonus mechanic in both games revolves around Free Spins, the Fisherman Wild, and Money Fish symbols. During the Free Spins feature, the Fisherman acts as a Wild substitute and also collects the cash values attached to visible Money Fish symbols.

Both games feature a progressive collection and multiplier system. As you accumulate Fisherman Wilds, you climb a retrigger ladder that grants additional spins and increases the cash prize multiplier up to 10x. Because both games use these broadly similar core mechanics, the major differences only become noticeable once the bonus features are triggered.

How Are the Free Spins and Bonus Features Different?

The bonus mechanics represent the biggest practical difference between the two games.

Big Bass Bonanza Keeps the Formula Simpler

The original game follows a streamlined version of the Big Bass bonus formula. The Free Spins feature is triggered by three, four, or five Scatter symbols, awarding 10, 15, or 20 Free Spins respectively. During this round, the Fisherman Wild symbol collects all visible Money Fish values. Progression during the bonus relies entirely on accumulating these Fisherman symbols on a progressive trail. Every fourth Wild collected retriggers the feature with 10 additional spins and increases the multiplier potential as progression milestones are reached, moving from 2x, to 3x, and finally capping at a 10x multiplier for all collected values. It is a straightforward, linear climb.

Big Bass Splash Adds More Variation

Big Bass Splash is significantly more feature-heavy. One of the most notable additions occurs before the Free Spins begin: a pre-bonus modifier system that can randomly award up to five different modifiers. Possible modifiers include adding more Money Fish or Fisherman symbols to the reel strips, increasing the frequency of Dynamite, Hook, and Bazooka features, starting the bonus at level two, or adding two extra spins at the beginning and on subsequent retriggers.

Furthermore, Big Bass Splash also includes random Dynamite, Hook, and Bazooka features that can help bring Fisherman Wilds and Money Fish together when they do not align naturally. There is also a two-Scatter second-chance mechanic in the base game, where a random nudge, respin, or Hook effect can create another opportunity to land the third Scatter and trigger Free Spins.

These additions mean there is far greater variation in how the bonus round can begin and develop in Big Bass Splash compared to the original. The gameplay experience includes many more feature combinations and unpredictable animations. However, it is important to note that these additional mechanics do not automatically make it a better game; they simply provide a more complex, highly active bonus sequence.

RTP, Volatility and Maximum Win Compared

When comparing the mathematical models, both games offer highly similar theoretical payout frameworks. The published, default RTP for Big Bass Bonanza can reach approximately 96.71%. Similarly, the default RTP for Big Bass Splash can also reach approximately 96.71%.

Exact RTP configurations may vary by casino and operator, as Pragmatic Play allows adjustments to align with local regulations or business strategies. Therefore, readers should always check the information panel in the specific version they are playing to confirm the active configuration.

Both games are positioned toward the volatile end of slot gameplay, meaning results can involve greater swings between losing and winning sequences, with larger payouts concentrated less evenly across play. The primary mathematical difference lies in the payout ceiling. Big Bass Bonanza has a maximum win of up to 2,100x your stake. In contrast, Big Bass Splash increases this potential, offering a maximum win of up to 5,000x your stake.

Keep in mind that RTP represents a theoretical long-term return calculated over a very large number of spins and does not predict results from an individual session. Furthermore, Big Bass Splash having a higher theoretical maximum win does not mean it is more likely to produce a payout.

Graphics and Gameplay Style

Aesthetically, both slots share a nearly identical aquatic environment, but the way they feel to play differs considerably.

Big Bass Bonanza utilizes the original visual presentation of the series. The gameplay flow is noticeably simpler, featuring fewer on-screen distractions and no pre-bonus interactive menus. Because there are fewer additional bonus variations, the game delivers a more straightforward version of the series formula. It is a quiet, focused experience where the objective is clear from the first spin.

In contrast, Big Bass Splash delivers a much busier bonus experience. While it retains the similar fishing theme, the game features a more energetic presentation. The inclusion of the pre-bonus modifier sequence and in-game Dynamite, Hook, and Bazooka animations altering the Free Spins setup creates a highly kinetic environment. The additional mechanics ensure that the screen is frequently moving, making it feel faster-paced and more chaotic than its predecessor.

Big Bass Bonanza or Big Bass Splash: Which One Should You Choose?

There is no universally better choice between these two titles; the decision depends entirely on your gameplay preference.

Big Bass Bonanza May Suit Players Who Prefer:

  • Simpler mechanics
  • The original Big Bass format
  • A more streamlined bonus structure
  • Fewer feature variations

Big Bass Splash May Suit Players Who Prefer:

  • More bonus mechanics
  • Greater variation during Free Spins
  • Additional modifiers
  • A higher theoretical maximum-win ceiling

Ultimately, both games share the same basic Big Bass formula but provide noticeably different bonus experiences. Regardless of which title you choose, remember that slot outcomes are determined by random number generators. Always practice responsible gambling, manage your bankroll carefully, and avoid chasing losses, maximum wins, or specific payout outcomes.

Top Tips for Safe Crypto Wallets in Betting and Casinos 

Posted on by admin
Crypto wallet with Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDT and Litecoin

Crypto is a common payment method for sports betting and online casinos. Deposits in USDT, BTC, ETH and LTC can credit faster than cards, while withdrawals may clear in minutes rather than days. That speed is useful before kick-off or during a live session, but crypto transfers leave little room for error.

When funding an account at https://1xbet.ie/en or another betting platform, a wrong network, poisoned address or careless wallet approval can send funds somewhere they cannot easily be recovered.

1. Separate Betting Funds From Long-Term Holdings

Keep long-term holdings away from the wallet used for gambling. A hardware or cold wallet can hold savings, while a smaller hot wallet or exchange balance contains only funds intended for betting or casino play.

Avoid connecting a long-term wallet to a casino lobby or unfamiliar “connect wallet” prompt. Malicious approvals can allow a contract to move tokens without obtaining the seed phrase.

Separation also makes results easier to read. A winning football accumulator paid in BTC can lose fiat value if Bitcoin falls. A stablecoin bankroll reduces that additional price exposure.

2. Match the Coin and Network

USDT can be transferred through TRC-20, ERC-20, Solana, BNB Smart Chain and other networks. Sending USDT-TRC20 to an address intended for ERC-20 can result in lost or inaccessible funds.

Before sending a betting deposit, check:

  • the cryptocurrency and supported network;
  • the complete deposit address;
  • minimum deposit and withdrawal amounts;
  • network and platform fees;
  • required confirmations;
  • whether a test transaction is practical.

If the cashier specifies USDT (TRC-20), use Tron. If it specifies ETH mainnet, do not assume an L2 will work unless explicitly supported.

Stablecoins can avoid the price movement associated with BTC or ETH while a transfer is processed. Fees still matter: a reasonable charge on a $200 transfer can make a $15 test send disproportionately expensive.

3. Verify the Full Address Every Time

With address poisoning, an attacker creates a lookalike address sharing the first and last characters of a genuine one, then sends a tiny transaction so it appears in the wallet history.

Do not copy a betting deposit address from transaction history. Take it from the platform’s cashier and check the full string, including the middle characters. For a first or large deposit, a small test transfer can confirm that the betting balance credits correctly.

The same applies to withdrawals. After a successful football bet, the withdrawal address still needs to match the wallet controlled by the player.

4. Treat Wallet Connections and Approvals Carefully

Browser wallets make crypto payments quick, but a payment and a token approval are different. Fake deposit pages, malicious dApps and unlimited approvals can expose more funds than intended.

Use the genuine betting or casino address rather than unsolicited “deposit bonus” links. If a wallet connection asks a contract for permission to spend tokens later, check what is being authorised.

Old permissions can be revoked when no longer needed. Two-factor authentication should also be enabled on both the gambling account and any exchange used to fund it.

5. Size Crypto Deposits Around the Betting Session

Fast transfers can make moving an entire bankroll onto a platform tempting. That leaves more funds outside the player’s wallet and makes increasing stakes easier simply because the money is already available.

For a match day, a deposit might cover planned pre-match stakes plus a defined live-betting reserve. Casino play can use a predetermined session limit.

Withdrawals need similar planning. Check minimum amounts and network fees before moving a small balance, especially when transaction costs represent a significant share of it.

Keep the Wallet Side of Betting Simple

A practical setup can remain straightforward: a separate hot wallet, the correct network, a verified address and a sensible deposit size.

Sports bets and casino rounds create gambling risk; cryptocurrency adds price, network and wallet risks. Keeping the two separate makes the betting result easier to track and reduces the chance that a transaction error determines the outcome instead.

Does AmunBet Casino UK Offer a No-Deposit Bonus? What Players Should Check

Posted on by admin

AmunBet Casino does not currently advertise a no-deposit bonus. Its official welcome offer gives new players a 100% match on their first deposit up to £500, plus 100 free spins. A first deposit and manual opt-in are required, so this is a deposit-based promotion.

The casino accepts UK players and supports GBP, but it operates under a Curaçao licence rather than a UK Gambling Commission licence. The “Casino UK” description should therefore not be interpreted as evidence of British regulation or UKGC protections.

Free spins are not necessarily a no-deposit reward. The term describes the benefit offered, while the promotion rules determine whether a payment is required to activate it. Players should check the current offer and its dedicated bonus terms before opening or funding an account.

Why No-Deposit Claims Need Closer Inspection

A genuine no-deposit bonus does not require a player to fund an account before receiving the reward. Registration, age confirmation or another qualifying action may still be necessary, but a deposit should not be a condition of claiming it.

Confusion can arise when third-party promotion directories use “free spins bonus” and “no-deposit bonus” interchangeably. Older reviews may also remain visible after an offer has been changed, withdrawn or replaced.

The most reliable information is the promotion currently published by AmunBet Casino and shown to the eligible player during registration or inside the account. If an external website advertises a no-deposit deal that does not appear in the casino’s official materials, players should confirm it with support before acting on the claim.

What AmunBet Currently Advertises to New Players

The published welcome package is a 100% first-deposit match up to £500 with 100 free spins. AmunBet Casino lists a general minimum deposit of £10 across most supported methods, including prepaid vouchers. This cashier minimum should not automatically be treated as the complete qualification rule for the promotion, as the dedicated bonus terms may contain additional conditions.

For the latest information about amunbet casino, players should use the operator’s official promotion page, bonus terms and account offer. Third-party pages may help users discover a deal, but they do not determine its availability, activation process or account-specific eligibility.

How the AmunBet Welcome Offer Becomes Active

Registration requires an email address, mobile number and date of birth. The player must create a password, confirm that they are at least 18, select GBP as the account currency and verify their email address or phone number.

Players who want the welcome package must follow the opt-in instructions and make the required first deposit. The bonus is not applied automatically, so the promotion should be shown as active before bonus funds are used. If it does not appear as expected, AmunBet Casino provides live chat and email support 24/7.

Identity verification is not typically requested during registration, but it is required before the first withdrawal. Having an accepted identity document and recent proof of address ready may help avoid delays once a payout has been requested.

Why AmunBet Free Spins Still Require Careful Reading

The 100 free spins are included in the deposit-based welcome package. Although using an awarded spin does not require a separate cash stake, access to the spins depends on meeting the qualification and activation rules for the overall promotion.

Their practical value depends on the eligible games, stake assigned to each spin, crediting schedule, validity period and treatment of any winnings. These details should be reviewed together with the other bonus conditions rather than assuming that the spins work in the same way as rewards at another casino.

Which AmunBet Bonus Terms Matter Most

The headline amount does not show the full cost of completing the promotion or all restrictions that may apply. AmunBet Casino directs players to its dedicated bonus terms for the wagering requirement, game contribution rules and maximum permitted bet while the bonus is active.

A wagering requirement defines how much qualifying play must be completed before bonus-related funds can become withdrawable. Players need to know which balance the multiplier applies to, such as the bonus amount, free-spin winnings or another defined combination of funds. Without that information, the required turnover cannot be calculated accurately.

Contribution rates determine how much each wager counts towards the requirement. Slots, live casino games and digital table games may contribute at different rates, while some titles may be excluded entirely. The maximum bonus bet is a separate restriction and may apply even when the selected game normally allows a higher stake.

Before opting in, players should confirm:

Which games qualify for the free spins and what value is assigned to each spin.

When the spins are credited and whether they are issued at once or in stages.

How long the bonus, free spins and resulting winnings remain valid.

Whether the matched credit, free-spin winnings or both are subject to wagering.

Which balance the wagering multiplier applies to.

How different game categories contribute towards the requirement.

What maximum stake is permitted while the bonus is active.

Whether limits apply to convertible or withdrawable winnings.

Whether cash funds or bonus funds are used first.

Whether any games, payment methods or player categories are excluded.

What happens if the player cancels the promotion before completing its terms.

These conditions determine whether the offer suits the player’s preferred games, normal stake and available playing time.

Where to Confirm AmunBet Promotions Before Depositing

Immediately before registering or depositing, players should compare the promotion shown on the AmunBet Casino homepage with the dedicated bonus terms and the offer displayed inside their account. If the figures or requirements differ, clarification should be obtained instead of assuming that the most generous version applies.

Live chat is generally the quicker support channel for questions about activation and eligibility. Email is more suitable when screenshots or documents need to be attached and provides a written record that can be referenced later.

A clear enquiry should identify the exact promotion and ask whether it applies to a new GBP account, which deposit qualifies, whether manual opt-in is required and where the complete terms can be found. An external no-deposit claim should not influence a payment unless the same offer appears in official AmunBet Casino materials or is confirmed by support.

The Right AmunBet Offer Is the One You Can Use

Players should judge the welcome package by its wagering rules, eligible games, free-spin conditions, expiry periods and maximum bonus bet—not only by its headline value. Those who do not want promotional restrictions may decline the offer and play with cash funds only. Any deposit should remain within an affordable entertainment budget, regardless of the maximum match available.

Is Fantasy Football Addictive?

Posted on by admin

Yes, Fantasy Football can be addictive, and scientific research supports this. A study published in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction found that 17.5% of 684 surveyed Fantasy Football players met the diagnostic criteria for internet addiction, significantly higher than in the general population. Research by Wilkins et al. (2024), published in Simulation & Gaming, also found that players who were heavily engaged with the game and had financial incentives reported more mental health problems. 

Fantasy Football activates the same psychological mechanisms seen in other addictive behaviours: salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms and relapse. Someone who spends hours every day studying statistics, making transfers and checking rankings can display behavioural patterns consistent with problematic use. For most people, it remains a healthy hobby, but awareness of the risks is essential.

How Addictive Is Fantasy Football?

Fantasy Football is moderately addictive for most players, but can become severe for a significant minority. Research by Wilkins et al. (2024) found that players who engaged in more social comparison and had a financial involvement reported significantly higher levels of anxiety, depression and stress than casual players. Experts at FootballPredictions.com emphasise that how addictive Fantasy Football becomes depends heavily on the level of involvement: someone who spends several hours playing every day, feels a sense of control over player performances and stakes money through paid platforms faces a considerably greater risk of problematic use than someone who plays purely recreationally.

Is Fantasy Football More Addictive Than Football Betting?

Fantasy Football can be more addictive than football betting for some people, but for different reasons. Traditional betting involves direct financial incentives that create acute addiction risks. Fantasy Football instead works through long-term engagement: a season lasts for months, building a deeper emotional investment. Scientific research by Wilkins et al. (2024) shows that daily engagement, social comparison and financial incentives together are the strongest predictors of negative mental health outcomes among Fantasy Football players. Both activities activate the brain’s reward system, but through different mechanisms. Data from FootballPredictions.com confirms that combining the two can pose the greatest risk for some users.

What Are The Main Risks of Fantasy Football?

The main risks of Fantasy Football are loss of time, emotional dependence and financial harm when paid versions are involved. Research shows that highly engaged players report significantly more anxiety after poor gameweeks, while constant attention to statistics and team selections can interfere with daily life. With daily fantasy sports involving prize pools, financial losses can accumulate quickly, much like with traditional gambling.

What is Fantasy Football?

Fantasy Football is an online strategy game in which you build a virtual team of real professional footballers who earn points based on their actual performances. It is available through platforms such as the official Premier League Fantasy Football app and is completely free in its basic format.

What Can You Do Best If You Have An Unhealthy Relationship with Fantasy Football?

The best thing you can do if you have an unhealthy relationship with Fantasy Football is set a weekly time limit, avoid paid versions and discuss your behaviour with someone you trust. For more serious problems, the NHS provides access through its website to behavioural therapy and support for behavioural addiction.

The Most Common Fantasy Premier League Mistakes New Managers Make

Posted on by admin

Fantasy Premier League looks simple enough on the surface. Pick a squad, set a formation, make transfers when you fancy a change, and watch the points roll in.

In practice, most new managers make the same handful of mistakes in their first season, often without realising it until their rank has already taken a hit. Here’s where things typically go wrong, and how to avoid repeating them.

Chasing last week’s points

A midfielder scores twice against a struggling defence, and by Monday morning half the mini-league has transferred him in. It’s an understandable reaction, but a single big haul rarely tells you much on its own.

What matters more is whether the underlying numbers support it: shots taken, chances created, minutes spent near set pieces. Without that, a standout performance can just as easily be a one-off as the start of a run. Building a squad around whoever topped last week’s charts is one of the quickest ways to end up a step behind everyone else.

Panic transfers after a blank

Patience is harder than it sounds. A captain returns nothing and the temptation is to move him on immediately, usually right before he comes good and often at the cost of paying a premium for whoever just had a big week themselves.

Selling low and buying high in the same transfer is a pattern that catches out almost every new manager at some point. It tends to happen precisely because reacting feels more productive than waiting.

Burning chips too early

Wildcards, bench boost, free hit and triple captain are exciting the moment they unlock, which is exactly why so many new managers use them within the first few months without much of a plan behind it.

Chip value tends to build as the season goes on. Blank gameweeks, double gameweeks and major fixture swings later in the campaign are where a well-timed chip earns its keep, and using one early because the temptation was there usually means missing the moment it would have mattered most.

Fixture difficulty gets overlooked

Reputation carries a lot of weight in FPL, sometimes more than it should. A club heading into a run of matches against the league’s toughest defences is a genuinely risky source of points, no matter how well that player has performed in the past.

A mid-table side with three winnable fixtures in a row is often quietly one of the better transfer windows of the season, yet it gets overlooked far more often than it should. Checking the calendar before checking the ownership percentage would save a lot of managers a lot of frustration.

A weak bench

This one only becomes obvious at the worst possible time. Spend the entire budget on the starting eleven and the bench ends up filled with players who never see the pitch, right up until an injury or a surprise team news update forces an autosub into the lineup. It doesn’t need to be expensive. It just needs to be functional, made up of players who would actually start if called upon rather than whoever was cheapest at the time.

That is why the best players strategically chose their team, so that they can avoid having useless substitutions that end up costing them valuable points.

Copying the template without understanding it

There’s nothing wrong with owning heavily selected players; they’re usually popular for good reason. The mistake is copying an entire template team without knowing why each pick was made in the first place.

When form shifts, and it always does, managers who understand the reasoning behind their squad can react properly. Those who simply matched the top-ranked teams each week are often left holding onto picks long after the logic behind them has disappeared.

Missing price changes

Prices rise and fall based on transfer activity across the game, and it’s an area new managers consistently underestimate.

Waiting too long on a player who’s about to jump in price, or holding onto one who’s about to drop, rarely feels urgent in the moment. Over a full season, though, those small delays add up to several million in lost team value, quietly eating into a budget that could have gone towards actual improvements to the squad.

Getting the balance right

Most of these mistakes come from the same root cause: reacting to short-term results rather than sticking to a longer-term plan.

FPL rewards research and a willingness to sit tight through the occasional bad gameweek far more than it rewards constant tinkering, and the same process could also apply to different online side hustles, too. New managers who learn this early tend to see their rank improve steadily as the season goes on, rather than spending each week chasing whatever happened last time out.

FISO FPL Fixture Difficulty Planner: Best and Worst Fixtures from GW4 to GW13

Posted on by admin

Three Gameweeks into the 2026/27 Fantasy Premier League season, we now have some early evidence about the relative strength of all 20 Premier League clubs.

The FISO Fixture Difficulty Planner (FDR) has therefore been updated for the next ten rounds of fixtures, covering GW4 to GW13.

Unlike a traditional FDR that assigns a fixed difficulty to each opponent, the FISO tool uses editable club Strength ratings. We have now adjusted our default ratings to take account of performances during the opening three Gameweeks of the season.

That produces some interesting results for FPL managers planning their next transfers.

Try the FISO Fixture Difficulty Planner:
https://www.fiso.co.uk/games/fdr/

How the FISO FDR works

Each Premier League club is given a Strength rating, with stronger teams receiving a higher number which are initially based on last season’s finishing positions.

We’ve for example adjusted our personalised FDR based on the 1st 3 GWs action so that Arsenal lead the ratings on 93, followed by Manchester City on 90. Chelsea are third on 83, while Manchester United and Liverpool are both rated 82. See screenshot below.

The difficulty of each fixture is calculated using the difference between the two teams’ Strength ratings, with an adjustment for home advantage.

Positive numbers indicate a more favourable fixture and negative numbers a more difficult one. The colour coding then ranges through nine different levels from Very easy in dark green to Brutal in dark red.

The important difference with the FISO FDR is that these Strength figures aren’t fixed. If you think we’ve underestimated or overestimated a club, change its Strength yourself and the entire fixture table recalculates instantly.

Arsenal have the outstanding GW4-GW13 schedule

Arsenal combine the highest Strength rating in the league with an excellent set of fixtures.

Their ten matches are:

GW4 Sunderland (A)
GW5 Brighton (A)
GW6 Leeds (H)
GW7 Nottingham Forest (A)
GW8 Everton (H)
GW9 Liverpool (A)
GW10 Hull (H)
GW11 Newcastle (A)
GW12 Manchester City (H)
GW13 Brentford (A)

The FDR gives Arsenal an extraordinary +25.3 Avg 3, +27.6 Avg 5 and +23.1 Avg 10.

Liverpool away in GW9 and Manchester City at home in GW12 interrupt the run, but virtually everything else is green.

Particularly attractive are Leeds at home (+31), Forest away (+31), Everton at home (+31) and Hull at home (+35).

For FPL managers, that makes Arsenal assets very difficult to ignore. It also makes their defence particularly interesting because the favourable fixtures aren’t concentrated into just two or three Gameweeks – they extend across most of the next ten.

Manchester City also have a superb long-term run

Manchester City’s opening three fixtures aren’t quite as attractive as Arsenal’s, largely because they visit Manchester United in GW4 and Liverpool in GW6.

Their Avg 3 is +11.7, but the picture improves considerably when looking further ahead.

City’s Avg 5 rises to +20.2 and their Avg 10 is +20.6, second only to Arsenal among the teams shown at the top of our FDR.

From GW7 they face:

Ipswich (H), Aston Villa (A), Brighton (H), Nottingham Forest (A), Fulham (H), Arsenal (A) and Leeds (H).

Ipswich at home receives a huge +40 rating, while Forest away (+28), Fulham at home (+30) and Leeds at home (+28) also stand out.

This illustrates why looking beyond the next couple of Gameweeks can be so valuable. A manager looking only at GW4 might not be particularly enthusiastic about City’s immediate schedule, whereas the ten-Gameweek picture is excellent.

Chelsea’s fixtures deserve attention

Chelsea are another club sitting prominently near the top of the FDR.

Their figures are:

Avg 3: +16.3
Avg 5: +18.6
Avg 10: +17.5

They start with Hull at home (+25), followed by Brentford away (+11) and Bournemouth at home (+13).

Everton away, Tottenham at home, Sunderland away, Leeds at home, Forest away and Crystal Palace at home also provide plenty of opportunities.

The obvious difficult fixture is Manchester United away in GW9, but Chelsea otherwise have one of the most consistently attractive schedules in the league.

Manchester United and Liverpool also rank well

Manchester United’s +10.9 Avg 10 puts them comfortably on the favourable side of the FDR despite some notable difficult fixtures.

They face Manchester City in GW4, Chelsea away in GW9 and Liverpool away in GW11. However, matches against Fulham, Tottenham, Leeds, Bournemouth, Aston Villa, Brentford and Newcastle help compensate.

Liverpool have an Avg 10 of +9.4.

Their schedule includes favourable home fixtures against Fulham, Brighton, Manchester United and Sunderland, while Everton away in GW12 also scores well.

The tougher fixtures against Manchester City and Arsenal prevent Liverpool from joining Arsenal, City and Chelsea right at the top, but the overall run remains attractive.

Bournemouth offer an interesting longer-term improvement

Bournemouth are a good example of why the three different averages are useful.

Their numbers are:

Avg 3: -5.7
Avg 5: -4.8
Avg 10: +3.2

The immediate schedule isn’t particularly attractive, with Liverpool at home in GW5 and Chelsea away in GW6.

Things subsequently improve.

Sunderland, Leeds, Ipswich, Forest, Fulham and Brighton all appear between GW7 and GW13.

Managers interested in Bournemouth assets may therefore prefer to wait rather than buying immediately.

Newcastle’s good start gives way to tougher fixtures

Newcastle have a healthy +8 Avg 3 and +7.6 Avg 5, but their Avg 10 falls to just +1.1.

The early period contains Leeds, Hull, Coventry and Crystal Palace.

Later, however, Newcastle face Arsenal, Brighton and Manchester United across GW11-GW13.

Again, the FDR highlights the difference between buying a player for the short term and expecting to hold him for ten Gameweeks.

Which clubs have the hardest schedules?

At the other end of the table, the colour coding becomes noticeably more orange and red. Here is a screenshot with our adjusted strengths based on the action over the 1st 3 GWs.

Ipswich currently have the most difficult ten-Gameweek schedule among the clubs shown in our lower-table screenshot, with:

Avg 3: -10.7
Avg 5: -15.6
Avg 10: -12.6

The standout problem is a GW7 trip to Manchester City, rated -40. Bournemouth away and Tottenham away also feature before meetings with Aston Villa and Coventry.

Nottingham Forest aren’t far behind with an Avg 10 of -10.0.

They face Arsenal away in GW7 (-31), Manchester City away in GW10 (-28) and Chelsea away in GW12 (-21).

That is a particularly uncomfortable schedule for anyone considering Forest defenders.

Leeds and Coventry also face difficult runs

Leeds have an Avg 10 of -8.9.

Their fixtures include Arsenal away (-31), Manchester United at home (-16), Chelsea away (-21) and Manchester City away (-28).

There are opportunities – notably Crystal Palace at home and Coventry at home – but they’re mixed among some of the most difficult fixtures available.

Coventry’s Avg 10 is -8.1. Brighton, Newcastle and Sunderland are among their more difficult early matches, although Crystal Palace at home and Ipswich at home provide some relief later in the run.

Hull’s fixtures look difficult despite some opportunities

Hull have:

Avg 3: -12.3
Avg 5: -9.8
Avg 10: -8.0

Chelsea away immediately stands out as difficult, while Newcastle away follows in GW5.

The biggest problem comes in GW10 when Hull travel to Arsenal, currently rated -35 by the FISO model.

However, Ipswich away in GW9 and Forest away in GW13 are considerably more appealing.

Tottenham and Fulham have plenty of red and orange

Tottenham’s Avg 10 is -6.8, with Manchester United away (-26) and Chelsea away (-27) particularly difficult.

There are some good fixtures – Coventry at home and Ipswich at home – but their overall schedule remains below average.

Fulham’s Avg 10 of -6.4 includes Liverpool away (-22), Manchester United at home (-18) and a particularly difficult trip to Manchester City in GW11 (-30).

Aston Villa (-5.1) and Crystal Palace (-4.9) also sit on the difficult side of the ten-Gameweek averages.

Use the averages according to your FPL strategy

One of the most useful parts of the FISO tool is having Avg 3, Avg 5 and Avg 10 alongside one another.

They answer three different questions.

Avg 3 is useful when considering a short-term transfer or planning towards an imminent Wildcard.

Avg 5 gives a better picture for normal transfer planning.

Avg 10 is particularly useful when assessing players you expect to hold for a substantial period – premium players, goalkeepers and defenders being obvious examples.

A team can look very attractive according to one measure and much less appealing according to another. Bournemouth and Newcastle are good examples in the current FDR.

Don’t agree with our Strength ratings? Change them

The default ratings are FISO’s assessment following the opening three Gameweeks, but they’re deliberately not presented as definitive.

Perhaps you think Arsenal at 93 are too strong.

Maybe Manchester City should be closer to Arsenal.

Perhaps one of the promoted clubs has impressed you enough to deserve a substantial upgrade.

Simply change the relevant Strength number and the FDR recalculates the fixture difficulty scores, colours and averages.

You can also alter the home-advantage setting, sort the table according to different periods and share your customised FDR with other managers.

That is the main idea behind the FISO planner: rather than telling every FPL manager exactly how difficult a fixture is, it provides the tools to build an FDR around your own assessment of the Premier League.

FPL planning for GW4 and beyond

Based on FISO’s current Strength ratings, Arsenal are the clear standout for the next ten Gameweeks, with Manchester City and Chelsea completing an impressive top three.

Manchester United and Liverpool also have favourable overall schedules.

At the opposite end, Ipswich, Nottingham Forest, Leeds, Coventry and Hull have considerably more difficult fixture runs.

But fixture difficulty is only one part of FPL selection. Expected minutes, price, attacking involvement, clean-sheet prospects, injuries and form all need to be considered alongside the schedule.

The FDR provides the fixture part of that equation – and, importantly, lets you change the assumptions yourself.

Explore the updated FISO Fixture Difficulty Planner for GW4-GW13:
https://www.fiso.co.uk/games/fdr/

Discuss your FPL team and the new FDR ratings on the FISO FPL Forum:
https://www.fiso.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=18

THE FOOTBALL GAME THAT MAKES EVERY MATCH MATTER

Posted on by admin

Seven predictions. One fixture. Every goal, card and corner can change everything.

PREDICT THE MATCH. WATCH IT COME ALIVE. No squad management. No entry fee. Just football judgement.

Fantasy football can start brilliantly and then become a job: squads, transfers, budgets, injuries and months of maintenance. 90MINS keeps the judgement and rivalry, but puts the excitement back inside the match you are watching.

7 PREDICTIONS PER MATCH28 PERFECT MATCH SCORENO ENTRY FEE

WHY PLAYERS KEEP COMING BACK

  • No squad to maintain. Choose the fixtures you want and make your calls before kickoff.
  • The whole match stays alive. Outcome, goals, cards, corners, scorer, player carded and exact score all matter.
  • See the contest move live. One late goal, booking or corner can transform your score and league position.

EVERY GOAL.  EVERY CARD.  EVERY CORNER.  EVERY MINUTE.

REAL COMPETITION. NO ENTRY FEE. Current scoring and prize information is in the app. All cash prizes are paid at the end of the season.
PLAY FREE NOW  |  PLAY90MINS.COM

90MINS is independent and is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Premier League, Fantasy Premier League or any club.