Germany vs. Côte d'Ivoire - Exact Score

Platform comparison

Active sub-markets

Market context

Germany’s World Cup meeting with Côte d’Ivoire is a classic pricing test for an **exact score** contract, where the crowd’s **4%** yes price implies a very narrow outcome rather than a simple Germany win. On sportsbook markets, ESPN’s listed odds point to Germany as a clear favourite at **-190**, with a **draw at +370** and Côte d’Ivoire at **+475**, which usually maps to a stronger view of Germany overall than a 4% exact-score outcome would suggest.[3] That gap matters because exact-score markets are always much less likely than match-result markets: even in lopsided fixtures, probability is spread across many scorelines, and regulation-only settlement excludes extra time and penalties.[3][4]

Historical context does not offer much direct guidance, but it does frame the tails of the distribution. The sides have met only once before, a **2-2 draw** in a 2009 friendly, so there is no deep head-to-head pattern to anchor a specific scoreline.[1][2] That makes the contract more about whether traders think this match lands on a common football score such as **1-0, 2-0, 2-1, or 1-1**, rather than on any matchup-specific precedent. In that sense, a 4% market price is broadly consistent with the idea that no single exact result should command heavy confidence, even if Germany are expected to control the game.

For catalysts, the main drivers are the **confirmed line-ups**, any late injury or rotation news, and whether either side already has qualification or seeding incentives that alter risk appetite before kick-off.[4] FIFA lists the match for **20:00 GMT on 20 June 2026**, which removes uncertainty on timing unless there is an official postponement.[4] ESPN’s market page shows Germany favoured on the moneyline, so any move towards a tighter spread or a lower total would usually support draw-adjacent or low-score exact outcomes, while an open, high-tempo setup would tend to pull probability away from the current 4% yes price.[3]

Sources: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5

Methodology

This page is a comparison snapshot: one live quote (Polymarket), four reference venues with their key attributes, and a single execution path — every trade button routes to Best Prediction Markets, which mirrors the Polymarket order book directly.

Resolution & payout

Settlement runs on-chain. Polymarket's contract logic separates YES and NO shares as conditional tokens; at resolution the winning share lifts to $1.00 and the losing one to $0. The outcome input comes from the UMA Optimistic Oracle, which secures against bad resolution with a bond + dispute window.

Once finalised, the smart contract pays USDC to the holders' wallets within minutes — no withdrawal fees beyond Polygon network gas. Kalshi settles in USD via CFTC clearance, Betfair in account currency net of commission, Manifold in play-money mana with no cash-out.

FAQ

Is this market available outside the US?

Best Prediction Markets is available in most jurisdictions where Polymarket isn't directly accessible. Polymarket itself is geo-blocked in the US/UK/EU. Always check local regulations.

How does resolution work?

Through the UMA Optimistic Oracle on Polygon: a proposer submits the outcome, a two-hour challenge window opens, and USDC payouts settle automatically once the result is final.

What does it cost to trade on Best Prediction Markets?

Zero. Best Prediction Markets routes every order to the live Polymarket order book; the only cost is the Polygon network fee, typically under $0.01 per transaction.

Do I need to KYC for this market?

Not under $1,500 of lifetime trading volume. Above that threshold, Best Prediction Markets triggers a quick verification flow that finishes in 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.