What's worse? Missing Mate in 1 or Falling For Mate in 1?


Let's say in the falling for mate in 1 you had a winning position, and in the missing mate in 1 you had a losing position, then which one is worse?
Still. if you fall into mate in one the game is already lost. If you miss the mate in one you still have a chance.
but sure both are frustrating. beside that its more likely to fall for a mate in 3 or miss a mate in 3, same answer as before

Yes, I guess it depends on the game.
If the game I was playing at the time was close to equal, I would much rather miss a mate-in-one than fall for a mate-in-one. I would still have chances to win even if I miss that mate-in one, unlike if I fall for one.
If I were in a dead lost position, I would rather fall for a mate-in-one. It was likely I would've lost anyway.
If I were in a completely winning position, I would rather miss a mate-in-one because I will likely win anyway.

That's why I specified, missing m1 in a losing position, and blundering m1 in a winning position, which of those is worse?

That's why I specified, missing m1 in a losing position, and blundering m1 in a winning position, which of those is worse?
Oh, sorry. I missed that. Blundering a mate-in-one in a winning position is worse in my opinion.

That's why I specified, missing m1 in a losing position, and blundering m1 in a winning position, which of those is worse?
Oh, sorry. I missed that. Blundering a mate-in-one in a winning position is worse in my opinion.
I actually think missing the m1 to save the game is worse, because you essentially lost twice.

What about self-mate?
I was going to mention that, Levi from GothamChess actually had a real example of that from this site. Forgot the exact position but it was something like this:
I personally find missing a Mate in 1 I could have won with more frustrating compared to falling for a Mate in 1 and losing.