UFC Betting Explained: Historical Rematch Trends

Across decades of MMA data, rematches and trilogies follow surprisingly consistent patterns. First-fight winners usually stay ahead, immediate-revenge stories are rarer than narratives suggest, and third fights tend to be violent and harsh on underdogs. The public bets storylines. You should bet history.

First-Fight Winners Almost Always Repeat

A large FightMatrix study analyzing immediate rematches (same opponent back-to-back) across all of MMA history found 1,430 immediate rematches. In 500 cases (about 35%), the outcome changed. That means roughly 65% of rematches repeat the first result. The first winner wins again two-thirds of the time.

But the method of victory in the first fight dramatically changes these probabilities. Here's where the numbers get really interesting:

• Submission finishes (554 cases): Only 24.5% of rematches produced a different result
• Including TKOs with submissions: Only 26% of rematches flipped
• Finish repeat rate: If Fighter A finished Fighter B the first time, A wins again roughly 74-76% of the time
• Decision losses: More likely to reverse than submission or TKO losses

The implication is clear. The first winner, especially after a clear finish, has a strong historical edge. First-fight losers only flip the script about one time in three overall, and only about one in four after getting finished. This makes sense when you understand that finishes usually expose permanent problems like chin durability or fundamental grappling deficiencies that don't get fixed in training camp.

Shurzy Tip: When a fighter got submitted or knocked out cold in the first fight, the market usually underprices the repeat. The public remembers the fighter's career highlights and ignores the fact that submission and TKO losses reverse only 26% of the time. That 74% repeat rate is one of the most exploitable patterns in rematch betting.

Title Rematches: The Champion's Curse

Title rematches show even more brutal patterns for fighters seeking revenge. A joint UFCStats and media analysis of title-fight rematches reported that as of mid-2024, the winner of the first title fight wins the rematch 63.2% of the time. That figure has nudged higher recently thanks to Alex Pereira beating Jiří Procházka again and Dricus du Plessis beating Sean Strickland, both reinforcing the "first winner stays winner" pattern.

But here's where the data gets truly devastating for former champions. UFC's own historical review of instant rematches reveals a pattern the betting public consistently ignores:

• Modern era success rate: Only three former champs have regained their belt in an immediate rematch
• The only success stories: Randy Couture, Amanda Nunes, and Deiveson Figueiredo
• Overall success rate: Under 10% of champions manage to take their belt straight back
• Market mispricing: Books consistently overprice big-name ex-champions in instant rematches

The "ex-champion revenge narrative" is mostly a marketing trap. When a beloved champion loses their belt and immediately gets a rematch, the public remembers their entire championship reign and assumes they'll bounce back. The data says they won't. Fewer than 1 in 10 champions manage to reclaim their belt immediately. That's not variance. That's a systematic pattern you can bet against profitably.

Read more: The Complete Guide to Betting UFC Rematches & Trilogy Fights

Trilogy Fight Trends: Violence and Favorites

Action Network's broad trilogy dataset across UFC, Bellator, ONE, and other major organizations reveals that trilogy fights operate under completely different mathematics than standard rematches. These patterns create systematic betting opportunities that most bettors miss entirely.

The finish rate data shows trilogies are fundamentally more violent than average fights:

• Overall trilogy finish rate: Around 60% across all three bouts
• Comparison to standard cards: About 15+ percentage points higher than typical modern MMA finish rate of 45-50%
• Fight-by-fight breakdown: Finishes are well over 60% in fights 1 and 2, dropping slightly in fight 3 to approximately 59.1%
• Betting implication: "Fight doesn't go the distance" props are consistently underpriced in trilogies

But the really exploitable pattern appears in how trilogy underdogs and recent winners perform. For fighters who reach a full three-fight series, the historical data is brutally clear:

• Underdogs in fight 3: 4-17 historically (19.0% win rate)
• Winner of fight 2: Wins fight 3 in 16 of 21 documented trilogies (76.2%)
• In 1-1 series: Fighter who won fight 2 wins fight 3 approximately 9 of 13 times (69.2%)
• KO/TKO winners: When same fighter scored knockouts in fights 1 and 2, they won fight 3 at 89% rate (small sample)

By fight 3, the series tends to tilt heavily toward the more recent winner, not the nostalgic first winner or the legacy name. Third fights favor favorites and recent winners. Underdogs that did well early in a rivalry have historically struggled in the decider.

Shurzy Tip: When a trilogy is tied 1-1, the public bets based on who they like or who won the first fight. You should bet on who won the second fight. That fighter wins the trilogy approximately 69-76% of the time depending on how you slice the data. That edge compounds massively over dozens of trilogy bets.

How to Actually Use These Trends

These statistics are priors, not destiny, but they're powerful priors that the market consistently misprices. Here's your systematic framework for integrating historical trends into rematch handicapping.

For non-title rematches, start with the baseline that the first winner repeats about 65% of the time overall. If the first result was a finish, especially submission or TKO, repeat probability jumps to approximately 74-76%. This means first losers only justify bets when you can clearly identify fixable reasons for the loss (tactical errors, conditioning issues, camp problems) rather than structural ones (chin, speed, reach, fundamental style mismatch).

For title rematches, remember the first title-fight winner wins the rematch about 63% of the time, but former champions reclaiming belts immediately are extreme outliers at under 10%. Markets tend to overprice big-name ex-champions in instant rematches. The "new champ" side has structural historical support that the betting public ignores because they're anchored to the former champion's entire career rather than their most recent performance.

For trilogy fights, treat all trilogy bouts as high-finish environments averaging approximately 60% inside-the-distance. This favors "fight doesn't go the distance" props, knockout/TKO or submission markets over pure decision bets. In fight 3, especially when the series is tied 1-1, lean toward the fighter who won fight 2 (about 69-76% win rate) and be extremely cautious backing underdogs (they win only about 19% of final trilogy fights).

The key question becomes how much weight to give these trends versus matchup-specific analysis. Use historical patterns as a tiebreaker when your tape and analytics view a rematch as close. Be more aggressive backing first winners and recent winners when their original advantages were structural (power, size, durability, grappling edge) and the loser's path to meaningful adjustment looks limited.

Conversely, be willing to fade the historical trend only when you have strong matchup-specific reasons including clear technical adjustments, obvious aging or damage on the first winner, or drastic camp and weight changes that fundamentally alter the dynamic.

Conclusion

Historical rematch trends reveal the market typically underestimates how persistent structural edges are and overestimates the power of revenge narratives and championship aura. First winners, especially finishers and recent winners in trilogies, have repeatedly proven more reliable than storylines suggest. Use these baselines as your starting point, then adjust only when you have concrete evidence that this specific rematch will buck the historical pattern. Most won't. Bet accordingly.

‍