UFC Betting Explained: How to Predict Fight Scoring Outcomes

Predicting how a UFC fight will be scored is about forecasting how three judges will see 15-25 minutes of "effective" offense, not just who is "better." You need to predict whether the fight finishes or goes to decision, who wins rounds, and how judges will interpret damage, grappling, and control under current criteria.

This isn't about guessing. It's about systematic analysis of weight class trends, fighter metrics, judging context, and style matchups. Most bettors bet who they think wins without considering how they win. Sharp bettors predict the path to victory and bet accordingly. That's the difference between profitable decision betting and throwing darts at a board.

Read more: The Complete Guide to UFC Judges, Scoring & Decisions

Start With: Finish vs Decision

Before you think about scorecards, decide whether you expect judges to be involved at all.

Weight Class Baseline

From featherweight down: Decisions slightly outnumber finishes. Lighter fighters have less one-punch knockout power, making decisions more common.

From middleweight up: Finishes climb. Heavyweights have the highest knockout/TKO rate because power increases dramatically.

Style and Durability Factors

Decision-likely scenarios:

• Durable volume strikers (Max Holloway archetype) with strong cardio on both sides
• Technical strikers with excellent defensive skills
• Wrestlers with strong cardio but low finishing rates

Finish-likely scenarios:

• Kill-or-be-killed stylists with big power
• Weak cardio on either side (leads to late stoppages)
• Fighter with recent knockout losses facing aggressive finisher

Use these inputs:

• Finish rates by weight class to set a baseline (men's flyweight = decision-heavy; heavyweight = finish-heavy)
• Fighter-specific durability (knockout/submission losses, recent damage, layoffs) to tilt that baseline one way or the other

If you expect very high finish probability, focus props on method/round. If not, move to scorecard prediction.

Shurzy Tip: The biggest mistake bettors make is betting decision props in heavyweight fights or finish props in flyweight technical battles. Know your weight class baselines and adjust from there.

Read more: UFC Betting Explained: What Judges Look For

Predict Who Wins Rounds

Once you assume a decision is likely, predict who will win rounds using the actual scoring hierarchy.

The Hierarchy Judges Follow

Plan A: Effective striking and effective grappling (determines 99% of rounds, based on impact not raw stats)

Plan B: Effective aggressiveness (only if Plan A is totally even)

Plan C: Fighting area control (last resort tiebreaker)

Striking: Who Wins the Exchanges?

Key predictors:

Power and impact vs volume: One knockdown or clearly wobbling shot can outweigh 15-20 light strikes. If both are similar in impact, higher significant strike volume usually wins the round.

Striking metrics to track:

• Significant strikes landed per minute
• Striking accuracy
• Strikes absorbed per minute

Ratio-type metrics (your strikes vs opponent's strikes) have strong predictive power.

Handicapping angle:

Expect the power striker to win rounds if they reliably land the bigger moments. Expect the volume technician to win rounds if they can avoid big damage and double/triple output.

Grappling: Who's Actually Effective?

Judges score:

• Takedowns plus what happens after (passes, ground-and-pound, submissions)
• Submission attempts that clearly threaten a finish
• Positional advances (guard to half to mount, back takes) with offense

Low-value actions:

• Takedowns with immediate standups
• Top control with no strikes or submission threat ("lay and pray")
• Clinch/wall control without offense

Handicapping angle:

Wrestler vs striker matchup:

If the wrestler has reliable entries and top offense, they likely bank rounds. If the striker has strong takedown defense and back-to-feet scrambling, they likely stuff enough to keep it standing and win on strikes.

The key question is not "who gets the takedown" but "what happens after the takedown." That's what judges actually reward.

Use Style and Metrics to Map Likely Scorecards

You're trying to mentally simulate the most likely scorecard shapes: 30-27, 29-28, 48-47, etc.

Useful Heuristics

Clear skill edge plus cardio: Expect 30-27 or 50-45 scenarios. When one fighter is clearly better and maintains output, they sweep rounds.

Power vs volume, neither fully neutralized: Expect lots of 29-28s and split decisions. When judges must weigh different types of effectiveness, disagreement follows.

Elite wrestler vs modest takedown defense: Expect 30-27 wrestling-heavy decisions if wrestler pushes pace and works on top.

Southpaw/counter-striker vs march-forward brawler: Expect disagreement if damage vs aggression isn't obvious. One judge rewards the counter-striker's clean shots, another rewards the brawler's forward pressure.

Combine These Inputs

Per-15-minute stats: Strikes landed, takedowns, control time

Historical round-winning: Fighters who repeatedly win decisions often excel at "minute winning" even without finishes

This lets you project not just who wins but how decisively.

Read more: UFC Betting Explained: Judging Biases & Trends

Layer On Context: Division, Venue, Judges

Even good handicaps get warped by judging environment.

Division Effects

Lighter men's divisions and many women's divisions see more decisions and more split/majority decisions because damage is subtler and rounds are tighter. Heavyweight and light heavyweight see fewer decisions but more unanimous decisions when they happen because dominance is more obvious.

Judging Criteria Trend

Modern criteria and ABC clarifications push toward damage-first scoring. Control and just moving forward score less than they used to. This favors power strikers and damage-dealers over volume and control fighters.

Venue and Commission

Some locations are more volatile (international cards, Texas, new commissions) with higher rates of weird scorecards. Nevada and California tend to be more consistent.

Betting implications:

In decision-heavy divisions, edges in "who wins minutes" matter more. Props like "by decision" and over rounds gain value.

In chaotic judging venues, widen your variance assumptions. Be more cautious with big positions on close decisions. Consider smaller stakes or finish-heavy angles.

Read more: UFC Betting Explained: Cities With Controversial Judging

Finish vs Decision Split for Each Fighter

Once you know who likely wins on cards, decide how they win most often.

Inputs to Use

Fighter-level finish/decision split: From record plus context (are recent wins against better or worse competition?)

Division baseline: Heavyweight/light heavyweight finish-heavy, lower classes more decisions

Opponent durability and defensive grappling: Can they survive adversity or do they fold under pressure?

Example Logic

Scenario A: Fighter A rarely finishes at this level but consistently outstrikes opponents, and both sides are durable. Result: A by decision is likely the dominant outcome.

Scenario B: Fighter B historically loses by finish when stepped up, and faces an aggressive finisher. Result: Inside-the-distance or knockout/submission props become more attractive than narrow decision predictions.

This is how you translate "who wins" into "how they win," which determines which props offer value.

Practical Workflow to Predict Scoring Outcomes

A simple, repeatable process you can use for every fight:

Step 1: Determine Finish vs Decision Likelihood

Use weight class trends plus fighter finishing/defense stats. Is this a decision-likely or finish-likely fight?

Step 2: If Decision-Likely, Identify the Minute-Winner

Compare striking metrics and tape for power vs volume. Compare grappling metrics and tape for who can dictate where the fight takes place.

Step 3: Mentally Simulate Rounds

What does a typical round look like? Who lands the bigger shots? Who ends the round in the better position?

Are there obvious 10-8 scenarios (sustained dominance/near-finish), or is everything 10-9 close?

Step 4: Overlay Division and Venue Context

Decision-heavy weight plus normal commission = lean into decision props if lines are off.

High-variance venue or historically sketchy judging = keep decisions smaller or stick more to moneyline/finish angles.

Step 5: Translate to Bets

Strong edge on one fighter and on method: Moneyline plus method (e.g., decision or inside distance) in sensible sizes.

Strong edge on winner but not method: Stick mostly to moneyline, maybe small exposure split between decision and inside the distance.

Projected coin-flip on cards: Either pass or use very small speculative stabs (e.g., split decision, goes distance) rather than big positions.

Shurzy Tip: Don't bet decision props just because you think someone wins. Bet decision props when you think someone wins AND the fight likely goes to decision AND you have an edge on how judges will score it. All three need to align.

Advanced: Use Metrics Without Overfitting

Academic and industry work has shown Markov chain and statistical models using significant strikes, takedowns, ground control, and positional advances can produce win probabilities comparable to bookmakers.

Key findings:

• Ratio metrics (strike ratio, ground control per takedown) are especially predictive
• Accuracy stats matter more than raw totals
• Significant offense (power strikes, real submissions) predicts better than all "attempts"

For betting purposes:

Use these concepts without trying to rebuild a full-blown model from scratch. Focus on efficiency and ratios rather than raw totals. This keeps your scoring predictions closer to how judges are supposed to see fights under current criteria.

A fighter landing 40 significant strikes at 55% accuracy is more effective than a fighter landing 60 significant strikes at 35% accuracy, even though the second fighter has higher volume. Efficiency matters.

Read more: UFC Betting Explained: Split Decision Betting Strategies

Conclusion

Predicting fight scoring outcomes requires matching three layers: whether judges will be needed at all, who wins minutes in a damage-first framework, and how often that pattern yields 29-28, 30-27, or finish outcomes given division, venue, and fighter tendencies.

Start with weight class baselines for finish vs decision probability. Use striking and grappling metrics to predict who wins rounds under the actual judging hierarchy (damage first, not volume or control). Map likely scorecard shapes based on style matchups and skill edges. Layer on division and venue context to adjust for judging variance.

The workflow is systematic: finish vs decision likelihood, identify minute-winner, simulate rounds, overlay context, translate to bets. Getting all three layers broadly right over many bets is where long-term edge comes from.

Most bettors skip this process entirely and bet gut feelings. They wonder why their "obvious winner" lost a split decision or why their decision bet lost to a third-round knockout. Sharp bettors predict the path to victory with precision, not just the destination. Know the process, follow it consistently, and your decision betting becomes profitable instead of random.

‍