UFC Betting Explained: Judging Biases & Trends

Some judges favor striking over grappling. Others reward aggression even when it's ineffective. Some are conservative with 10-8 rounds, others use the full scoring range. Recognizing these patterns enables you to identify mispriced lines where the market hasn't properly accounted for likely scoring outcomes.

This isn't conspiracy theory stuff. It's pattern recognition. Judges are human. They have biases. Those biases are predictable. Sharp bettors exploit them.

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

Individual Judge Biases: Patterns That Impact Decisions

Not all judges score fights identically even when watching the same action. Individual judges develop scoring tendencies over hundreds of bouts. Tracking these patterns creates betting edges when specific judges are assigned to fights with particular stylistic matchups.

Striking-Favored Judges

These judges tend to undervalue effective grappling relative to effective striking when assessing rounds. When a wrestler achieves takedowns and top control but the bottom fighter lands more strikes, striking-biased judges more frequently award the round to the striker.

This bias particularly affects fights where grappling produces control time without damage. The judge interprets the lack of ground-and-pound as minimal effective grappling, tipping the assessment toward the fighter landing strikes from bottom position or during standup exchanges.

Betting application: Favor strikers with solid defensive grappling when striking-biased judges are assigned.

Grappling-Favored Judges

These judges demonstrate the opposite pattern, crediting takedowns and positional control more heavily even when the bottom fighter generates superior offense. They may award rounds to wrestlers who achieve multiple takedowns and control time despite absorbing more damage from bottom-position strikes and submission attempts.

While the updated criteria explicitly state position alone doesn't score without offensive output, grappling-biased judges often interpret even minimal top-position activity as sufficient effective grappling to win rounds.

Betting application: Back wrestlers and grapplers when these judges work the event.

Aggression-Rewarding Judges

These judges favor fighters who press forward, initiate exchanges, and appear to impose their will regardless of whether that aggression produces effective results. They may score rounds for pressure fighters who walk forward into counter-strikes, potentially violating the hierarchical criteria that reserves effective aggressiveness for Plan B (only when striking/grappling is equal).

Betting application: Evaluate whether the judge will properly apply damage-first scoring or improperly reward ineffective forward movement. If the latter, back pressure fighters even when they're getting hit more.

Conservative vs Liberal Scorers

Conservative scorers rarely award 10-8 rounds even when the criteria clearly warrant them. Despite the 2016 revisions explicitly instructing judges to "ALWAYS" award 10-8 when a fighter demonstrates two or more of impact, dominance, and duration, many judges remain reluctant to deviate from 10-9 scoring.

This conservatism affects betting strategy on dominant fighters. A complete one-sided round might still produce only 10-9 scores, meaning the dominant fighter needs to win more total rounds to secure victory rather than accumulating larger round margins.

Liberal scorers willing to award 10-8 and even 10-7 rounds can produce lopsided scorecards favoring dominant fighters.

Notable judges:

Chris Lee exemplifies a liberal scorer, having awarded an ultra-rare 10-7 round to Ilia Topuria against Josh Emmett when most judges would have scored 10-8 or even 10-9.

Sal D'Amato, despite being the most frequently assigned UFC judge with 900+ decisions, has drawn criticism for inconsistent scoring that sometimes contradicts the written criteria.

Derek Cleary and Douglas Crosby have developed reputations for controversial scorecards that frequently appear as the dissenting score in split decisions.

Shurzy Tip: When you see conservative judges assigned to a fight where you're betting a dominant fighter, don't expect 10-8 rounds to pad the scorecard. They'll still win, but 30-27 instead of 30-25. Adjust your decision props accordingly.

Read more: UFC Betting Explained: What Judges Look For

Commission-Level Differences: Geographic Judging Variations

State athletic commissions operate independently with varying levels of commitment to implementing updated Unified Rules. Events in certain states consistently feature more progressive judging that emphasizes damage over control, while other jurisdictions lag in judge education.

Nevada Athletic Commission

Represents the largest and most established regulatory body, overseeing the majority of UFC pay-per-view events in Las Vegas.

Judging characteristics:

• Generally conservative scoring with rare 10-8 rounds
• Traditional emphasis on positional grappling
• Slowly adopted the 2016 criteria revisions
• Individual judge tendencies vary widely
• Large judge pool means assignment patterns significantly impact specific events

A card with progressive judges differs substantially from one featuring older officials applying pre-2016 interpretations.

California State Athletic Commission

Has implemented the updated criteria more aggressively.

Judging characteristics:

• Greater willingness to award 10-8 rounds for clear dominance
• Emphasize damage over positional control
• More consistent application of the hierarchical criteria placing effective striking/grappling above control

Betting application: Subtle line value exists on damage-dealers fighting in California versus control-focused fighters.

International Commissions

Vary dramatically in competence and criteria application. Some international UFC events feature judges with minimal MMA experience, creating unpredictable scoring.

Examples:

• Abu Dhabi events under UAE Athletic Commission
• London cards under British oversight
• Various international Fight Night locations

Each carries unique judging tendencies that sharp bettors track over time. International judging often introduces higher variance, making decision betting riskier unless the fight appears overwhelmingly one-sided.

Key point: The UFC itself has no direct control over judge selection or evaluation. Commissions maintain complete authority over licensing and assignments. This regulatory structure means the promotion cannot remove poor judges or mandate specific officials for important fights.

Shurzy Tip: California events favor damage-dealers. Nevada events favor traditional control fighters. International events are a crapshoot. Adjust your bets accordingly.

Read more: UFC Betting Explained: Cities With Controversial Judging

Temporal Trends: How Judging Has Evolved

MMA judging has evolved substantially over the past decade, with several major trend shifts affecting how judges score modern fights compared to earlier eras.

The Damage Emphasis Shift (2016-Present)

The most significant judging evolution. The 2016 Unified Rules revisions explicitly prioritized damage and impact over volume and position, stating "damage is the most highly valued component in judging a round because it is not an action, but rather a direct RESULT of EFFECTIVE fighting."

Pre-2016 judging: Often credited high strike volume, positional control, and octagon pressure more heavily.

Post-2016 judging: Should reward fighters who inflict visible damage even with lower output. But implementation remains inconsistent across commissions and individual judges.

A 2025 Association of Boxing Commissions clarification further emphasized damage as the primary criterion, suggesting ongoing efforts to align judging practice with written rules.

Betting application: This shift theoretically favors power strikers over volume strikers and damage-dealing bottom fighters over positional wrestlers. But you must assess whether judges assigned to specific events have adopted the damage-first approach or continue applying pre-2016 volume/position emphasis.

The 10-8 Round Frequency Debate

Despite the 2016 revisions explicitly instructing judges to award 10-8 scores when warranted, 10-8 awards remain far less frequent than the rules suggest they should be.

Statistical analysis shows 10-8 rounds increased slightly post-2016 but still appear in only 3-5% of rounds that arguably meet the criteria. Despite clear criteria stating judges must "ALWAYS" give 10-8 rounds when fighters demonstrate two or more of impact, dominance, and duration.

Betting application: A fighter who overwhelmingly controls multiple rounds may still win only 30-27 on scorecards rather than 30-26 or 30-25 with appropriate 10-8 awards. For betting purposes, this means close decision odds may not properly account for the possibility that a dominant fighter wins decisively but receives conservative scoring. Creates potential value on moneylines versus decision props.

Grappling Evaluation Sophistication

Has improved as more judges gain MMA-specific training rather than relying solely on boxing backgrounds.

Early UFC judging: Often failed to properly assess submission threats, positional advancement, and bottom-position offense.

Modern judging: Generally shows better understanding of grappling nuances. Properly credits submission attempts, recognizes when bottom fighters generate more offense than top fighters, and distinguishes effective takedowns from ineffective ones.

However, geographic variation persists. Judges in MMA-prominent regions demonstrate better grappling comprehension than those in areas with minimal MMA infrastructure.

Betting application: Favor grapplers more heavily at events in California, Nevada, and Texas compared to jurisdictions with limited MMA history.

The Takedown Valuation Decline

Reflects updated criteria explicitly stating takedowns score based on what follows them rather than the takedown itself.

Older judging: Often awarded rounds almost automatically to fighters achieving multiple takedowns regardless of subsequent control or damage.

Contemporary judging: Should credit takedowns minimally when they lead to nothing. But application is inconsistent.

Betting application: This trend theoretically favors fighters with excellent takedown defense and bottom-game offense, creating value when such fighters face traditional wrestlers relying on positional control.

Read more: UFC Betting Explained: 10-Point Must System Explained

Controversial Judge Patterns

Certain judges have developed reputations for consistently controversial scorecards that diverge from media consensus and fellow judges. While one controversial decision might represent legitimate disagreement about a close fight, judges who repeatedly produce outlier scores suggest systematic biases or competence issues.

Adelaide Byrd

Carries notoriety from boxing for extreme scorecards, including a 118-110 card in Canelo Alvarez versus Gennady Golovkin that drew widespread condemnation. Her MMA assignments have produced similarly controversial scores.

Betting application: When Byrd judges UFC events, increase variance expectations for decision outcomes. Her scorecards may diverge substantially from consensus, creating potential for surprising split decisions. The recent UFC 310 controversy where Dana White publicly criticized judging featured Byrd as an official.

Douglas Crosby

Widely criticized since approximately 2017 for consistently questionable scores. Media tracking shows higher-than-average rates of dissenting scores in split decisions and scorecards that contradict apparent fight flow.

Betting application: When Crosby judges an event, decision betting carries elevated risk. Even seemingly clear victories might produce controversial scorecards.

Sal D'Amato

His prolific assignment rate (900+ UFC decisions) combined with periodic controversial scores creates pattern-recognition opportunities. D'Amato sometimes produces scorecards that significantly favor striking over grappling, other times the reverse, with seemingly inconsistent application of the hierarchical criteria.

His high assignment frequency means bettors frequently must account for his tendencies, making historical score tracking valuable.

Shurzy Tip: When Adelaide Byrd or Douglas Crosby are assigned to a close fight, bet smaller or avoid decision props entirely. These judges introduce chaos into scoring that makes even correct predictions unreliable.

Practical Application: Using Judge Assignments in Betting Strategy

Professional bettors incorporate judge assignments into their decision-making process. This requires maintaining databases of judge tendencies, tracking commission-level patterns, and comparing historical biases against the specific matchup being evaluated.

Striking-Biased Judges + Striker vs Wrestler Matchup

When three striking-biased judges are assigned to a fight between a striker and wrestler, the striker's decision odds improve because judges will likely undervalue the wrestler's control time unless it produces clear damage.

Conversely, three grappling-favored judges increase the wrestler's decision equity. If the market hasn't adjusted lines to reflect these assignments (which often occurs because casual bettors don't track judge identities), informed bettors can capture value.

Geographic Venue Effects

A California event generally features more damage-focused judging than an Abu Dhabi card. A fighter whose style relies on visible damage (cuts, swelling, knockdowns) gains edge in California. A fighter whose style emphasizes positional control without finishing may perform better with international judges less committed to the updated criteria.

Judge Variance and Bet Sizing

For close fights projected to reach decision, understanding judge variance helps determine bet sizing and market selection.

Three conservative, consistent judges: Produces more predictable outcomes. If you correctly identify the winner, you'll likely collect. Bet normal size.

Three notoriously controversial judges: Introduces higher variance. Even correct winner identification may lose if an outlier scorecard produces a split decision the wrong way. Bet smaller or avoid decision props entirely.

Method of Victory Betting

Method of victory betting incorporates judge conservatism around 10-8 scoring.

Conservative judges: When projecting a dominant performance, conservative judges make "fighter wins by decision" more likely than "fighter wins inside distance via TKO" because they'll award 10-9 rounds even for clear dominance.

Liberal judges: Increase the probability of doctor stoppages from accumulated damage because they're more willing to score rounds 10-8, potentially leading corners to retire fighters between rounds.

This affects decision versus stoppage prop pricing.

Read more: UFC Betting Explained: Split Decision Betting Strategies

Conclusion

In a sport where 40-50% of fights reach decisions determined by three subjective evaluators, understanding those evaluators' demonstrated biases transforms judging from an uncontrollable variable into a predictable, exploitable factor.

Most bettors ignore judge assignments completely. They bet fights based on fighters alone. Sharp bettors know that who scores the fight matters almost as much as who's fighting. When you know Sal D'Amato favors striking and he's judging a striker vs wrestler fight, that information is worth money. Use it.

‍