UFC on Fox / Odds vs. Ratings (Pre-Event)

You may have seen our previous articles of “Odds vs. Ratings” for UFC 152 and 153, that we created post-event.  It basically compared the odds difference to the ratings difference to see what was “closer” to the actual result.  This time, I thought we’d come out with it pre-event.

Either way, this is not an attempt to suggest the rating system is more accurate than gambling odds.  Gamblers can analyze each fight individually, while the rating system uses a variety of mathematical routines to supply a primary fighter rating that is focused on ranking recent achievement, with a secondary priority of gauging future expectation.

With that said, there are some caveats to using the rating vs. odds comparison straight-up such as:

1. System inability to project the exact effects of a divisional change.
2. System inability to project the exact effects of inactivity.
3. Poor matchmaking / limited careers / “changing of the guard”.
4. System inability to project style differences.
5. System inability to factor in bad judging decisions.

But this stuff (especially #4) is pretty much common sense.  We try to partially factor in #1-#3 when we compute the ratings, but #4 and #5 is something that the human can factor in, that the system can’t.

Experienced gamblers know that it’s not about being right the most, it’s about making the most money.  So in the usual table, I’ll add the “I’d bet on” column and analyze the rating/odds gap plus points #1-3 that I listed above. I’ll leave #4 and #5 to the fully subjective analyses — of which I’m sure there will be plenty.

Having said all that, let’s get started:

Ratings vs. Odds

1 – Inactivity

So, this ended up to be quite a boring one.  No divisional moves, only one bout of recent inactivity (though I was close to noting it for Swick, even though he has had a fight since his inactive stint).  Not only that, but the betting odds are awfully sound in comparison to the ratings.

The PASS suggests that the odds and ratings difference are nearly identical, so neither fighter is a good bet.

The Siver, Means, Henderson and Jorgensen bets are marked because the ratings difference agrees with the odds, but to a larger degree.

This leaves four underdogs worth considering:

• Edwards vs. Stephens – This was very nearly a “PASS”, but the 1.27x rating difference suggests Stephens is closer to a -150 favorite, so this one may be worth looking at for a VERY small bet.
• Assuncao vs. Easton – The ratings favor Assuncao, but only slightly.  Although still relatively new to 135, he has had two fairly decent wins.  If he doesn’t look bad on the scales, this one is worth a shot.
• Penn vs. Macdonald – There’s a “gotcha” here — Penn’s inactivity.  Still, with that considered, we find him a good bet.  I won’t argue with Macdonald being a favorite, but nearly -300 is too much.
• Rua vs. Gustafsson – Having the reach advantage is something I did not mention as a “gotcha” only because we don’t actively track this.  As in the Macdonald/Penn fight, Gustaf may have not reached his ceiling.  Still,  this is another case of the ratings disagreeing with the odds to a large extent.