UFC Fight Night: Della Maddalena vs. Makhachev - November 15, 2025 Predictions

TL;DR

Top Betting Opportunity:

This card delivers a compelling parlay opportunity where both WT6 and WT5 models show strong agreement.

Recommended Parlay: Bo Nickal (-235) + Sean Brady (-148) = Combined odds approximately +139

• WT5 Model Agreement: Both fighters show full consensus across all three legacy models (WT5, Profit, Plain)
• Combined WT5 EV: +9.0% (Nickal) and +0.5% (Brady) = Strong legacy model confidence
• WT6 Support: 69.1% and 64.5% win probabilities respectively
• Combined Probability: ~45% using WT6 probabilities (WT5 models are more bullish)

Quick Summary:

• 13 total fights analyzed with WT6 predictions
• 5 positive EV opportunities identified for analysis
• Multiple intriguing model disagreements where legacy analysis differs from WT6
• Radar chart analytics reveal key stylistic mismatches
• Deep dives into technical breakdowns for all analyzed fights

---

Event Overview

Total Fights: 13 (all analyzed with WT6 predictions)

Primary Betting Opportunity: 1 parlay with full WT5 model consensus

Positive EV Fights: 5 fights identified (with varying model agreement levels)

Weight Classes: 6 represented (Welterweight, Women’s Flyweight, Lightweight, Middleweight, Featherweight, Bantamweight, Women’s Strawweight)

This Fight Night card features the highly anticipated matchup between Jack Della Maddalena and Islam Makhachev in the main event - a striking powerhouse facing an elite grappler in what promises to be a fascinating stylistic clash. While the headliner doesn’t offer betting value, the undercard presents an intriguing situation where model agreement patterns tell a compelling story.

The standout opportunity emerges when examining fights with full consensus across all legacy models: Bo Nickal and Sean Brady both show complete agreement between WT5, Profit, and Plain models with positive expected value - a rare occurrence on any card. This consensus, combined with WT6 confirmation, creates a compelling parlay case.

Meanwhile, several other fights showing positive WT6 EV (Kopylov, Shevchenko, Sabatini, Wellmaker) exhibit significant model disagreement, suggesting they’re better analyzed for learning purposes rather than betting opportunities.

---

Model Predictions Summary

Below is a complete breakdown of all predictions from both our WT6 (current) and WT5 (legacy) models. The table shows win probabilities, expected value (EV), odds, and recommendations.

Main Card

Fighter	WT6 ML	WT6 EV	WT5	Profit	Plain	WT5 EV	Fights	Odds
Jack Della Maddalena					9		8	+215
Islam Makhachev	62.7%	-15.6%	14	0		0.8	17	-290
Valentina Shevchenko	63.0%	+11.0%	4	13		3.6	18	-130
Zhang Weili					2		12	+102
Sean Brady	64.5%	+8.0%	4	11	7	0.5	9	-148
Michael Morales							6	+116
Leon Edwards				8	11		19	+164
Carlos Prates	56.4%	-16.9%	9			0.9	6	-215
Beneil Dariush				0			24	+164
Benoit Saint Denis	57.4%	-15.9%	18		2	10.9	10	-215

Preliminary Card

Fighter	WT6 ML	WT6 EV	WT5	Profit	Plain	WT5 EV	Fights	Odds
Bo Nickal	69.1%	-1.7%	18	14	7	9.0	5	-235
Rodolfo Vieira							9	+180
Roman Kopylov	50.6%	+16.2%		8	3		10	+130
Gregory Rodrigues			2			-6.7	11	-166
Erin Blanchfield	66.9%	-5.7%	19	16	13	8.2	8	-245
Tracy Cortez							7	+186
Malcolm Wellmaker	68.4%	+7.3%		10			2	-174
Cody Haddon			11		6	27.8	1	+136
Kyle Daukaus	68.8%	-12.5%	19	18	12	0.4	8	-370
Gerald Meerschaert							24	+265
Pat Sabatini	64.2%	+11.0%		7	3		9	-136
Chepe Mariscal			7			16.1	5	+108
Angela Hill				0			28	+350
Fatima Kline	68.1%	-18.8%	24		18	-4.7	3	-520
Baisangur Susurkaev	73.4%	-19.2%	32	21	34	-11.7	1	-1000
Eric McConico							2	+560

Table Key:

• Bold fighter names = WT6 predicted winner
• WT6 ML = Win probability from current WT6 model (AutoGluon ensemble with 57 features)
• WT6 EV = Expected Value from WT6 (positive = betting opportunity)
• WT5 = Legacy WolfTickets model confidence percentile
• Profit = Profit Model confidence percentile from WolfTickets system
• Plain = Plain Model confidence percentile from WolfTickets system
• WT5 EV = Expected Value from legacy WT5 model (positive = betting opportunity)
• Fights = Total UFC fights for each fighter
• Note: Higher percentiles in WT5/Profit/Plain indicate stronger predictions; empty cells mean model favors opponent

Key Insights:

• PARLAY OPPORTUNITY: Only two fights show full WT5 model consensus with positive EV - Bo Nickal (+9.0% WT5 EV, 18/14/7) and Sean Brady (+0.5% WT5 EV, 4/11/7). This rare agreement creates compelling parlay value.
• Bo Nickal is particularly interesting: WT6 shows -1.7% EV (MARGINAL as straight bet), but WT5 shows +9.0% EV with strong consensus (18/14/7) - legacy models see significant value where WT6 is neutral.
• Sean Brady (+8.0% WT6 EV, +0.5% WT5 EV) shows complete model alignment across WT5 (4), Profit (11), and Plain (7) - all three legacy models agree on the pick.
• Model Disagreements Are Common: Most positive WT6 EV fights show legacy model disagreement:
  • Kopylov (+16.2% WT6 EV) vs Rodrigues (-6.7% WT5 EV) - models pick opposite fighters
  • Sabatini (+11.0% WT6 EV) vs Mariscal (+16.1% WT5 EV) - legacy prefers underdog
  • Wellmaker (+7.3% WT6 EV) vs Haddon (+27.8% WT5 EV) - strongest disagreement on card
• Valentina Shevchenko (+11.0% WT6 EV, +3.6% WT5 EV) has weak legacy consensus - WT5 at 4th percentile suggests low confidence despite positive EV
• Saint Denis (+10.9% WT5 EV, -15.9% WT6 EV) represents big disagreement - WT5 at 18th percentile vs WT6 showing strong negative EV
• The main event has model alignment: both WT6 (-15.6% EV) and WT5 (+0.8% EV) agree Makhachev is correctly priced
• Several heavy favorites are severely overpriced: Kline at -520 (-18.8% WT6 EV, -4.7% WT5 EV), Susurkaev at -1000 (-19.2% WT6 EV, -11.7% WT5 EV)

---

Fight Analysis: Positive EV Fights with Model Disagreement

The following sections provide detailed analysis of fights showing positive WT6 expected value. However, note that all exhibit model disagreement with WT5 legacy models, suggesting caution on individual betting. These analyses are valuable for understanding stylistic matchups and model behavior.

Roman Kopylov vs Gregory Rodrigues

Preliminary Card • Middleweight

The radar chart reveals a fascinating technical matchup. Rodrigues holds edges in Finishing Threat (79.5% vs 57.1%) and Grappling Offense (65.2% vs 41.5%), reflecting his knockout power and submission skills. However, Kopylov’s massive advantages in Striking Defense (84.1% vs 34.1%) and Striking Offense (80.7% vs 58.3%) tell the real story - he’s the more refined technical striker who can control distance and avoid Rodrigues’s power shots.

Why WT6 Sees Value in Kopylov

ML Perspective (50.6% win probability, +16.2% EV, 91.8% positive EV probability):

• This is essentially a coin flip being priced as if Rodrigues is a -166 favorite
• Kopylov’s technical striking precision creates problems for counter-dependent fighters
• 84.1 percentile striking defense vs Rodrigues’s 34.1 percentile - massive defensive gap
• Kopylov’s body work specifically exploits Rodrigues’s vulnerability (exposed midsection during counters)
• Model confidence at 91.8% positive EV probability makes this the strongest value on the card

Fighter Analytics Perspective:

• Kopylov’s fake-slide-hook sequence - feints right hand/kick, slides forward, rips left hook to body
• His southpaw right straight with slip-left mechanic perfect for open-stance matchup
• Rodrigues’s counter-dependent system gets neutralized by Kopylov’s feint-heavy approach
• Body attack clash: Kopylov’s specialized body work vs Rodrigues’s exposed midsection during counters

The Stylistic Chess Match

Kopylov’s Technical Precision vs Rodrigues’s Counter-Punching:

Kopylov’s sophisticated southpaw game is built around deceptive setups. Against Paulo Costa, his fake-slide-hook sequence landed repeatedly - feinting a right hand or kick, sliding forward, then ripping the left hook to the body. This technical craft creates problems for Rodrigues, whose counter-dependent system relies on opponents providing committed strikes to counter.

Against Cannonier, Rodrigues was dismantled when Jared pumped non-committal jabs and threw “mimed” punches from extended range. When opponents refuse to provide committed strikes, Rodrigues becomes passive. Kopylov’s feint-heavy approach - improved combination work shown against Fremd - forces Rodrigues into the same tactical dilemma: wait for counters and lose rounds, or initiate offense outside his comfort zone.

Body Work Asymmetry:

Kopylov’s specialized body attack directly targets Rodrigues’s technical vulnerability. When Rodrigues loads his inside slip counter, his midsection stays exposed - exactly where Kopylov targets with left hooks, front kicks, and body shots. Cannonier exploited this repeatedly, landing right straights to Rodrigues’s body underneath his counters.

However, Rodrigues’s body work through front kicks and punches accumulated damage against Hermansson over championship rounds. The question: can Rodrigues’s durability withstand Kopylov’s accumulation-based offense long enough to land his finishing sequences?

The Finishing Instinct Gap:

Rodrigues averages 1.06 knockdowns per fight with 74% win rate, finishing 10 opponents by knockout. He’s shown he can capitalize when opponents are hurt - against Hermansson, Tavares, and Marquez, he constructed finishing sequences. Kopylov, despite landing clean technical shots throughout his UFC run, struggles to construct these finishing sequences. He hurt Costa multiple times but couldn’t complete the stoppage.

This creates an interesting dynamic: Kopylov will land cleaner, more technical shots. But if he can’t finish, Rodrigues’s durability allows him to survive and return fight-ending power. The model accounts for this - the 50.6% win probability reflects genuine uncertainty about whether technical precision or finishing instinct prevails.

Critical Risk Factors

Kopylov’s Jab Retraction Liability:

Against Curtis, his corner identified a critical flaw: “the line of his jab is awful.” Kopylov’s power jab uses a dumbbell-row loading mechanic, pulling his elbow behind his body before firing. When he retracts, he pulls back along the same predictable path. Curtis tracked the jab back and landed 1-2s consistently in round two.

If Rodrigues can time this retraction path instead of waiting for committed strikes, he could land his inside slip counter system. But this requires Rodrigues to be proactive - exactly what Cannonier exposed he struggles with.

Rodrigues’s Counter-Dependent Passivity:

Kopylov’s feint integration is the anti-Rodrigues blueprint. When opponents control engagement pace with non-committal movement, Rodrigues’s offensive toolkit lacks variety to force exchanges. Cannonier demonstrated this perfectly - pumping jabs without commitment, throwing “mimed” punches, controlling distance.

If Kopylov implements a similar approach - establishing his technical striking without overcommitting - Rodrigues faces the same dilemma that led to his Cannonier loss. The cage positioning concern compounds this: Rodrigues allowed himself to be pushed toward the fence against Cannonier, a positional failure for a fighter whose game requires space to slip and counter.

WT6 Analysis vs WT5 Disagreement

The market is pricing this at -166 Rodrigues, implying he should win approximately 62.4% of the time. WT6 sees 50.6% Kopylov, essentially a coin flip, creating +16.2% expected value - the highest on the card.

The stylistic matchup supports Kopylov’s case:

1. His feint-heavy approach neutralizes Rodrigues’s counter-dependent system
2. His body work exploits Rodrigues’s exposed midsection during counter preparation
3. His striking defense (84.1 percentile) vs Rodrigues’s (34.1 percentile) massive gap
4. Rodrigues’s struggles against technical strikers who control pace (Cannonier blueprint)

However, WT5 legacy models show -6.7% EV favoring Rodrigues with only 2nd percentile confidence. This stark disagreement suggests:

• WT5 values Rodrigues’s finishing ability (10 KO victories, 1.06 knockdowns per fight) more highly
• Legacy models may see Kopylov’s finishing struggles (couldn’t complete stoppage vs hurt Costa) as critical
• The model split reflects genuine uncertainty about whether technical precision or finishing instinct prevails

This disagreement makes it an intriguing analytical case study rather than a betting recommendation.

---

Valentina Shevchenko vs Zhang Weili

Main Card • Women’s Flyweight

The radar chart shows Shevchenko’s massive advantages in Striking Defense (96.4% vs 68.5%), Durability & Cardio (92.8% vs 35.1%), and Experience (97.3%). Zhang’s clear edge in Striking Offense (87.4% vs 55.9%) creates the fundamental tension - technical precision versus volume pressure.

Why WT6 Favors Shevchenko

ML Perspective (63.0% win probability, +11.0% EV, 89.2% positive EV probability):

• 3-inch reach advantage (66” vs 63”) allows Shevchenko to establish jab and maintain distance
• 96.4 percentile striking defense vs Zhang’s 68.5% - elite-level defensive responsibility
• Shevchenko’s Judo-based takedowns (2.62 per fight, 60% accuracy) provide grappling control options
• Model sees +11.0% EV with 89.2% confidence - market undervaluing technical superiority

Technical Analysis:

• Shevchenko’s counter right hook to left hook combination evolved after Grasso trilogy
• Her clinch knee strikes to body weaken opponents’ cardio over championship rounds
• Jab as range-finder into spinning attacks creates multi-level threat
• Recent win over Fiorot (reclaimed title) shows ability to win close technical battles

The Volume vs Precision Chess Match

Shevchenko’s Measured Approach:

Shevchenko’s game revolves around technical precision and defensive responsibility. Against Fiorot, she landed cleaner single strikes but ceded cage control, winning narrow rounds through accuracy rather than activity. This measured approach becomes problematic against opponents who sustain forward pressure - the Fiorot fight showed she can be out-worked in close rounds.

However, Shevchenko’s technical evolution is undeniable. In her trilogy with Grasso, she abandoned problematic head-and-arm throws and implemented combination counters instead of single-strike responses. Against Grasso III, she timed takedowns underneath punches and maintained top control - critical adjustments from the first fight where her back-position vulnerability cost her the title.

Zhang’s Relentless Pressure:

Zhang’s recent run demonstrates championship-level evolution. Against Suarez, she systematically broke Tatiana through body attacks and teeps thrown with unusual force. By Round 3, Suarez’s conditioning collapsed entirely. Zhang’s right straight to the body paired with 1-2-left hook combination consistently found success.

The Chinese fighter maintains chaotic output in Round 5 as in Round 1 - a characteristic that defined her wars with Joanna Jedrzejczyk. Her improved wrestling (knee-cut passes, leg attack transitions, crucifix control demonstrated against Esparza and Lemos) represents clear evolution from her earlier UFC run.

Critical Matchup Dynamics

Zhang’s Body Attack vs Shevchenko’s Clinch Defense:

Zhang’s right straight to the body - her signature weapon against Suarez - targets where Shevchenko shows vulnerability. Against Murphy, Shevchenko used body knees effectively in offense, but hasn’t faced an opponent with Zhang’s systematic approach to midsection attacks. Zhang’s body-head combinations could compromise Shevchenko’s cardio in later rounds.

Shevchenko’s Spinning Attacks vs Zhang’s Counter Timing:

Shevchenko’s wheel kicks and spinning backfists have finished fights (Jessica Eye), but Zhang has demonstrated excellent timing against spinning techniques. In the Jedrzejczyk rematch, Zhang landed her own spinning backfist finish.

The critical vulnerability: with her back to the fence in Round 4 against Grasso, Shevchenko attempted a spinning back kick - a high-risk technique from a disadvantageous position. Grasso took her back and secured the rear-naked choke. This pattern repeats when Shevchenko feels pressured: she turns her back attempting spinning techniques rather than working angles or clinching.

The Grappling Wild Card:

Both fighters show similar takedown defense (31.7% Shevchenko, 35% Zhang), meaning scrambles will occur. Shevchenko averages 2.62 takedowns per fight versus Zhang’s 2.24, but Zhang’s recent grappling evolution (knee-cut passes, crucifix control against Esparza, 218-21 strike differential against Lemos) suggests more dangerous top position.

WT6 Analysis vs WT5 Weak Consensus

Despite Zhang’s volume pressure and body attack threat, three factors favor Shevchenko in WT6’s view:

1. Reach and Distance Management:

The 3-inch advantage allows Shevchenko to establish her jab and maintain distance. If she increases output beyond her typical measured approach - the volume deficiency that plagued her Fiorot fight - she can pot-shot from range and frustrate Zhang’s pressure game.

2. Technical Defensive Superiority:

96.4 percentile striking defense versus 68.5% is a massive gap. Shevchenko’s defensive responsibility and head movement should limit Zhang’s ability to land clean power shots. Against elite-level competition, technical defense often trumps volume offense over 25 minutes.

3. Championship Experience Edge:

Shevchenko’s multiple title defenses and experience in 5-round wars provides subtle advantages in pacing and adjustment. Zhang is moving up from strawweight - while her cardio is elite, the size difference and power absorption at flyweight introduces variables.

Risk Factors and Model Disagreement

WT6 shows +11.0% EV with 89.2% confidence, but WT5 legacy models are concerning: only 4th percentile confidence with Profit at 13th and Plain model favoring Zhang. This weak consensus suggests:

Volume Deficiency in Close Rounds:

The Fiorot fight exposed Shevchenko’s unwillingness to increase output when rounds are close. Zhang’s 218-21 strike differential against Lemos demonstrates her ability to dominate volume metrics. If Shevchenko maintains her measured pace, judges may favor Zhang’s activity over Shevchenko’s precision. Legacy models may heavily weight output metrics.

Zhang’s Momentum:

Zhang is on a perfect recent win streak, systematically destroying opponents. Shevchenko had close fights with Fiorot and Grasso - wins, but narrow ones. Momentum and confidence matter in championship fights.

The Superman Punch Tell:

When backed to the fence, Shevchenko resorts to Superman punches - a desperation tell seen in both Amanda Nunes losses and the Grasso submission defeat. If Zhang consistently backs her to the fence, these reactive patterns could be exploited.

The model disagreement (WT6 bullish, WT5 uncertain) makes this better suited for analysis than betting.

---

Pat Sabatini vs Chepe Mariscal

Preliminary Card • Featherweight

The radar chart reveals Mariscal’s surprising edges in Striking Offense (65.8% vs 38.5%) and Finishing Threat (67.6% vs 45.4%), but Sabatini’s massive advantages in Grappling Offense (93.1% vs 35.4%) and Grappling Defense (78.5% vs 18.5%) showcase his elite-level wrestling and BJJ. The chart confirms what the stylistic analysis suggests: grappler vs grappler with contrasting approaches.

Why WT6 Favors Sabatini

ML Perspective (64.2% win probability, +11.0% EV, 90.2% positive EV probability):

• Elite BJJ black belt with submission finishing ability (arm-triangle over Almeida)
• 93.1 percentile grappling offense - NCAA Division I wrestling credentials
• Averages 3.98 takedowns per fight on 48.78% accuracy
• Perfect historical takedown defense creates one-way grappling threat
• Model sees +11.0% EV with 90.2% confidence

Technical Arsenal:

• Reactive takedown entries - baiting opponents into striking exchanges before capitalizing
• Trip takedowns along the fence expand arsenal beyond signature single-legs
• Top control focuses on positional dominance with submission threats
• Arm-triangle choke finish over Almeida showcases complete grappling package

The Grappler vs Grappler Battle

Sabatini’s Reactive Wrestling System:

Sabatini’s game revolves around reactive takedown entries. Against Joanderson Brito, he opened with hard body kicks purely as tactical probes, then immediately shot for takedowns when Brito answered with his own kicks. This sequence repeated in Round 2 - a deliberate framework rather than opportunistic wrestling.

His top control focuses on positional dominance. Throughout the Brito fight, Sabatini maintained top half guard extensively without generating significant ground strikes or submission threats. This conservative approach represents either matchup-specific caution or a concerning evolution toward point-fighting control wrestling.

Mariscal’s Judo Pressure System:

Mariscal operates as a pressure-based grappler with elite judo credentials rarely seen at featherweight. Against Ricardo Ramos, he hit multiple clean tai otoshi (body drop) throws, stepping completely through Ramos’s stance and rotating to throw him over the top with proper kuzushi (off-balancing).

His defensive palm strikes in scrambles represent an underutilized weapon. When Ramos secured a single leg with Mariscal on one leg, Mariscal executed a perfectly timed palm strike directly to Ramos’s ear - covering only 6-8 inches but generating sufficient impact to force the release. This tactic from the clinch creates space before transitioning to body lock positions.

Critical Stylistic Matchup

Mariscal’s Pressure Eliminates Sabatini’s Reactive Windows:

Sabatini’s takedown system relies on opponents providing reactive windows - throwing kicks, overextending on punches, backing up predictably. Mariscal’s constant forward pressure eliminates these windows. When Mariscal walks opponents down, he’s the aggressor dictating timing, not providing the defensive reactions Sabatini needs.

This mirrors how Mariscal neutralized Ramos’s dynamic striking - by removing space and rhythm, he forced Ramos into defensive mode where his weapons became ineffective. Sabatini’s body kick setups that worked against Brito won’t create the same windows against a pressure fighter already closing distance.

Sabatini’s Submission Threats from Bottom:

When Mariscal’s judo throws succeed - and they likely will given Sabatini’s declining recent takedown defense metrics - Sabatini’s BJJ black belt becomes his primary weapon. Unlike pure wrestlers who scramble back to standing, Sabatini can threaten submissions from bottom. His arm-triangle finish over Almeida demonstrates he doesn’t fear bottom position against grapplers.

However, Mariscal has shown strong submission awareness. When Ramos transitioned to a calf slicer after defending Mariscal’s tai otoshi, Mariscal escaped using palm strikes and positional awareness. His judo background provides exceptional defensive grappling fundamentals.

The Clinch Battle:

This fight will be won or lost in the clinch. Sabatini’s wrestling entries require establishing underhooks and body locks to set up his single-legs and trips. Mariscal’s judo requires similar clinch positions to execute his tai otoshi throws. Whoever establishes dominant clinch positioning first will likely control the grappling exchanges.

Mariscal’s palm strike technique gives him a unique weapon Sabatini hasn’t faced. When Sabatini establishes his typical body lock for trips, Mariscal can create minimal space and snap palm strikes to disrupt grip integrity - the same technique that forced Ramos to release a solid single leg.

Risk Factors for Sabatini

Susceptibility to Early Knockout Power:

Sabatini has been knocked out in the first round twice in his last five UFC fights - Diego Lopes at 1:30 of Round 1 and Damon Jackson via front kick. His striking defense of 31.87% overall (35.31% recently) is alarmingly low for featherweight. He relies on durability rather than technical defense.

Mariscal lands 4.95 significant strikes per minute with 56.05% accuracy. His pressure and higher striking output (10.19 total strikes landed per minute vs Sabatini’s 7.45) could accumulate damage before Sabatini establishes his grappling.

Predictable Takedown Timing:

Against disciplined opponents who don’t provide reactive windows, Sabatini struggles. Mariscal’s pressure-forward style means he won’t provide the defensive reactions Sabatini’s system depends on. Sabatini lacks the proactive wrestling systems - chain wrestling, cage cutting, pressure-based shots - that high-level wrestlers display.

WT6 Analysis vs WT5 Major Disagreement

WT6 shows +11.0% EV with 90.2% confidence, favoring Sabatini’s elite credentials. The case rests on:

1. Grappling Hierarchy:

93.1 percentile grappling offense versus 35.4% is a massive gap. Sabatini’s NCAA Division I wrestling and BJJ black belt represent deeper grappling credentials than Mariscal’s judo, despite the throws being visually impressive.

2. Submission Finishing Ability:

Sabatini has shown he can finish from top position (Almeida, Pearce). When he secures dominant positions, his conservative approach may frustrate fans, but it wins rounds. Against a fighter with 36.36% takedown defense, Sabatini should find himself on top multiple times.

3. Experience in Close Grappling Wars:

Sabatini’s UFC resume includes multiple three-round grappling battles. He knows how to win rounds through control time when finishes aren’t available. Mariscal’s five-fight win streak is impressive, but Sabatini’s championship cardio and experience edge matters.

However, WT5 legacy models strongly disagree: +16.1% EV favoring Mariscal with 7th percentile confidence. This suggests:

• Legacy models may heavily favor pressure-based fighting styles - Mariscal’s constant forward movement vs Sabatini’s reactive system
• Early knockout vulnerability concerns - Sabatini knocked out in R1 twice in last five fights (Lopes, Jackson)
• Judo effectiveness - WT5 may value Mariscal’s tai otoshi throws and clinch game more than WT6’s percentile-based grappling metrics

The model split makes this an intriguing case study in reactive vs proactive grappling systems, but not a betting recommendation.

---

Sean Brady vs Michael Morales

Main Card • Welterweight

The radar chart shows Morales’s advantages in Physical Edge (73.6% vs 43.1%) and Striking Offense (92.2% vs 42.6%) - his 6’2” frame with 79” reach creates legitimate problems. But Brady’s overwhelming dominance in Grappling Offense (97.9% vs 7.8%), Grappling Defense (81.4% vs 62.7%), and Finishing Threat (88.2% vs 68.1%) tells the real story.

Why WT6 Favors Brady

ML Perspective (64.5% win probability, +8.0% EV, 82.4% positive EV probability):

• Elite-level grappling dominates untested ground game
• 97.9 percentile grappling offense - systematic finishing ability
• Recent win streak includes Edwards submission (mounted guillotine R4)
• Averages 3.8 takedowns per fight recently with 60% accuracy
• Model sees +8.0% EV with 82.4% confidence

Grappling Arsenal:

• Low kicks freeze opponents on single-leg checks, then explosive hip-level entries
• Half-guard passing system using armpit positioning and elbow-to-thigh pressure
• Kimura as control multiplier - threatens submission when opponents post
• Mounted guillotine finish over Edwards shows elite-level submission chains

The Grappling Mismatch

Brady’s Systematic Approach:

Brady’s blueprint was on full display against Leon Edwards. He used low kicks to freeze Edwards on single-leg checks, then exploded into hip-level takedown entries that bypassed the clinch entirely. That mounted guillotine finish in round four wasn’t luck - Brady concealed his grip behind his hip, controlled Edwards’s defensive hands, and waited for the positional shift before committing full pressure.

His half-guard passing system is suffocating. Brady uses armpit positioning instead of traditional crossface pressure, manipulating the trapped leg with elbow-to-thigh pressure while executing heel-toe stepping progressions. Against Edwards, this created three-quarter mount positions that allowed mount-level striking with superior control retention.

Morales’s Untested Ground Game:

Morales has faced only 1.12 takedown attempts per fight and defended just 12.35% successfully. His ground game remains a mystery - zero submission attempts in his UFC career. Against Magny, he showed competent clinch defense, but Magny’s wrestling is nowhere near Brady’s level.

Once Brady establishes top position, Morales has shown nothing suggesting he can sweep, submit, or even effectively defend against Brady’s methodical advancement.

Striking Dynamics

Morales’s Knockout Power:

At 25 years old with a perfect 18-0 record, Morales brings legitimate finishing ability - 1.68 knockdowns per fight. His signature sequence is a slapping left hook while simultaneously loading a looping right hand from below waist level, generating massive power. Against Burns, this connected flush and shifted momentum.

His reach advantage (79” vs 72”) should allow him to pot-shot from distance. The counter right hand over extended jabs has been money throughout his career.

Brady’s Defensive Flaws:

Morales’s defensive hand positioning during offensive entries is catastrophic. He consistently drops his rear hand to chest level when stepping forward, creating massive openings for counter left hooks. He elevates his chin during jab execution - preliminary-level flaws that Brady’s wrestling entries can exploit.

When Morales loads that looping right, Brady can time level changes that bypass striking exchanges entirely.

Why Brady Wins

1. Massive Grappling Disparity:

Brady averages 3.8 takedowns per fight with 60% accuracy. Morales defends only 12.35% of attempts. This isn’t a slight edge - it’s a chasm. Once Brady gets Morales down, his half-guard passing and Kimura control should overwhelm the completely unproven ground game.

2. Experience Gap:

Brady has faced Edwards, Burns, Gastelum - all significantly higher level than Morales’s competition. The recent 4-fight win streak (3 finishes) shows Brady hitting his peak against elite opposition.

3. Reach Advantage Neutralized:

Brady’s low kick checking game freezes opponents momentarily, creating windows for explosive shots that bypass striking range. Morales’s inside shin kicks won’t deter Brady’s wrestling-first approach.

Model Consensus and Parlay Component

This fight represents one of only two on the card with full WT5 model consensus:

• WT6: 64.5% win probability, +8.0% EV
• WT5: +0.5% EV with complete agreement across all three legacy models (4/11/7)
• Consensus: Both WT6 and WT5 agree Brady wins, making it suitable for parlay construction

Risk Factor: Morales’s Early Power

Morales’s knockout power means he’s always dangerous early. If he can catch Brady coming in with that looping right hand, the fight ends. But Brady’s patient approach - using low kicks to create checking reactions before exploding into shots - should minimize this risk.

The finishing ability gap is decisive: Brady’s 1.13 submissions per fight recently versus Morales’s limited grappling experience. The full model consensus (rare on this card) combined with massive grappling disparity makes Brady the strongest individual value play, though we recommend it as part of a parlay with Bo Nickal.

---

Malcolm Wellmaker vs Cody Haddon

Preliminary Card • Bantamweight

Note: Radar chart analytics unavailable for this matchup due to limited fighter data.

Why WT6 Favors Wellmaker

ML Perspective (68.4% win probability, +7.3% EV, 83.5% positive EV probability):

• Perfect 10-0 record with two UFC first-round knockouts (both POTN bonuses)
• 6.52 knockdowns per fight - devastating finishing rate
• Average fight time of 2:14 - never been past first round in UFC
• Lands 6.74 significant strikes per minute at 61% accuracy
• Model sees +7.3% EV with 83.5% confidence

Finishing Arsenal:

• Pressure-bait-pivot counter: backs opponents to fence, creates space, pivots for right hook
• Body work to head trap: systematic body shots force hands down, opening high line
• Low kick feint to power punch: establishes leg kick threat, weaponizes as finishing feint

The First-Round Destroyer

Wellmaker’s Calculated Counter-Striking:

Wellmaker enters as a calculated counter-striker who excels at trap-setting along the fence. Against Cameron Saaiman in April, he methodically backed him to the cage, deliberately created space to bait an escape attempt, then pivoted on his lead foot and landed a devastating right hook from a 3 o’clock angle.

Two months later against Kris Moutinho, Wellmaker entered as the biggest betting favorite in UFC history (-1450). He admitted post-fight that his team identified Moutinho’s vulnerability to the right hook backstage - he even practiced the finishing sequence minutes before the walkout. At 2:37 of Round 1, Wellmaker feinted a low kick and uncorked a wining right hook that sent Moutinho faceplanting.

Haddon’s Volume Striking:

Haddon made his UFC debut in October, dominating Dan Argueta across all three rounds (30-27 on all scorecards). The Australian prospect lands 9.33 significant strikes per minute at 50% accuracy while absorbing just 2.27 head strikes per minute.

He’s a 3x Australian Junior national amateur boxing champion with a BJJ black belt. His body-head combination striking and counter-striking against pressure showed maturity beyond his experience level.

The Critical Stylistic Question

This matchup hinges on whether Haddon’s volume can overwhelm Wellmaker before the counter-striker lands his signature right hook.

Haddon’s Path to Victory:

Haddon’s pressure-heavy style plays directly into Wellmaker’s trap-setting game. Against both Saaiman and Moutinho, Wellmaker waited for opponents to press forward, then countered with devastating precision.

However, Haddon’s leg kicks could disrupt Wellmaker’s pressure game. Wellmaker absorbs 1.96 leg kicks per minute, significantly higher than he lands (1.30). If Haddon can systematically attack Wellmaker’s lead leg early, he prevents the trap-setting rhythm.

Most critically: if Haddon can force Wellmaker into extended exchanges beyond the first round, his cardio advantage becomes decisive. Wellmaker has never been past 2:37 in the UFC. His recent striking defense dropped to 42%, and he absorbs 6.27 significant strikes per minute - sustainable for 2:37, problematic over 10+ minutes.

Wellmaker’s Path to Victory:

Wellmaker’s right hook is tailor-made for Haddon’s tendencies. When Haddon gets “wild” and presses forward - exactly what he did against Argueta - he creates the same escape patterns Wellmaker exploited against Saaiman.

Wellmaker’s low kick feints will be particularly effective. Against Argueta, Haddon got dropped by a front leg kick, demonstrating clear defensive gaps. He absorbs 0.47 leg kicks per minute while landing just 0.13 - he’s not checking kicks systematically.

WT6 Analysis vs WT5 Strong Disagreement

WT6 shows +7.3% EV with 83.5% confidence, seeing 68.4% win probability at -174 odds (implied 63.5%). The case for Wellmaker:

The first 2:37 is Wellmaker’s finishing window - he’s ended three consecutive fights in this timeframe with variations of the right hook. His calculated trap-setting and body work setups create the exact problems that pressure fighters face.

However, WT5 legacy models show the strongest disagreement on the entire card: +27.8% EV favoring Haddon with 11th percentile confidence (Profit: 6). This massive split suggests:

Risk Factors (What WT5 Sees):

1. Untested Cardio: Wellmaker’s never been past 2:37. If Haddon survives early, Wellmaker’s gas tank is completely unknown. WT5 may heavily penalize this uncertainty.

2. Haddon’s Durability: The Australian went 15 minutes against Argueta despite visible fatigue. He’s proven he can absorb damage and maintain output. Legacy models reward proven cardio.

3. Recent Striking Defense Decline: Wellmaker’s striking defense dropped to 42%, absorbing 6.27 significant strikes per minute. Over extended periods, this could be catastrophic.

4. Volume Differential: Haddon lands 9.33 significant strikes per minute vs Wellmaker’s 6.74. Legacy models may heavily weight volume metrics.

This represents the largest model disagreement on the card - WT6 sees first-round finishing value, WT5 sees cardio/volume advantage for Haddon. Makes it a fascinating analytical case but not a betting recommendation.

---

Main Card Highlights

Jack Della Maddalena vs Islam Makhachev

Main Event • Welterweight

Model Analysis: Makhachev shows 62.7% win probability but -15.6% EV at -290 odds (severely overpriced). The market has correctly identified Makhachev’s grappling dominance - 94.4 percentile grappling offense versus Della Maddalena’s 12.5% - but overpriced it to the point where there’s no value.

The radar chart tells the story: Makhachev’s overwhelming Grappling Offense (94.4%), Striking Defense (94.8%), and Grappling Defense (88.0%) versus Della Maddalena’s Striking Offense (98.5%) and Finishing Threat (97.6%). Classic striker-grappler dynamic where the grappler is correctly favored but the odds eliminate betting value.

Recommendation: AVOID - no value at current odds despite Makhachev being the likely winner.

---

Leon Edwards vs Carlos Prates

Main Card • Welterweight

Model Analysis: Prates shows only 56.4% win probability yet is priced at -215, creating -16.9% EV (one of the worst on the card). This is barely better than a coin flip being priced as a heavy favorite.

Edwards’s veteran experience (99.8 percentile) and Striking Defense (90.1%) make this far more competitive than odds suggest. Prates holds edges in Striking Offense (89.6% vs 66.1%) and Finishing Threat (80.3% vs 66.9%), but Edwards’s durability and championship experience create legitimate upset potential.

Recommendation: AVOID - terrible value on Prates, but Edwards at +164 doesn’t offer sufficient edge either.

---

Beneil Dariush vs Benoit Saint Denis

Main Card • Lightweight

Model Analysis: Saint Denis shows 57.4% win probability at -215 odds, creating -15.9% EV. Another overpriced favorite in a competitive matchup.

The radar chart shows remarkably balanced profiles with Saint Denis holding edges in Striking Offense (82.4% vs 54.3%) and Finishing Threat (88.9% vs 69.9%), while Dariush counters with Grappling Offense (84.0% vs 55.6%) and Experience (99.1% vs 94.4%). This profile suggests a genuinely close fight being priced as lopsided.

Recommendation: AVOID - no value at current pricing despite interesting stylistic matchup.

---

Preliminary Card Highlights

Bo Nickal vs Rodolfo Vieira

Middleweight

Model Analysis: Nickal shows 69.1% win probability with -1.7% EV at -235 odds from WT6 perspective (marginal as straight bet). However, WT5 legacy models show +9.0% EV with strong consensus (18/14/7) - the highest WT5 EV on the card with full model agreement.

The radar chart reveals Nickal’s overwhelming Grappling Offense (99.4%) and Grappling Defense (97.8%) - Olympic-level wrestling credentials. Vieira counters with Grappling Offense (93.1%) of his own and Finishing Threat (91.7%), making this a fascinating grappler-versus-grappler battle.

Recommendation: PARLAY COMPONENT - While marginal as a straight bet from WT6 perspective, the strong WT5 consensus (+9.0% EV with full agreement across all three legacy models) makes this valuable as part of the recommended Bo Nickal + Sean Brady parlay. The legacy models see significant value where WT6 is more cautious.

---

Erin Blanchfield vs Tracy Cortez

Women’s Flyweight

Model Analysis: Blanchfield shows 66.9% win probability but -5.7% EV at -245 odds. Despite massive advantages in Grappling Offense (96.4% vs 40.5%) and Finishing Threat (96.4% vs 29.7%), the market has priced in her dominance.

Cortez’s Striking Defense (89.2% vs 75.7%) and Durability & Cardio (82.9% vs 65.8%) create upset potential, but not enough to overcome the odds.

Recommendation: AVOID - Blanchfield likely wins but no value at current pricing.

---

Other Fights Summary

Kyle Daukaus vs Gerald Meerschaert (Middleweight):

• Daukaus predicted at 68.8% with -12.5% EV at -370 odds (severely overpriced)
• Grappler-versus-grappler battle where the younger fighter is correctly favored but odds eliminate value

Angela Hill vs Fatima Kline (Women’s Strawweight):

• Kline predicted at 68.1% with -18.8% EV at -520 odds (one of the worst values on card)
• Hill’s veteran experience (99.5 percentile) versus Kline’s youth creates more competitive fight than odds suggest

Baisangur Susurkaev vs Eric McConico (Middleweight):

• Susurkaev predicted at 73.4% with -19.2% EV at -1000 odds (worst value on entire card)
• Absurd pricing on a fighter with only 3 UFC fights

---

Final Recommendations

✅ PARLAY RECOMMENDATION

Bo Nickal (-235) + Sean Brady (-148)

Combined Odds: Approximately +139 (varies by sportsbook)

Parlay Rationale:

This two-leg parlay represents the strongest consensus between WT6 and WT5 models on the entire card. Both fighters show full agreement across all three legacy models (WT5, Profit, Plain) with positive expected value - a rare occurrence that signals genuine market inefficiency.

Bo Nickal vs Rodolfo Vieira:

• WT6: 69.1% win probability, -1.7% EV (MARGINAL as straight bet)
• WT5: +9.0% EV with strong consensus (18/14/7 across all models)
• Why Bo Wins: Olympic-level wrestling (99.4 percentile grappling offense) overwhelms even elite BJJ. Nickal’s grappling hierarchy and defensive responsibility (97.8 percentile grappling defense) should neutralize Vieira’s submission threats. Recent finishing streak shows continued evolution.
• Risk Factor: Vieira’s BJJ credentials (93.1 percentile grappling offense) create submission danger if Bo makes positional mistakes.

Sean Brady vs Michael Morales:

• WT6: 64.5% win probability, +8.0% EV
• WT5: +0.5% EV with modest agreement (4/11/7 across all models)
• Why Brady Wins: Massive grappling disparity (97.9 vs 7.8 percentile). Morales has faced only 1.12 takedown attempts per fight with 12.35% defense rate - completely untested ground game. Brady’s systematic approach (mounted guillotine over Edwards) shows elite finishing ability.
• Risk Factor: Morales’s knockout power (1.68 knockdowns per fight) and reach advantage (79” vs 72”) create early finish threat.

Combined Analysis:

Both fights share a common theme: elite grapplers with proven UFC credentials facing opponents with significant ground game question marks. The parlay leverages:

1. Model Consensus: Only two fights on the entire card show positive WT5 EV with full agreement across all three legacy models
2. Stylistic Advantages: Both Nickal and Brady impose their game plans through grappling dominance
3. Risk Mitigation: While each fight carries individual risks, the parlay pays +139 - requiring only 41.8% combined probability to break even, well below our model’s ~45% estimate

Unit Sizing: 2-3 units (moderate confidence given model agreement)

Correlated Risk: Both legs rely on grappling dominance. If there’s systematic undervaluation of striking/submission threats this weekend, both legs could fail. However, the strong WT5 consensus suggests this is genuine value, not model bias.

🔍 OTHER POSITIVE EV FIGHTS (For Analysis Only)

While the following fights show positive WT6 expected value, they exhibit model disagreement or weaker consensus. We present them for analytical interest rather than betting recommendations:

Roman Kopylov (+130) vs Gregory Rodrigues

• WT6: +16.2% EV, 50.6% win probability (highest EV on card)
• Model Disagreement: WT5 shows -6.7% EV favoring Rodrigues
• Analysis: Coin flip priced as -166 favorite. Kopylov’s technical striking creates stylistic problems, but legacy models see value in Rodrigues’s finishing power and pressure system.

Valentina Shevchenko (-130) vs Zhang Weili

• WT6: +11.0% EV, 63.0% win probability
• Model Disagreement: WT5 shows weak consensus (4th percentile confidence)
• Analysis: Technical defensive superiority vs volume pressure. Compelling stylistics but model uncertainty suggests caution.

Pat Sabatini (-136) vs Chepe Mariscal

• WT6: +11.0% EV, 64.2% win probability
• Model Disagreement: WT5 shows +16.1% EV favoring Mariscal
• Analysis: Elite wrestling credentials vs judo pressure. Legacy models prefer the underdog’s pressure system.

Malcolm Wellmaker (-174) vs Cody Haddon

• WT6: +7.3% EV, 68.4% win probability
• Model Disagreement: WT5 shows +27.8% EV favoring Haddon (strongest disagreement)
• Analysis: First-round finishing power vs durability and volume. Legacy models strongly favor Haddon surviving early and taking over.

❌ AVOID (7 Fights)

All other fights show negative expected value:

• Islam Makhachev (-290): -15.6% EV - correctly priced dominance
• Carlos Prates (-215): -16.9% EV - overpriced in competitive matchup
• Benoit Saint Denis (-215): -15.9% EV - coin flip priced as heavy favorite
• Erin Blanchfield (-245): -5.7% EV - dominance already priced in
• Kyle Daukaus (-370): -12.5% EV - severely overpriced
• Fatima Kline (-520): -18.8% EV - absurd pricing
• Baisangur Susurkaev (-1000): -19.2% EV - worst value on card

---

Conclusion

UFC Fight Night: Della Maddalena vs. Makhachev delivers a unique betting opportunity where both our current WT6 model and legacy WT5 models show rare consensus. While the card features multiple fights with positive expected value, model disagreement across most of them suggests caution on individual straight bets.

The standout opportunity is the Bo Nickal + Sean Brady parlay at approximately +139. This two-leg combination represents the only fights on the card where:

1. All three WT5 legacy models (WT5, Profit, Plain) show full agreement
2. WT5 expected value is positive (+9.0% and +0.5% respectively)
3. WT6 model provides additional confirmation (69.1% and 64.5% win probabilities)

Both fights share the same strategic blueprint: elite grapplers with proven UFC credentials facing opponents with significant ground game vulnerabilities. While individual risks exist (Vieira’s BJJ, Morales’s knockout power), the combined probability and model consensus create compelling value at +139 parlay odds.

Good luck!

-Chris@WolfTickets.AI