Why the UFC’s Support of Sports Betting May Actually Keep MMA Honest


(Owning a sports promotion *and* a gambling conglomerate seems like a conflict of interest. But in reality, legal sports gambling actually makes suspicious behavior easier to spot. / Photo via Getty)

The UFC’s public support of expanding regulated sports betting in the United States should come as a surprise to no one. UFC co-owners Lorenzo Fertitta and Frank Fertitta III are heirs to the Station Casinos empire — with Frank currently serving as Station Casinos’ Chairman & CEO — and UFC President Dana White has a famous gambling habit that occasionally affects the promotion’s business relationships. UFC broadcasts feature gambling lines during fighter introductions, and the pre-fight panel show often features a Vegas bookmaker discussing lines.

The UFC revealed its stance on sports betting to ESPN on Thursday, who framed the story within the legal situation ongoing in New Jersey. On October 17th, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed legislation repealing the state’s ban on sports gambling. One week later, federal judge Michael Shipp issued a restraining order preventing local racetracks and casinos from taking bets on sports. The restraining order comes by request of the four major sports organizations in the U.S., who have a pending lawsuit to permanently prevent the state from allowing sports betting.

Shipp said the leagues demonstrated they would suffer “irreparable harm” if New Jersey allowed race tracks and casinos to accept wagers, adding: “More legal gambling leads to more total gambling, which in turns leads to an increased incentive to fix plaintiffs’ matches.”

This is horseshit.

The sports betting industry will thrive whether it’s legal in brick-and-mortar casinos outside of Nevada or not. Joe Sports Fan can find someone to book his action, whether it’s an offshore, online book or his kinda-shady buddy at work. And as long as there’s some financial incentive riding on a game (and this includes a league’s own incentives), there’s some risk for match fixing. Increasing the legal availability of sports betting doesn’t change that risk.

It does, however, affect the ability to police it.


(Owning a sports promotion *and* a gambling conglomerate seems like a conflict of interest. But in reality, legal sports gambling actually makes suspicious behavior easier to spot. / Photo via Getty)

The UFC’s public support of expanding regulated sports betting in the United States should come as a surprise to no one. UFC co-owners Lorenzo Fertitta and Frank Fertitta III are heirs to the Station Casinos empire — with Frank currently serving as Station Casinos’ Chairman & CEO — and UFC President Dana White has a famous gambling habit that occasionally affects the promotion’s business relationships. UFC broadcasts feature gambling lines during fighter introductions, and the pre-fight panel show often features a Vegas bookmaker discussing lines.

The UFC revealed its stance on sports betting to ESPN on Thursday, who framed the story within the legal situation ongoing in New Jersey. On October 17th, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed legislation repealing the state’s ban on sports gambling. One week later, federal judge Michael Shipp issued a restraining order preventing local racetracks and casinos from taking bets on sports. The restraining order comes by request of the four major sports organizations in the U.S., who have a pending lawsuit to permanently prevent the state from allowing sports betting.

Shipp said the leagues demonstrated they would suffer “irreparable harm” if New Jersey allowed race tracks and casinos to accept wagers, adding: “More legal gambling leads to more total gambling, which in turns leads to an increased incentive to fix plaintiffs’ matches.”

This is horseshit.

The sports betting industry will thrive whether it’s legal in brick-and-mortar casinos outside of Nevada or not. Joe Sports Fan can find someone to book his action, whether it’s an offshore, online book or his kinda-shady buddy at work. And as long as there’s some financial incentive riding on a game (and this includes a league’s own incentives), there’s some risk for match fixing. Increasing the legal availability of sports betting doesn’t change that risk.

It does, however, affect the ability to police it. While Shipp buys into the match fixing fallacy, regulated sports betting makes it easier to detect suspicious activity. The UFC understands this. UFC Executive Vice President and COO Lawrence Epstein told ESPN, “Sports wagering done in a way, like Nevada, that is properly regulated will give more confidence to fans that games and fights aren’t fixed.”

We’ve already seen this scenario play out in professional tennis. Tennis and MMA may seem to have little in common on a base level, but they are very comparable for our purposes. Both sports feature two individuals (ignoring doubles in tennis and two-on-two MMA), there’s a market for wagering (this Sports on Earth article notes that tennis is the third-most popular sport to gamble on in Europe, Asia, and Australia), and a meritocratic pay model which rewards the top athletes with the lion’s share of the prize money.

Tennis has seen a rash of match-fixing scandals over the last few years, including the most recent scandal featuring Italian players Daniele Bracciali and Potito Starace. While Bracciali and Starace were done in by intercepted Internet communications, analyzing betting patterns can detect abnormalities in play.

A study of over 6,200 first-round matches on both the men and women’s tours suggested an average of 23 matches are fixed each year. The study looked for betting market prices that varied widely from the study’s two predictive models. The study found 20 cases that deviated from the models by 16 to 29 percent, which could have resulted from wagers amounting to as little as $100,000 on lower-ranked players.

Betfair, the world’s largest internet betting exchange,* closed wagering and refused to settle bets in a 2007 match between Nikolay Davydenko and Martin Vassallo Arguello. At one point during the match, Arguello, then-ranked 87th in the ATP rankings, was still an 11-8 favorite after losing the first set 6-2 to Davydenko, ranked 4th in the ATP and the tournament’s top seed. Davydenko retired from the match in the third set. An ATP investigation cleared Davydenko and Arguello, though “investigators were unable to review phone records that were first withheld and then destroyed.” However, the overwhelming wagering evidence seems to indicate something was up.

* An exchange differs from a traditional sportsbook. Bettors set their own odds and the exchange matches up gamblers who take opposing sides.

A similar, if more damning case, took place this past August in a match between Boy Westerhof and Antal van der Duim. Early betting on the match favored van der Duim as a 75.7% favorite, and the match drew more than eight times as much money wagered than other matches in the tournament. After losing the first set, the odds on van der Duim dropped to 71.9%. From the article: “In other words, losing the first set has made no difference to his chance of winning the match.” This shady betting pattern continued throughout the match until van der Duim – surprise! – won 3-6, 6-4, 6-4.

If you’re still unconvinced that betting markets can help snuff out match fixing, the Guardian’s article on Davydenko and Arguello notes that the ATP has an information exchange agreement with Betfair and other UK and European books.

It shouldn’t take much prodding to see how the UFC could be vulnerable to fight fixing. One need only look at the purse numbers for prelim fighters. Considering their connections in the gaming world, it’s likely the UFC has access to wagering information as well, if not an official information exchange. And the integrity of the sport is important given its association to both boxing and professional wrestling.

Of course, the company probably also recognizes that betting on a fight can make even Darren Elkins vs. Lucas Martins a must-see affair.

CagePotato Ban: Offering to Give Your Purse to Your Opponent If __ Happens Before __


(via Combat Lifestyle)

By Jared Jones

If you’re like me, you often like to spice up the average night of fights by placing a few bets. In an era where Tony Ferguson vs. Danny Castillo is deemed worthy of a PPV co-main event, a good old fashioned wager is sometimes necessary to excite an increasingly nihilistic MMA fan such as yourself. First it starts off as a few dollars here and there against your less-informed friends, most of whom you tricked into betting on the clearly inferior fighter (“Yeah, Sinosic is pretty good. I mean, just check out his nickname!”), but next thing you know, you’re gripping the edges of your TV and praying that Stephan Bonnar makes it to the second round against Anderson Silva so your pelvis won’t be broken by Johnny Numbers and that mook Alonzo.

That got oddly autobiographical for a second there, but the point is, gambling is a serious commitment that has serious consequences. Placing bets you don’t actually plan to follow through with is not only an insult to true gamblers worldwide, but a general sign of male deficiency and cowardice. It’s all but taking a piss in the face of Kenny Rogers, is what it is.

The only reason I bring it up is because Luke Rockhold recently made one such proposal to Michael Bisping, offering to bet his entire purse on the fact that he could finish “The Count” inside of one round.

“I’ve got a wager. Bisping is grossly overpaid, comparably to where we are. So, I bet Michael Bisping, if I don’t finish you in the first round, you can have my purse. But if I do finish you in the first round, you give me your purse. So if I don’t finish you in the first round, whether I beat you in a decision or what, you get both of our purses. But if I do finish you in the first round, we switch purses, and I get yours.

Of course, Rockhold’s wager is heavily dependent on whether or not Bisping emerges victorious from his fight with Cung Le this weekend, which the bookies seem to think he will. But that’s beside the point, which is that Rockhold should not be making such ridiculous and empty promises in the first place.


(via Combat Lifestyle)

By Jared Jones

If you’re like me, you often like to spice up the average night of fights by placing a few bets. In an era where Tony Ferguson vs. Danny Castillo is deemed worthy of a PPV co-main event, a good old fashioned wager is sometimes necessary to excite an increasingly nihilistic MMA fan such as yourself. First it starts off as a few dollars here and there against your less-informed friends, most of whom you tricked into betting on the clearly inferior fighter (“Yeah, Sinosic is pretty good. I mean, just check out his nickname!”), but next thing you know, you’re gripping the edges of your TV and praying that Stephan Bonnar makes it to the second round against Anderson Silva so your pelvis won’t be broken by Johnny Numbers and that mook Alonzo.

That got oddly autobiographical for a second there, but the point is, gambling is a serious commitment that has serious consequences. Placing bets you don’t actually plan to follow through with is not only an insult to true gamblers worldwide, but a general sign of male deficiency and cowardice. It’s taking a piss on the teachings of Kenny Rogers, is what it is.

The only reason I bring it up is because Luke Rockhold recently made one such proposal to Michael Bisping, offering to bet his entire purse on the fact that he could finish “The Count” inside of one round.

“I’ve got a wager. Bisping is grossly overpaid, comparably to where we are. So, I bet Michael Bisping, if I don’t finish you in the first round, you can have my purse. But if I do finish you in the first round, you give me your purse. So if I don’t finish you in the first round, whether I beat you in a decision or what, you get both of our purses. But if I do finish you in the first round, we switch purses, and I get yours.

Of course, Rockhold’s wager is heavily dependent on whether or not Bisping emerges victorious from his fight with Cung Le this weekend, which the bookies seem to think he will. But that’s beside the point, which is that Rockhold should not be making such ridiculous and empty promises in the first place.

Rockhold is currently higher ranked than Bisping, for starters. Therefore, he should be worthy of Bisping’s consideration. These two also have a somewhat notorious hatred for one another (which I’m sure Bisping would just chalk up to another case of jealousy, misunderstanding, etc.). There’s also the fact that Bisping gets paid to fight, and very rarely (if ever) turns down a fight. And if Rockhold is making the wager in an attempt to get fans more excited for the potential matchup, he can just stop right there. It’s a fight, I’m interested. That’s kind of why I’m here.

Rockhold’s bet is pure hyperbole, plain and simple, as are all bets made in this vein. Rampage Jackson bet his whole purse that his fight with Forrest Griffin wouldn’t go to decision, and when it did (in Griffin’s favor, no less!), surprise, surprise, Jackson did no such thing. Jackson made a similar wager against Matt Mitrione for a fight which thankfully never came to fruition, and Jackson’s just one of many MMA fighters who have made similar “bets” in recent years.

In a day and age where roughly half the UFC’s roster is barely making a minimum wage salary, does Rockhold honestly expect us to believe that money is of no concern to him? At 80k a fight, he’s surely making more than most of his peers, but rolling in dough to the point that he’d be willing to pay all his training expenses, medical bills, and whathaveyous out of pocket to prove a point? Please.

I appreciate that he aptly described Bisping, who cleared $425,000 for his decision via eyepokes over Alan Belcher at UFC 159, as “grossly overpaid [for] where we are,” but I can’t overlook the irony in his line of thinking. “MMA fighters are underpaid, so I’ll offer to give the one ridiculously overpaid guy my purse, which accounts for less than a third of his usual paycheck.” That is some Master Shake-level logic right there.

But I get it, Rockhold is confident that he can finish Bisping inside five minutes. Having picked up back-to-back first round finishes in 2014, it’s not hard to understand why he’d be so confident. But as the old saying goes: Anything can happen in MMA, and Michael Bisping has never been finished in the first round. Never.

As a guy whose life is literally on the line every time he steps in the cage, you wouldn’t think that Rockhold would need any extra incentive to really get his blood pumping, especially not against a guy that he legitimately seem to dislike. *No* MMA fighter should really need additional motivation other than “not die” when entering the octagon, yet Mr. Rockhold has apparently been desensitized to the point that fighting on its own just doesn’t cut it anymore. What’s next, Luke? Shockfighting? A mid-freefall fracas? A fight in a gator-infested swamp while you’re high on mescaline?! I’M SO EXCITEDDD!! I’M SO EXCITEDDDD!!

Point is, if you’re an MMA fighter looking to add a friendly wager to your upcoming fight, at least be original about it. Propose that the loser must get an awful tattoo, like Rich Franklin and Forrest Griffin did prior to UFC 126. Make the loser wear the winner’s cup on his face and speak like Bane for the entirety of the post-fight press conference. I dunno. Just make it something, anything you actually plan to follow through with.

But since he’s such a sport, I’ve got my own proposal for Mr. Rockhold.

(*stares directly into camera*)

You and I, we fight. If I can last more than 45 seconds, you give me the $80,000. If I don’t, I’ll give you two VIP tickets to see my band, Universal Suffrage, Universal Suffering, live at the Palladium, date TBA. You have 24 hours to accept.

J. Jones

Somehow, Matt Brown Is a 2-1 Underdog Against Erick Silva This Weekend

During the latest episode of the CME podcast, Chad Dundas pointed out something that kind of blew my mind: Matt Brown, despite his six-fight win streak and status as the greatest knockout artist in UFC welterweight history, is currently as high as a +206 underdog for this Saturday’s UFC Fight Night 40 main event against Erick Silva, who has never won two UFC fights in a row, and whose biggest win in the Octagon is against Jason High. Did we mention that the fight will take place in Brown’s home state of Ohio?

Now, keep in mind that Brown has been inactive since August 2013 due to a back injury. Since then, Silva has been knocked out cold by Dong-Hyun Kim, then totally styled on Takenori Sato in a freaky mismatch that one might describe as “pre-Zuffa-esque.” Still, nine months of ring rust isn’t enough to convince me that Brown should be a ‘dog in this fight, in light of his astounding run during 2012-2013.

Am I crazy, or is this the juiciest betting line we’ve seen all year? Jump on it before everybody else does. [Ed. note: I may have already placed a $10 parlay on Brown + Erik Koch + Soa Palelei to win $43.50. Deal with it.]

During the latest episode of the CME podcast, Chad Dundas pointed out something that kind of blew my mind: Matt Brown, despite his six-fight win streak and status as the greatest knockout artist in UFC welterweight history, is currently as high as a +206 underdog for this Saturday’s UFC Fight Night 40 main event against Erick Silva, who has never won two UFC fights in a row, and whose biggest win in the Octagon is against Jason High. Did we mention that the fight will take place in Brown’s home state of Ohio?

Now, keep in mind that Brown has been inactive since August 2013 due to a back injury. Since then, Silva has been knocked out cold by Dong-Hyun Kim, then totally styled on Takenori Sato in a freaky mismatch that one might describe as “pre-Zuffa-esque.” Still, nine months of ring rust isn’t enough to convince me that Brown should be a ‘dog in this fight, in light of his astounding run during 2012-2013.

Am I crazy, or is this the juiciest betting line we’ve seen all year? Jump on it before everybody else does. [Ed. note: I may have already placed a $10 parlay on Brown + Erik Koch + Soa Palelei to win $43.50. Deal with it.]

Gamblers Beware: Anthony Pettis Currently Listed As a Slight Favorite Over Ben Henderson

(I mean, I *guess* pulling this off could be considered an advantage. I guess.)

This might not come as all that big a shock to you, but there’s been a slight shift in the UFC 163 UFC 164 odds as of late. Mainly, that of the main event featherweight lightweight title bout between Jose Aldo Ben Henderson and T.J. Grant Anthony Pettis. Despite opening as a slight favorite over the last man to defeat him when the replacement matchup was first announced, Henderson’s line has seen a significant dip over the past couple of weeks. According to BestFightOdds, Pettis is listed as high as -125 over Henderson, who is listed between -105 and -115 on various gambling sites.

So yeah, it’s not exactly breaking news. But honestly, we really wanted to use the Henderson/Pettis update as an opportunity to inform you of this weekend’s Cage Warriors 57 event, which if the odds are any indication, should feature at least *two* in-ring decapitations. In the evening’s main event, UFC/Bellator veteran Paul Daley is listed as a -1700 favorite over opponent Jimmy Pocket, a six year-old child with rickets and a pegleg who…I’m sorry, Daley will actually be fighting Lukasz Chlewicki, a 10-2 Polish fighter who we should also assume is receiving this fight as part of his final, dying wish. Because otherwise, what the fuck?

Also set to “compete” on the Cage Warriors card are Aldric Cassata and Jose Luis Zapater, currently listed as +600 underdogs to -1200 favorites Danny Roberts and Ronnie Mann, respectively. May the ghost of Keith Hackney protect those poor gentlemen. He’s dead, right?

J. Jones


(I mean, I *guess* pulling this off could be considered an advantage. I guess.)

This might not come as all that big a shock to you, but there’s been a slight shift in the UFC 163 UFC 164 odds as of late. Mainly, that of the main event featherweight lightweight title bout between Jose Aldo Ben Henderson and T.J. Grant Anthony Pettis. Despite opening as a slight favorite over the last man to defeat him when the replacement matchup was first announced, Henderson’s line has seen a significant dip over the past couple of weeks. According to BestFightOdds, Pettis is listed as high as -125 over Henderson, who is listed between -105 and -115 on various gambling sites.

So yeah, it’s not exactly breaking news. But honestly, we really wanted to use the Henderson/Pettis update as an opportunity to inform you of this weekend’s Cage Warriors 57 event, which if the odds are any indication, should feature at least *two* in-ring decapitations. In the evening’s main event, UFC/Bellator veteran Paul Daley is listed as a -1700 favorite over opponent Jimmy Pocket, a six year-old child with rickets and a pegleg who…I’m sorry, Daley will actually be fighting Lukasz Chlewicki, a 10-2 Polish fighter who we should also assume is receiving this fight as part of his final, dying wish. Because otherwise, what the fuck?

Also set to “compete” on the Cage Warriors card are Aldric Cassata and Jose Luis Zapater, currently listed as +600 underdogs to -1200 favorites Danny Roberts and Ronnie Mann, respectively. May the ghost of Keith Hackney protect those poor gentlemen. He’s dead, right?

J. Jones

Book Review: Betting on MMA By Jason Rothman Provides a Succinct Yet Thorough Examination of “Value Investing” and Its Relation to MMA Gambling

By Jared Jones

I appreciate honesty in writing. I am also a tremendous hypocrite, which is why I often resort to trickery, tomfoolery, and outright fabrications when discussing this thing we call MMA with you Taters. I’m less a blogger, more a magician — a line that I would never suggest you use to pick up women with — and more often than not I resort to a near constant influx of red herrings and other intentional misdirects to even make it through a post. But amidst all the deceit and double-crosses, I do actually manage to squeeze in a few instances of genuine honesty with you readers, more often than not in the Gambling Addiction Enabler pieces I contribute when Dan “Get Off Me” George doesn’t feel up to it.

So when I turned to the introductory page of Jason Rothman’s Betting on MMA to find the statements located directly below, I was pretty much assured that I’d be getting exactly what I wanted out of his look into the world of MMA gambling.

This book is about making money from betting on the sport of mixed martial arts. And that is the only thing this book is about.

If you do not know what a triangle choke is, then this book is not for you. 

And indeed, Rothman’s guide analyzing everything from money line odds to fighter attributes to the power of hype makes no attempt to wow you with its prose. The writing style, though sometimes cryptic and a bit repetitive, is simply a means to an end. That end is making you money, and although I have yet to put any of Rothman’s teachings into practice, I can assure you that Betting on MMA offers enough genuine insight and real-life examples to make it a must own for any MMA fan who fancies themselves a gambler.

By Jared Jones

I appreciate honesty in writing. I am also a tremendous hypocrite, which is why I often resort to trickery, tomfoolery, and outright fabrications when discussing this thing we call MMA with you Taters. I’m less a blogger, more a magician — a line that I would never suggest you use to pick up women with — and more often than not I resort to a near constant influx of red herrings and other intentional misdirects to even make it through a post. But amidst all the deceit and double-crosses, I do actually manage to squeeze in a few instances of genuine honesty with you readers, more often than not in the Gambling Addiction Enabler pieces I contribute when Dan “Get Off Me” George doesn’t feel up to it.

So when I turned to the introductory page of Jason Rothman’s Betting on MMA to find the statements located directly below, I was pretty much assured that I’d be getting exactly what I wanted out of his look into the world of MMA gambling.

This book is about making money from betting on the sport of mixed martial arts. And that is the only thing this book is about.

If you do not know what a triangle choke is, then this book is not for you. 

And indeed, Rothman’s guide analyzing everything from money line odds to fighter attributes to the power of hype makes no attempt to wow you with its prose. The writing style, though sometimes cryptic and a bit repetitive, is simply a means to an end. That end is making you money, and although I have yet to put any of Rothman’s teachings into practice, I can assure you that Betting on MMA offers enough genuine insight and real-life examples to make it a must own for any MMA fan who fancies themselves a gambler.

It isn’t often that a book cover can serve as a manifest for the book itself, but Rothman (or perhaps his pubisher) has succeeded in that right as well. The cover (pictured above) features Phil Baroni in a classic fist-pose with Warren Buffet, which although clearly photoshopped, more or less dictates the two themes that will be prevalent throughout the book: Brutal honesty and business savvy.

The book itself is divided into three segments: “The Fundamentals,” “MMA Speculating,” and two appendices providing the aforementioned real-life examples of Rothman’s theories being put into practice. Using the principles of “value investing” as laid out by multibillionaire Warren Buffet, Rothman does a great job of convincing his audience that wagering on an MMA match is much easier than it looks.

“The Fundamentals” places most of its emphasis on a mathematical process of analyzing a given fighter’s chances based on their betting lines, which Rothman dubs “Handicapping Fights.” Without giving too much away, Rothman lays out a simple method of comparing/measuring both the current odds of a given fighter against the approximate chances of victory you give said fighter to determine whether or not there is a large enough “margin of safety” to place a bet. Coming from someone who usually relied on only the latter to determine his fight picks, this section is an ingenious bit of information that will surely affect my gambling methods going forward.

Part two of Betting on MMA focuses on some of the extraneous factors that surround a given fighter in the weeks/months before a fight (hype, for instance) but also takes a look at the more discernible determinants that could alter a bet. A fighters paths to victory (a.k.a how they can win the fight), his/her age, injury rumors — these are all details that MMA gambling fans should keep a look out for before placing their bets. But Rothman goes even further than that, placing an additional emphasis on staying away from fighters who “look soft” come weigh-in time. Although he uses a perfect example in Cain Velasquez vs. Junior dos Santos 1 (Cain was coming off multiple debilitating injuries), two more recent examples that strike me are Mark Munoz in his fight with Chris Weidman and Patrick Cote against Alessio Sakara last weekend. Say what you want about the ending of the latter, but in both cases, two guys showed up looking heavier around the waist than normal and paid dearly for it. Rothman also details several other fight-alternating factors, such as a given fighters “chin” and how losing a title fight can affect a fighter’s performance in the long run.

The third section of Rothman’s book provides a couple examples of low risk, big reward bets he calls “Big Game Hunting” and displays two real-life “case studies” in which Rothman puts his teachings into practice. Again, in order to see just what fights he bet on and using what logic, you’ll have to pick the book up for yourself, but suffice it to say, Rothman was spot on in both cases and the information is presented as such.

That is not to say that Rothman doesn’t paint with too broad a brush at times. For instance, when analyzing the third fight between B.J. Penn and Matt Hughes at UFC 123 using his “Paths to Victory” assessment, Rothman claims that Hughes had no method through which he could win the fight and therefore wouldn’t justify a bet, despite the fact that Hughes had managed to both exploit Penn’s lack of cardio at 170 and his own size advantage when he defeated Penn in the pair’s second showing at UFC 63. Granted, I would have never bet on Hughes in that fight and Rothman was ultimately correct in his analysis, but to claim that Hughes had no way of winning seems a little presumptuous. It is a small complaint that is purely subjective, and truly one of the only ones I could find while reviewing the book. Other than the somewhat odd spacing of words and sentences at times, which I will chalk up as a mistake on the publisher’s part.

At 100 pages on the nose, Betting on MMA is succinct enough to read through in an hour or two, yet thorough enough to provide a lifetime’s worth of knowledge when it comes to gambling on MMA. You can purchase a paperback version of Betting on MMA here, a Kindle version here, or check out Rothman’s official site for all your gambling needs here.

UFC 148 MMAFix Staff Picks: Part I

Anderson Silva (-280) vs. Chael Sonnen (+240) Ryan Poli: I have to go with Silva on this one. He has the striking and jiu-jitsu advantage, plus plenty of time to work on his takedown defense..

Anderson Silva (-280) vs. Chael Sonnen (+240)
Ryan Poli: I have to go with Silva on this one. He has the striking and jiu-jitsu advantage, plus plenty of time to work on his takedown defense. I don’t see Sonnen being able to change his strategy and that will be his downfall. Although the odds were much less generous for all of Silva’s other opponents, I am somewhat surprised that the odds are as high as they are in Silva’s favor just based on the how their first fight played out. Winner: Silva

John Rivera: Anderson Silva wins by KO/TKO in the 2nd Round. “The Spider” will publicly execute Chael Sonnen….we know this because he is the greatest fighter in the history of the sport. Winner: Silva

Emily Kapala: I personally think that Chael Sonnen is being undervalued in the eyes of the oddsmakers. Not only would I pick Sonnen as the winner, but I think he is the highest value bet. While the odds are against him, I think he will be able to pull through with the victory this time around when he faces Silva in the octagon. Winner: Sonnen

Elise Kapala: In almost every fight with Silva, the opposing fighter is the underdog. However, the last matchup with Sonnen and Silva was so intense and draining on Silva, there truly is no underdog here. If I had to choose a winner, I would say Sonnen via knockout in the 3rd or 4th round. Winner: Sonnen

Alan Wells: If I’m picking a winner, I’m going with Silva but if I’m betting the money line, I’m going with Sonnen. I’m not interested in -280 odds and after Sonnen’s performance in the first fight, I’m willing to take a flyer on him. I’m not expecting to win but if I need action on this fight, I’m going with Sonnen. Winner: Silva

MMAFix Staff Pick: Silva (3-2)



Tito Ortiz (+255) vs. Forrest Griffin (-310)

Ryan Poli: I’m going with the favorite to win. Although I wasn’t impressed by either of them in their last fight, Shogun is a more dangerous opponent than Lil’ Nog. Plus I would say with the exception of wrestling, Forrest has every advantage (age, cardio, reach, striking, jiu- jitsu). Winner: Griffin

John Rivera: I think Forrest takes a unanimous decision this time around. As much as I love Tito, I think as a fighter, his best days are behind him. Rashad ravaged him, and Lil’ Nog took the rest…. Winner: Griffin

Alan Wells: I hate this line. I don’t understand why Griffin is such a significant favorite. I like him to win but -310 makes him a waste of money. Once again, if I feel the need to wet my beak for this fight, I’m going with the underdog but I don’t feel great about my chances of getting that money back. Winner: Griffin

MMAFix Staff Pick: Griffin (3-0)

Cung Le (+180) vs. Patrick Cote (-220)
Ryan Poli: Cung Le all the way. His striking is more diverse and Cote has been fighting against much lower level competition for quite some time. He just isn’t at Cung Le’s level. Winner: Le

John Rivera: The headline will read: ‘Cote KO’s ex Strikeforce Champ, Cung Le in the 2nd round due to the former’s punching power and the latter’s lack of cardio.’ Winner: Cote

Alan Wells: I think the oddsmakers are just screwing with me at this point. If MMA was a more popular sport, this line would be a lot closer because the public would be moving it toward Le. But the betting pool for MMA isn’t nearly as big as other sports so the line is right where it should be. I like Cote to win and that’s where my money is going if I have to bet. The odds aren’t great but at least they’re better than the two headliners. Winner: Cote

MMAFix Staff Pick: Cote (2-1)