UFC 321 Betting Analysis and Value Opportunities

Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates — October 25, 2025

This event analysis focuses strictly on moderate/optimal setups. We present clear, model‑driven insights for eight targeted fights with concise value takeaways.

Value Betting Meets Reliability

Our approach balances two pillars:

Model probabilities: Estimates derived from striking effectiveness, defensive responsibility, grappling threats, cardio/pace sustainability, and recent form trends.
Reliability overlay: A UFC‑experience filter (Optimal/Moderate/High Risk) that calibrates confidence. Optimal data typically comes from fighters with 5+ UFC bouts.

A bet has positive expected value when our true probability exceeds market implied probability. Sometimes the market prices a rightful favorite correctly; in those cases, the opposing side can offer contrarian value if pricing drifts too far.

Arbitrage Opportunities: Current Scan

No persistent cross‑book arbitrage windows identified at publish time. We’ll update if short‑lived mispricings appear.

Tom Aspinall vs Ciryl Gane — Heavyweight Championship

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Optimal data on both heavyweights (8+ UFC bouts combined each). Stable read with championship-level sample sizes.
Striking metrics: Aspinall — 4.89 SLpM, 52% acc, 61% def, 3.45 SApM. Gane — 4.25 SLpM, 48% acc, 64% def, 2.89 SApM.
Grappling metrics: Aspinall — 1.85 TD/15 @ 48% acc, 82% TDDef, 1.2 Sub/15. Gane — 1.45 TD/15 @ 42%, 88% TDDef, 0.6 Sub/15.
Physicals: Height — Aspinall 77" vs Gane 78"; Reach — Aspinall 78" vs Gane 81" (Gane +3"). Both 265 lbs.
Composite ratings: Striking/Grappling — Aspinall 88/90 vs Gane 92/78.
Style snapshot: Aspinall blends reactive shots with quick mat returns; Gane controls outside space with feints, calf kicks and counter knees.
Recent form: Aspinall's explosive finishing ability vs Gane's technical precision and distance management.
Cardio profile: Both maintain pace through championship rounds; Aspinall's wrestling threat adds cardio tax to opponents.
Chin durability: Heavyweight volatility present; both have shown recovery ability but remain vulnerable to clean shots.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Range vs entries: Gane's outside craft forces long starts; Aspinall must win lane access with jab feints into level changes.
Fail‑safes: Single→body‑lock turns, re‑shots and mat returns compress space and deny Gane's resets.
Clinch exchanges: Wrist rides at the fence and shelfing hips tilt optics to Aspinall without overcommitting.
Minute texture: Early range minutes are cleaner for Gane; sustained ride‑time swings optics to Aspinall in mid/late rounds.
KO/sub equity: Heavyweight volatility is real; Aspinall's top threats vs Gane's intercept counters and knees.
Distance management: Gane's teep kicks and long jabs control space; Aspinall needs to close distance without eating clean shots.
Takedown entries: Aspinall's reactive shots off Gane's kicks create takedown opportunities; timing is crucial.
Ground control: If Aspinall gets top position, his ground-and-pound and submission threats are significant advantages.
Counter opportunities: Gane's intercept knees and uppercuts are dangerous when Aspinall shoots; discipline on entries is key.
Pace control: Both fighters can maintain high pace; the wrestling threat may force Gane to be more conservative.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Aspinall 54% vs Gane 46%
Official pick: Tom Aspinall — lane access + ride‑time gravity
Keys to victory: Aspinall — jab feints→level change, re‑shots, hip shelves; Gane — off‑line footwork, intercept knees, urgent cage exits.
Risk factors: Intercept counters on entries; HW finishing volatility; damage optics if top time is light.
Value: Fair near 54% implied. Gane KO becomes contrarian value only if market drifts >60% Aspinall.
Decision path: If fight goes to decision, control time and damage accumulation will determine winner.
Finish scenarios: Aspinall via submission or ground-and-pound TKO; Gane via counter-strike KO or TKO.
Round-by-round: Early rounds favor Gane's striking; later rounds favor Aspinall's wrestling and control.
Judging criteria: Control time vs damage; takedowns vs striking volume; submission attempts vs clean strikes.
Live betting angles: Monitor takedown success rate and control time accumulation for in-play value.

UFC 321 Aspinall

Alexander Volkov vs Jailton Almeida

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Volkov optimal (18 UFC bouts), Almeida strong (8 UFC bouts). Good stability with veteran vs rising contender dynamic.
Striking metrics: Volkov — 4.12 SLpM, 51% acc, 58% def, 3.23 SApM. Almeida — 2.89 SLpM, 45% acc, 62% def, 2.34 SApM.
Grappling metrics: Almeida — 4.67 TD/15 @ 52% acc, 85% TDDef, 2.1 Sub/15. Volkov — 0.89 TD/15 @ 38%, 76% TDDef, 0.3 Sub/15.
Physicals: Height — Volkov 79" vs Almeida 76"; Reach — Volkov 80" vs Almeida 79". Both 265 lbs.
Composite ratings: Striking/Grappling — Volkov 85/72 vs Almeida 68/94.
Style snapshot: Almeida prefers fence pins, wrist rides and re‑shots; Volkov punishes entries with knees and frames.
Recent form: Almeida's dominant grappling performances vs Volkov's improved takedown defense and striking output.
Cardio profile: Almeida's wrestling-heavy approach taxes opponents; Volkov maintains striking pace but wrestling defense is energy-intensive.
Chin durability: Both have shown resilience; Volkov's height advantage helps avoid clean shots, Almeida's grappling reduces striking exchanges.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Phase contrast: Long‑range jab/teep from Volkov vs Almeida's chain‑wrestling and ride‑time leverage.
Cage geography: Pin→shelf→re‑shot cycles tax Volkov's base and drain minutes even without damage spikes.
Entries discipline: Almeida must avoid naked shots at distance; Volkov's intercept knees are the highest‑leverage jeopardy.
Ref/criteria sensitivity: Control cycles win round math, but judges need periodic damage; wrist rides should convert to strikes.
Distance management: Volkov's reach advantage and teep kicks control space; Almeida needs to close distance safely.
Takedown entries: Almeida's reactive shots and level changes create takedown opportunities; timing and setup are crucial.
Ground control: If Almeida gets top position, his ground-and-pound and submission threats are significant advantages.
Counter opportunities: Volkov's intercept knees and uppercuts are dangerous when Almeida shoots; discipline on entries is key.
Pace control: Almeida's wrestling-heavy approach may force Volkov to be more conservative with striking output.
Submission threats: Almeida's 2.1 Sub/15 rate makes him dangerous on the ground; Volkov must avoid extended ground exchanges.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Almeida 62% vs Volkov 38%
Official pick: Jailton Almeida — control cycles and re‑attempts
Keys to victory: Almeida — double→body‑lock chains, shelf hips, posture breaks; Volkov — intercept knees, collar‑tie elbows, quick breaks.
Risk factors: Intercept knees on entries; low damage from control can narrow optics.
Value: Favorable up to low‑60s implied; avoid chase beyond 65% unless odds misprice.
Decision path: If fight goes to decision, control time and damage accumulation will determine winner.
Finish scenarios: Almeida via submission or ground-and-pound TKO; Volkov via counter-strike KO or TKO.
Round-by-round: Early rounds favor Volkov's striking; later rounds favor Almeida's wrestling and control.
Judging criteria: Control time vs damage; takedowns vs striking volume; submission attempts vs clean strikes.
Live betting angles: Monitor takedown success rate and control time accumulation for in-play value.
Submission threats: Almeida's 2.1 Sub/15 rate makes him dangerous on the ground; Volkov must avoid extended ground exchanges.

UFC 321 Almeida

Aleksandar Rakić vs Azamat Murzakanov

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Solid on both (Rakić 12 UFC bouts; Murzakanov 6 UFC bouts). Good stability with veteran vs rising contender dynamic.
Striking metrics: Rakić — 4.67 SLpM, 53% acc, 59% def, 3.12 SApM. Murzakanov — 3.89 SLpM, 49% acc, 61% def, 2.78 SApM.
Grappling metrics: Rakić — 1.23 TD/15 @ 44% acc, 78% TDDef. Murzakanov — 3.45 TD/15 @ 56%, 82% TDDef, 1.8 Sub/15.
Physicals: Height — Rakić 77" vs Murzakanov 76"; Reach — Rakić 78" vs Murzakanov 77". Both 205 lbs.
Composite ratings: Striking/Grappling — Rakić 86/74 vs Murzakanov 72/88.
Style snapshot: Rakić prefers outside boxing/low‑kicks; Murzakanov pressures with level threats into clinch turns.
Recent form: Murzakanov's undefeated record and dominant grappling vs Rakić's technical striking and improved takedown defense.
Cardio profile: Murzakanov's wrestling-heavy approach taxes opponents; Rakić maintains striking pace but wrestling defense is energy-intensive.
Chin durability: Both have shown resilience; Rakić's height advantage helps avoid clean shots, Murzakanov's grappling reduces striking exchanges.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Initiative vs outside craft: Murzakanov must occupy lead with jab feints, then level change under Rakić's jab/calf‑kick rhythm.
Scramble insurance: Fence shelves + mat returns reduce variance and flip minute math.
Counter jeopardy: Overchasing entries invites Rakić counters/knees; discipline on setups is key.
Round texture: Early range minutes favor Rakić; once clinch pins establish, Murzakanov tilts control and optics.
Distance management: Rakić's reach advantage and low kicks control space; Murzakanov needs to close distance safely.
Takedown entries: Murzakanov's reactive shots and level changes create takedown opportunities; timing and setup are crucial.
Ground control: If Murzakanov gets top position, his ground-and-pound and submission threats are significant advantages.
Counter opportunities: Rakić's intercept knees and uppercuts are dangerous when Murzakanov shoots; discipline on entries is key.
Pace control: Murzakanov's wrestling-heavy approach may force Rakić to be more conservative with striking output.
Submission threats: Murzakanov's 1.8 Sub/15 rate makes him dangerous on the ground; Rakić must avoid extended ground exchanges.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Murzakanov 65% vs Rakić 35%
Official pick: Azamat Murzakanov — pressure + takedown layering
Keys to victory: Murzakanov — jab‑feint lanes, double→inside trip, mat returns; Rakić — calf‑kick volume, intercept knees, long resets.
Risk factors: Intercept counters on over‑entries; leg‑kick accumulation if line stuck at range.
Value: Reasonable up to mid‑60s implied; dog stabs on Rakić only at wide prices.
Decision path: If fight goes to decision, control time and damage accumulation will determine winner.
Finish scenarios: Murzakanov via submission or ground-and-pound TKO; Rakić via counter-strike KO or TKO.
Round-by-round: Early rounds favor Rakić's striking; later rounds favor Murzakanov's wrestling and control.
Judging criteria: Control time vs damage; takedowns vs striking volume; submission attempts vs clean strikes.
Live betting angles: Monitor takedown success rate and control time accumulation for in-play value.
Submission threats: Murzakanov's 1.8 Sub/15 rate makes him dangerous on the ground; Rakić must avoid extended ground exchanges.

UFC 321 Murzakanov

Ikram Aliskerov vs Jun Yong Park

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Strong on Ikram (regional + UFC), solid on Park (8 UFC bouts). Moderate‑to‑optimal with rising prospect vs veteran dynamic.
Striking metrics: Ikram — 3.67 SLpM, 49% acc, 60% def, 2.89 SApM. Park — 3.89 SLpM, 51% acc, 58% def, 3.12 SApM.
Grappling metrics: Ikram — 4.12 TD/15 @ 54%, 85% TDDef, 2.3 Sub/15. Park — 2.78 TD/15 @ 47%, 79% TDDef, 1.1 Sub/15.
Physicals: Height — Ikram 72" vs Park 71"; Reach — Ikram 73" vs Park 72". Both 185 lbs.
Composite ratings: Striking/Grappling — Ikram 74/92 vs Park 76/78.
Style snapshot: Ikram chains doubles/singles into inside trips with posture breaks; Park is durable with disciplined defense.
Recent form: Ikram's dominant grappling performances vs Park's technical striking and improved takedown defense.
Cardio profile: Ikram's wrestling-heavy approach taxes opponents; Park maintains striking pace but wrestling defense is energy-intensive.
Chin durability: Both have shown resilience; Ikram's height advantage helps avoid clean shots, Park's grappling reduces striking exchanges.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Entry trees: Double→inside trip sequences set early top time and submission gravity for Ikram.
Defense tax: Park extends exchanges with defense, but re‑shots and wrist rides sustain ownership.
Round math: Short, repeatable top pockets accumulate minutes without exposing cardio.
Win conditions: Ikram attritional control/sub threats; Park needs sustained jab/counter discipline and strong first‑layer TDD.
Distance management: Park's reach advantage and jab control space; Ikram needs to close distance safely.
Takedown entries: Ikram's reactive shots and level changes create takedown opportunities; timing and setup are crucial.
Ground control: If Ikram gets top position, his ground-and-pound and submission threats are significant advantages.
Counter opportunities: Park's intercept knees and uppercuts are dangerous when Ikram shoots; discipline on entries is key.
Pace control: Ikram's wrestling-heavy approach may force Park to be more conservative with striking output.
Submission threats: Ikram's 2.3 Sub/15 rate makes him dangerous on the ground; Park must avoid extended ground exchanges.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Aliskerov 70% vs Park 30%
Official pick: Ikram Aliskerov — chain entries + finishing pressure
Keys to victory: Ikram — jab feints→double/single, shelf hips, posture breaks; Park — jab volume, pummel wins, quick breaks.
Risk factors: Early counters on naked shots; if finishes stall, must manage pace/optics.
Value: Strong while ≤70% implied; avoid paying above model.
Decision path: If fight goes to decision, control time and damage accumulation will determine winner.
Finish scenarios: Aliskerov via submission or ground-and-pound TKO; Park via counter-strike KO or TKO.
Round-by-round: Early rounds favor Park's striking; later rounds favor Aliskerov's wrestling and control.
Judging criteria: Control time vs damage; takedowns vs striking volume; submission attempts vs clean strikes.
Live betting angles: Monitor takedown success rate and control time accumulation for in-play value.
Submission threats: Aliskerov's 2.3 Sub/15 rate makes him dangerous on the ground; Park must avoid extended ground exchanges.

UFC 321 Ikram

Azat Maksum vs Mitch Raposo

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Maksum moderate‑to‑strong (4 UFC bouts), Raposo moderate (3 UFC bouts). Some variance with rising prospect vs veteran dynamic.
Striking metrics: Maksum — 3.45 SLpM, 47% acc, 58% def, 2.67 SApM. Raposo — 3.12 SLpM, 45% acc, 55% def, 2.89 SApM.
Grappling metrics: Maksum — 2.89 TD/15 @ 51%, 75% TDDef, 1.2 Sub/15. Raposo — 1.67 TD/15 @ 42%, 68% TDDef, 0.8 Sub/15.
Physicals: Height — Maksum 67" vs Raposo 66"; Reach — Maksum 68" vs Raposo 67". Both 125 lbs.
Composite ratings: Striking/Grappling — Maksum 70/82 vs Raposo 65/76.
Style snapshot: Maksum wins initiative with level mixing; Raposo relies on bursts and reactive shots.
Recent form: Maksum's dominant grappling performances vs Raposo's technical striking and improved takedown defense.
Cardio profile: Maksum's wrestling-heavy approach taxes opponents; Raposo maintains striking pace but wrestling defense is energy-intensive.
Chin durability: Both have shown resilience; Maksum's height advantage helps avoid clean shots, Raposo's grappling reduces striking exchanges.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

First‑read advantage: Maksum's tempo changes + level threats seize initiative.
Scramble insurance: Hips‑in finishes, mat returns and wrist rides reduce variance.
Damage optics: Controlled scoring without opening big counter lanes.
Round texture: Raposo must create bursts off sprawls; otherwise minutes drift to Maksum.
Distance management: Maksum's reach advantage and jab control space; Raposo needs to close distance safely.
Takedown entries: Maksum's reactive shots and level changes create takedown opportunities; timing and setup are crucial.
Ground control: If Maksum gets top position, his ground-and-pound and submission threats are significant advantages.
Counter opportunities: Raposo's intercept knees and uppercuts are dangerous when Maksum shoots; discipline on entries is key.
Pace control: Maksum's wrestling-heavy approach may force Raposo to be more conservative with striking output.
Submission threats: Maksum's 1.2 Sub/15 rate makes him dangerous on the ground; Raposo must avoid extended ground exchanges.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Maksum 70% vs Raposo 30%
Official pick: Azat Maksum — initiative and re‑attempts
Keys to victory: Maksum — level mix, jab→double, mat returns; Raposo — intercept counters, circle off cage, first‑layer sprawls.
Risk factors: Scramble swings early; if pace drops, optics compress.
Value: Good through ~70% implied; avoid paying above model.
Decision path: If fight goes to decision, control time and damage accumulation will determine winner.
Finish scenarios: Maksum via submission or ground-and-pound TKO; Raposo via counter-strike KO or TKO.
Round-by-round: Early rounds favor Raposo's striking; later rounds favor Maksum's wrestling and control.
Judging criteria: Control time vs damage; takedowns vs striking volume; submission attempts vs clean strikes.
Live betting angles: Monitor takedown success rate and control time accumulation for in-play value.
Submission threats: Maksum's 1.2 Sub/15 rate makes him dangerous on the ground; Raposo must avoid extended ground exchanges.

UFC 321 Maksum

Virna Jandiroba vs Mackenzie Dern — Vacant Strawweight Title

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Optimal on both (Virna 10 UFC bouts; Dern 13 UFC bouts). Stable read with championship-level sample sizes.
Striking metrics: Virna — 2.6 SLpM, 45% acc, 58% def, 2.3 SApM. Dern — 4.0 SLpM, 41% acc, 53% def, 4.2 SApM.
Grappling metrics: Virna — 2.8 TD/15 @ 38%, 70% TDDef, 1.3 Sub/15. Dern — 0.8 TD/15 @ 11%, 40% TDDef, 1.9 Sub/15.
Physicals: Height — Virna 63" vs Dern 64"; Reach — Virna 64" vs Dern 63". Both 115 lbs.
Composite ratings: Striking/Grappling — Virna 66/88 vs Dern 70/86.
Style snapshot: Virna wins with ride time, wrist rides and half‑guard shelves; Dern is most dangerous in early scramble chains.
Recent form: Virna's dominant grappling performances vs Dern's technical striking and improved takedown defense.
Cardio profile: Virna's wrestling-heavy approach taxes opponents; Dern maintains striking pace but wrestling defense is energy-intensive.
Chin durability: Both have shown resilience; Virna's height advantage helps avoid clean shots, Dern's grappling reduces striking exchanges.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Top control vs sub hunts: Virna stacks minutes with positional dominance; Dern's submission spikes are front‑loaded.
Fence cycles: Mat returns and wrist control deny resets and tax Dern's base.
Judging optics: If damage is close, control favors Virna; Dern needs clean, high‑leverage moments.
Pace management: Virna should avoid extended wild exchanges where Dern's chaos increases sub chances.
Distance management: Virna's reach advantage and jab control space; Dern needs to close distance safely.
Takedown entries: Virna's reactive shots and level changes create takedown opportunities; timing and setup are crucial.
Ground control: If Virna gets top position, her ground-and-pound and submission threats are significant advantages.
Counter opportunities: Dern's intercept knees and uppercuts are dangerous when Virna shoots; discipline on entries is key.
Pace control: Virna's wrestling-heavy approach may force Dern to be more conservative with striking output.
Submission threats: Dern's 1.9 Sub/15 rate makes her dangerous on the ground; Virna must avoid extended ground exchanges.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Jandiroba 65% vs Dern 35%
Official pick: Virna Jandiroba — positional dominance + control cycles
Keys to victory: Virna — wrist rides, half‑guard shelves, cross‑wrist strikes; Dern — pull‑downs, front‑headlock chains, early sub hunts.
Risk factors: Early submission volatility; if Virna's top time lacks damage, optics can compress.
Value: Solid through mid‑60s implied; Dern is price‑sensitive flier only.
Decision path: If fight goes to decision, control time and damage accumulation will determine winner.
Finish scenarios: Jandiroba via submission or ground-and-pound TKO; Dern via counter-strike KO or TKO.
Round-by-round: Early rounds favor Dern's striking; later rounds favor Jandiroba's wrestling and control.
Judging criteria: Control time vs damage; takedowns vs striking volume; submission attempts vs clean strikes.
Live betting angles: Monitor takedown success rate and control time accumulation for in-play value.
Submission threats: Dern's 1.9 Sub/15 rate makes her dangerous on the ground; Jandiroba must avoid extended ground exchanges.

UFC 321 Jandiroba

Umar Nurmagomedov vs Mario Bautista

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Optimal on Umar (6 UFC bouts), strong on Bautista (9 UFC bouts). Stable read with rising prospect vs veteran dynamic.
Striking metrics: Umar — 4.2 SLpM, 51% acc, 62% def, 2.1 SApM. Bautista — 4.0 SLpM, 53% acc, 58% def, 3.1 SApM.
Grappling metrics: Umar — 3.6 TD/15 @ 46%, 78% TDDef, 1.2 Sub/15. Bautista — 1.5 TD/15 @ 43%, 71% TDDef, 0.6 Sub/15.
Physicals: Height — Umar 68" vs Bautista 69"; Reach — both 69". Both 135 lbs.
Composite ratings: Striking/Grappling — Umar 76/90 vs Bautista 74/78.
Style snapshot: Umar's layered denial (entries→back‑takes→ride time) systematically limits exchanges.
Recent form: Umar's dominant grappling performances vs Bautista's technical striking and improved takedown defense.
Cardio profile: Umar's wrestling-heavy approach taxes opponents; Bautista maintains striking pace but wrestling defense is energy-intensive.
Chin durability: Both have shown resilience; Umar's height advantage helps avoid clean shots, Bautista's grappling reduces striking exchanges.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Layered denial: Entries→back‑takes limit Bautista's attempts and create bankable minutes.
Damage vs control: Clean singles + top pressure satisfy criteria while keeping risk low.
Fail‑safes: Re‑shots on broken chains prevent momentum swings.
Win conditions: Umar by decision or late control‑assisted finish; Bautista needs damaging counters or choke scrambles.
Distance management: Umar's reach advantage and jab control space; Bautista needs to close distance safely.
Takedown entries: Umar's reactive shots and level changes create takedown opportunities; timing and setup are crucial.
Ground control: If Umar gets top position, his ground-and-pound and submission threats are significant advantages.
Counter opportunities: Bautista's intercept knees and uppercuts are dangerous when Umar shoots; discipline on entries is key.
Pace control: Umar's wrestling-heavy approach may force Bautista to be more conservative with striking output.
Submission threats: Umar's 1.2 Sub/15 rate makes him dangerous on the ground; Bautista must avoid extended ground exchanges.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Umar 75% vs Bautista 25%
Official pick: Umar Nurmagomedov — layered wrestling + denial
Keys to victory: Umar — chain shots, back‑takes, ride time; Bautista — first‑layer sprawls, counter damage, guillotine threats.
Risk factors: Long decision texture can narrow value; scramble guillotines.
Value: Strong while ≤75% implied; don't pay premium above model.
Decision path: If fight goes to decision, control time and damage accumulation will determine winner.
Finish scenarios: Umar via submission or ground-and-pound TKO; Bautista via counter-strike KO or TKO.
Round-by-round: Early rounds favor Bautista's striking; later rounds favor Umar's wrestling and control.
Judging criteria: Control time vs damage; takedowns vs striking volume; submission attempts vs clean strikes.
Live betting angles: Monitor takedown success rate and control time accumulation for in-play value.
Submission threats: Umar's 1.2 Sub/15 rate makes him dangerous on the ground; Bautista must avoid extended ground exchanges.

UFC 321 Umar

Mateusz Rebecki vs Ludovit Klein

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Solid on both (Klein 8 UFC bouts; Rebecki 6 UFC bouts). Moderate stability with veteran vs rising prospect dynamic.
Striking metrics: Rebecki — 3.9 SLpM, 50% acc, 54% def, 3.1 SApM. Klein — 3.7 SLpM, 48% acc, 56% def, 3.2 SApM.
Grappling metrics: Rebecki — 2.0 TD/15 @ 42%, 70% TDDef, 0.7 Sub/15. Klein — 0.8 TD/15 @ 35%, 66% TDDef, 0.4 Sub/15.
Physicals: Height — Rebecki 70" vs Klein 70"; Reach — Rebecki 70" vs Klein 70". Both 155 lbs.
Composite ratings: Striking/Grappling — Rebecki 74/82 vs Klein 72/74.
Style snapshot: Rebecki presses for clinch volume and mat returns; Klein conserves exchanges with counters and exits.
Recent form: Rebecki's dominant grappling performances vs Klein's technical striking and improved takedown defense.
Cardio profile: Rebecki's wrestling-heavy approach taxes opponents; Klein maintains striking pace but wrestling defense is energy-intensive.
Chin durability: Both have shown resilience; Rebecki's height advantage helps avoid clean shots, Klein's grappling reduces striking exchanges.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Pursuit vs counter craft: Rebecki must compress cage and produce upper‑body lock volume; Klein wants clean entries/exits with counters.
Minute economy: Klein's shot selection and guard reduce exchange tax and damage swings.
Swing factor: If Rebecki creates consistent mat returns, optics can flip; otherwise Klein's cleanliness wins.
Round texture: Competitive early; small edges accrue to Klein with discipline.
Distance management: Klein's reach advantage and jab control space; Rebecki needs to close distance safely.
Takedown entries: Rebecki's reactive shots and level changes create takedown opportunities; timing and setup are crucial.
Ground control: If Rebecki gets top position, his ground-and-pound and submission threats are significant advantages.
Counter opportunities: Klein's intercept knees and uppercuts are dangerous when Rebecki shoots; discipline on entries is key.
Pace control: Rebecki's wrestling-heavy approach may force Klein to be more conservative with striking output.
Submission threats: Rebecki's 0.7 Sub/15 rate makes him dangerous on the ground; Klein must avoid extended ground exchanges.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Klein 65% vs Rebecki 35%
Official pick: Ludovit Klein — counter discipline + denial
Keys to victory: Klein — angle exits, jab counters, underhook wins; Rebecki — compress cage, double‑unders, mat returns.
Risk factors: Forward optics can sway judges; Klein must keep damage edge obvious.
Value: Playable while ≤65% implied; pass if market overcorrects.
Decision path: If fight goes to decision, control time and damage accumulation will determine winner.
Finish scenarios: Klein via counter-strike KO or TKO; Rebecki via submission or ground-and-pound TKO.
Round-by-round: Early rounds favor Klein's striking; later rounds favor Rebecki's wrestling and control.
Judging criteria: Control time vs damage; takedowns vs striking volume; submission attempts vs clean strikes.
Live betting angles: Monitor takedown success rate and control time accumulation for in-play value.
Submission threats: Rebecki's 0.7 Sub/15 rate makes him dangerous on the ground; Klein must avoid extended ground exchanges.

UFC 321 Klein

Top Value Opportunities (Market‑Dependent)

High Value (when priced ≤ model implied)
- Umar Nurmagomedov — Layered wrestling; value near 75% implied if books lag.
- Ikram Aliskerov — Entry trees and finishing gravity; value to ~70% implied.
Medium Value (contextual pricing)
- Jailton Almeida — Control cycles; value through ~62% implied.
- Ludovit Klein — Counter craft; value while ≤65% implied.
- Virna Jandiroba — Positional control; value to mid‑60s implied.
Situational/Contrarian
- Ciryl Gane (KO exposure) — If Aspinall inflates >60% implied.
- Alexander Volkov (knee/counter) — Only if Almeida inflates >65% implied.

Statistical Summary: Model Probabilities vs Market Notes

Fight	Fighter (Pick)	Model Probability	Edge/Note
Aspinall vs Gane	Tom Aspinall (Pick)	54%	Entries, ride‑time threat
Volkov vs Almeida	Jailton Almeida (Pick)	62%	Control cycles and re‑attempts
Rakić vs Murzakanov	Azamat Murzakanov (Pick)	65%	Pressure and takedown layering
Aliskerov vs Park	Ikram Aliskerov (Pick)	70%	Entries and finishing pressure
Maksum vs Raposo	Azat Maksum (Pick)	70%	Initiative and re‑attempts
Jandiroba vs Dern	Virna Jandiroba (Pick)	65%	Positional dominance and control cycles
Umar vs Bautista	Umar Nurmagomedov (Pick)	75%	Layered wrestling and denial
Rebecki vs Klein	Ludovit Klein (Pick)	65%	Counter discipline and denial

Notes: Market edges depend on live pricing relative to our model and BetOnline availability.

Conclusion

UFC 321 Abu Dhabi presents a value‑aware slate where control cycles, defensive stability, and initiative‑first tools underpin our positions. Respect contrarian KO/sub equity when prices stretch; size stakes to edge strength and avoid paying above model.

Hashtags: #UFC321 #AspinallGane #ValuePicks #MMAAnalytics