UFC Fight Night Rio: Expert Picks and Value Opportunities (Oliveira vs Gamrot)

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil — October 11, 2025

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.

Main Event: Charles Oliveira vs Mateusz Gamrot

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Oliveira optimal sample (35 UFC bouts); Gamrot solid (11). Oliveira’s finishing history is elite; Gamrot’s decision volume is high.
Striking dynamics: Oliveira — 3.41 SLpM, 55% accuracy, 49% defense (3.14 SApM). Gamrot — 3.35 SLpM, 37% accuracy, 59% defense (3.10 SApM). Optics favor Gamrot’s defense; Oliveira owns cleaner accuracy.
Grappling geometry: Oliveira — 2.23 TD/15 @ 39% with 2.63 Sub/15; TDDef 56%. Gamrot — 5.33 TD/15 @ 37% with 91% TDDef; Sub/15 0.11. Control/ride time favors Gamrot; submission gravity favors Oliveira.
Physicals: Height equal; Oliveira +4" reach (74 vs 70). Ages 35 vs 34.
Composites: Striking 49.7 vs 52.0; Grappling 57.4 vs 53.5 (Oliveira narrowly higher grappling composite, Gamrot slightly higher striking composite).

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Risk geometry: Oliveira’s submission trees (front‑headlock, back takes, triangles) punish sloppiness; Gamrot’s chain wrestling and mat returns constrain risk windows.
Minute math: Gamrot’s entries/finishes plus ride time tilt minute‑winning without requiring extended damage. Oliveira’s optics spike via knockdowns or consolidated control.
Fence cycles: Single → tree‑top → knee‑tap; quick shelves against the fence bank optics and clock even on failed finishes.
Damage vs control: Judges lean control when damage parity is low. Oliveira’s clearest path is damaging counters and post‑takedown posture breaks into submissions.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Gamrot 58% vs Oliveira 42%
Official pick: Gamrot — repeatable control cycles and re‑attempts over five rounds
Keys to victory: Gamrot — chain singles into mat returns, shelf hips at fence, avoid prolonged posture breaks; Oliveira — intercept counters, posture breaks post‑TD, front‑headlock/back‑take traps.
Risk factors: Oliveira’s high‑leverage finishing windows off counters and front‑chokes; Gamrot’s entry exposure to knees/uppercuts; five‑round gas and damage optics.
Value: Market‑dependent near pick’em; contrarian Oliveira value appears only if Gamrot inflates >60–62% implied.

UFC Rio Gamrot

Valter Walker vs Mohammed Usman

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Walker UFC sample still growing; Usman veteran minutes. Moderate reliability overall.
Striking: Walker — 1.79 SLpM, 51% acc, 43% def (3.02 absorbed). Usman — 3.85 SLpM, 39% acc, 51% def (4.27 absorbed). Usman throws more; Walker is more selective.
Grappling: Walker — 4.95 TD/15 @ 70% with 1.41 Sub/15; TDDef 60%. Usman — 0.56 TD/15 @ 14%, TDDef 67%, Sub/15 0.00. Clear control path favors Walker.
Physicals: Walker 6'6" with 78.5" reach vs Usman 6'2" with 79" reach.
Composites: Walker 40 striking / 75 grappling vs Usman 55 striking / 40 grappling.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Physical leverage: Walker’s frame, first‑step pressure, and clinch strength compress Usman to the fence where short control bursts accrue.
Shot denial: Walker’s underhook discipline and hip turns reduce Usman’s stable control. Even brief top time for Walker sways minutes.
Win texture: Walker via minute‑winning pressure; Usman’s live route is counter power off level changes.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Walker 65% vs Usman 35%
Official pick: Walker — pressure, cage craft, and short control cycles
Keys to victory: Walker — early cage cuts, single‑leg to mat returns, ride positions; Usman — jab discipline, deny corner traps, counter level changes.
Risk factors: Heavyweight volatility early; Walker’s lower strike volume; Usman’s durability in extended stand‑up rounds.
Value: Playable favorite unless inflated beyond ~68% implied.

UFC Rio Valter

Vitor Petrino vs Thomas Petersen

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Both with modest UFC samples; Petersen’s recent schedule includes sturdy wrestlers.
Striking: Petrino — 2.83 SLpM, 45% acc, 47% def (2.71 SApM). Petersen — 3.74 SLpM, 60% acc, 58% def (2.94 SApM).
Grappling: Petrino — 3.24 TD/15 @ 57%, TDDef 71%, Sub/15 0.61. Petersen — 4.42 TD/15 @ 67%, TDDef 100%, Sub/15 0.55. Top‑time projection leans Petersen.
Physicals: Petrino +1" height, +3.5" reach; Petersen +45.5 lbs listed.
Composites: 47/60 (Petrino) vs 68/80 (Petersen) striking/grappling.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Control equity: Petersen’s takedown/ride‑time profile projects better round control. Petrino’s best moments come on first‑layer entries in open space.
Durability/attrition: Petersen’s defense and top pressure dampen Petrino’s burst. Mat returns and half‑guard shelving drain clock.
Finish threats: Petrino retains KO jeopardy, but repeatability favors Petersen.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Petersen 61% vs Petrino 39%
Official pick: Petersen — top control and durability profile
Keys to victory: Petersen — first‑layer finishes, shelving at fence, half‑guard rides; Petrino — deny entries in space, sprawl‑go, force resets.
Risk factors: Petersen’s early durability vs counters; Petrino’s KO power on clean entries.
Value: Solid if priced ≤61–63% implied; Petrino only as price‑sensitive KO exposure.

UFC Rio Petersen

Julia Polastri vs Karolina Kowalkiewicz

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Polastri limited UFC sample; Kowalkiewicz extensive veteran tape. Mixed reliability (optimal on Karolina’s side).
Striking: Polastri — 5.62 SLpM, 55% acc, 56% def (5.37 SApM). Karolina — 5.54 SLpM, 43% acc, 58% def (5.51 SApM).
Grappling: Polastri — 0.87 TD/15 @ 80%, TDDef 58%, Sub/15 0.43. Karolina — 0.31 TD/15 @ 23%, TDDef 75%, Sub/15 0.19.
Physicals: Heights 5'2" vs 5'3"; reaches 63.5" vs 64" (near parity).
Composites: 72/68 (Polastri) vs 62/55 (Karolina) striking/grappling.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Pace and optics: Polastri’s higher SLpM and cleaner connections bias judges in center‑cage exchanges.
Defensive layers: Early jab parries and exit discipline limit counters; brief clinch turns steal optics when needed.
Reliability: Karolina’s veteran craft keeps rounds honest, but sustained pace favors Polastri.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Polastri 65% vs Kowalkiewicz 35%
Official pick: Polastri — volume and minute‑winning
Keys to victory: Polastri — jab first, calf‑kicks, sprinkle TD looks to vary optics; Karolina — clinch turns, deny resets, out‑defend at range.
Risk factors: Polastri’s higher SApM; veteran craft keeping rounds close; judge variance in lighter divisions.
Value: Playable to mid‑60s implied; otherwise monitor live if pace holds.

UFC Rio Polastri

Vicente Luque vs Joel Alvarez

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Luque optimal sample (23 UFC fights); Alvarez strong but lighter UFC sample.
Striking: Alvarez — 4.51 SLpM, 54% acc, 51% def (3.32 SApM). Luque — 5.02 SLpM, 52% acc, 52% def (5.25 SApM).
Grappling: Alvarez — minimal TD volume, Sub/15 1.18, TDDef 40%. Luque — 0.97 TD/15 @ 52%, TDDef 62%, Sub/15 0.69.
Physicals: Alvarez 6'3" with 77" reach vs Luque 5'11" with 75" reach.
Composites: 80/76 (Alvarez) vs 79/85 (Luque) striking/grappling.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Phase contrast: Luque’s forward pressure and pocket durability vs Alvarez’s length, straight counters, and submission gravity.
Cage geography: Luque wins by forcing half‑steps backward and compressing angles; Alvarez wins at long range or from topside sequences.
Fail‑safes: Luque’s clinch breaks and body work bank optics; Alvarez’s guillotine/back‑take triggers remain live in scrambles.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Luque 55% vs Alvarez 45%
Official pick: Luque — pressure and durability edge
Keys to victory: Luque — forward pressure, body work, clinch breaks into counters; Alvarez — long‑range straight shots, guillotine/back‑take triggers in scrambles.
Risk factors: Alvarez submission gravity; Luque’s damage absorption in high‑pace pockets.
Value: Thin favorite profile; Alvarez becomes interesting if Luque inflates past ~60% implied.

UFC Rio Luque

Deiveson Figueiredo vs Montel Jackson

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Both optimal; Deiveson championship‑level sample, Jackson on a long UFC run.
Striking: Figueiredo — 2.82 SLpM, 54% acc, 49% def (3.64 SApM). Jackson — 3.22 SLpM, 53% acc, 63% def (1.39 SApM).
Grappling: Figueiredo — 1.69 TD/15 @ 35%, Sub/15 1.37; TDDef 58%. Jackson — 3.24 TD/15 @ 63%, TDDef 68%, Sub/15 0.36.
Physicals: Jackson +5" height, +7.5" reach.
Composites: 75/81 (Figueiredo) vs 88/82 (Jackson) striking/grappling.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Defense and leverage: Jackson’s length, defensive metrics, and knockdown control create a tough scoring environment for Deiveson’s bursty moments.
Minute economy: Jackson’s lower absorption and better cage reset discipline accumulate quiet control of rounds.
Threat management: Respect Deiveson’s front‑loaded power and guillotine routes; Jackson’s distance management reduces those windows.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Jackson 70% vs Figueiredo 30%
Official pick: Jackson — defensive layers and minute control
Keys to victory: Jackson — manage distance, mix wrestling behind jab, avoid guillotines; Figueiredo — spike moments early, front‑choke traps, power counters.
Risk factors: Early jeopardy from Deiveson’s power/subs; Jackson’s occasional low‑output lulls if he over‑manages risk.
Value: Strong favorite profile unless books hang >70–72% implied.

UFC Rio Montel

Jafel Filho vs Clayton Carpenter

Data Profile and Tactical Read

Experience reliability: Both with small UFC samples; moderate reliability.
Striking: Filho — 1.92 SLpM, 42% acc, 48% def (1.63 SApM). Carpenter — 3.91 SLpM, 55% acc, 55% def (2.75 SApM).
Grappling: Filho — 2.45 TD/15 @ 42%, TDDef 67%, Sub/15 2.15. Carpenter — 2.23 TD/15 @ 46%, TDDef 43%, Sub/15 1.48.
Physicals: Filho +1" height and +2.5" reach advantage.
Composites: 68/88 (Filho) vs 85/75 (Carpenter) striking/grappling.

🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown

Initiative premium: Carpenter’s first‑read advantage and scramble insurance in short exchanges tilt minutes.
Grapple checks: Quick posts and hip heists blunt extended top time for Filho; Carpenter returns to center to re‑set pace.
Damage optics: Carpenter’s shot selection lands the cleaner scoring blows in spread‑out rounds.

🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis (Detailed Analysis Summary)

Model probability: Carpenter 58% vs Filho 42%
Official pick: Carpenter — initiative and scramble insurance
Keys to victory: Carpenter — outside volume, leg kicks, deny clinch‑to‑mat transitions; Filho — early level changes, back‑take chains, control optics.
Risk factors: Carpenter’s 43% TDD; Filho’s low stand‑up volume; early grappling swings.
Value: Fair near high‑50s implied; monitor if market drifts closer to even.

UFC Rio Clayton

Top Value Opportunities (Market‑Dependent)

High Value (when priced ≤ model implied)
- Montel Jackson — Defensive stability and leverage; value through ~70% implied.
- Thomas Petersen — Control cycles; value to low‑60s implied.
Medium Value (contextual pricing)
- Valter Walker — Pressure minutes vs fence; playable while ≤68% implied.
- Julia Polastri — Volume optics; value when books hang ≤60–65% implied.
Situational/Contrarian
- Joel Alvarez (Sub exposure) — If Luque inflates >60% implied, contrarian sub equity becomes +EV.
- Charles Oliveira (Finish exposure) — If Gamrot inflates >60–62% implied, Oliveira’s finishing gravity preserves contrarian value.

Statistical Summary: Model Probabilities vs Market Notes

Fight	Fighter (Pick)	Model Probability	Edge/Note
Oliveira vs Gamrot	Mateusz Gamrot (Pick)	58%	Chain wrestling and ride‑time
Walker vs Usman	Valter Walker (Pick)	65%	Pressure and fence control
Petrino vs Petersen	Thomas Petersen (Pick)	61%	Top control/durability; KO risk acknowledged
Polastri vs Kowalkiewicz	Julia Polastri (Pick)	65%	Pace/optics advantage
Luque vs Alvarez	Vicente Luque (Pick)	55%	Pressure/durability vs length/subs
Figueiredo vs Jackson	Montel Jackson (Pick)	70%	Defensive layers and minutes
Filho vs Carpenter	Clayton Carpenter (Pick)	58%	Initiative and scramble insurance

Conclusion

UFC Fight Night Rio offers a balanced slate of value‑aware positions. We lean into control cycles, defensive stability, and initiative‑first striking while respecting contrarian finishing equity where pricing stretches. Size positions to edge strength and avoid paying above model.

Hashtags: #UFC #UFCFightNight #OliveiraGamrot #ValuePicks #MMAAnalytics