LJed I Goodman posted on X that UFC main-event underdogs have been winning at a strong clip this year, with a handful of pick'ems.
MThirteen and twenty-two? Underdogs lose twice as often as they win.
LBut the four big prices on that list are the ones that wrecked tickets.
MName one.
LWalker plus one eighty-five. Song plus four thirty.
MHold on. I checked the numbers.
LAnd?
MCBS had underdogs winning ten of the first twenty main events as of late June. Jed's full-year record isn't confirmed.
LSo the exact record's murky. The point stands: big plus-money dogs in main events are live.
MOh, come on. You remember the upsets because they pay huge. You forget the dogs who got finished in ninety seconds.
LThat's exactly my point—if a plus-four-hundred dog cashes one time, it covers four favorites that lose.
MYou can't just dream about the one cash. You have to count the twenty-two losses that came with it.
LBut if the average dog price is around plus three hundred, you don't need a winning record.
MYou need to hit one in four, and not every dog is plus three hundred.
LSome are plus one twenty. Some are plus one fifty.
MRight. So a lopsided record like that doesn't tell you if those losses were all chalk or all live dogs.
LExactly, and a plus four thirty dog is a ten-dollar bet paying forty-three dollars.
MI don't care about payout. I care about whether the line was wrong before the fight.
LYou can care about both. That's allowed.
MYou keep saying confirmed prices, but the record is unverified. The prices are real, the trend isn't.
LThat's all I need. The prices are real. The trend is a conversation.
MNo, the trend is the whole point of the post. If the record is off, the argument collapses.
LIt doesn't collapse. The plus-money names are still live. That was the point.
MFine, but live and profitable are two different things.
LFor a fight fan, live is the fun part. The profit is bonus.
MNow you sound like a guy who's never added up a losing month.
LThat's a low blow, Marcus.
MOkay, I'll give you this: I'd rather watch a live dog than a chalk fight. But I'm not calling it a trend until I see the full card list.
LFair enough. The numbers we can confirm are those big closing prices, and they're wild.
MAnd the wild part is the names. Walker, Song, Gaethje, Strickland—none of those are easy money for favorites.
LThat's exactly right. A plus three eighty dog like Strickland in a main event is not a normal underdog.
MBut was he mispriced, or did he just win? You only find out afterward.
LThe market can be right before the fight and still lose after. That's why it's called risk.
MNow you're getting philosophical.
MDifferent corner of combat sports: a boxing account called Samp and Chance posted on X that two undefeated knockout artists are headlining in Montreal.
LSomebody's zero has got to go—their words, not mine.
MJhon "El Tigre" Orobio listed at nineteen and oh with seventeen knockouts, against Hendri Cedeño at sixteen and oh with twelve knockouts.
LAnd we can't confirm those records. But if they're even close, that's a fun fight.
MHere's my problem: those zeroes are built on soft competition half the time.
LThat's not fair. An undefeated record means you found a way every single time.
MOr it means your promoter found opponents you couldn't lose to.
LSo every undefeated boxer is a fraud? That's lazy. Some of these guys are real knockout artists.
MI'm not saying fraud. I'm saying the zero gets marketed harder than the quality of the opponents.
LFair point. But if two real hitters meet, the zero is the pressure that makes it fun.
MThat's the one thing I can't argue. Somebody's zero has got to go is a heck of a pitch.
LAnd if both records are even close to true, somebody's chin is about to get tested.
MThat's the fight I want. Two undefeated records, two heavy hitters, one zero gone.
LAnd zero confirmed records so far. So I'll enjoy the highlight when it actually lands.
MBut the marketing works. The undefeated angle gets people talking before anyone throws a punch.
LThat's the sport. You sell the undefeated record, then you find out if it's real.
MAnd when it's real, it's a classic. When it's not, it's a highlight-reel mismatch.
LEither way, I'll watch.