Does Betting UFC Underdogs Pay? Returns by Moneyline and Year
Flat stakes on every UFC underdog lost money at the close. The damage sits almost entirely at the long end of the board, while the closer prices sit near break-even.
Every fight week someone tells me the value in UFC is always on the underdog. It sounds right, because MMA is chaotic, one clean shot ends things and the favourite never feels safe. I wanted to test that idea properly, because it shapes how I build my UFC betting tips page and how much I trust a plus-money price on instinct.
The study covers 6,773 UFC fights at closing moneyline odds. Backing every underdog at flat stakes returned −7.6%, while backing every favourite returned −2.9%. Underdogs won 33.4% of fights against a margin-removed price of 34.0%, so the market prices them almost perfectly. The real story is where the losses come from, and that is not evenly spread.
Short-priced favourites hold up while long underdogs collapse
This chart groups every fight by the favourite's moneyline and shows what you would have got backing either side. Read it from top to bottom. When the favourite was -400 or shorter, backing the underdog returned −26.7% and backing the favourite returned +1.5%. At the other end, in near pick'em fights where the favourite was -124 to -100, the picture flips: the underdog returned +0.7% and the favourite −8.1%.
So the folk wisdom is half true. In close fights, the slight underdog has been the better side. In mismatches, the long shot is where bankrolls go to die.
Same fights in both series: each row backs one side or the other at closing odds.
View the data: favourite or underdog? return by price
| Backing the favourite | Backing the underdog | |
|---|---|---|
| -400 or shorter | +1.5% | −26.7% |
| -399 to -300 | +1.4% | −17.9% |
| -299 to -250 | −2.3% | −5.6% |
| -249 to -200 | −2.4% | −5.5% |
| -199 to -175 | −2.1% | −4.8% |
| -174 to -150 | −7.7% | +4.1% |
| -149 to -125 | −4.6% | −2.0% |
| -124 to -100 | −8.1% | +0.7% |
| All fights | −2.9% | −7.6% |
From a stylistic view this makes sense to me. Heavy favourites are usually fighters with a clear structural edge, a wrestler the opponent cannot stop or a range the other man cannot close. The market respects those edges, but the public still likes a long-shot ticket, and that appetite is priced in.
Break-even rates against what underdogs actually delivered
Here each underdog band shows the win rate needed to break even at the posted price against the rate actually achieved. In the closer bands the two dots almost touch. Underdogs priced +100 to +124 won 47.0% against a break-even of 47.5%, and the +125 to +149 band finished slightly above its line.
The gap opens sharply past +300. Underdogs of +400 or longer won 11.9% of fights when they needed 16.4%. The +300 to +399 band won 16.0%, well short of what its price demanded.
Break-even = 1 / decimal odds, so it still includes the bookmaker margin.
View the data: what underdogs need vs what they deliver
| Needed to break even | Actually won | 95% range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| +100 to +124 (1,084 fights) | 47.5% | 47.0% | ±3 |
| +125 to +149 (1,084 fights) | 42.6% | 43.4% | ±3 |
| +150 to +199 (1,633 fights) | 37.0% | 35.5% | ±2.3 |
| +200 to +249 (945 fights) | 31.2% | 29.8% | ±2.9 |
| +250 to +299 (592 fights) | 27.1% | 25.3% | ±3.5 |
| +300 to +399 (630 fights) | 22.9% | 16.0% | ±2.9 |
| +400 or longer (589 fights) | 16.4% | 11.9% | ±2.6 |
Remember that break-even here still includes the bookmaker margin, so even a band that matches its price loses a little. The long end does not just lose the margin, it loses far more than that.
Underdog returns by price with honest uncertainty ranges
The table puts a 95% range around each return, and I think this is the most important view for a bettor. The best band was +125 to +149 at +1.9%, but its range runs from −5.0 to +8.9, so it is entirely consistent with a small loss. I would not build a system on it.
The long end is different. The +300 to +399 band returned −29.2% from 630 fights, with a range of −41.9 to −16.5. The +400 or longer band returned −29.1%. Neither range comes anywhere near zero, so that is not noise.
| Underdog price | Fights | Won | Return | 95% range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| +100 to +124 | 1,084 | 47.0% | −1.3% | −7.5 to +5.0 |
| +125 to +149 | 1,084 | 43.4% | +1.9% | −5.0 to +8.9 |
| +150 to +199 | 1,633 | 35.5% | −4.0% | −10.3 to +2.2 |
| +200 to +249 | 945 | 29.8% | −4.7% | −14.0 to +4.7 |
| +250 to +299 | 592 | 25.3% | −6.6% | −19.6 to +6.3 |
| +300 to +399 | 630 | 16.0% | −29.2% | −41.9 to −16.5 |
| +400 or longer | 589 | 11.9% | −29.1% | −45.0 to −13.2 |
That is the asymmetry I take from this: the edge in close fights is uncertain, but the leak at long prices is clear and persistent.
Yearly underdog returns swing hard but rarely land positive
Split by year, underdogs showed a flat-stake profit in only 2 of 16 full years from 2010 to 2025. The best underdog year was 2015 at +10.5%, and that same year was the worst for favourites at −12.5%. The worst underdog year was 2023 at −20.0%, which was also the best favourite year at +2.5%.
The two lines mirror each other because they are the same fights seen from opposite corners. A year full of upsets lifts one and sinks the other.
View the data: returns swing year to year
| All favourites | All underdogs | |
|---|---|---|
| 2010 | −8.1% | 5.1% |
| 2011 | 0.0% | −11.0% |
| 2012 | −1.6% | −5.9% |
| 2013 | 0.9% | −11.5% |
| 2014 | −2.1% | −2.0% |
| 2015 | −12.5% | 10.5% |
| 2016 | −5.4% | −4.9% |
| 2017 | 0.1% | −9.5% |
| 2018 | −5.0% | −10.0% |
| 2019 | −4.8% | −3.4% |
| 2020 | −3.8% | −6.3% |
| 2021 | −3.7% | −7.3% |
| 2022 | −0.2% | −13.4% |
| 2023 | 2.5% | −20.0% |
| 2024 | 0.4% | −14.3% |
| 2025 | −3.8% | −9.5% |
My main caveat sits here. Each year rests on 200-520 fights and a single closing line per bout, which may not be the best price available, so swings of this size are well within chance. This is history, not a system, and a hot or cold year tells you very little about the next one.
What I take from this
- Avoid blind long shots. Underdogs at +300 and beyond lost heavily with ranges well clear of zero. I need a specific stylistic reason before I touch those prices.
- Close fights deserve attention. In pick'em bouts the underdog returned +0.7% while the favourite lost −8.1%. That is where my matchup reading earns its keep.
- Ignore single-year noise. Underdogs profited in only 2 of 16 years, and one strong year proves nothing. Process over streaks.
Questions from readers
Is betting every UFC underdog profitable?
No. Across 6,773 fights at closing odds, flat stakes on every underdog returned −7.6%, which is worse than backing every favourite at −2.9%.
Which UFC underdog odds have performed best?
Underdogs priced +125 to +149 returned +1.9%, the best of any band. Its 95% range of −5.0 to +8.9 means that result could easily be chance.
How often do big UFC underdogs win?
Underdogs of +400 or longer won 11.9% of fights, but they needed 16.4% to break even at their prices. That band returned −29.1% at flat stakes.
I'm Somchai Prasert, based in Bangkok, and I write the UFC staff picks at htftpredictions.com — reading style matchups and fight IQ over hype and records.
View profile →
