Research / Model Analysis

UFC Fight Night: Gamrot vs Salkilld: Model Analysis

Event: UFC Fight Night: Gamrot vs Salkilld Posted: August 4, 2026 · VAR Research First fight: August 9 2026, 00:00 UTC Card scope: 10 fights, lines locked at posted time Methodology: Methodology Model accuracy: Performance

Where the model diverges from consensus

Two matchups show the largest gap between our projected win probability and the public consensus.

Darren Elkins vs Yadier del Valle. Public consensus implies Darren Elkins at 11.8%. Our model projects 40.3%. A 28-point gap, with Darren Elkins materially underrated by the market.

Guilherme Pat vs Steven Asplund. Public consensus implies Guilherme Pat at 26.2%. Our model projects 46.2%. A 20-point gap, with Guilherme Pat materially underrated by the market.

Full card projection

Matchup Projection Confidence
Mateusz Gamrot vs Quillan Salkilld Quillan Salkilld 56.1% Medium
Diego Ferreira vs Billy Quarantillo Diego Ferreira 65.3% High
Darren Elkins vs Yadier del Valle Yadier del Valle 59.7% Medium
Amanda Lemos vs Alexia Thainara Alexia Thainara 73.8% High
Ty Miller vs Billy Ray Goff Ty Miller 69.2% High
Steven Asplund vs Guilherme Pat Steven Asplund 53.8% Coin flip
Diyar Nurgozhay vs Bruno Lopes Diyar Nurgozhay 65.8% High
Manoel Sousa vs Richie Miranda Manoel Sousa 58.4% Medium
Miles Johns vs Jessie Rosas Miles Johns 53.2% Coin flip
Juliana Miller vs Ravena Oliveira Juliana Miller 62.5% Medium

Matchup notes

Mateusz Gamrot vs Quillan Salkilld. Quillan Salkilld holds the takedown-rate edge (8.0 vs 5.2 per 15 min).

Diego Ferreira vs Billy Quarantillo. Diego Ferreira’s striking volume holds the advantage in a clear lane mismatch. Diego Ferreira absorbs notably less (3.5 vs 5.8 per minute), projecting better damage profile through three rounds.

Darren Elkins vs Yadier del Valle. Yadier del Valle absorbs notably less (2.2 vs 3.3 per minute), projecting better damage profile through three rounds.

Amanda Lemos vs Alexia Thainara. Alexia Thainara holds the takedown-rate edge (3.9 vs 1.0 per 15 min).

Ty Miller vs Billy Ray Goff. Model projects Ty Miller (69.2%) over Billy Ray Goff; thin career data on both sides limits the narrative beyond the projection itself.

Steven Asplund vs Guilherme Pat. Style symmetry between Steven Asplund and Guilherme Pat. The model declines to favor either side beyond noise.

Diyar Nurgozhay vs Bruno Lopes. Model projects Diyar Nurgozhay (65.8%) over Bruno Lopes; thin career data on both sides limits the narrative beyond the projection itself.

Manoel Sousa vs Richie Miranda. Model projects Manoel Sousa (58.4%) over Richie Miranda; thin career data on both sides limits the narrative beyond the projection itself.

Miles Johns vs Jessie Rosas. Style symmetry between Miles Johns and Jessie Rosas. The model declines to favor either side beyond noise.

Juliana Miller vs Ravena Oliveira. Juliana Miller enters 2-3 in his last 5; Ravena Oliveira is 0-3. Recent-form trajectory tilts the matchup. Juliana Miller outpaces Ravena Oliveira on strike volume (2.6 vs 1.4 per minute).

How to read this

Projections come from VAR’s production UFC ensemble model, refreshed nightly. The model combines fighter performance metrics, simulation-based fight modeling, and historical opponent-strength signal, with conservative treatment of fighters who have limited recent data.

Confidence labels reflect projection spread:

  • High: pick probability above 65%
  • Medium: pick probability between 55 and 65%
  • Coin flip: pick probability below 55%

Note: this analysis does not incorporate fight-week intelligence such as late injury reports or weight cut difficulty. Those signals are tracked through a separate process.

Model accuracy

Cross-validated across 3 independent test seasons in our 2026-04-30 audit:

  • Straight-up winner accuracy across all fights: 76.7%
  • Highest-confidence subset (n=207): 69.1% directional accuracy, 95% confidence interval [62.5%, 75.0%]

Full validation methodology and per-season breakdowns: Methodology.

Results

Populates after card concludes.


For research and informational purposes only. Probabilities reflect model output and may diverge from realized outcomes.

Results

Results pending. Graded after the card concludes.