Nate Landwehr vs Mandel Nallo
Lightweight, 3 rounds on UFC Fight Night: Buckley vs. Malott. The model read both fighters' histories.
Bout 6 of 13
Sat, Oct 17, 8:00 PM ET · Lightweight · 3 rounds · UFC Fight Night: Buckley vs. Malott · Rogers Place
Fight history: Nate Landwehr
Lightweight, 3 rounds on UFC Fight Night: Buckley vs. Malott. The model read both fighters' histories.
How much history is behind this. Mandel Nallo has only 1 tracked UFC bout in our corpus (fewer than the 2 we count as known), so this read leans on Nate Landwehr's 11 tracked bouts and on league-average priors for Mandel Nallo. Treat it as weaker than a bout where both fighters have at least 2 tracked bouts.
Probabilities over the two fighters, from the head that was evaluated on its own preregistered bar.
From the tracked records (a summary, not the model's reasoning): Nate Landwehr has won 5 of 11 tracked bouts (45%) to Nallo's 0 of 1 (0%); Landwehr has finished 3 of 5 wins (60%), and Nallo has been finished in 1 of 1 loss (100%). The model's method read has a decision as the most likely of three endings (39%), short of a majority.
Read among fights that end with a winner — a draw or no-contest sits outside this sample, so the three add to 100%.
R3+ carries every fight that reaches the judges as well as every round-3-or-later finish.
“Goes the distance” is the method head’s decision probability, not a separate model — so it cannot disagree with the bar above it.
Tracked bouts only — a fight outside the corpus is not counted, and a thin record says so.
1-4 in the last 5 tracked bouts. 3 of 5 wins came by finish (60%); 3 of 11 tracked fights reached the judges (27%).
0-1 in the last 1 tracked bout. No tracked wins; 0 of 1 tracked fight reached the judges (0%).
Three separate heads — winner, method and round — each fitted on a corpus of tracked UFC fights and each tested on past fights it never trained on before it was published. This is an experimental model: winner forecasts are graded on every new card, method and round are not yet graded, and it has not been shown to have an edge over the market.
Educational and paper-only — not betting advice.