Estimated outcome probability. A likely winner can still be overpriced.
← Decision briefsMMA · Oct 31, 2:00 PM PDT YOUR RESEARCH TASK FORECASTFrancis Marshall RELIABILITY4/4 model reports MARKET VALUENot established
Francis Marshall vs Gaston Bolanos
64.0%Francis Marshall
NOT LOCKEDAll four probabilities, converted to the same fighter, average 64% for Francis Marshall. 4/4 models select this fighter.
Check the evidence
The most important gap and your next source check.
- Read the model reasons and reported limits.
- Inspect available source context; record missing sources.
- Identify what remains unverified and your next action.
18 reported evidence limits. Agreement alone does not establish accuracy.
A probability difference alone does not account for forecast error, fees, spread, or available liquidity.
Why the models lean this way
These are reasons recorded by the models. They are not independently verified facts or measured causes of a probability change.
- Gemini: Marshall's grappling advantage with 2.71 takedowns per 15 minutes and 5 career submission wins.
- Claude: Marshall 89% takedown defense and 5 submission wins vs Bolanos 50% takedown defense and recent RNC loss
- Grok: Marshall superior takedown volume and defense
- GPT: Marshall is 4-1 in his last five fights, compared with Bolanos at 3-2.
Read all four model reports
Gemini · Francis Marshall · 66.0%
Francis Marshall brings a significant grappling threat and physical size advantage into this matchup. Listed at 155 lbs and 5'9", he is naturally larger than Gaston Bolanos, who is listed at 135 lbs and 5'7". Marshall averages 2.71 takedowns per 15 minutes and has 5 career submission wins, which directly targets Bolanos's primary weakness: his 50% takedown defense and recent submission loss to Quang Le. While Bolanos is the more accurate striker (48% vs 34%), Marshall's ability to dictate where the fight takes place and his 89% takedown defense should allow him to avoid Bolanos's power and secure top control. The bout was added to the card roughly 15 days prior, introducing some short-notice variance, but Marshall's stylistic advantages make him the clear favorite.
google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview · Oct 16, 5:07 PM PDTClaude · Francis Marshall · 63.0%
Marshall offers the clearer path to victory via grappling. He has five submission wins, 2.71 takedown attempts per 15 minutes, and 89% takedown defense, while Bolanos shows 50% takedown defense, zero submission threat, and was recently finished by a technical rear-naked choke against Quang Le. Bolanos's wrestling-vulnerability pattern (also TKO'd by Marcus McGhee) matches exactly what Marshall does well. Marshall is also roughly seven years younger and more recently active, with two 2026 wins including a first-round RNC. Bolanos is the better pure striker (3.91 landed/min at 48% accuracy with six KO wins and five first-round finishes), so an early knockout is a live path for him, and Marshall's 34% striking accuracy and 3.45 absorbed/min show he can be hit. That keeps the edge moderate rather than large.
anthropic/claude-opus-5 · Oct 16, 5:07 PM PDTGrok · Francis Marshall · 63.0%
Marshall holds a clear grappling edge with 2.71 takedowns per 15 minutes and 89% takedown defense versus Bolanos' 0.75 takedowns and 50% defense. Marshall is six years younger with five career submission wins and recent UFC victories including a first-round rear-naked choke. Bolanos shows higher striking accuracy but lacks finishing power in recent decisions and has two TKO/submission losses in his last five. The bout addition 15 days prior introduces some preparation uncertainty but does not alter the statistical profile favoring Marshall.
xai/grok-4.3 · Oct 16, 5:07 PM PDTGPT · Francis Marshall · 64.0%
Marshall has the stronger pre-event profile from the supplied evidence. He is younger, has the better overall recent run at 4-1 in his last five, and his style appears better suited to exploit Bolanos' clearest statistical weakness: takedown defense listed at 50% and a recent submission loss to Quang Le. Marshall’s UFC stats show meaningful wrestling volume (2.71 takedowns per 15 minutes) and some submission threat (0.51 submissions per 15, 5 career submission wins). On the feet, Bolanos looks sharper statistically with higher output and accuracy, plus more knockout history, so this is not one-way traffic. But Marshall’s path set is broader, and Bolanos’ historical vulnerability to grappling is the most decisive style clue in the evidence. The probability is kept well short of a high-confidence pick because important details are missing, including reach, stance, and any verified weigh-in
openai/gpt-5.4 · Oct 16, 5:06 PM PDTWhat remains uncertain
- Reach and stance metrics are missing for both fighters.
- The exact weight class for the bout is unclear given the fighters' disparate listed weights (155 lbs vs 135 lbs).
- Marshall's takedown accuracy is listed at an unusually low 3%, which may indicate a statistical anomaly or a tendency to chain-wrestle with many failed initial attempts.
- No licensed pre-event odds supplied
- Profile weights differ sharply (155 lbs vs 135 lbs); contracted weight or catchweight for this bout is not verified
- No reach or stance data for either fighter
- Marshall's 3% listed takedown accuracy conflicts with his submission-heavy finishing record, suggesting noisy stats
- Only one late_context observation (bout addition); weight-cut, injury, camp, and short-notice details are not verified either way
What to watch next
Wait for all required evidence and the pre-event lock. This view is not final.
Open the event and source context →What changed before the lock
- First recorded forecast
First prospective probability state captured for this source and competition.
Record hash
516048c8f6eff8ee6389e7e1e5ac27c11ae033724aa45473174ca37d6684cfd1
Reasons are shown as they were recorded. The ledger does not establish that a specific fact caused a probability change.
The saved method comparison
This event has no eligible record in the new comparison cohort. Historical or late forecasts are not filled in after the event.
Inspect the methods and progress →Available source context
No direct source links are attached to this brief. The event page shows the available context.
These links provide event context. They do not verify every claim in a model report.
Finish your review
Record whether this brief helped, how long the review took, and your next action.
Return to your review →