UFC 328: Chimaev vs. Strickland goes down May 9, 2026 in Newark, New Jersey. It’s a card with two belts on the line and a bunch of fights the model basically treats like 50/50s — which is awesome if you like taking swings in pick’ems and not so awesome if you’re looking for “safe” anchors.
Khamzat Chimaev vs. Sean Strickland
The matchup: This is the big one, and it reads like a clash of approaches. Chimaev tends to drag fights into his kind of chaos, while Strickland’s whole thing is staying disciplined and making you work for every clean moment. With a title on the line, expect a pace-and-position fight more than a random brawl.
What the data says: The model basically shrugs and calls it a coin flip: Chimaev ~50%, Strickland ~50%. In fights priced this close, the model’s historical hit rate has been about 56% (142-fight sample), so treat any “edge” here as tiny.
Pick’ems angle: The community is heavily on Chimaev (77%) even though the model says this is dead even. That’s a classic spot where taking Strickland can pay off in pools, because you’re gaining ground on most of the room if he wins.
The pick: Sean Strickland — not because the model loves him (it doesn’t), but because it’s a true 50/50 and the public is way too lopsided the other direction.
Tatsuro Taira vs. Joshua Van
The matchup: Second title fight on the card and another one that looks razor-thin on paper. When two elite flyweights collide, you’re usually looking at speed, chains of momentum, and long stretches where one exchange can decide the round.
What the data says: The model leans Joshua Van ~51% to Taira ~49% — basically nothing. At this confidence level, the model has historically been right about 54% of the time (144-fight sample), so again: tiny lean, not a lock.
Pick’ems angle: The crowd is with the model, but not overwhelmingly: Van 57%. No big leverage either way, so this comes down to whether you want to play it straight or differentiate elsewhere.
The pick: Joshua Van — slight model lean and he’s not so popular that you’re drawing dead if he loses.
Alexander Volkov vs. Waldo Cortes-Acosta
The matchup: Big heavyweight fight with real “who gets the next shot” energy based on the names involved. Volkov’s been around every kind of heavyweight look you can see, and Cortes-Acosta is the kind of athletic heavyweight who can flip a fight with a couple moments.
What the data says: Another true toss-up: Cortes-Acosta ~50%, Volkov ~50%. The model’s reliability in fights this close has been around 56% historically (142-fight sample), so don’t overthink a 0.03% edge.
Pick’ems angle: Community is slightly on Volkov (55%). Since the model is basically split but barely points to Cortes-Acosta, that gives you a small contrarian angle without being completely out on an island.
The pick: Waldo Cortes-Acosta — coin flip fight, mild leverage against a Volkov-leaning crowd.
Sean Brady vs. Joaquin Buckley
The matchup: This one has “rankings shake-up” written all over it. Brady tends to win minutes, while Buckley is the kind of guy who can change the whole night with one big sequence.
What the data says: The model favors Brady ~51%. Not by much, but it’s a lean. Historically, this confidence range has hit about 57% (143-fight sample), which is decent but still far from automatic.
Pick’ems angle: The community is stronger on Brady than the model is: Brady 69%. That’s not a full “fade the public” alarm, but if you’re hunting differentiation, Buckley at 31% is at least interesting given how close the model thinks the fight is.
The pick: Sean Brady — slight model lean, and he’s the steadier pick if you’re not trying to get weird.
Bobby Green vs. Jeremy Stephens
The matchup: If you want a fight that’s going to feel like a fistfight even when it’s tactical, it’s probably this one. Green’s style is built around rhythm and making guys miss; Stephens is always a danger to land something nasty.
What the data says: The model likes Bobby Green ~53%, which is one of the bigger leans on the card. And importantly: in fights with this kind of model confidence, it’s historically been right about 79% of the time (146-fight sample). That’s as close as you get to “comfortable” on a card full of coin flips.
Pick’ems angle: The community is with the model: Green 63%. Not a crazy consensus, but it’s aligned — this is more of a “don’t overcomplicate it” pick.
The pick: Bobby Green — best combination of model lean + historically reliable confidence level on the whole slate.
Mateusz Rebecki vs. Grant Dawson
The matchup: This is the kind of lightweight fight that usually turns into a grind. Both guys are known for being hard to deal with for 15 minutes, and it’s the type of matchup where one takedown or one scramble can decide two rounds.
What the data says: The model leans Grant Dawson ~51% over Rebecki ~49%. Pretty slim. This confidence band has historically landed around 57% (143 fights), which again says “lean” not “lock.”
Pick’ems angle: The crowd is more confident than the model: Dawson 66%. If you’re trying to be different, Rebecki at 34% is a reasonable dart because the model number says this is way closer than the picks suggest.
The pick: Grant Dawson — slight model edge, but I wouldn’t be shocked if this one flips.
Pat Sabatini vs. William Gomis
The matchup: A classic “can he keep it standing?” kind of fight. Sabatini is usually at his best when he can put his hands on you and make it messy, while Gomis wants to do his work in space.
What the data says: The model leans Sabatini ~52% to Gomis ~48%. This is also a confidence level where the model has historically been right about 64% of the time (145-fight sample), which gives the lean a little more weight than the 51/49s on the card.
Pick’ems angle: Community is strongly with the model: Sabatini 74%. That’s getting close to “everybody’s on it,” so there’s not much leverage if Sabatini wins — you’re mostly just trying not to lose ground.
The pick: Pat Sabatini — small edge, and the model’s been pretty dependable in spots like this.
Jared Gordon vs. Jim Miller
The matchup: This one feels like it could get scrappy fast. Gordon tends to be steady and physical, and Miller’s the type who can drag you into weird positions and make you pay for small mistakes.
What the data says: The model favors Jared Gordon ~51% over Miller ~49%. Not a big gap, but this confidence level has historically hit around 69% (144-fight sample), which makes the lean a little more actionable than it looks at first glance.
Pick’ems angle: The community is close too: Gordon 55%. No real value screaming either way, so it’s more about whether you want to side with the model’s slight lean or chase the underdog story.
The pick: Jared Gordon — slight model lean, and a reasonable “play it straight” pick on a volatile card.
Overall: two title fights that are basically 50/50 and an undercard full of tight lines — pick your spots to get contrarian, but don’t force it on every fight.
For entertainment purposes only. All predictions, statistics, and analyses on this site are provided freely for informational use. Nothing here constitutes gambling advice and should not be used as such.