Track Record Methodology

Method and round are independent details of a correct winner call. A scorecard reading 99 resolved calls, then 67 winner hits, 34 method hits, and 5 round hits is not four comparable rates: method and round can only score inside the correct-winner sample. What makes a round call eligible is not the same test as method — see Round called above.

Every row uses the same resolved-call width. Only its Hit and Miss segments are drawn; any remaining space is intentionally blank. That blank space keeps a method, round, or underdog result in proportion to the full resolved record instead of stretching a smaller sample across the whole chart. The Underdog row counts only picks with a known pre-fight price.

Where a step shows a sentence instead of a number, its denominator is zero, and the sentence says which of two different things happened. “Calls the winner, not the round” means the analyst has never named a round — a style, not a failure. “Named rounds — none on a correct call yet” means they do name rounds, but none has yet landed on a correct call whose result could settle it. Neither is shown as “0 of 0” or as a zero bar, because a zero would state something false in both cases. A genuinely earned zero — a 0 of 1 on someone who named a method on their one qualifying call and got it wrong — keeps its real numbers and is never hidden.

On 19 August 2026, across the 26 analysts with a shown record, the resolved-call counts ran from 5 to 99, with a median of 27.5. A record of 67% correct over 28 calls is consistent with a true rate anywhere between roughly 49% and 82% (a 95% Wilson score interval; the ranges on the board apply this same interval to an analyst’s hit rate and then scale it by the credit they earn per correct call, so it is an approximation rather than an exact interval on the Score) — a span of about 33 points. The same 67% over 99 calls narrows to about 57% to 75%.

The practical consequence: at these sample sizes most differences between two analysts are not distinguishable, and a higher percentage on a smaller sample is not evidence of a better analyst. This is why every figure on the site is published with its denominator, why records below five resolved calls show no ratio at all, and why a larger sample is worth more than a higher percentage when comparing two records.

For a bout to qualify, the consensus must be captured before its event starts, frozen at that boundary, and be less than two hours old. The selected fighter must have a strictly lower consensus chance of winning than their opponent. Tied markets do not create an underdog.

We use the frozen pre-event consensus so later market movement cannot change a historical underdog result. The metric does not use a price at the moment an analyst made a pick.

The analyst directory always includes an Underdog row. A pick qualifies once it has a pre-fight price: the frozen pre-event sportsbook consensus described above when one was captured, or, when it was not, a price reconstructed after the fact from Polymarket’s public trading history for that fight. The row shows only the qualifying picks that backed the underdog, split into hits and misses; it states when there are no qualifying underdog calls.

This is a wider net than Correct underdog calls, which uses the sportsbook consensus only. Since 31 August 2026 the Score’s underdog credit is drawn from this same wider net, so the row and the Score agree about which picks were underdog calls.

Start with the winner. Call the winner in 34 of 48 resolved fights and you start at 70.8%. That is the floor; everything else only adds.

Add for detail that lands. A correct winner call that also named the right method adds 0.25. Naming the right round adds 0.25. One call can earn both. Getting the detail wrong costs nothing at all: naming a method or a round can only ever help you, never hurt you, so an analyst is never punished for being specific.

Divide by every resolved call, then cap at 100%. Bonuses can push the arithmetic past 100; we stop it there. If two analysts both reach 100% they share the position, because the published numbers are identical; the one whose uncapped total was higher is listed first inside it.

Twenty resolved calls minimum to hold a position. Below that an analyst is listed with their record and no Score at all — a short record is a noise floor, not a verdict, and at these sample sizes the cap below starts doing the work. We use 20 rather than 10 because at 10 the 100% cap starts rewarding the smallest records, which are the ones we know least about.

score = the smaller of 100 and 100 × ( winners + 0.25 × method hits + 0.25 × round hits + 0.50 × underdog credit ) ÷ resolved calls

The underdog term is active from 31 August 2026 and contributes published credit when a qualifying underdog call is correct. The worked example below predates that change, so it has three lines and not four. How the underdog credit works.

TheWeasle — 48 resolved calls, as their record stood on 19 August 2026. Their live record is on their scorecard and will have moved on since; the arithmetic below does not change.

The Score reserves credit for correctly backing a fighter the market priced below an even chance, and that credit scales with how unlikely the market thought it was. Backing a fighter given a 30% chance is worth far more than backing one given 49%, because a 49% pick is a coin flip in all but name. The scale is (0.5 − chance) ÷ 0.5: a 49% call earns 0.02, a 30% call earns 0.40, a 10% call earns 0.80.

We do it that way because counting every underdog call equally would pay the analyst taking the least risk almost as much as the one taking the most, which is the opposite of what the credit is for.

This component became active on 31 August 2026. Until then it was held at zero for everyone, because the scoring path read only the frozen pre-event sportsbook consensus, which on our data qualifies no underdog call for any analyst — so the credit would have paid out on nothing. It now uses the same prices as the directory’s Underdog row: the frozen sportsbook consensus where one was captured, and otherwise a price reconstructed after the fact from Polymarket’s public trading history. Paying it from the narrower source would have ranked analysts on who happened to have a price.

Every price and every credit is published beside the call it belongs to. On an analyst’s page each priced pick carries the chance the market gave the fighter they backed, and opening that pick shows where the price came from and the exact credit it earned. Add up those credits and you can rebuild the published Score yourself — that is the point of showing them.

No published figure was restated. Track Record, hits, misses, perfect calls and the Method and Round components are all unchanged; the underdog term was zero for everyone before this date, so switching it on only ever adds. No analyst’s Score went down. This is a dated version change, recorded below.

It measures accuracy, not edge. In the UFC the betting favourite wins roughly two thirds of fights. An analyst who simply picks the favourite every time will therefore score well without any skill at all. A high Score means an analyst is reliably right and willing to be specific. It does not mean they are beating the market. An analyst who beat the market decisively can score below one who merely matched it, because picking favourites is the higher-accuracy strategy. We do not currently publish a measure of edge, and this number must not be read as one.

No analyst on the board is currently distinguishable from any other. Across the analysts who clear the 20-call floor, every plausible range overlaps every other, including the top and bottom of the table. Statistical tests agree: the spread between these analysts is no wider than chance alone would produce, and on one test it is narrower. The ranking is the best estimate available from the record; it is not evidence that the analyst at the top is better than the analyst at the bottom. This is stated on the board itself, not only here.

Accuracy and edge are never combined. The Score is a blend, and the formula above says exactly how: winner, method, round and underdog calls are components of one published, defined number, not separate metrics quietly averaged into a rating. What it never blends in is edge. Any future measure of whether an analyst beat the market will be its own board with its own denominator, and will never be folded into this number.

Until August 2026 this page stated: “There is no composite Analyst score or overall ranking today. If FightCardIQ publishes one in future, it will explain which published metrics it uses, how it handles sample size and market context, and when any version changes take effect.”

A ranking now exists, so the first sentence is retired with this dated note. The promise in the second sentence is kept in full above, and it is worth being explicit that it was met on its own terms: every input that feeds the Score today — winner, method and round — was already published before it was allowed to feed a ranking. The fourth, underdog, began feeding the Score on 31 August 2026, and was held to the same standard: every price it uses, and the credit each one earns, is published beside the call before it counts for anything. Sample size is handled by the 20-call floor and by publishing the range every score is consistent with. Market context is handled narrowly: the market sets how much a correct underdog call is worth, and nothing else — edge against the market is still not measured, and is not what this Score is. Version changes take effect as described below.

When a rule changes — a new metric, a changed eligibility test, a different floor. The version number increases and the change is dated here. Figures published under an earlier version stand as they were; they are not retrospectively restated, because the record of what we said at the time is itself part of the record.

When a data correction is made — a mis-logged pick, a wrong result, a source that turns out not to support a claim. The affected figures are restated in full and the correction is marked on the analyst’s own page. Corrections are not versioning; they are fixes, and they are never quietly absorbed into a new version.

Version 4, 31 August 2026. Switched on the Score’s underdog component, and began publishing the market price and the credit it earned beside every priced pick on an analyst’s page. The formula, the weights and the 20-call floor are unchanged — the underdog term was always part of them and was simply being fed nothing. Because it was zero for everyone before today, switching it on could only add: no analyst’s Score went down, and no previously published figure was restated. Some analysts changed position relative to one another, which is the ranking responding to the new component and not a correction to anyone’s record.

Version 3, 19 August 2026. Published the FightCardIQ Score, its formula, weights, floor and worked example, and retired the statement that no overall ranking exists. No existing metric definition changed and no previously published figure moved: the Score is derived from figures already on the site. The underdog component is defined but inactive.

Version 2, 18 August 2026. Added the scorecard funnel to the analyst directory and defined how to read it; documented the two reasons a metric can have a zero denominator; published the sample-size arithmetic above. No metric definition changed and no published figure moved.

Version 1. Winner, method, round, perfect and underdog calls as defined above.