COURTEDGE · MMA PREMIUM RESEARCH
Thirteen fights, twenty-six fighter rankings, main-event scenarios, exposure targets and a price-disciplined premium board.
Sign in to read the full analysis, fighter rankings and premium bet board.
Provisional builds and salary tradeoffs below.
Different finishing and accumulation routes.
Competitive branches, not cash locks.
Buckley vs. Malott · Saturday, October 17, 2026 · Rogers Place, Edmonton
The prelims begin at 5 PM Eastern and the main card at 8 PM Eastern. This is the October 17 card, not last weekend's slate. The core decision is Mike Malott against Joaquin Buckley, but a strong six-fighter roster needs more than a main-event opinion. It needs a plan for expensive favorites, credible underdog wins, and the fights most likely to produce enough activity or an early finish to matter in a tournament.
My first overall DFS priority is Malott. My preferred high-variance finishing environment is Mandel Nallo against Nate Landwehr. Nick Galanti and Erin Blanchfield belong near the top of the expensive-fighter conversation, with very different concerns: Galanti carries newcomer and price uncertainty; Blanchfield has an established grappling route but a substantial salary commitment. Those distinctions should determine combinations, rather than treating every favored fighter as an interchangeable building block.
Research salaries are provisional; official DK rows, current MMA projections and ownership remain pending. Rankings, exposure targets and sample lineups are editorial, not simulation outputs. October 10 audio is kept separate. Refresh after weigh-ins. The earlier Malott -107 recommendation is an earlier quote, not a current executable price.
The strongest argument for Malott is that he can make Buckley solve more than one problem. He does not need to out-punch an explosive opponent for twenty-five minutes if he can use striking to enter the clinch, make Buckley defend takedowns, and turn those exchanges into sustained top position or submission threats. That is the path that supports the selection. A vague claim that Malott has more tools is insufficient unless those tools can actually get him to advantageous positions.
Buckley's power changes the cost of every failed entry. An unsuccessful shot is not merely a wasted wrestling attempt; it can leave Malott exposed on the break or force him to reset in punching range. An extended combination that ends without a clinch or safe exit has the same problem. Malott's preferred sequence should be purposeful: create a reaction, close the distance behind something credible, secure position, and make the next exchange occur on his terms. If he reaches for control without creating the entry, the fight becomes much more dangerous.
For Buckley, the winning branch is straightforward to describe and difficult to dismiss. Keep the center available, punish predictable entries, force resets, and turn Malott's transitions into damaging exchanges. He can win before Malott accumulates enough control to matter. Even if he does not finish immediately, making Malott work hard without productive positions can change the later rounds. The threat is not limited to a single lucky punch; repeated successful defensive sequences can turn the entire fight toward Buckley's preferred conditions.
For DFS, five scheduled rounds create additional opportunity, not a guarantee of a huge score. A fighter still needs productive actions. Malott winning with repeated takedowns and meaningful offense has a different ceiling from Malott winning a slow tactical decision. Buckley winning with an early knockout has a different ceiling from Buckley winning a cautious decision. I want the lineup construction to reflect those branches instead of assigning the same point expectation to every win by the same fighter.
My default tournament approach is one side of this fight per lineup, with deliberate representation of both sides across the portfolio. Malott is the primary side; Buckley is a substantial alternative. The proposed starting exposures are 58% Malott and 32% Buckley, leaving 10% of the portfolio without either. That is a planning choice, not a claim that Malott wins 58% of the time or that the fight belongs in 90% of optimal lineups. It expresses how heavily I want to invest in the opportunity while retaining a path for other fights to dominate.
The cash priority list begins with Erin Blanchfield, Kyle Daukaus and Mike Malott, followed by Melissa Croden and Katlyn Cerminara as alternatives when the rest of the roster fits. This is an editorial preference for examining winning routes and usable scoring floors, not a calibrated probability ranking. There are no guaranteed cash locks in MMA. A favorite can win slowly, lose abruptly or fail to produce enough points relative to salary. The correct six-fighter build matters more than putting a lock label on an expensive fighter.
Blanchfield is the first expensive cash candidate because her grappling gives her a route to meaningful work as well as the result. Daukaus is the next candidate when the matchup produces the positions his game needs. Malott adds the only scheduled five-round opportunity on the card, but that opportunity comes opposite Buckley’s knockout power. He is a useful core candidate, not the safest fighter in every conceivable script. Croden and Cerminara can be useful when a decision-oriented winning route is sufficient for the cash threshold, even if that route is less exciting for a top-heavy tournament.
Nick Galanti should not become a cash lock simply because the retrieved market makes him a large favorite. His $9,500 research salary and limited comparable UFC evidence create two separate questions: how likely is he to win, and what do we sacrifice elsewhere to roster him? He remains a high-priority tournament ceiling purchase. Nallo is similarly more appealing as a finishing candidate than as the person asked to stabilize a cash lineup. His opponent’s volatility does not eliminate his own.
My first cash construction to review is the $49,800 main-event stack below. It uses Malott and Buckley together, Blanchfield and Daukaus as the two other core purchases, then Faglier and You as the salary bridges. It is a provisional construction, not a solved optimum or an upload-ready recommendation. The salaries come from the retained research grid; official DraftKings rows and the final card still need checking.
| Fighter | Research salary |
|---|---|
| Mike Malott | $8,400 |
| Joaquin Buckley | $7,800 |
| Erin Blanchfield | $9,300 |
| Kyle Daukaus | $8,700 |
| SuYoung You | $7,700 |
| Joel Faglier | $7,900 |
| TOTAL | $49,800 |
| REMAINING | $200 |
The attraction of this build is access to five-round scoring without requiring a prediction of which main-event fighter wins. That does not guarantee two useful scores. An early knockout or submission can leave the losing side with very little production. A slow fight can also disappoint. The stack is a tradeoff: coverage of the winner and the possibility of losing-side activity, in exchange for giving up the chance of six winners from six separate bouts. The rest of the roster must be strong enough to justify that tradeoff.
Faglier is a salary bridge, not a newly invented lock. His $7,900 research price and the retrieved event page’s small-favorite listing make him worth comparing with other options in this range. The existing fight lean still narrowly prefers Mahjoub’s grappling route, so the cash sample is explicitly taking the opposing branch in a highly uncertain newcomer matchup. If that uncertainty remains unacceptable after film and final inputs, change the build rather than claiming the market has solved it. You’s $7,700 price is another compromise: experience against a debutant is a reason to investigate, not proof of a stable scoring floor.
A six-separate-fight alternative spends exactly $50,000 on Blanchfield, Daukaus, Malott, Croden, You and Kyle Nelson. It avoids the guaranteed losing position created by a main-event stack and buys four preferred winners. Its cost is meaningful dependence on You and Nelson winning or contributing enough in defeat. Nelson is an underdog facing a prospect we prefer, so this alternative should not be described as automatically safer. The slate does not offer six obvious strong favorites at these salaries without a compromise.
| Fighter | Research salary |
|---|---|
| Erin Blanchfield | $9,300 |
| Kyle Daukaus | $8,700 |
| Mike Malott | $8,400 |
| Melissa Croden | $8,900 |
| SuYoung You | $7,700 |
| Kyle Nelson | $7,000 |
| TOTAL | $50,000 |
| REMAINING | $0 |
Do not turn either sample into a blind cash entry before weigh-ins. Confirm every bout remains scheduled, replace research salaries with the official file, and look for an updated projection and ownership snapshot. If a value fighter’s role, condition or matchup changes, reassess the whole construction. A salary swap that fits the cap can still remove the original reason the lineup was built. No projected cash percentage or simulated ROI is attached to these samples because those calculations have not been performed with complete MMA inputs.
My premium GPP spending order starts with Malott, Nallo, Galanti, Blanchfield and Daukaus, with Perez and Diniz as competing expensive finish branches. This is the tournament ranking’s top group, not a requirement to squeeze them all into the same lineup. A six-fighter roster needs a combination of scoring routes and a workable salary structure. Spending on three expensive fighters usually means accepting substantial risk in the lower-priced half.
For underdogs, Buckley is the first alternative because his damaging-striking route can end the slate’s longest scheduled fight quickly at a useful price. You is a balanced salary option whose appeal is experience and a competitive matchup. Landwehr is a volatility purchase in a fight where both sides have reasons to chase offense. Nelson and Cuamba are veteran or UFC-experience alternatives to prospect/debutant favorites. Jasudavicius is a lower-priced positional upset branch against an expensive favorite. This is an editorial review order, not a verified ranking by optimal-lineup frequency.
Boser, Barriault and Chandler are additional paths when their technical strengths create an actual upset thesis. Leblanc’s $6,700 salary is a tournament-only consideration in this version; a very cheap fighter facing a huge favorite should not become a cash play because he makes the other five names look comfortable. Faglier is kept separate from the underdog list because the retrieved official snapshot lists him as a small favorite, despite his lower research salary. Salary ordering and market favorite status are different inputs.
Ownership has not been supplied for this MMA slate. Therefore none of these fighters is labeled low-owned, chalk or positive leverage as a measured fact. When ownership arrives, compare price, win route, finishing route and likely duplication. Do not automatically fade a good fighter because he is popular. Do not automatically increase a weak underdog because his ownership is small. A useful low-owned fighter still needs a plausible performance capable of beating the field.
| GPP branch | Six fighters | Research salary |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mike Malott / Mandel Nallo / Nick Galanti / Joel Faglier / SuYoung You / Kyle Nelson | $49,600 |
| 2 | Joaquin Buckley / Erin Blanchfield / Kyle Daukaus / Jhonata Diniz / Steven Koslow / Kyle Nelson | $49,600 |
The first GPP example combines Malott’s longer-fight opportunity with Nallo and Galanti’s finishing branches, then uses three distinct lower-cost outcomes. The second pivots to Buckley’s knockout branch and changes the other expensive priorities. These examples are not the highest-scoring simulated lineups: they are legal research constructions that illustrate different ways to assemble the slate. Each uses six unique fighters from six different bouts. No opposing fighters are stacked in these tournament examples.
This ordering considers access to fantasy scoring, salary relevance, and the importance of representing alternative outcomes. It is not an ordering of entertainment value, betting edge, or certainty that the favorite wins. A volatile fight can rank highly for tournaments while remaining a betting pass.
| DFS priority | Fight | Preferred side | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mike Malott vs. Joaquin Buckley | Mike Malott | Five-round accumulation or early finish |
| 2 | Mandel Nallo vs. Nate Landwehr | Mandel Nallo | High-variance finishing environment |
| 3 | Nick Galanti vs. Julien Leblanc | Nick Galanti | Favorite finishing upside; price-sensitive |
| 4 | Kyle Daukaus vs. Marc-Andre Barriault | Kyle Daukaus | Grappling / transition opportunities |
| 5 | Cristian Perez vs. Kyle Nelson | Cristian Perez | Prospect offense vs veteran resistance |
| 6 | Jhonata Diniz vs. Tanner Boser | Jhonata Diniz | Heavyweight damage and finish |
| 7 | Erin Blanchfield vs. Jasmine Jasudavicius | Erin Blanchfield | Productive grappling; salary tradeoff |
| 8 | Javad Mahjoub vs. Joel Faglier | Javad Mahjoub | Newcomer heavyweight uncertainty |
| 9 | Cody Chovancek vs. SuYoung You | Cody Chovancek | Midrange result; assess actual scoring |
| 10 | Chad Anheliger vs. Steven Koslow | Steven Koslow | Lower confidence after long absences |
| 11 | Louis Jourdain vs. Timmy Cuamba | Louis Jourdain | Debut and veteran alternatives |
| 12 | Melissa Croden vs. Chelsea Chandler | Melissa Croden | Win probability versus offensive ceiling |
| 13 | Katlyn Cerminara vs. Mackenzie Stiller | Katlyn Cerminara | Measured decision risk at premium salary |
Nallo against Landwehr is the first non-main-event fight I want represented in tournament planning. The official preview notes that Nallo had not reached the scorecards in his professional career and that Landwehr entered after three consecutive stoppage losses while moving to lightweight. Those facts support close attention to finishing outcomes, but they do not remove Nallo's own vulnerability: he was stopped in his UFC debut after initially threatening Jai Herbert. [1,3]
For Nallo, the attractive script is effective offense before the fight becomes an uncontrolled exchange of chances. A knockdown followed by decisive follow-up work can make the salary worthwhile quickly. The dangerous assumption is that the opponent's recent losses mean every aggressive moment is safe. If he overcommits, loses position, or reacts badly when the initial attack fails, the fight can change before his early success becomes a winning score.
Landwehr is an underdog to consider because this environment offers a route to a result that matters. The case is not that his recent stoppages should be ignored. It is that an aggressive opponent with his own defensive questions can create opportunities for a fighter willing to keep engaging. If you roster Landwehr, the lineup should be built for an actual upset with meaningful offense. Hoping he merely lasts longer than expected is generally a weak tournament thesis.
Galanti is one of the first expensive fighters to examine, and one of the easiest places to become overconfident. His UFC profile lists multiple submission wins and early finishes. Leblanc's profile records a first-round submission loss to Robert Valentin in his previous UFC appearance. Those are relevant clues for investigating a finishing route; they are not a complete film study or proof that the same sequence repeats. [4,5]
At the provisional $9,500 salary, Galanti needs to compete with the best scores on the slate. A comfortable decision can still be a poor tournament result relative to cost. That is why his rank near the top is tied to a finishing or activity-heavy path, rather than simply the expectation that he wins. If his scoring opportunity looks less compelling after deeper review, the expensive salary makes the adjustment important.
Leblanc belongs in the ranked pool as a low-priority salary-saving upset option, not a token name at the bottom. His provisional salary is $6,700, which can change the entire roster. If he wins, he may unlock combinations that a lineup with only midrange underdogs cannot reach. The standard should remain demanding: an actual upset path, not merely a cheap body that lets you select five favorites.
Daukaus is the preferred side, with the most attractive DFS branch coming through a grappling-led win that includes productive transitions or a finish. Barriault is the alternative when the fight stays uncomfortable for the favorite and the work required to obtain control becomes more expensive than expected. This is an assessment of how the matchup could develop, not a claim that every minute will take place in one phase.
At $8,700 in the research grid, Daukaus sits in a range where he can fit alongside Malott without automatically requiring the cheapest underdog. That flexibility is useful. I would still ask what happens if his win is a lower-event decision. If another fighter at a similar price has a more plausible path to a slate-leading score, the salary fit alone does not make him the superior choice.
Barriault at $7,500 can support a balanced construction. The question is whether he can force enough uncomfortable work and meaningful offense to turn the preferred script upside down. If the lineup uses him, it should benefit from the favorite failing to establish clean control. Combining him with the opposing side of the main event is one way to create a roster with several distinct, explainable upset branches.
Perez offers a finishing profile worth investigating. UFC coverage describes his contract-winning stoppage and also discusses the earlier Contender Series loss in which he faded late. That combination is more useful than a simple prospect label: it gives us a possible strength to seek and a specific failure mode to test. Nelson is an experienced opponent, and the fight should not be treated as a ceremonial debut. [8,9]
The preferred Perez outcome is effective pressure that produces damage without wasting his energy or defensive position. A favorable early exchange only matters if it leads to a sustainable advantage. If Nelson can make the fight take longer, interrupt the rhythm, or punish unnecessary risks, the favorite's early activity may not turn into the ceiling score his salary needs.
At $9,200, Perez has to be compared with Galanti, Blanchfield and Nallo. You cannot solve that comparison by picking the fighter with the most appealing recent clip. Ask which roster each salary creates, what type of win is required, and whether the lineup becomes overly dependent on several expensive fighters all finishing quickly. A favorite-heavy construction can look safe while containing several correlated assumptions about how an entire slate unfolds.
Nelson's $7,000 salary is attractive only if the winning thesis is credible. I want him in tournament planning as the veteran who can disrupt the prospect's preferred pace and punish mistakes. I do not want to manufacture a claim that experience guarantees the upset. Experience matters when it translates into specific decisions during the fight.
This fight belongs in the upper half of the DFS priority list because a decisive heavyweight result can matter quickly. The official preview notes that both fighters are returning from losses. That is context for examining their responses to adversity, not a reason to label the bout a guaranteed early knockout. Recent outcomes cannot tell us exactly how the next set of exchanges will develop. [1]
Diniz is the preferred side at a provisional $8,800, with the obvious tournament attraction being a damaging striking performance and a finish. The construction question is whether that upside is meaningfully better than the other expensive options. If you select him, you are using a salary tier that could otherwise reach Daukaus or help pay for a more expensive favorite. The opportunity cost matters.
Boser at $7,400 is a plausible alternative for portfolios that need a heavyweight upset without dropping into the very cheapest range. The useful question is how he avoids giving Diniz repeated clean opportunities while generating enough offense of his own. It is not enough to say he is experienced or fighting in Canada. A home setting does not supply takedowns, defense or damaging strikes.
Blanchfield's grappling credentials give her a recognizable winning route. UFC coverage documents her submission win over Tracy Cortez. The DFS attraction is a win that includes productive grappling exchanges and possibly a finish, rather than assuming that a favored decision automatically separates her from the other high-priced choices. [10]
Jasudavicius is not being evaluated as a generic underdog. Her ability to contest the positions Blanchfield wants is the central question. If she can deny clean control and make the fight occur in less favorable exchanges for the favorite, the matchup changes. If she cannot, the salary savings do not compensate for a lineup position that produces very little offense.
At $9,300, Blanchfield is a deliberate premium purchase. She can be one of the steadier expensive choices to investigate, but using her alongside Galanti and Perez creates a very particular demand on the remaining three roster spots. Before calling that lineup safe, identify the three underdogs it requires and whether each one has a credible route to a win.
Mahjoub and Faglier bring an appealing but uncertain heavyweight matchup. UFC's profile material confirms Mahjoub's high-level judo background, while Faglier's profile describes a young undefeated newcomer with knockout and submission finishes. The evidence supports examining early positional advantages and finishing exchanges. It does not support confidently assigning a precise UFC-level win probability to either fighter. [11,12]
Mahjoub's best DFS story is that his grappling background translates into control quickly enough to create damaging offense or a submission opportunity. The important word is translates. Familiarity with throws and elite competition in another sport is valuable, but cage positioning, strikes during entries and extended MMA exchanges remain part of the test. We should not treat a credential as a completed performance.
Faglier's route is to handle that initial threat and create his own attacking positions. He should not be reduced to the person being thrown in the other fighter's highlight reel. His regional finishing record makes him worth studying, while the limited comparable evidence keeps the confidence level restrained. Both sides can be interesting without either becoming a large straight bet.
The provisional salaries, $8,300 Mahjoub and $7,900 Faglier, allow different balanced builds. My initial allocation is 22% Mahjoub and 18% Faglier. I prefer that relatively modest, two-sided exposure to announcing a strong edge that the available information cannot support. The ranking treats this as a useful tournament environment with substantial uncertainty.
Chovancek enters as an unbeaten debutant, while You has already competed successfully in the Road to UFC pathway and inside the promotion. The official fight preview also notes You's submission loss to Elijah Smith. [1] Those facts suggest a real test rather than an easy newcomer showcase. A loss to a capable prospect should not erase the rest of You's experience. [13]
Chovancek's preferred route is a complete performance that can produce enough offensive work to reward the salary. At $8,500, he does not need the same score as the most expensive fighter, but he still must compete with other options in a crowded middle range. I would avoid assigning him the finishing ceiling of an entirely different fighter simply because he trains with successful teammates.
You at $7,700 offers an alternative that can keep a roster balanced. The case depends on his own ability to win exchanges and avoid being neutralized, not on the general idea that debutants are overrated. If the most plausible You win is a low-event decision, the salary can still work in some constructions, but it should not be described as a guaranteed tournament ceiling.
This is a lower-priority fight for both confidence and portfolio size. Sportsnet's report confirms a long absence for Anheliger, and UFC's preview material indicates a lengthy absence for Koslow as well. Long gaps create uncertainty about how current ability compares with older evidence. They are not automatic proof that either fighter is improved, diminished or physically compromised. [14]
The earlier research leaned toward Koslow, and I retain that as a low-confidence lean rather than upgrading it into a strong pick. The path worth investigating is whether he can create productive grappling exchanges and avoid spending too much of the bout reacting. If those positions are difficult to obtain, the original thesis weakens quickly.
Anheliger's opposing route needs to be evaluated with the same specificity. Can he prevent the fight from settling into the other man's preferred positions and generate offense that changes the outcome? That is more useful than assigning importance to a home-province narrative. The crowd may affect the atmosphere; it does not resolve the technical questions.
At the provisional $8,000 and $8,200 salaries, neither fighter offers a dramatic discount. That raises the standard for tournament inclusion. My initial split is 16% Koslow and 9% Anheliger. It is deliberately smaller than the allocations to the main event and the higher-priority finishing environments.
Louis Jourdain is the fighter on this card. He should not inherit every strength associated with Charles Jourdain. UFC coverage describes Louis as a more direct, fundamentally oriented fighter and identifies the delay between his contract win and his debut. Cuamba brings UFC experience to a matchup where both fighters' ability to execute under the actual conditions matters. [15]
The provisional $8,600 salary requires Louis to deliver more than a reassuring debut. A controlled decision may be a good professional result while failing to justify the tournament roster spot. The attractive branch is one where his offense translates efficiently and creates enough meaningful activity or a finish to compete with the other middle-priced options.
Cuamba's $7,600 salary creates a useful alternative in lineups that spend heavily elsewhere. His experience is relevant if it helps him disrupt the debutant's rhythm or exploit mistakes. It should not become an automatic experience advantage that substitutes for understanding the exchanges. The cheap side still needs to win.
I begin with 20% Jourdain and 15% Cuamba. The allocation leaves most lineups without either fighter because the available information does not establish this as one of the slate's essential scoring environments. That can change with better projection inputs or a materially different market expectation, but it should not change merely because the fighter has a recognizable surname.
Croden is the preferred side in the earlier research. Her UFC profile records a decision win over Daria Zhelezniakova, while Chandler's profile records a recent submission win. Those facts are relevant to examining how each woman could win, but neither result should be stretched into a complete prediction of this matchup. [16,17]
For Croden at a provisional $8,900, I want evidence of an offensive performance that justifies the salary relative to the other favorites. Merely surviving difficult exchanges and edging a decision can be enough to win the fight and insufficient to lead a tournament. That is the reason her DFS priority sits below several less predictable fights.
Chandler at $7,300 creates a different roster. Her inclusion should express the possibility that she can reach favorable positions and turn them into a win. It should not be justified solely by a low salary or the need to avoid popular favorites. Without an ownership file, claims that she is a sharp leverage play would be premature.
Cerminara's long experience makes her an understandable favorite to investigate against a newcomer. The available official material confirms Stiller as the replacement opponent and both fighters' participation. It does not justify treating the matchup as solved. A replacement changes the assignment, and the correct response is to evaluate that assignment rather than recycling analysis prepared for a different opponent. [18]
At the provisional $9,000 salary, Cerminara needs an offensive outcome that competes with the slate's other expensive options. If the strongest thesis is a measured decision with limited additional scoring, her tournament appeal may be lower than her win expectation. That is not a contradiction. A likely winner can still be an inefficient way to purchase fantasy ceiling.
Stiller at $7,200 belongs near the bottom of the pool until more specific evidence supports an upset route. That does not mean dismissing her because she is new. It means acknowledging that the available information is thinner and avoiding false precision. A confident projection generated from insufficient evidence would not solve that problem.
The starting exposures are 17% Cerminara and 8% Stiller. I would consider Cerminara earlier in a cash-oriented review than in a lineup designed to maximize first-place upside, but that remains a comparison to make with actual projections. Her cash role is conditional on the construction and current inputs; the sample lineups above show the actual salary tradeoffs.
The table ranks all 26 fighters by editorial DFS priority at the provisional salaries. It incorporates ceiling routes, opportunity cost and the need to represent plausible alternative outcomes. It is not a ranking of skill across weight classes or a list of win probabilities. The exposure targets sum to 600%, representing six roster spots across a portfolio; no same-fight pairing is implied.
| DFS rank | Fighter | Research salary | Target % | Portfolio role |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mike Malott | $8,400 | 58 | Primary core; productive grappling or finish |
| 2 | Mandel Nallo | $9,100 | 38 | Finishing upside; volatile exchanges |
| 3 | Nick Galanti | $9,500 | 40 | Expensive finishing candidate; debut risk |
| 4 | Erin Blanchfield | $9,300 | 35 | Grappling ceiling; premium salary |
| 5 | Kyle Daukaus | $8,700 | 34 | Grappling-led win preferred |
| 6 | Cristian Perez | $9,200 | 30 | Finishing prospect; veteran test |
| 7 | Joaquin Buckley | $7,800 | 32 | Main-event knockout alternative |
| 8 | Jhonata Diniz | $8,800 | 29 | Heavyweight finish branch |
| 9 | Javad Mahjoub | $8,300 | 22 | Judo-to-MMA translation; debut uncertainty |
| 10 | Joel Faglier | $7,900 | 18 | Balanced-salary heavyweight alternative |
| 11 | Marc-Andre Barriault | $7,500 | 18 | Underdog pressure / disruption branch |
| 12 | Nate Landwehr | $7,100 | 22 | Volatile upset branch |
| 13 | Cody Chovancek | $8,500 | 20 | Unbeaten debutant; actual assignment matters |
| 14 | Steven Koslow | $8,000 | 16 | Low-confidence earlier lean |
| 15 | Timmy Cuamba | $7,600 | 15 | Salary-saving alternative to debutant |
| 16 | Louis Jourdain | $8,600 | 20 | Direct offense; salary needs productivity |
| 17 | SuYoung You | $7,700 | 15 | Experienced alternative; avoid submission exposure |
| 18 | Kyle Nelson | $7,000 | 20 | Veteran upset / salary relief |
| 19 | Melissa Croden | $8,900 | 20 | Preferred side; decision ceiling concern |
| 20 | Jasmine Jasudavicius | $6,900 | 20 | Upset construction; positional test |
| 21 | Tanner Boser | $7,400 | 16 | Heavyweight alternative |
| 22 | Katlyn Cerminara | $9,000 | 17 | Win appeal may exceed DFS ceiling |
| 23 | Chelsea Chandler | $7,300 | 10 | Positional upset branch |
| 24 | Mackenzie Stiller | $7,200 | 8 | Thin evidence; low-priority upset |
| 25 | Chad Anheliger | $8,200 | 9 | Long absence; modest allocation |
| 26 | Julien Leblanc | $6,700 | 18 | Cheap upset path; large favorite opposite |
These percentages are starting targets, not simultaneous hard minimums. Round them to whole lineups and let the salary constraint determine whether a particular collection can coexist. For most non-core fighters, begin with a band about five percentage points around the target rather than demanding an exact count. A portfolio that cannot satisfy the settings should return an explanation, not silently violate the caps.
For a single-entry contest, start with a coherent six-fighter construction, use six different fights by default, and explain the role of every salary. A low-priced fighter should carry a real upset thesis. An expensive favorite should offer a plausible score that justifies what the salary forces elsewhere. If the lineup requires three weak underdogs simply to fit three large favorites, reconsider the expensive side rather than defending the roster because each favorite looks likely to win.
For twenty-max contests, use the exposure targets as a guide and audit the actual counts. With twenty lineups, one entry is five percentage points, so a 58% target cannot be exact. An eleven- or twelve-lineup allocation is a practical interpretation, depending on the other constraints. The rest of the pool must still fill one hundred and twenty fighter slots legally. Check both the individual caps and the combined roster feasibility.
For larger portfolios, generate more legal candidates than you intend to enter. Sort only by metrics the model actually computes, and preserve the chosen portfolio's exposure requirements after selection. Projected points, salary and ownership are useful inputs; none is a substitute for a payout-aware estimate. This research does not provide a newly calibrated MMA ROI model, so no fighter or lineup is being advertised with a fabricated simulated return.
CSV export should use official DraftKings fighter identifiers and the correct slate, with six unique fighters and a legal salary total. There is no Captain position in this classic MMA format. Do not carry over NFL Showdown's Captain controls or 1.5 salary multiplier. Research salaries and fighter names alone are insufficient to guarantee an accepted upload, and no automatic contest entry or wager is authorized by preparing a CSV.
| Selection | Price / threshold | Stake | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malott moneyline | Earlier -107 | 1.25u risked in recommendation | Earlier recommendation; no verified fill |
| Malott moneyline | -115 or better | No new stake assigned | Watch; retrieved -125 snapshot is worse |
| Daukaus moneyline | -175 or better | Up to 0.5u if later approved | Watch only; current reference worse |
| Nallo inside distance | -150 or better | Up to 0.5u if later approved | Watch only; no executable prop verified |
The recorded Malott recommendation is the only existing premium selection retained here. The two additional ideas are conditional watchlist entries, not active bets, filled orders or evidence of a positive expected value. The current main-event snapshot is worse than the new-entry threshold, so the default instruction is to wait or pass rather than chase the earlier price.
Units measure the stake at risk in this playbook. They are not percentages of certainty. A 1.25-unit wager is larger than a half-unit wager, but the label does not convert an editorial opinion into a calibrated probability. If several bets depend on the same fighter winning, review their combined exposure. A moneyline plus a finish prop can create much more dependence on one outcome than the individual stakes suggest.
Confirm the final thirteen bouts and weigh-in outcomes. Recheck replacements and withdrawals against the official event listing. Replace provisional salaries with the official DraftKings file and add a current projection and ownership snapshot before treating any exposure sheet as final. The article's rankings should show their update time so members can tell research from a later market adjustment.
Source snapshots checked October 15, 2026. UFC pages can update; no future results were used. Earlier user-supplied matchup notes, contest descriptions, provisional salaries and the -107 / 1.25-unit recommendation are retained separately from public reporting. Editorial scenarios, DFS rankings, exposure targets and watch thresholds are CourtEdge analysis, not published model probabilities.
Official DraftKings salaries and player IDs are matched. Cash review order: Erin Blanchfield, Kyle Daukaus, then Mike Malott. The GPP ranking is a separate editorial order. MMA projections and calibrated simulation probabilities remain pending; no simulated ROI is assigned to these examples.
All 26 fighters made weight according to the October 16 weigh-in report. Recheck late withdrawals before lock.
All salaries and roster slots below were checked against the supplied slate. These are construction examples, not simulated winners. Refresh availability before entry; projected totals are snapshot estimates. Contest entry limits still apply.
| Slot | Player | Salary |
|---|---|---|
| F | Mike Malott | $8,400 |
| F | Erin Blanchfield | $9,300 |
| F | Kyle Daukaus | $8,700 |
| F | Timmy Cuamba | $7,600 |
| F | Kyle Nelson | $7,000 |
| F | Joel Faglier | $7,900 |
$48,900 / $50,000 · $1,100 remaining
Blanchfield, Daukaus and Malott provide the main editorial scoring routes. Cuamba, Nelson and Faglier supply salary relief and carry real upset/low-score risk. There are no opposing fighters in this example.
| Slot | Player | Salary |
|---|---|---|
| F | Mike Malott | $8,400 |
| F | Joaquin Buckley | $7,800 |
| F | Erin Blanchfield | $9,300 |
| F | Kyle Daukaus | $8,700 |
| F | Timmy Cuamba | $7,600 |
| F | Kyle Nelson | $7,000 |
$48,800 / $50,000 · $1,200 remaining
Intentionally includes both sides of the five-round main event. The aim is to capture its combined scoring rather than correctly pick its winner, but an early finish can still produce a weak losing score. This is a cash-only alternative, not a six-winner GPP build.
| Slot | Player | Salary |
|---|---|---|
| F | Joaquin Buckley | $7,800 |
| F | Mandel Nallo | $9,100 |
| F | Nick Galanti | $9,500 |
| F | Jhonata Diniz | $8,800 |
| F | Kyle Nelson | $7,000 |
| F | Timmy Cuamba | $7,600 |
$49,800 / $50,000 · $200 remaining
Buckley replaces Malott in the main event; Nallo, Galanti and Diniz supply finishing routes. Nelson and Cuamba must outperform their salary expectations. Six different fights preserve a six-winner path.
| Slot | Player | Salary |
|---|---|---|
| F | Mike Malott | $8,400 |
| F | Erin Blanchfield | $9,300 |
| F | Cristian Perez | $9,200 |
| F | Javad Mahjoub | $8,300 |
| F | Nate Landwehr | $7,100 |
| F | Julien Leblanc | $6,700 |
$49,000 / $50,000 · $1,000 remaining
Malott and Blanchfield anchor the construction, with Perez and Mahjoub adding finishing paths. Landwehr and Leblanc are explicit upset branches and can fail badly. This example demonstrates a different six-fight script.
| Slot | Player | Salary |
|---|---|---|
| F | Mike Malott | $8,400 |
| F | Kyle Daukaus | $8,700 |
| F | Mandel Nallo | $9,100 |
| F | Jhonata Diniz | $8,800 |
| F | Timmy Cuamba | $7,600 |
| F | Mackenzie Stiller | $7,200 |
$49,800 / $50,000 · $200 remaining
A different combination of grappling and finishing targets with Cuamba and Stiller as salary-saving upset paths. It avoids opposing fighters and leaves room below the cap.