If you look at it from a probability standpoint, it's easy to understand the rationale.
You can either try to double your show money with a 50% chance of success, or try to get $50,000 with a 7.69% chance of success.
There are other variables beyond this one example that make fighters more tentative though: losing puts them at risk of getting cut, losing impedes their climb to the top where there's higher pay, and losing while at the top can put your high pay at risk (and that $50,000 bonus can no longer compensate).
That’s probably how a lot of fighters look at it but I don’t think it’s the correct approach.
Very few guys have carved out a lucrative UFC career purely by being a winner. GSP. Jones. Handful of other guys, maybe. Not that those guys are boring, but a decent portion of their appeal comes from their dominance. Not the case with most fighters.
There’s definitely a certain bar you want to remain above in terms of winning and losing. You don’t want to be losing 5 fights in a row.
But once you’ve established yourself as a competitive UFC fighter, being exciting beats winning. The recipe for financial success in he long run is to fight well and fight a lot. The Donald Cerrone model. The Nate Diaz model if he’d, you know, kept fighting. Nik Lentz summed it up really well in his interview after the Gray Maynard fight.
I’m sure Jon Fitch has done fine for himself, but he’s the perfect illustration of the limits that “just winning” puts on a career. He was a top contender and yet the UFC couldn’t care less when he threatened to move on.
Look, if it’s the 3rd round of a fight that’s been a real slog in the mud, then yes, get a takedown, grind out the W, take your win bonus. But in the big picture you want to be the guy who the UFC can count on for entertaining fights. You want to be the one they call and throws money at to fill in on short notice.