WEEK 10 · Thu, Nov 12, 7:15 PM CST

Washington Commanders @ New York Giants

11 qualified model plays · 11 modeled lines did not qualify · 7-4-0
← Back to Week 10
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 11 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 72.9% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +21.5% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +33.4% Average modeled return using the published side price.

Projection gap is the raw difference between PDR's projection and the sportsbook line. No-vig edge is the probability advantage after removing sportsbook hold. They answer different questions.

How the model works →
QUALIFIED PLAYS

Game prop board

Ranked by the frozen published model board.

#1 MODEL PLAY

Devin Singletary

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 23.5
fanduel -114
Projection 56.3
Proj. gap +32.8
Model win 78.9%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +28.9%
Model-implied EV +48.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 56.3 is 32.8 above the 23.5 line.
Model win probability 78.9% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +28.9% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 78.9% model win, +28.9% no-vig edge, and +48.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 3 rushing yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Theo Johnson

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 5.5
fanduel -114
Projection 35.9
Proj. gap +30.4
Model win 78.8%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +28.8%
Model-implied EV +47.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 35.9 is 30.4 above the 5.5 line.
Model win probability 78.8% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +28.8% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 78.8% model win, +28.8% no-vig edge, and +47.9% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 8 receiving yards
#3 MODEL PLAY

Stefon Diggs

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 40.5
fanduel -114
Projection 69.4
Proj. gap +28.9
Model win 76.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +26.6%
Model-implied EV +43.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 69.4 is 28.9 above the 40.5 line.
Model win probability 76.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +26.6% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 76.6% model win, +26.6% no-vig edge, and +43.9% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 83 receiving yards
#4 MODEL PLAY

Jayden Daniels

Passing yards
LOSS
UNDER 202.5
fanduel -114
Projection 150.0
Proj. gap -52.5
Model win 75.8%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +25.8%
Model-implied EV +42.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 150.0 is 52.5 below the 202.5 line.
Model win probability 75.8% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +25.8% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 75.8% model win, +25.8% no-vig edge, and +42.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 249 passing yards
#5 MODEL PLAY

Chig Okonkwo

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 4.5
fanduel -180
Projection 3.7
Proj. gap -0.8
Model win 75.7%
No-vig market 60.1%
No-vig edge +15.7%
Model-implied EV +17.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.7 is 0.8 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 75.7% vs 60.1% no-vig market probability creates a +15.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 75.7% model win, +15.7% no-vig edge, and +17.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 4 receptions
#6 MODEL PLAY

Theo Johnson

Receptions
WIN
OVER 0.5
fanduel -180
Projection 2.6
Proj. gap +2.1
Model win 75.3%
No-vig market 60.1%
No-vig edge +15.2%
Model-implied EV +17.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.6 is 2.1 above the 0.5 line.
Model win probability 75.3% vs 60.1% no-vig market probability creates a +15.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 75.3% model win, +15.2% no-vig edge, and +17.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 1 reception
#7 MODEL PLAY

Malik Nabers

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 5.5
fanduel -102
Projection 4.8
Proj. gap -0.7
Model win 75.1%
No-vig market 47.2%
No-vig edge +27.9%
Model-implied EV +48.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.8 is 0.7 below the 5.5 line.
Model win probability 75.1% vs 47.2% no-vig market probability creates a +27.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 75.1% model win, +27.9% no-vig edge, and +48.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 5 receptions
#8 MODEL PLAY

Darnell Mooney

Receiving yards
LOSS
OVER 15.5
fanduel -114
Projection 41.1
Proj. gap +25.6
Model win 72.0%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +22.0%
Model-implied EV +35.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 41.1 is 25.6 above the 15.5 line.
Model win probability 72.0% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +22.0% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 72.0% model win, +22.0% no-vig edge, and +35.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 8 receiving yards
#9 MODEL PLAY

Darnell Mooney

Receptions
WIN
OVER 1.5
fanduel -108
Projection 3.2
Proj. gap +1.7
Model win 66.9%
No-vig market 48.6%
No-vig edge +18.3%
Model-implied EV +28.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.2 is 1.7 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 66.9% vs 48.6% no-vig market probability creates a +18.3% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 66.9% model win, +18.3% no-vig edge, and +28.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 2 receptions
#10 MODEL PLAY

Cam Skattebo

Rushing yards
WIN
OVER 50.5
fanduel -114
Projection 71.8
Proj. gap +21.3
Model win 64.1%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +14.1%
Model-implied EV +20.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 71.8 is 21.3 above the 50.5 line.
Model win probability 64.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +14.1% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 64.1% model win, +14.1% no-vig edge, and +20.3% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 78 rushing yards
#11 MODEL PLAY

J.J. McCarthy

Passing yards
LOSS
UNDER 210.5
fanduel -114
Projection 185.7
Proj. gap -24.8
Model win 62.8%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +12.8%
Model-implied EV +17.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 185.7 is 24.8 below the 210.5 line.
Model win probability 62.8% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +12.8% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 62.8% model win, +12.8% no-vig edge, and +17.9% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 293 passing yards
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Other lines PDR reviewed

Context only. These are not published recommendations and are not graded.

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Austin Ekeler

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 27.5
fanduel -114
Projection35.5
Proj. gap+8.0
Model win45.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-4.1%
Model-implied EV-13.9%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Austin Ekeler

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel +108
Projection2.4
Proj. gap+0.9
Model win50.9%
No-vig market44.9%
No-vig edge+6.0%
Model-implied EV+5.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Austin Ekeler

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 7.5
fanduel -114
Projection16.5
Proj. gap+9.0
Model win45.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-4.1%
Model-implied EV-13.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Cam Skattebo

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel +124
Projection2.3
Proj. gap+0.8
Model win49.4%
No-vig market41.7%
No-vig edge+7.7%
Model-implied EV+10.6%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Cam Skattebo

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 7.5
fanduel -114
Projection21.4
Proj. gap+13.9
Model win53.6%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+3.6%
Model-implied EV+0.6%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Chig Okonkwo

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 34.5
fanduel -114
Projection36.3
Proj. gap+1.8
Model win35.8%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-14.2%
Model-implied EV-32.7%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

J.J. McCarthy

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel -198
Projection1.0
Proj. gap-0.5
Model win67.8%
No-vig market62.0%
No-vig edge+5.8%
Model-implied EV+2.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model-implied EV did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jayden Daniels

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel -235
Projection0.9
Proj. gap-0.6
Model win68.0%
No-vig market65.6%
No-vig edge+2.4%
Model-implied EV-3.0%
Why it did not qualify: No-vig market edge did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jayden Daniels

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 34.5
fanduel -114
Projection37.5
Proj. gap+3.0
Model win40.6%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-9.4%
Model-implied EV-23.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Malik Nabers

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 66.5
fanduel -114
Projection69.7
Proj. gap+3.2
Model win37.4%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-12.6%
Model-implied EV-29.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Stefon Diggs

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 4.5
fanduel +130
Projection5.2
Proj. gap+0.7
Model win48.2%
No-vig market40.6%
No-vig edge+7.6%
Model-implied EV+10.9%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
PDR is part of The Buffet. Turn your sports takes into challenges with friends at Buffet Bets →