WEEK 2 · Sun, Sep 20, 7:20 PM CDT

Indianapolis Colts @ Kansas City Chiefs

10 qualified model plays · 14 modeled lines did not qualify · 4-6-0
← Back to Week 2
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 10 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 64.8% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +14.8% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +21.5% 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

Jonathan Taylor

Rushing yards
LOSS
UNDER 88.5
fanduel -114
Projection 69.4
Proj. gap -19.1
Model win 79.8%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +29.8%
Model-implied EV +49.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 69.4 is 19.1 below the 88.5 line.
Model win probability 79.8% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +29.8% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 79.8% model win, +29.8% no-vig edge, and +49.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 92 rushing yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Warren

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 42.5
fanduel -114
Projection 36.6
Proj. gap -5.9
Model win 72.2%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +22.2%
Model-implied EV +35.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 36.6 is 5.9 below the 42.5 line.
Model win probability 72.2% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +22.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 72.2% model win, +22.2% no-vig edge, and +35.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 21 receiving yards
#3 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Warren

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 4.5
fanduel -102
Projection 4.2
Proj. gap -0.3
Model win 68.1%
No-vig market 47.2%
No-vig edge +20.9%
Model-implied EV +34.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.2 is 0.3 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 68.1% vs 47.2% no-vig market probability creates a +20.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 68.1% model win, +20.9% no-vig edge, and +34.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 6 receptions
#4 MODEL PLAY

Xavier Worthy

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 3.5
fanduel -140
Projection 3.3
Proj. gap -0.2
Model win 66.5%
No-vig market 54.6%
No-vig edge +11.9%
Model-implied EV +14.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.3 is 0.2 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 66.5% vs 54.6% no-vig market probability creates a +11.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 66.5% model win, +11.9% no-vig edge, and +14.0% 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
#5 MODEL PLAY

Kenneth Walker III

Rushing yards
LOSS
UNDER 73.5
fanduel -114
Projection 72.2
Proj. gap -1.3
Model win 64.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +14.3%
Model-implied EV +20.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 72.2 is 1.3 below the 73.5 line.
Model win probability 64.3% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +14.3% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 64.3% model win, +14.3% no-vig edge, and +20.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 117 rushing yards
#6 MODEL PLAY

Rashee Rice

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 54.5
fanduel -114
Projection 73.9
Proj. gap +19.4
Model win 61.9%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +11.9%
Model-implied EV +16.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 73.9 is 19.4 above the 54.5 line.
Model win probability 61.9% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +11.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 61.9% model win, +11.9% no-vig edge, and +16.3% 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
#7 MODEL PLAY

Daniel Jones

Passing yards
WIN
UNDER 218.5
fanduel -114
Projection 200.8
Proj. gap -17.7
Model win 59.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +9.7%
Model-implied EV +12.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 200.8 is 17.7 below the 218.5 line.
Model win probability 59.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +9.7% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 59.7% model win, +9.7% no-vig edge, and +12.0% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 210 passing yards
#8 MODEL PLAY

Patrick Mahomes

Passing TDs
LOSS
UNDER 1.5
fanduel -110
Projection 1.2
Proj. gap -0.3
Model win 59.3%
No-vig market 49.0%
No-vig edge +10.3%
Model-implied EV +13.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 1.2 is 0.3 below the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 59.3% vs 49.0% no-vig market probability creates a +10.3% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 59.3% model win, +10.3% no-vig edge, and +13.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 3 passing TDs
#9 MODEL PLAY

Alec Pierce

Receiving yards
LOSS
OVER 43.5
fanduel -114
Projection 60.9
Proj. gap +17.4
Model win 59.0%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +9.0%
Model-implied EV +10.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 60.9 is 17.4 above the 43.5 line.
Model win probability 59.0% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +9.0% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 59.0% model win, +9.0% no-vig edge, and +10.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 11 receiving yards
#10 MODEL PLAY

Patrick Mahomes

Passing yards
WIN
OVER 217.5
fanduel -114
Projection 237.4
Proj. gap +19.9
Model win 57.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +7.6%
Model-implied EV +8.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 237.4 is 19.9 above the 217.5 line.
Model win probability 57.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +7.6% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 57.6% model win, +7.6% no-vig edge, and +8.0% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 382 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

Alec Pierce

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -172
Projection3.0
Proj. gap+0.5
Model win45.0%
No-vig market59.0%
No-vig edge-14.0%
Model-implied EV-28.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Daniel Jones

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel -235
Projection1.3
Proj. gap-0.2
Model win57.4%
No-vig market65.6%
No-vig edge-8.2%
Model-implied EV-18.2%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jonathan Taylor

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -120
Projection3.1
Proj. gap+0.6
Model win47.3%
No-vig market51.0%
No-vig edge-3.8%
Model-implied EV-13.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jonathan Taylor

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 16.5
fanduel -114
Projection22.6
Proj. gap+6.1
Model win41.5%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-8.5%
Model-implied EV-22.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Josh Downs

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -122
Projection3.5
Proj. gap+0.0
Model win36.8%
No-vig market51.6%
No-vig edge-14.9%
Model-implied EV-33.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Josh Downs

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 36.5
fanduel -114
Projection42.7
Proj. gap+6.2
Model win41.6%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-8.4%
Model-implied EV-21.9%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Keenan Allen

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -130
Projection4.1
Proj. gap+0.6
Model win47.1%
No-vig market52.8%
No-vig edge-5.7%
Model-implied EV-16.6%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Keenan Allen

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 30.5
fanduel -114
Projection39.0
Proj. gap+8.5
Model win45.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-4.9%
Model-implied EV-15.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Kenneth Walker III

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -160
Projection2.5
Proj. gap+0.0
Model win36.7%
No-vig market57.5%
No-vig edge-20.8%
Model-implied EV-40.3%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Kenneth Walker III

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 18.5
fanduel -114
Projection20.7
Proj. gap+2.2
Model win36.3%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-13.7%
Model-implied EV-31.9%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Rashee Rice

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 5.5
fanduel +120
Projection6.3
Proj. gap+0.8
Model win49.6%
No-vig market42.5%
No-vig edge+7.1%
Model-implied EV+9.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Travis Kelce

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -154
Projection3.9
Proj. gap+0.4
Model win42.9%
No-vig market56.7%
No-vig edge-13.8%
Model-implied EV-29.2%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Travis Kelce

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 42.5
fanduel -114
Projection45.7
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

Xavier Worthy

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 37.5
fanduel -114
Projection51.1
Proj. gap+13.6
Model win52.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+2.9%
Model-implied EV-0.7%
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 →