WEEK 3 · Sun, Sep 27, 3:25 PM CDT

Baltimore Ravens @ Dallas Cowboys

8 qualified model plays · 2 modeled lines did not qualify · 3-5-0
← Back to Week 3
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 8 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 68.1% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +18.2% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +28.1% 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

CeeDee Lamb

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 6.5
fanduel -104
Projection 5.5
Proj. gap -1.0
Model win 77.9%
No-vig market 47.6%
No-vig edge +30.3%
Model-implied EV +52.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 5.5 is 1.0 below the 6.5 line.
Model win probability 77.9% vs 47.6% no-vig market probability creates a +30.3% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 77.9% model win, +30.3% no-vig edge, and +52.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 7 receptions
#2 MODEL PLAY

Derrick Henry

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 89.5
fanduel -114
Projection 120.1
Proj. gap +30.6
Model win 76.4%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +26.4%
Model-implied EV +43.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 120.1 is 30.6 above the 89.5 line.
Model win probability 76.4% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +26.4% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 76.4% model win, +26.4% no-vig edge, and +43.4% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 89 rushing yards
#3 MODEL PLAY

CeeDee Lamb

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 82.5
fanduel -114
Projection 78.1
Proj. gap -4.4
Model win 70.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +20.7%
Model-implied EV +32.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 78.1 is 4.4 below the 82.5 line.
Model win probability 70.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +20.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 70.7% model win, +20.7% no-vig edge, and +32.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 112 receiving yards
#4 MODEL PLAY

George Pickens

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 5.5
fanduel -148
Projection 5.1
Proj. gap -0.4
Model win 69.6%
No-vig market 55.9%
No-vig edge +13.8%
Model-implied EV +16.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 5.1 is 0.4 below the 5.5 line.
Model win probability 69.6% vs 55.9% no-vig market probability creates a +13.8% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 69.6% model win, +13.8% no-vig edge, and +16.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 7 receptions
#5 MODEL PLAY

Lamar Jackson

Passing yards
WIN
UNDER 236.5
fanduel -114
Projection 204.9
Proj. gap -31.6
Model win 65.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +15.7%
Model-implied EV +23.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 204.9 is 31.6 below the 236.5 line.
Model win probability 65.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +15.7% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 65.7% model win, +15.7% no-vig edge, and +23.3% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 186 passing yards
#6 MODEL PLAY

George Pickens

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 59.5
fanduel -114
Projection 80.6
Proj. gap +21.1
Model win 64.4%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +14.4%
Model-implied EV +20.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 80.6 is 21.1 above the 59.5 line.
Model win probability 64.4% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +14.4% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 64.4% model win, +14.4% no-vig edge, and +20.9% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 82 receiving yards
#7 MODEL PLAY

Javonte Williams

Rushing yards
LOSS
UNDER 58.5
fanduel -114
Projection 58.4
Proj. gap -0.1
Model win 62.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +12.7%
Model-implied EV +17.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 58.4 is 0.1 below the 58.5 line.
Model win probability 62.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +12.7% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 62.7% model win, +12.7% no-vig edge, and +17.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 98 rushing yards
#8 MODEL PLAY

Dak Prescott

Passing TDs
WIN
UNDER 1.5
fanduel +104
Projection 1.3
Proj. gap -0.2
Model win 57.6%
No-vig market 45.8%
No-vig edge +11.7%
Model-implied EV +17.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 1.3 is 0.2 below the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 57.6% vs 45.8% no-vig market probability creates a +11.7% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 57.6% model win, +11.7% no-vig edge, and +17.4% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 1 passing TD
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Other lines PDR reviewed

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

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Dak Prescott

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 263.5
fanduel -114
Projection279.3
Proj. gap+15.8
Model win55.2%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+5.2%
Model-implied EV+3.7%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Lamar Jackson

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel +110
Projection1.4
Proj. gap-0.1
Model win56.0%
No-vig market44.5%
No-vig edge+11.5%
Model-implied EV+17.6%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516