WEEK 3 · Sun, Sep 27, 12:00 PM CDT

Houston Texans @ Indianapolis Colts

9 qualified model plays · 10 modeled lines did not qualify · 5-4-0
← Back to Week 3
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 9 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 71.8% 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 +34.5% 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

Woody Marks

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 27.5
fanduel -114
Projection 62.0
Proj. gap +34.5
Model win 81.2%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +31.2%
Model-implied EV +52.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 62.0 is 34.5 above the 27.5 line.
Model win probability 81.2% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +31.2% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 81.2% model win, +31.2% no-vig edge, and +52.3% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 15 rushing yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Dalton Schultz

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 5.5
fanduel -166
Projection 4.5
Proj. gap -1.0
Model win 77.6%
No-vig market 58.3%
No-vig edge +19.3%
Model-implied EV +24.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.5 is 1.0 below the 5.5 line.
Model win probability 77.6% vs 58.3% no-vig market probability creates a +19.3% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 77.6% model win, +19.3% no-vig edge, and +24.4% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 3 receptions
#3 MODEL PLAY

Jonathan Taylor

Rushing yards
WIN
UNDER 80.5
fanduel -114
Projection 65.4
Proj. gap -15.1
Model win 76.9%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +26.9%
Model-implied EV +44.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 65.4 is 15.1 below the 80.5 line.
Model win probability 76.9% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +26.9% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 76.9% model win, +26.9% no-vig edge, and +44.3% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 68 rushing yards
#4 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Warren

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 44.5
fanduel -114
Projection 33.3
Proj. gap -11.2
Model win 76.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +26.6%
Model-implied EV +43.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 33.3 is 11.2 below the 44.5 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 +43.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 55 receiving yards
#5 MODEL PLAY

Josh Downs

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 4.5
fanduel +104
Projection 3.9
Proj. gap -0.6
Model win 73.7%
No-vig market 45.8%
No-vig edge +27.9%
Model-implied EV +50.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.9 is 0.6 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 73.7% vs 45.8% no-vig market probability creates a +27.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 73.7% model win, +27.9% no-vig edge, and +50.3% 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
#6 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Warren

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 4.5
fanduel +112
Projection 4.1
Proj. gap -0.4
Model win 69.8%
No-vig market 44.1%
No-vig edge +25.7%
Model-implied EV +48.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.1 is 0.4 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 69.8% vs 44.1% no-vig market probability creates a +25.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 69.8% model win, +25.7% no-vig edge, and +48.0% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 9 receptions
#7 MODEL PLAY

Xavier Hutchinson

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 3.5
fanduel -136
Projection 3.2
Proj. gap -0.3
Model win 68.1%
No-vig market 53.8%
No-vig edge +14.3%
Model-implied EV +18.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.2 is 0.3 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 68.1% vs 53.8% no-vig market probability creates a +14.3% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 68.1% model win, +14.3% no-vig edge, and +18.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 3 receptions
#8 MODEL PLAY

Keenan Allen

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 33.5
fanduel -114
Projection 52.5
Proj. gap +19.0
Model win 61.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +11.5%
Model-implied EV +15.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 52.5 is 19.0 above the 33.5 line.
Model win probability 61.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +11.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 61.5% model win, +11.5% no-vig edge, and +15.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 63 receiving yards
#9 MODEL PLAY

C.J. Stroud

Passing yards
WIN
UNDER 237.5
fanduel -114
Projection 218.4
Proj. gap -19.1
Model win 60.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +10.5%
Model-implied EV +13.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 218.4 is 19.1 below the 237.5 line.
Model win probability 60.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +10.5% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 60.5% model win, +10.5% no-vig edge, and +13.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 167 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

C.J. Stroud

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel -172
Projection1.5
Proj. gap-0.0
Model win55.0%
No-vig market58.8%
No-vig edge-3.8%
Model-implied EV-13.0%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Dalton Schultz

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 48.5
fanduel -114
Projection54.9
Proj. gap+6.4
Model win41.8%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-8.2%
Model-implied EV-21.6%
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 -230
Projection1.3
Proj. gap-0.2
Model win57.8%
No-vig market65.1%
No-vig edge-7.4%
Model-implied EV-17.1%
Why it did not qualify: No-vig market edge did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Daniel Jones

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 220.5
fanduel -114
Projection215.1
Proj. gap-5.4
Model win53.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+3.9%
Model-implied EV+1.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

David Montgomery

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 48.5
fanduel -114
Projection50.8
Proj. gap+2.3
Model win40.5%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-9.5%
Model-implied EV-24.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jonathan Taylor

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -160
Projection2.8
Proj. gap+0.3
Model win42.0%
No-vig market57.5%
No-vig edge-15.5%
Model-implied EV-31.8%
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 19.5
fanduel -114
Projection24.3
Proj. gap+4.8
Model win39.6%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-10.4%
Model-implied EV-25.6%
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 51.5
fanduel -114
Projection56.2
Proj. gap+4.7
Model win39.5%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-10.5%
Model-implied EV-25.8%
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 -114
Projection4.4
Proj. gap+0.9
Model win51.4%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+1.4%
Model-implied EV-3.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Xavier Hutchinson

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 40.5
fanduel -114
Projection46.0
Proj. gap+5.5
Model win40.6%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-9.4%
Model-implied EV-23.7%
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 →