WEEK 3 · Sun, Sep 27, 12:00 PM CDT

New England Patriots @ Jacksonville Jaguars

8 qualified model plays · 17 modeled lines did not qualify · 4-4-0

← 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 66.7% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.

Avg no-vig edge +17.7% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.

Avg model-implied EV +29.0% 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

Chris Rodriguez Jr.

Rushing yards

WIN

OVER 20.5

fanduel -114

Projection 65.2

Proj. gap +44.7

Model win 90.8%

No-vig market 50.0%

No-vig edge +40.8%

Model-implied EV +70.5%

WHY THIS PLAY

Projection 65.2 is 44.7 above the 20.5 line.

Model win probability 90.8% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +40.8% edge.

Qualified with 796 residual samples, 90.8% model win, +40.8% no-vig edge, and +70.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.

Historical residual sample: 796

Final: 37 rushing yards

#2 MODEL PLAY

Trevor Lawrence

Passing TDs

WIN

OVER 1.5

fanduel -104

Projection 2.2

Proj. gap +0.7

Model win 67.1%

No-vig market 47.6%

No-vig edge +19.5%

Model-implied EV +31.5%

WHY THIS PLAY

Projection 2.2 is 0.7 above the 1.5 line.

Model win probability 67.1% vs 47.6% no-vig market probability creates a +19.5% edge.

Qualified with 516 residual samples, 67.1% model win, +19.5% no-vig edge, and +31.5% 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

#3 MODEL PLAY

Romeo Doubs

Receptions

WIN

UNDER 3.5

fanduel -160

Projection 3.3

Proj. gap -0.2

Model win 66.8%

No-vig market 57.5%

No-vig edge +9.2%

Model-implied EV +8.5%

WHY THIS PLAY

Projection 3.3 is 0.2 below the 3.5 line.

Model win probability 66.8% vs 57.5% no-vig market probability creates a +9.2% edge.

Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 66.8% model win, +9.2% no-vig edge, and +8.5% 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

#4 MODEL PLAY

Drake Maye

Passing TDs

LOSS

OVER 1.5

fanduel +152

Projection 2.1

Proj. gap +0.6

Model win 65.5%

No-vig market 37.1%

No-vig edge +28.4%

Model-implied EV +65.1%

WHY THIS PLAY

Projection 2.1 is 0.6 above the 1.5 line.

Model win probability 65.5% vs 37.1% no-vig market probability creates a +28.4% edge.

Qualified with 516 residual samples, 65.5% model win, +28.4% no-vig edge, and +65.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.

Historical residual sample: 516

Final: 0 passing TDs

#5 MODEL PLAY

Rhamondre Stevenson

Rushing yards

LOSS

OVER 37.5

fanduel -114

Projection 58.2

Proj. gap +20.7

Model win 63.4%

No-vig market 50.0%

No-vig edge +13.4%

Model-implied EV +19.1%

WHY THIS PLAY

Projection 58.2 is 20.7 above the 37.5 line.

Model win probability 63.4% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +13.4% edge.

Qualified with 796 residual samples, 63.4% model win, +13.4% no-vig edge, and +19.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.

Historical residual sample: 796

Final: 22 rushing yards

#6 MODEL PLAY

TreVeyon Henderson

Rushing yards

LOSS

OVER 39.5

fanduel -114

Projection 58.6

Proj. gap +19.1

Model win 61.1%

No-vig market 50.0%

No-vig edge +11.1%

Model-implied EV +14.6%

WHY THIS PLAY

Projection 58.6 is 19.1 above the 39.5 line.

Model win probability 61.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +11.1% edge.

Qualified with 796 residual samples, 61.1% model win, +11.1% no-vig edge, and +14.6% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.

Historical residual sample: 796

Final: 23 rushing yards

#7 MODEL PLAY

Rhamondre Stevenson

Receiving yards

WIN

OVER 14.5

fanduel -114

Projection 32.6

Proj. gap +18.1

Model win 60.1%

No-vig market 50.0%

No-vig edge +10.1%

Model-implied EV +12.8%

WHY THIS PLAY

Projection 32.6 is 18.1 above the 14.5 line.

Model win probability 60.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +10.1% edge.

Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 60.1% model win, +10.1% no-vig edge, and +12.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.

Historical residual sample: 2154

Final: 16 receiving yards

#8 MODEL PLAY

Drake Maye

Passing yards

LOSS

OVER 216.5

fanduel -114

Projection 241.3

Proj. gap +24.8

Model win 58.7%

No-vig market 50.0%

No-vig edge +8.7%

Model-implied EV +10.2%

WHY THIS PLAY

Projection 241.3 is 24.8 above the 216.5 line.

Model win probability 58.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +8.7% edge.

Qualified with 516 residual samples, 58.7% model win, +8.7% no-vig edge, and +10.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.

Historical residual sample: 516

Final: 199 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

Brenton Strange

Receptions

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 2.5

fanduel -180

Projection3.4

Proj. gap+0.9

Model win51.4%

No-vig market60.1%

No-vig edge-8.6%

Model-implied EV-20.0%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Brenton Strange

Receiving yards

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 27.5

fanduel -114

Projection36.9

Proj. gap+9.4

Model win46.3%

No-vig market50.0%

No-vig edge-3.7%

Model-implied EV-13.0%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Brian Thomas Jr.

Receptions

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 3.5

fanduel +140

Projection3.6

Proj. gap+0.1

Model win38.2%

No-vig market39.0%

No-vig edge-0.8%

Model-implied EV-8.4%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Brian Thomas Jr.

Receiving yards

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 38.5

fanduel -114

Projection50.3

Proj. gap+11.8

Model win50.2%

No-vig market50.0%

No-vig edge+0.2%

Model-implied EV-5.7%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Drake Maye

Rushing yards

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 25.5

fanduel -114

Projection27.8

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

Hunter Henry

Receptions

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 3.5

fanduel -166

Projection3.7

Proj. gap+0.2

Model win38.7%

No-vig market58.3%

No-vig edge-19.6%

Model-implied EV-38.0%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Hunter Henry

Receiving yards

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 41.5

fanduel -114

Projection42.0

Proj. gap+0.5

Model win33.8%

No-vig market50.0%

No-vig edge-16.2%

Model-implied EV-36.6%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jakobi Meyers

Receptions

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 3.5

fanduel -102

Projection4.7

Proj. gap+1.2

Model win57.0%

No-vig market47.2%

No-vig edge+9.8%

Model-implied EV+12.8%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jakobi Meyers

Receiving yards

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 34.5

fanduel -114

Projection50.2

Proj. gap+15.7

Model win57.0%

No-vig market50.0%

No-vig edge+7.0%

Model-implied EV+6.9%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Mack Hollins

Receptions

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 2.5

fanduel -172

Projection3.9

Proj. gap+1.4

Model win60.3%

No-vig market59.0%

No-vig edge+1.3%

Model-implied EV-4.6%

Why it did not qualify: No-vig market edge did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Mack Hollins

Receiving yards

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 33.5

fanduel -114

Projection47.9

Proj. gap+14.4

Model win54.5%

No-vig market50.0%

No-vig edge+4.5%

Model-implied EV+2.4%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Parker Washington

Receptions

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 4.5

fanduel -148

Projection4.6

Proj. gap+0.1

Model win38.0%

No-vig market55.9%

No-vig edge-17.9%

Model-implied EV-36.4%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Parker Washington

Receiving yards

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 61.5

fanduel -114

Projection73.6

Proj. gap+12.1

Model win50.8%

No-vig market50.0%

No-vig edge+0.8%

Model-implied EV-4.7%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Rhamondre Stevenson

Receptions

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 2.5

fanduel +102

Projection3.4

Proj. gap+0.9

Model win51.3%

No-vig market46.2%

No-vig edge+5.1%

Model-implied EV+3.6%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Romeo Doubs

Receiving yards

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 42.5

fanduel -114

Projection49.7

Proj. gap+7.2

Model win43.1%

No-vig market50.0%

No-vig edge-6.9%

Model-implied EV-19.0%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 2154

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Trevor Lawrence

Passing yards

Did not qualify

Model side: UNDER 223.5

fanduel -114

Projection220.3

Proj. gap-3.2

Model win51.9%

No-vig market50.0%

No-vig edge+1.9%

Model-implied EV-2.5%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 516

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Trevor Lawrence

Rushing yards

Did not qualify

Model side: OVER 16.5

fanduel -114

Projection22.8

Proj. gap+6.3

Model win44.2%

No-vig market50.0%

No-vig edge-5.8%

Model-implied EV-17.0%

Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.

Historical residual sample: 796