WEEK 3 · Sun, Sep 27, 12:00 PM CDT

Tennessee Titans @ New York Giants

12 qualified model plays · 9 modeled lines did not qualify · 6-6-0
← Back to Week 3
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 12 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 73.4% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +24.8% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +41.7% 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

Calvin Ridley

Receiving yards
LOSS
OVER 14.5
fanduel -114
Projection 52.4
Proj. gap +37.9
Model win 86.9%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +36.9%
Model-implied EV +63.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 52.4 is 37.9 above the 14.5 line.
Model win probability 86.9% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +36.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 86.9% model win, +36.9% no-vig edge, and +63.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 0 receiving yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Wan'Dale Robinson

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 31.5
fanduel -114
Projection 68.7
Proj. gap +37.2
Model win 86.4%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +36.4%
Model-implied EV +62.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 68.7 is 37.2 above the 31.5 line.
Model win probability 86.4% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +36.4% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 86.4% model win, +36.4% no-vig edge, and +62.3% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 57 receiving yards
#3 MODEL PLAY

Wan'Dale Robinson

Receptions
WIN
OVER 3.5
fanduel -106
Projection 6.2
Proj. gap +2.7
Model win 83.9%
No-vig market 48.1%
No-vig edge +35.8%
Model-implied EV +63.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 6.2 is 2.7 above the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 83.9% vs 48.1% no-vig market probability creates a +35.8% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 83.9% model win, +35.8% no-vig edge, and +63.0% 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
#4 MODEL PLAY

Tony Pollard

Rushing yards
WIN
OVER 45.5
fanduel -114
Projection 79.5
Proj. gap +34.0
Model win 80.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +30.5%
Model-implied EV +51.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 79.5 is 34.0 above the 45.5 line.
Model win probability 80.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +30.5% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 80.5% model win, +30.5% no-vig edge, and +51.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 74 rushing yards
#5 MODEL PLAY

Elic Ayomanor

Receiving yards
LOSS
OVER 14.5
fanduel -114
Projection 46.2
Proj. gap +31.7
Model win 80.1%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +30.1%
Model-implied EV +50.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 46.2 is 31.7 above the 14.5 line.
Model win probability 80.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +30.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 80.1% model win, +30.1% 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: 11 receiving yards
#6 MODEL PLAY

Elic Ayomanor

Receptions
LOSS
OVER 1.5
fanduel +112
Projection 3.5
Proj. gap +2.0
Model win 72.3%
No-vig market 44.1%
No-vig edge +28.2%
Model-implied EV +53.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.5 is 2.0 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 72.3% vs 44.1% no-vig market probability creates a +28.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 72.3% model win, +28.2% no-vig edge, and +53.3% 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

Darnell Mooney

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 17.5
fanduel -114
Projection 42.1
Proj. gap +24.6
Model win 70.4%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +20.4%
Model-implied EV +32.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 42.1 is 24.6 above the 17.5 line.
Model win probability 70.4% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +20.4% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 70.4% model win, +20.4% no-vig edge, and +32.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 20 receiving yards
#8 MODEL PLAY

Cam Ward

Passing yards
WIN
UNDER 191.5
fanduel -114
Projection 157.4
Proj. gap -34.1
Model win 66.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +16.5%
Model-implied EV +24.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 157.4 is 34.1 below the 191.5 line.
Model win probability 66.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +16.5% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 66.5% model win, +16.5% no-vig edge, and +24.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 181 passing yards
#9 MODEL PLAY

Calvin Ridley

Receptions
LOSS
OVER 1.5
fanduel +112
Projection 3.1
Proj. gap +1.6
Model win 65.8%
No-vig market 44.1%
No-vig edge +21.7%
Model-implied EV +39.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.1 is 1.6 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 65.8% vs 44.1% no-vig market probability creates a +21.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 65.8% model win, +21.7% no-vig edge, and +39.6% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 0 receptions
#10 MODEL PLAY

Cam Skattebo

Rushing yards
LOSS
UNDER 57.5
fanduel -114
Projection 56.3
Proj. gap -1.2
Model win 64.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +14.3%
Model-implied EV +20.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 56.3 is 1.2 below the 57.5 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: 60 rushing yards
#11 MODEL PLAY

Darnell Mooney

Receptions
WIN
OVER 1.5
fanduel +100
Projection 3.1
Proj. gap +1.6
Model win 64.0%
No-vig market 46.8%
No-vig edge +17.2%
Model-implied EV +28.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.1 is 1.6 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 64.0% vs 46.8% no-vig market probability creates a +17.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 64.0% model win, +17.2% no-vig edge, and +28.0% 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
#12 MODEL PLAY

Tyjae Spears

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 19.5
fanduel -114
Projection 37.2
Proj. gap +17.7
Model win 59.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +9.3%
Model-implied EV +11.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 37.2 is 17.7 above the 19.5 line.
Model win probability 59.3% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +9.3% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 59.3% model win, +9.3% no-vig edge, and +11.3% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 5 rushing yards
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Other lines PDR reviewed

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

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Cam Skattebo

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel +154
Projection2.6
Proj. gap+0.1
Model win38.0%
No-vig market36.8%
No-vig edge+1.3%
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

Cam Skattebo

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 11.5
fanduel -114
Projection21.4
Proj. gap+9.9
Model win47.5%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-2.5%
Model-implied EV-10.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Cam Ward

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 0.5
fanduel -215
Projection1.3
Proj. gap+0.8
Model win70.0%
No-vig market63.8%
No-vig edge+6.2%
Model-implied EV+2.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model-implied EV did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Gunnar Helm

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -130
Projection3.2
Proj. gap+0.7
Model win48.3%
No-vig market52.8%
No-vig edge-4.5%
Model-implied EV-14.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Gunnar Helm

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 23.5
fanduel -114
Projection27.6
Proj. gap+4.1
Model win39.0%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-11.0%
Model-implied EV-26.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jameis Winston

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel -270
Projection0.7
Proj. gap-0.8
Model win73.4%
No-vig market68.2%
No-vig edge+5.2%
Model-implied EV+0.7%
Why it did not qualify: Model-implied EV did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jameis Winston

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 208.5
fanduel -114
Projection197.9
Proj. gap-10.6
Model win56.4%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+6.4%
Model-implied EV+5.9%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Malik Nabers

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 4.5
fanduel -114
Projection4.6
Proj. gap+0.1
Model win37.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-12.1%
Model-implied EV-28.9%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Malik Nabers

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 56.5
fanduel -114
Projection70.4
Proj. gap+13.9
Model win53.7%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+3.7%
Model-implied EV+0.8%
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 →