WEEK 4 · Sun, Oct 4, 12:00 PM CDT

Arizona Cardinals @ New York Giants

6 qualified model plays · 11 modeled lines did not qualify · 4-2-0
← Back to Week 4
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 6 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 69.5% 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 +25.8% 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

Trey McBride

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 7.5
fanduel -144
Projection 6.5
Proj. gap -1.0
Model win 78.2%
No-vig market 55.1%
No-vig edge +23.1%
Model-implied EV +32.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 6.5 is 1.0 below the 7.5 line.
Model win probability 78.2% vs 55.1% no-vig market probability creates a +23.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 78.2% model win, +23.1% no-vig edge, and +32.5% 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

Trey McBride

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 67.5
fanduel -114
Projection 61.7
Proj. gap -5.8
Model win 72.1%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +22.1%
Model-implied EV +35.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 61.7 is 5.8 below the 67.5 line.
Model win probability 72.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +22.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 72.1% model win, +22.1% no-vig edge, and +35.3% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 31 receiving yards
#3 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Allgeier

Rushing yards
WIN
OVER 18.5
fanduel -114
Projection 45.1
Proj. gap +26.6
Model win 71.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +21.5%
Model-implied EV +34.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 45.1 is 26.6 above the 18.5 line.
Model win probability 71.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +21.5% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 71.5% model win, +21.5% no-vig edge, and +34.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 42 rushing yards
#4 MODEL PLAY

Michael Wilson

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 5.5
fanduel -148
Projection 5.1
Proj. gap -0.4
Model win 71.2%
No-vig market 55.9%
No-vig edge +15.3%
Model-implied EV +19.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 5.1 is 0.4 below the 5.5 line.
Model win probability 71.2% vs 55.9% no-vig market probability creates a +15.3% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 71.2% model win, +15.3% no-vig edge, and +19.3% 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

Jacoby Brissett

Passing yards
WIN
UNDER 229.5
fanduel -114
Projection 198.1
Proj. gap -31.4
Model win 65.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +15.5%
Model-implied EV +23.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 198.1 is 31.4 below the 229.5 line.
Model win probability 65.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +15.5% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 65.5% model win, +15.5% no-vig edge, and +23.0% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 166 passing yards
#6 MODEL PLAY

Marvin Harrison Jr.

Receptions
LOSS
OVER 2.5
fanduel -114
Projection 3.8
Proj. gap +1.3
Model win 58.8%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +8.8%
Model-implied EV +10.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.8 is 1.3 above the 2.5 line.
Model win probability 58.8% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +8.8% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 58.8% model win, +8.8% no-vig edge, and +10.3% 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
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

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 62.5
fanduel -114
Projection63.6
Proj. gap+1.1
Model win38.7%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-11.3%
Model-implied EV-27.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Cam Skattebo

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel +102
Projection3.2
Proj. gap+0.7
Model win48.9%
No-vig market46.2%
No-vig edge+2.7%
Model-implied EV-1.2%
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 16.5
fanduel -114
Projection32.4
Proj. gap+15.9
Model win57.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+7.1%
Model-implied EV+7.2%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jacoby Brissett

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel +122
Projection1.8
Proj. gap+0.3
Model win56.6%
No-vig market42.1%
No-vig edge+14.4%
Model-implied EV+25.6%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jameis Winston

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel -240
Projection0.7
Proj. gap-0.8
Model win73.3%
No-vig market65.9%
No-vig edge+7.3%
Model-implied EV+3.8%
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: OVER 208.5
fanduel -114
Projection210.2
Proj. gap+1.7
Model win50.0%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+0.0%
Model-implied EV-6.1%
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 -130
Projection5.2
Proj. gap+0.7
Model win48.2%
No-vig market52.8%
No-vig edge-4.6%
Model-implied EV-14.7%
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 54.5
fanduel -114
Projection64.1
Proj. gap+9.6
Model win46.8%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-3.2%
Model-implied EV-12.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Marvin Harrison Jr.

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 34.5
fanduel -114
Projection49.2
Proj. gap+14.7
Model win55.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+5.1%
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

Michael Wilson

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 57.5
fanduel -114
Projection73.9
Proj. gap+16.4
Model win57.4%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+7.4%
Model-implied EV+7.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Najee Harris

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 23.5
fanduel -114
Projection37.9
Proj. gap+14.4
Model win54.8%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+4.8%
Model-implied EV+2.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
PDR is part of The Buffet. Turn your sports takes into challenges with friends at Buffet Bets →