WEEK 4 · Mon, Oct 5, 7:15 PM CDT

Atlanta Falcons @ New Orleans Saints

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

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 12 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 72.3% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +22.0% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +34.7% 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

Kyle Pitts

Receptions
WIN
OVER 2.5
fanduel -136
Projection 5.6
Proj. gap +3.1
Model win 90.0%
No-vig market 53.8%
No-vig edge +36.2%
Model-implied EV +56.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 5.6 is 3.1 above the 2.5 line.
Model win probability 90.0% vs 53.8% no-vig market probability creates a +36.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 90.0% model win, +36.2% no-vig edge, and +56.2% 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
#2 MODEL PLAY

Chris Olave

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 7.5
fanduel -166
Projection 5.7
Proj. gap -1.8
Model win 85.4%
No-vig market 58.3%
No-vig edge +27.1%
Model-implied EV +36.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 5.7 is 1.8 below the 7.5 line.
Model win probability 85.4% vs 58.3% no-vig market probability creates a +27.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 85.4% model win, +27.1% no-vig edge, and +36.9% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 8 receptions
#3 MODEL PLAY

Kyle Pitts

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 26.5
fanduel -114
Projection 61.3
Proj. gap +34.8
Model win 84.1%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +34.1%
Model-implied EV +57.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 61.3 is 34.8 above the 26.5 line.
Model win probability 84.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +34.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 84.1% model win, +34.1% no-vig edge, and +57.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 47 receiving yards
#4 MODEL PLAY

Devaughn Vele

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 4.5
fanduel -166
Projection 3.9
Proj. gap -0.6
Model win 73.4%
No-vig market 58.3%
No-vig edge +15.1%
Model-implied EV +17.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.9 is 0.6 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 73.4% vs 58.3% no-vig market probability creates a +15.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 73.4% model win, +15.1% no-vig edge, and +17.6% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 6 receptions
#5 MODEL PLAY

Chris Olave

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 85.5
fanduel -114
Projection 78.4
Proj. gap -7.1
Model win 73.2%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +23.2%
Model-implied EV +37.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 78.4 is 7.1 below the 85.5 line.
Model win probability 73.2% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +23.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 73.2% model win, +23.2% no-vig edge, and +37.4% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 116 receiving yards
#6 MODEL PLAY

Juwan Johnson

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 38.5
fanduel -114
Projection 64.0
Proj. gap +25.5
Model win 71.8%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +21.8%
Model-implied EV +34.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 64.0 is 25.5 above the 38.5 line.
Model win probability 71.8% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +21.8% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 71.8% model win, +21.8% no-vig edge, and +34.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 59 receiving yards
#7 MODEL PLAY

Drake London

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 67.5
fanduel -114
Projection 64.1
Proj. gap -3.4
Model win 70.1%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +20.1%
Model-implied EV +31.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 64.1 is 3.4 below the 67.5 line.
Model win probability 70.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +20.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 70.1% model win, +20.1% no-vig edge, and +31.6% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 96 receiving yards
#8 MODEL PLAY

Bijan Robinson

Rushing yards
LOSS
UNDER 87.5
fanduel -114
Projection 84.1
Proj. gap -3.4
Model win 66.2%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +16.2%
Model-implied EV +24.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 84.1 is 3.4 below the 87.5 line.
Model win probability 66.2% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +16.2% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 66.2% model win, +16.2% no-vig edge, and +24.3% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 145 rushing yards
#9 MODEL PLAY

Drake London

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 4.5
fanduel +112
Projection 4.4
Proj. gap -0.1
Model win 65.6%
No-vig market 44.1%
No-vig edge +21.5%
Model-implied EV +39.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.4 is 0.1 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 65.6% vs 44.1% no-vig market probability creates a +21.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 65.6% model win, +21.5% no-vig edge, and +39.2% 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
#10 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Shough

Passing TDs
WIN
UNDER 1.5
fanduel +118
Projection 1.0
Proj. gap -0.5
Model win 64.7%
No-vig market 42.8%
No-vig edge +21.9%
Model-implied EV +41.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 1.0 is 0.5 below the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 64.7% vs 42.8% no-vig market probability creates a +21.9% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 64.7% model win, +21.9% no-vig edge, and +41.1% 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
#11 MODEL PLAY

Bijan Robinson

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 4.5
fanduel -114
Projection 4.5
Proj. gap -0.0
Model win 64.2%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +14.2%
Model-implied EV +20.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.5 is 0.0 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 64.2% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +14.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 64.2% model win, +14.2% no-vig edge, and +20.5% 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
#12 MODEL PLAY

Juwan Johnson

Receptions
WIN
OVER 3.5
fanduel +104
Projection 4.8
Proj. gap +1.3
Model win 58.2%
No-vig market 45.8%
No-vig edge +12.4%
Model-implied EV +18.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.8 is 1.3 above the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 58.2% vs 45.8% no-vig market probability creates a +12.4% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 58.2% model win, +12.4% no-vig edge, and +18.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 6 receptions
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Other lines PDR reviewed

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

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Alvin Kamara

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 40.5
fanduel -114
Projection47.1
Proj. gap+6.6
Model win44.6%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-5.4%
Model-implied EV-16.3%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Bijan Robinson

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 39.5
fanduel -114
Projection40.8
Proj. gap+1.3
Model win35.0%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-15.0%
Model-implied EV-34.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Devaughn Vele

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 44.5
fanduel -114
Projection51.2
Proj. gap+6.7
Model win42.0%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-8.0%
Model-implied EV-21.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jahan Dotson

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel -148
Projection2.4
Proj. gap+0.9
Model win51.0%
No-vig market55.9%
No-vig edge-4.8%
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

Jahan Dotson

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 19.5
fanduel -114
Projection29.4
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

Tyler Shough

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 254.5
fanduel -114
Projection248.9
Proj. gap-5.6
Model win54.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+4.1%
Model-implied EV+1.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
PDR is part of The Buffet. Turn your sports takes into challenges with friends at Buffet Bets →