WEEK 4 · Sun, Oct 4, 7:20 PM CDT

Detroit Lions @ Carolina Panthers

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

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 10 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 73.5% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +24.6% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +41.1% 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

Jahmyr Gibbs

Rushing yards
WIN
UNDER 96.5
fanduel -114
Projection 63.0
Proj. gap -33.5
Model win 87.4%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +37.4%
Model-implied EV +64.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 63.0 is 33.5 below the 96.5 line.
Model win probability 87.4% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +37.4% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 87.4% model win, +37.4% no-vig edge, and +64.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 46 rushing yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Tetairoa McMillan

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 70.5
fanduel -114
Projection 48.9
Proj. gap -21.6
Model win 84.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +34.3%
Model-implied EV +58.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 48.9 is 21.6 below the 70.5 line.
Model win probability 84.3% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +34.3% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 84.3% model win, +34.3% no-vig edge, and +58.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 192 receiving yards
#3 MODEL PLAY

Chuba Hubbard

Rushing yards
LOSS
UNDER 66.5
fanduel -114
Projection 44.0
Proj. gap -22.5
Model win 81.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +31.3%
Model-implied EV +52.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 44.0 is 22.5 below the 66.5 line.
Model win probability 81.3% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +31.3% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 81.3% model win, +31.3% no-vig edge, and +52.6% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 122 rushing yards
#4 MODEL PLAY

Bryce Young

Passing yards
LOSS
UNDER 241.5
fanduel -114
Projection 182.0
Proj. gap -59.5
Model win 78.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +28.3%
Model-implied EV +47.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 182.0 is 59.5 below the 241.5 line.
Model win probability 78.3% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +28.3% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 78.3% model win, +28.3% no-vig edge, and +47.0% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 329 passing yards
#5 MODEL PLAY

Tetairoa McMillan

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 4.5
fanduel +112
Projection 3.5
Proj. gap -1.0
Model win 77.6%
No-vig market 44.1%
No-vig edge +33.5%
Model-implied EV +64.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.5 is 1.0 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 77.6% vs 44.1% no-vig market probability creates a +33.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 77.6% model win, +33.5% no-vig edge, and +64.6% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 14 receptions
#6 MODEL PLAY

Jahmyr Gibbs

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 4.5
fanduel -102
Projection 4.1
Proj. gap -0.4
Model win 70.6%
No-vig market 47.2%
No-vig edge +23.4%
Model-implied EV +39.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.1 is 0.4 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 70.6% vs 47.2% no-vig market probability creates a +23.4% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 70.6% model win, +23.4% no-vig edge, and +39.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 4 receptions
#7 MODEL PLAY

Jahmyr Gibbs

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 35.5
fanduel -114
Projection 33.2
Proj. gap -2.3
Model win 69.1%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +19.1%
Model-implied EV +29.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 33.2 is 2.3 below the 35.5 line.
Model win probability 69.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +19.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 69.1% model win, +19.1% no-vig edge, and +29.7% 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
#8 MODEL PLAY

Sam LaPorta

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 4.5
fanduel -122
Projection 4.5
Proj. gap -0.0
Model win 64.2%
No-vig market 51.4%
No-vig edge +12.7%
Model-implied EV +16.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.5 is 0.0 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 64.2% vs 51.4% no-vig market probability creates a +12.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 64.2% model win, +12.7% no-vig edge, and +16.7% 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
#9 MODEL PLAY

Isaac TeSlaa

Receptions
WIN
OVER 1.5
fanduel -108
Projection 2.9
Proj. gap +1.4
Model win 61.1%
No-vig market 48.6%
No-vig edge +12.5%
Model-implied EV +17.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.9 is 1.4 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 61.1% vs 48.6% no-vig market probability creates a +12.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 61.1% model win, +12.5% no-vig edge, and +17.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 4 receptions
#10 MODEL PLAY

Jameson Williams

Receptions
WIN
OVER 3.5
fanduel -102
Projection 4.9
Proj. gap +1.4
Model win 60.9%
No-vig market 47.2%
No-vig edge +13.7%
Model-implied EV +20.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.9 is 1.4 above the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 60.9% vs 47.2% no-vig market probability creates a +13.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 60.9% model win, +13.7% no-vig edge, and +20.6% 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
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Other lines PDR reviewed

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

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Amon-Ra St. Brown

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 6.5
fanduel -148
Projection7.1
Proj. gap+0.6
Model win46.7%
No-vig market55.9%
No-vig edge-9.1%
Model-implied EV-21.7%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Amon-Ra St. Brown

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 75.5
fanduel -114
Projection80.5
Proj. gap+5.0
Model win39.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-10.1%
Model-implied EV-25.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Bryce Young

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel -120
Projection1.5
Proj. gap+0.0
Model win50.4%
No-vig market51.0%
No-vig edge-0.6%
Model-implied EV-7.6%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Bryce Young

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 12.5
fanduel -114
Projection18.8
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
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Isaac TeSlaa

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 17.5
fanduel -114
Projection33.6
Proj. gap+16.1
Model win57.2%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+7.2%
Model-implied EV+7.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jameson Williams

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 49.5
fanduel -114
Projection65.8
Proj. gap+16.3
Model win57.3%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+7.3%
Model-implied EV+7.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jared Goff

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel -174
Projection1.8
Proj. gap+0.3
Model win58.7%
No-vig market59.4%
No-vig edge-0.6%
Model-implied EV-7.5%
Why it did not qualify: No-vig market edge did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jared Goff

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 260.5
fanduel -114
Projection255.9
Proj. gap-4.6
Model win53.5%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+3.5%
Model-implied EV+0.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Sam LaPorta

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 48.5
fanduel -114
Projection56.3
Proj. gap+7.8
Model win44.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-5.9%
Model-implied EV-17.2%
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 →