WEEK 5 · Sun, Oct 11, 7:20 PM CDT

Baltimore Ravens @ Atlanta Falcons

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

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 10 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 74.3% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +22.9% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +36.8% 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

Drake London

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 6.5
fanduel -174
Projection 5.0
Proj. gap -1.5
Model win 83.0%
No-vig market 59.4%
No-vig edge +23.6%
Model-implied EV +30.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 5.0 is 1.5 below the 6.5 line.
Model win probability 83.0% vs 59.4% no-vig market probability creates a +23.6% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 83.0% model win, +23.6% no-vig edge, and +30.6% 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

Kyle Pitts

Receptions
WIN
OVER 2.5
fanduel +102
Projection 5.1
Proj. gap +2.6
Model win 82.2%
No-vig market 46.2%
No-vig edge +36.0%
Model-implied EV +66.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 5.1 is 2.6 above the 2.5 line.
Model win probability 82.2% vs 46.2% no-vig market probability creates a +36.0% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 82.2% model win, +36.0% no-vig edge, and +66.0% 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
#3 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Huntley

Passing TDs
LOSS
UNDER 1.5
fanduel -250
Projection 0.4
Proj. gap -1.1
Model win 81.2%
No-vig market 66.8%
No-vig edge +14.4%
Model-implied EV +13.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 0.4 is 1.1 below the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 81.2% vs 66.8% no-vig market probability creates a +14.4% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 81.2% model win, +14.4% no-vig edge, and +13.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 2 passing TDs
#4 MODEL PLAY

Kyle Pitts

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 24.5
fanduel -114
Projection 54.4
Proj. gap +29.9
Model win 77.9%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +27.9%
Model-implied EV +46.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 54.4 is 29.9 above the 24.5 line.
Model win probability 77.9% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +27.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 77.9% model win, +27.9% no-vig edge, and +46.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 42 receiving yards
#5 MODEL PLAY

Bijan Robinson

Rushing yards
WIN
UNDER 88.5
fanduel -114
Projection 78.5
Proj. gap -10.0
Model win 73.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +23.6%
Model-implied EV +38.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 78.5 is 10.0 below the 88.5 line.
Model win probability 73.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +23.6% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 73.6% model win, +23.6% no-vig edge, and +38.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 86 rushing yards
#6 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Huntley

Passing yards
LOSS
UNDER 173.5
fanduel -114
Projection 128.9
Proj. gap -44.6
Model win 73.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +23.3%
Model-implied EV +37.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 128.9 is 44.6 below the 173.5 line.
Model win probability 73.3% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +23.3% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 73.3% model win, +23.3% no-vig edge, and +37.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 201 passing yards
#7 MODEL PLAY

Drake London

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 82.5
fanduel -114
Projection 75.4
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 75.4 is 7.1 below the 82.5 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: 118 receiving yards
#8 MODEL PLAY

Derrick Henry

Rushing yards
WIN
OVER 89.5
fanduel -114
Projection 111.9
Proj. gap +22.4
Model win 66.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +16.6%
Model-implied EV +25.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 111.9 is 22.4 above the 89.5 line.
Model win probability 66.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +16.6% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 66.6% model win, +16.6% no-vig edge, and +25.0% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 102 rushing yards
#9 MODEL PLAY

Mark Andrews

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 3.5
fanduel +124
Projection 3.3
Proj. gap -0.2
Model win 66.3%
No-vig market 41.7%
No-vig edge +24.6%
Model-implied EV +48.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.3 is 0.2 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 66.3% vs 41.7% no-vig market probability creates a +24.6% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 66.3% model win, +24.6% no-vig edge, and +48.6% 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

Jahan Dotson

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 19.5
fanduel -114
Projection 41.7
Proj. gap +22.2
Model win 66.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +16.3%
Model-implied EV +24.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 41.7 is 22.2 above the 19.5 line.
Model win probability 66.3% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +16.3% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 66.3% model win, +16.3% no-vig edge, and +24.4% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 54 receiving yards
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Other lines PDR reviewed

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

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Bijan Robinson

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -136
Projection4.6
Proj. gap+1.1
Model win53.9%
No-vig market53.8%
No-vig edge+0.1%
Model-implied EV-6.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Bijan Robinson

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 26.5
fanduel -114
Projection42.7
Proj. gap+16.2
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

Jahan Dotson

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel -162
Projection3.0
Proj. gap+1.5
Model win62.7%
No-vig market57.9%
No-vig edge+4.9%
Model-implied EV+1.4%
Why it did not qualify: No-vig market edge did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Mark Andrews

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 30.5
fanduel -114
Projection35.1
Proj. gap+4.6
Model win39.4%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-10.6%
Model-implied EV-26.0%
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 →