WEEK 6 · Sun, Oct 18, 3:05 PM CDT

Arizona Cardinals @ Los Angeles Rams

9 qualified model plays · 8 modeled lines did not qualify · 6-3-0
← Back to Week 6
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 9 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 69.9% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +18.9% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +29.6% 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

Tyler Allgeier

Rushing yards
WIN
OVER 21.5
fanduel -114
Projection 54.1
Proj. gap +32.6
Model win 78.9%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +28.9%
Model-implied EV +48.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 54.1 is 32.6 above the 21.5 line.
Model win probability 78.9% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +28.9% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 78.9% model win, +28.9% no-vig edge, and +48.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 38 rushing yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Davante Adams

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 58.5
fanduel -114
Projection 49.6
Proj. gap -8.9
Model win 74.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +24.7%
Model-implied EV +40.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 49.6 is 8.9 below the 58.5 line.
Model win probability 74.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +24.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 74.7% model win, +24.7% no-vig edge, and +40.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 39 receiving yards
#3 MODEL PLAY

Trey McBride

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 7.5
fanduel -140
Projection 6.9
Proj. gap -0.6
Model win 73.4%
No-vig market 54.6%
No-vig edge +18.8%
Model-implied EV +25.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 6.9 is 0.6 below the 7.5 line.
Model win probability 73.4% vs 54.6% no-vig market probability creates a +18.8% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 73.4% model win, +18.8% no-vig edge, and +25.8% 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

Kyren Williams

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 3.5
fanduel -180
Projection 2.9
Proj. gap -0.6
Model win 73.0%
No-vig market 60.1%
No-vig edge +13.0%
Model-implied EV +13.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.9 is 0.6 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 73.0% vs 60.1% no-vig market probability creates a +13.0% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 73.0% model win, +13.0% no-vig edge, and +13.6% 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
#5 MODEL PLAY

Michael Wilson

Receiving yards
LOSS
OVER 57.5
fanduel -114
Projection 81.8
Proj. gap +24.3
Model win 69.9%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +19.9%
Model-implied EV +31.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 81.8 is 24.3 above the 57.5 line.
Model win probability 69.9% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +19.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 69.9% model win, +19.9% no-vig edge, and +31.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 32 receiving yards
#6 MODEL PLAY

Trey McBride

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 66.5
fanduel -114
Projection 64.9
Proj. gap -1.6
Model win 68.4%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +18.4%
Model-implied EV +28.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 64.9 is 1.6 below the 66.5 line.
Model win probability 68.4% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +18.4% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 68.4% model win, +18.4% no-vig edge, and +28.4% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 53 receiving yards
#7 MODEL PLAY

Michael Wilson

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 5.5
fanduel -152
Projection 5.4
Proj. gap -0.1
Model win 65.6%
No-vig market 56.3%
No-vig edge +9.3%
Model-implied EV +8.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 5.4 is 0.1 below the 5.5 line.
Model win probability 65.6% vs 56.3% no-vig market probability creates a +9.3% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 65.6% model win, +9.3% no-vig edge, and +8.8% 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
#8 MODEL PLAY

Blake Corum

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 43.5
fanduel -114
Projection 65.0
Proj. gap +21.5
Model win 64.4%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +14.4%
Model-implied EV +21.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 65.0 is 21.5 above the 43.5 line.
Model win probability 64.4% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +14.4% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 64.4% model win, +14.4% no-vig edge, and +21.0% 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
#9 MODEL PLAY

Jacoby Brissett

Passing TDs
LOSS
OVER 1.5
fanduel +146
Projection 1.9
Proj. gap +0.4
Model win 60.7%
No-vig market 38.0%
No-vig edge +22.7%
Model-implied EV +49.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 1.9 is 0.4 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 60.7% vs 38.0% no-vig market probability creates a +22.7% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 60.7% model win, +22.7% no-vig edge, and +49.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 0 passing TDs
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Other lines PDR reviewed

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

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Davante Adams

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 4.5
fanduel +102
Projection4.6
Proj. gap+0.1
Model win37.4%
No-vig market46.2%
No-vig edge-8.8%
Model-implied EV-24.5%
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 yards
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 244.5
fanduel -114
Projection240.6
Proj. gap-3.9
Model win52.7%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+2.7%
Model-implied EV-1.0%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Kyren Williams

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 69.5
fanduel -114
Projection80.7
Proj. gap+11.2
Model win50.5%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+0.5%
Model-implied EV-5.2%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Kyren Williams

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 22.5
fanduel -114
Projection28.2
Proj. gap+5.7
Model win40.8%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-9.2%
Model-implied EV-23.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Matthew Stafford

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -104
Projection2.7
Proj. gap+0.2
Model win55.2%
No-vig market47.6%
No-vig edge+7.6%
Model-implied EV+8.3%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Matthew Stafford

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 281.5
fanduel -114
Projection286.5
Proj. gap+5.0
Model win51.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+1.9%
Model-implied EV-2.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Tyler Higbee

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -166
Projection3.3
Proj. gap+0.8
Model win50.0%
No-vig market58.3%
No-vig edge-8.3%
Model-implied EV-19.9%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Tyler Higbee

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 30.5
fanduel -114
Projection43.6
Proj. gap+13.1
Model win52.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+2.1%
Model-implied EV-2.2%
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 →