WEEK 6 · Sun, Oct 18, 3:25 PM CDT
Buffalo Bills @ Las Vegas Raiders
6 qualified model plays · 9 modeled lines did not qualify · 0-6-0
MODEL OVERVIEW
What the board is seeing
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.
LOSS
UNDER 241.5
fanduel -114
Projection
171.7
Proj. gap
-69.8
Model win
81.8%
No-vig market
50.0%
No-vig edge
+31.8%
Model-implied EV
+53.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 171.7 is 69.8 below the 241.5 line.
Model win probability 81.8% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +31.8% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 81.8% model win, +31.8% no-vig edge, and +53.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 313 passing yards
LOSS
UNDER 92.5
fanduel -114
Projection
76.2
Proj. gap
-16.3
Model win
77.6%
No-vig market
50.0%
No-vig edge
+27.6%
Model-implied EV
+45.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 76.2 is 16.3 below the 92.5 line.
Model win probability 77.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +27.6% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 77.6% model win, +27.6% no-vig edge, and +45.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 95 rushing yards
LOSS
UNDER 3.5
fanduel -122
Projection
2.6
Proj. gap
-0.9
Model win
76.8%
No-vig market
51.4%
No-vig edge
+25.4%
Model-implied EV
+39.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.6 is 0.9 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 76.8% vs 51.4% no-vig market probability creates a +25.4% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 76.8% model win, +25.4% no-vig edge, and +39.8% 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
LOSS
UNDER 238.5
fanduel -114
Projection
190.3
Proj. gap
-48.2
Model win
74.6%
No-vig market
50.0%
No-vig edge
+24.6%
Model-implied EV
+40.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 190.3 is 48.2 below the 238.5 line.
Model win probability 74.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +24.6% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 74.6% model win, +24.6% no-vig edge, and +40.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 255 passing yards
LOSS
UNDER 24.5
fanduel -114
Projection
19.8
Proj. gap
-4.7
Model win
70.9%
No-vig market
50.0%
No-vig edge
+20.9%
Model-implied EV
+33.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 19.8 is 4.7 below the 24.5 line.
Model win probability 70.9% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +20.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 70.9% model win, +20.9% no-vig edge, and +33.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 36 receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 1.5
fanduel +118
Projection
1.3
Proj. gap
-0.2
Model win
57.6%
No-vig market
42.8%
No-vig edge
+14.7%
Model-implied EV
+25.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 1.3 is 0.2 below the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 57.6% vs 42.8% no-vig market probability creates a +14.7% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 57.6% model win, +14.7% no-vig edge, and +25.5% 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
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY
Other lines PDR reviewed
Context only. These are not published recommendations and are not graded.
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 54.5
fanduel -114
Projection63.4
Proj. gap+8.9
Model win47.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-2.9%
Model-implied EV-11.6%
Why it did not qualify:
Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -138
Projection3.6
Proj. gap+0.1
Model win37.2%
No-vig market54.2%
No-vig edge-17.0%
Model-implied EV-35.9%
Why it did not qualify:
Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 49.5
fanduel -114
Projection49.9
Proj. gap+0.4
Model win33.6%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-16.4%
Model-implied EV-36.9%
Why it did not qualify:
Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel +100
Projection1.4
Proj. gap-0.1
Model win57.0%
No-vig market46.8%
No-vig edge+10.2%
Model-implied EV+14.0%
Why it did not qualify:
Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 33.5
fanduel -114
Projection38.8
Proj. gap+5.3
Model win43.2%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-6.8%
Model-implied EV-18.9%
Why it did not qualify:
Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -148
Projection3.1
Proj. gap+0.6
Model win46.6%
No-vig market55.9%
No-vig edge-9.3%
Model-implied EV-22.0%
Why it did not qualify:
Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 27.5
fanduel -114
Projection30.5
Proj. gap+3.0
Model win37.3%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-12.7%
Model-implied EV-30.0%
Why it did not qualify:
Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -108
Projection3.6
Proj. gap+0.1
Model win37.1%
No-vig market48.6%
No-vig edge-11.5%
Model-implied EV-28.6%
Why it did not qualify:
Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 35.5
fanduel -114
Projection37.3
Proj. gap+1.8
Model win35.7%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-14.3%
Model-implied EV-33.1%
Why it did not qualify:
Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154