WEEK 6 · Sun, Oct 18, 12:00 PM CDT

Tennessee Titans @ Indianapolis Colts

15 qualified model plays · 10 modeled lines did not qualify · 2-10-0 - 3 voids
← Back to Week 6
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 15 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 77.9% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +28.3% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +47.3% 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

Calvin Ridley

Receiving yards
LOSS
OVER 13.0
fanduel -114
Projection 60.3
Proj. gap +47.3
Model win 93.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +43.6%
Model-implied EV +75.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 60.3 is 47.3 above the 13.0 line.
Model win probability 93.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +43.6% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 93.6% model win, +43.6% no-vig edge, and +75.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 0 receiving yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Wan'Dale Robinson

Receiving yards
LOSS
OVER 33.5
fanduel -114
Projection 77.0
Proj. gap +43.5
Model win 91.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +41.7%
Model-implied EV +72.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 77.0 is 43.5 above the 33.5 line.
Model win probability 91.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +41.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 91.7% model win, +41.7% no-vig edge, and +72.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 22 receiving yards
#3 MODEL PLAY

Wan'Dale Robinson

Receptions
LOSS
OVER 3.5
fanduel -162
Projection 6.5
Proj. gap +3.0
Model win 89.0%
No-vig market 57.9%
No-vig edge +31.1%
Model-implied EV +43.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 6.5 is 3.0 above the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 89.0% vs 57.9% no-vig market probability creates a +31.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 89.0% model win, +31.1% no-vig edge, and +43.9% 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
#4 MODEL PLAY

Elic Ayomanor

Receiving yards
LOSS
OVER 15.5
fanduel -114
Projection 54.0
Proj. gap +38.5
Model win 87.8%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +37.8%
Model-implied EV +64.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 54.0 is 38.5 above the 15.5 line.
Model win probability 87.8% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +37.8% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 87.8% model win, +37.8% no-vig edge, and +64.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 3 receiving yards
#5 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Warren

Receptions
VOID
UNDER 5.5
fanduel -122
Projection 3.8
Proj. gap -1.7
Model win 84.2%
No-vig market 51.4%
No-vig edge +32.8%
Model-implied EV +53.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.8 is 1.7 below the 5.5 line.
Model win probability 84.2% vs 51.4% no-vig market probability creates a +32.8% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 84.2% model win, +32.8% no-vig edge, and +53.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
#6 MODEL PLAY

Jonathan Taylor

Rushing yards
LOSS
UNDER 89.5
fanduel -114
Projection 65.2
Proj. gap -24.3
Model win 82.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +32.3%
Model-implied EV +54.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 65.2 is 24.3 below the 89.5 line.
Model win probability 82.3% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +32.3% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 82.3% model win, +32.3% no-vig edge, and +54.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 94 rushing yards
#7 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Warren

Receiving yards
VOID
UNDER 53.5
fanduel -114
Projection 38.5
Proj. gap -15.0
Model win 79.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +29.5%
Model-implied EV +49.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 38.5 is 15.0 below the 53.5 line.
Model win probability 79.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +29.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 79.5% model win, +29.5% 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: 2154
#8 MODEL PLAY

Tony Pollard

Rushing yards
WIN
OVER 49.5
fanduel -114
Projection 82.6
Proj. gap +33.1
Model win 79.1%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +29.1%
Model-implied EV +48.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 82.6 is 33.1 above the 49.5 line.
Model win probability 79.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +29.1% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 79.1% model win, +29.1% 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: 796
Final: 76 rushing yards
#9 MODEL PLAY

Elic Ayomanor

Receptions
LOSS
OVER 1.5
fanduel +106
Projection 3.7
Proj. gap +2.2
Model win 77.0%
No-vig market 45.4%
No-vig edge +31.6%
Model-implied EV +58.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.7 is 2.2 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 77.0% vs 45.4% no-vig market probability creates a +31.6% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 77.0% model win, +31.6% no-vig edge, and +58.7% 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
#10 MODEL PLAY

Tyjae Spears

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 12.5
fanduel -114
Projection 41.1
Proj. gap +28.6
Model win 74.4%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +24.4%
Model-implied EV +39.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 41.1 is 28.6 above the 12.5 line.
Model win probability 74.4% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +24.4% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 74.4% model win, +24.4% no-vig edge, and +39.6% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 1 rushing yard
#11 MODEL PLAY

Calvin Ridley

Receptions
LOSS
OVER 1.5
fanduel +120
Projection 3.4
Proj. gap +1.9
Model win 71.1%
No-vig market 42.5%
No-vig edge +28.6%
Model-implied EV +56.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.4 is 1.9 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 71.1% vs 42.5% no-vig market probability creates a +28.6% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 71.1% model win, +28.6% no-vig edge, and +56.4% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 0 receptions
#12 MODEL PLAY

Jonathan Taylor

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 17.5
fanduel -114
Projection 17.4
Proj. gap -0.1
Model win 66.9%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +16.9%
Model-implied EV +25.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 17.4 is 0.1 below the 17.5 line.
Model win probability 66.9% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +16.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 66.9% model win, +16.9% no-vig edge, and +25.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 57 receiving yards
#13 MODEL PLAY

Gunnar Helm

Receiving yards
VOID
OVER 17.5
fanduel -114
Projection 38.8
Proj. gap +21.3
Model win 64.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +14.5%
Model-implied EV +21.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 38.8 is 21.3 above the 17.5 line.
Model win probability 64.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +14.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 64.5% model win, +14.5% no-vig edge, and +21.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
#14 MODEL PLAY

Jonathan Taylor

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 2.5
fanduel -102
Projection 2.5
Proj. gap -0.0
Model win 64.3%
No-vig market 47.2%
No-vig edge +17.1%
Model-implied EV +27.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.5 is 0.0 below the 2.5 line.
Model win probability 64.3% vs 47.2% no-vig market probability creates a +17.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 64.3% model win, +17.1% no-vig edge, and +27.3% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 2 receptions
#15 MODEL PLAY

Daniel Jones

Passing yards
LOSS
UNDER 236.5
fanduel -114
Projection 209.1
Proj. gap -27.4
Model win 63.4%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +13.4%
Model-implied EV +19.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 209.1 is 27.4 below the 236.5 line.
Model win probability 63.4% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +13.4% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 63.4% model win, +13.4% no-vig edge, and +19.0% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 269 passing yards
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Other lines PDR reviewed

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

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Cam Ward

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 0.5
fanduel -250
Projection1.4
Proj. gap+0.9
Model win70.5%
No-vig market66.8%
No-vig edge+3.7%
Model-implied EV-1.2%
Why it did not qualify: No-vig market edge did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Cam Ward

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 200.5
fanduel -114
Projection198.2
Proj. gap-2.3
Model win51.7%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+1.7%
Model-implied EV-2.9%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Daniel Jones

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel -136
Projection1.3
Proj. gap-0.2
Model win57.9%
No-vig market53.8%
No-vig edge+4.2%
Model-implied EV+0.6%
Why it did not qualify: No-vig market edge did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Gunnar Helm

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel +112
Projection3.4
Proj. gap+0.9
Model win50.9%
No-vig market44.1%
No-vig edge+6.7%
Model-implied EV+7.9%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Josh Downs

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -166
Projection4.1
Proj. gap+0.6
Model win46.1%
No-vig market58.3%
No-vig edge-12.2%
Model-implied EV-26.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Josh Downs

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 46.5
fanduel -114
Projection52.2
Proj. gap+5.7
Model win40.8%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-9.2%
Model-implied EV-23.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Keenan Allen

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -130
Projection4.6
Proj. gap+1.1
Model win54.3%
No-vig market52.8%
No-vig edge+1.5%
Model-implied EV-3.9%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Keenan Allen

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 39.5
fanduel -114
Projection48.7
Proj. gap+9.2
Model win46.2%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-3.8%
Model-implied EV-13.2%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Tyjae Spears

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel +102
Projection3.6
Proj. gap+1.1
Model win54.9%
No-vig market46.2%
No-vig edge+8.7%
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

Tyjae Spears

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 14.5
fanduel -114
Projection19.0
Proj. gap+4.5
Model win39.3%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-10.7%
Model-implied EV-26.3%
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 →