WEEK 7 · Sun, Oct 25, 12:00 PM CDT

Indianapolis Colts @ Minnesota Vikings

6 qualified model plays · 3 modeled lines did not qualify · 5-1-0
← Back to Week 7
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 6 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 69.4% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +19.1% 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

Jonathan Taylor

Rushing yards
LOSS
UNDER 71.5
fanduel -114
Projection 60.9
Proj. gap -10.6
Model win 74.0%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +24.0%
Model-implied EV +38.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 60.9 is 10.6 below the 71.5 line.
Model win probability 74.0% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +24.0% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 74.0% model win, +24.0% no-vig edge, and +38.9% 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
#2 MODEL PLAY

Justin Jefferson

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 72.5
fanduel -114
Projection 67.8
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 67.8 is 4.7 below the 72.5 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: 44 receiving yards
#3 MODEL PLAY

Jonathan Taylor

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 2.5
fanduel -144
Projection 2.2
Proj. gap -0.3
Model win 69.3%
No-vig market 55.1%
No-vig edge +14.2%
Model-implied EV +17.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.2 is 0.3 below the 2.5 line.
Model win probability 69.3% vs 55.1% no-vig market probability creates a +14.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 69.3% model win, +14.2% no-vig edge, and +17.4% 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
#4 MODEL PLAY

Jonathan Taylor

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 17.5
fanduel -114
Projection 15.8
Proj. gap -1.7
Model win 68.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +18.5%
Model-implied EV +28.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 15.8 is 1.7 below the 17.5 line.
Model win probability 68.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +18.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 68.5% model win, +18.5% no-vig edge, and +28.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 15 receiving yards
#5 MODEL PLAY

Justin Jefferson

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 5.5
fanduel +100
Projection 5.2
Proj. gap -0.3
Model win 68.0%
No-vig market 46.8%
No-vig edge +21.2%
Model-implied EV +35.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 5.2 is 0.3 below the 5.5 line.
Model win probability 68.0% vs 46.8% no-vig market probability creates a +21.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 68.0% model win, +21.2% no-vig edge, and +35.9% 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
#6 MODEL PLAY

Daniel Jones

Passing yards
WIN
UNDER 199.5
fanduel -114
Projection 167.2
Proj. gap -32.3
Model win 65.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +15.7%
Model-implied EV +23.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 167.2 is 32.3 below the 199.5 line.
Model win probability 65.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +15.7% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 65.7% model win, +15.7% no-vig edge, and +23.3% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 108 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

Daniel Jones

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 0.5
fanduel -235
Projection1.3
Proj. gap+0.8
Model win68.4%
No-vig market65.6%
No-vig edge+2.8%
Model-implied EV-2.5%
Why it did not qualify: No-vig market edge did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Kyler Murray

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel -162
Projection1.2
Proj. gap-0.3
Model win61.4%
No-vig market57.9%
No-vig edge+3.6%
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

Kyler Murray

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 202.5
fanduel -114
Projection208.6
Proj. gap+6.1
Model win52.3%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+2.3%
Model-implied EV-1.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
PDR is part of The Buffet. Turn your sports takes into challenges with friends at Buffet Bets →