WEEK 7 · Sun, Oct 25, 3:25 PM CDT

Los Angeles Rams @ Las Vegas Raiders

11 qualified model plays · 14 modeled lines did not qualify · 7-4-0
← Back to Week 7
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 11 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 74.2% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +23.8% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +38.5% 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

Brock Bowers

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 70.5
fanduel -114
Projection 46.7
Proj. gap -23.8
Model win 85.8%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +35.8%
Model-implied EV +61.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 46.7 is 23.8 below the 70.5 line.
Model win probability 85.8% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +35.8% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 85.8% model win, +35.8% no-vig edge, and +61.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 73 receiving yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Matthew Stafford

Passing TDs
WIN
OVER 1.5
fanduel -174
Projection 2.8
Proj. gap +1.3
Model win 83.9%
No-vig market 59.4%
No-vig edge +24.6%
Model-implied EV +32.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.8 is 1.3 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 83.9% vs 59.4% no-vig market probability creates a +24.6% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 83.9% model win, +24.6% no-vig edge, and +32.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 3 passing TDs
#3 MODEL PLAY

Brock Bowers

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 6.5
fanduel -154
Projection 5.0
Proj. gap -1.5
Model win 82.9%
No-vig market 56.7%
No-vig edge +26.2%
Model-implied EV +36.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 5.0 is 1.5 below the 6.5 line.
Model win probability 82.9% vs 56.7% no-vig market probability creates a +26.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 82.9% model win, +26.2% no-vig edge, and +36.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 6 receptions
#4 MODEL PLAY

Ashton Jeanty

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 49.5
fanduel -114
Projection 80.0
Proj. gap +30.5
Model win 76.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +26.3%
Model-implied EV +43.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 80.0 is 30.5 above the 49.5 line.
Model win probability 76.3% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +26.3% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 76.3% model win, +26.3% no-vig edge, and +43.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 15 rushing yards
#5 MODEL PLAY

Kyren Williams

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 3.5
fanduel -114
Projection 2.9
Proj. gap -0.6
Model win 73.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +23.3%
Model-implied EV +37.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.9 is 0.6 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 73.3% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +23.3% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 73.3% model win, +23.3% no-vig edge, and +37.6% 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
#6 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Higbee

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 3.5
fanduel +112
Projection 3.0
Proj. gap -0.5
Model win 72.2%
No-vig market 44.1%
No-vig edge +28.0%
Model-implied EV +53.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.0 is 0.5 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 72.2% vs 44.1% no-vig market probability creates a +28.0% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 72.2% model win, +28.0% no-vig edge, and +53.0% 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
#7 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Higbee

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 37.5
fanduel -114
Projection 32.7
Proj. gap -4.8
Model win 71.1%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +21.1%
Model-implied EV +33.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 32.7 is 4.8 below the 37.5 line.
Model win probability 71.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +21.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 71.1% model win, +21.1% no-vig edge, and +33.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 14 receiving yards
#8 MODEL PLAY

Ashton Jeanty

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 3.5
fanduel +112
Projection 3.1
Proj. gap -0.4
Model win 71.0%
No-vig market 44.1%
No-vig edge +26.8%
Model-implied EV +50.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.1 is 0.4 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 71.0% vs 44.1% no-vig market probability creates a +26.8% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 71.0% model win, +26.8% no-vig edge, and +50.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 8 receptions
#9 MODEL PLAY

Kyren Williams

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 24.5
fanduel -114
Projection 19.9
Proj. gap -4.6
Model win 70.8%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +20.8%
Model-implied EV +32.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 19.9 is 4.6 below the 24.5 line.
Model win probability 70.8% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +20.8% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 70.8% model win, +20.8% no-vig edge, and +32.9% 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
#10 MODEL PLAY

Kirk Cousins

Passing yards
LOSS
UNDER 236.5
fanduel -114
Projection 200.6
Proj. gap -35.9
Model win 68.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +18.6%
Model-implied EV +28.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 200.6 is 35.9 below the 236.5 line.
Model win probability 68.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +18.6% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 68.6% model win, +18.6% no-vig edge, and +28.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 295 passing yards
#11 MODEL PLAY

Blake Corum

Rushing yards
WIN
OVER 37.5
fanduel -114
Projection 56.1
Proj. gap +18.6
Model win 60.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +10.6%
Model-implied EV +13.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 56.1 is 18.6 above the 37.5 line.
Model win probability 60.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +10.6% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 60.6% model win, +10.6% 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: 796
Final: 93 rushing yards
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Other lines PDR reviewed

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

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Ashton Jeanty

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 25.5
fanduel -114
Projection27.9
Proj. gap+2.4
Model win36.4%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-13.6%
Model-implied EV-31.6%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Colby Parkinson

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel +116
Projection3.6
Proj. gap+1.1
Model win54.4%
No-vig market43.3%
No-vig edge+11.1%
Model-implied EV+17.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Colby Parkinson

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 19.5
fanduel -114
Projection33.9
Proj. gap+14.4
Model win54.5%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+4.5%
Model-implied EV+2.3%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Kirk Cousins

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel -130
Projection1.3
Proj. gap-0.2
Model win57.9%
No-vig market52.8%
No-vig edge+5.1%
Model-implied EV+2.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model-implied EV did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Konata Mumpfield

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel -172
Projection2.7
Proj. gap+1.2
Model win55.9%
No-vig market59.0%
No-vig edge-3.1%
Model-implied EV-11.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Konata Mumpfield

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 18.5
fanduel -114
Projection31.6
Proj. gap+13.1
Model win52.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+2.1%
Model-implied EV-2.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Kyren Williams

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 63.5
fanduel -114
Projection71.4
Proj. gap+7.9
Model win45.7%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-4.3%
Model-implied EV-14.2%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Matthew Stafford

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 270.5
fanduel -114
Projection265.5
Proj. gap-5.0
Model win53.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+3.9%
Model-implied EV+1.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Michael Mayer

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -138
Projection3.5
Proj. gap+0.0
Model win36.7%
No-vig market54.2%
No-vig edge-17.5%
Model-implied EV-36.7%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Michael Mayer

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 30.5
fanduel -114
Projection37.1
Proj. gap+6.6
Model win41.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-8.1%
Model-implied EV-21.3%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Puka Nacua

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 7.5
fanduel -122
Projection7.7
Proj. gap+0.2
Model win39.8%
No-vig market51.4%
No-vig edge-11.6%
Model-implied EV-27.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Puka Nacua

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 96.5
fanduel -114
Projection110.6
Proj. gap+14.1
Model win54.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+4.1%
Model-implied EV+1.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Tre Tucker

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel +106
Projection3.8
Proj. gap+0.3
Model win41.7%
No-vig market45.4%
No-vig edge-3.7%
Model-implied EV-14.0%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Tre Tucker

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 40.5
fanduel -114
Projection48.8
Proj. gap+8.3
Model win44.8%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-5.2%
Model-implied EV-15.9%
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 →