WEEK 8 · Sun, Nov 1, 11:00 AM CST

Arizona Cardinals @ Dallas Cowboys

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

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 11 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 75.5% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +24.9% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +40.4% 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 13.5
fanduel -113
Projection 52.4
Proj. gap +38.9
Model win 86.2%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +36.2%
Model-implied EV +62.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 52.4 is 38.9 above the 13.5 line.
Model win probability 86.2% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +36.2% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 86.2% model win, +36.2% no-vig edge, and +62.4% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 147 rushing yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

CeeDee Lamb

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 80.5
fanduel -113
Projection 61.4
Proj. gap -19.1
Model win 82.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +32.7%
Model-implied EV +55.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 61.4 is 19.1 below the 80.5 line.
Model win probability 82.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +32.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 82.7% model win, +32.7% no-vig edge, and +55.9% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 58 receiving yards
#3 MODEL PLAY

Dak Prescott

Passing TDs
WIN
UNDER 2.5
fanduel -148
Projection 1.3
Proj. gap -1.2
Model win 82.0%
No-vig market 56.1%
No-vig edge +25.9%
Model-implied EV +37.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 1.3 is 1.2 below the 2.5 line.
Model win probability 82.0% vs 56.1% no-vig market probability creates a +25.9% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 82.0% model win, +25.9% no-vig edge, and +37.4% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 1 passing TD
#4 MODEL PLAY

Trey McBride

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 7.5
fanduel -108
Projection 6.3
Proj. gap -1.2
Model win 80.1%
No-vig market 48.6%
No-vig edge +31.5%
Model-implied EV +54.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 6.3 is 1.2 below the 7.5 line.
Model win probability 80.1% vs 48.6% no-vig market probability creates a +31.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 80.1% model win, +31.5% no-vig edge, and +54.2% 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
#5 MODEL PLAY

CeeDee Lamb

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 6.5
fanduel -125
Projection 5.4
Proj. gap -1.1
Model win 78.5%
No-vig market 51.9%
No-vig edge +26.6%
Model-implied EV +41.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 5.4 is 1.1 below the 6.5 line.
Model win probability 78.5% vs 51.9% no-vig market probability creates a +26.6% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 78.5% model win, +26.6% no-vig edge, and +41.3% 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
#6 MODEL PLAY

Michael Wilson

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 56.5
fanduel -113
Projection 85.4
Proj. gap +28.9
Model win 76.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +26.6%
Model-implied EV +44.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 85.4 is 28.9 above the 56.5 line.
Model win probability 76.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +26.6% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 76.6% model win, +26.6% no-vig edge, and +44.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 111 receiving yards
#7 MODEL PLAY

Trey McBride

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 71.5
fanduel -113
Projection 60.6
Proj. gap -10.9
Model win 76.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +26.5%
Model-implied EV +44.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 60.6 is 10.9 below the 71.5 line.
Model win probability 76.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +26.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 76.5% model win, +26.5% no-vig edge, and +44.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 72 receiving yards
#8 MODEL PLAY

Bam Knight

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 19.5
fanduel -113
Projection 44.8
Proj. gap +25.3
Model win 69.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +19.7%
Model-implied EV +31.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 44.8 is 25.3 above the 19.5 line.
Model win probability 69.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +19.7% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 69.7% model win, +19.7% no-vig edge, and +31.4% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 8 rushing yards
#9 MODEL PLAY

George Pickens

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 65.5
fanduel -113
Projection 63.8
Proj. gap -1.7
Model win 68.4%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +18.4%
Model-implied EV +28.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 63.8 is 1.7 below the 65.5 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 +28.9% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 48 receiving yards
#10 MODEL PLAY

Javonte Williams

Rushing yards
WIN
UNDER 76.5
fanduel -113
Projection 71.8
Proj. gap -4.7
Model win 68.2%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +18.2%
Model-implied EV +28.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 71.8 is 4.7 below the 76.5 line.
Model win probability 68.2% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +18.2% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 68.2% model win, +18.2% no-vig edge, and +28.6% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 56 rushing yards
#11 MODEL PLAY

Dak Prescott

Passing yards
WIN
UNDER 271.5
fanduel -113
Projection 250.4
Proj. gap -21.1
Model win 61.0%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +11.0%
Model-implied EV +15.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 250.4 is 21.1 below the 271.5 line.
Model win probability 61.0% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +11.0% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 61.0% model win, +11.0% no-vig edge, and +15.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 195 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

Elijah Higgins

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel +140
Projection2.6
Proj. gap+0.1
Model win37.4%
No-vig market39.0%
No-vig edge-1.6%
Model-implied EV-10.3%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Elijah Higgins

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 17.5
fanduel -113
Projection28.6
Proj. gap+11.1
Model win49.4%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-0.6%
Model-implied EV-6.9%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

George Pickens

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 4.5
fanduel -110
Projection5.1
Proj. gap+0.6
Model win46.8%
No-vig market49.0%
No-vig edge-2.1%
Model-implied EV-10.6%
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 TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel -154
Projection1.9
Proj. gap+0.4
Model win59.9%
No-vig market56.9%
No-vig edge+3.0%
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

Jacoby Brissett

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 258.5
fanduel -113
Projection247.6
Proj. gap-10.9
Model win56.4%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+6.4%
Model-implied EV+6.3%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Michael Wilson

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 4.5
fanduel -118
Projection5.5
Proj. gap+1.0
Model win53.7%
No-vig market50.6%
No-vig edge+3.1%
Model-implied EV-0.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Ryan Flournoy

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel +106
Projection4.7
Proj. gap+1.2
Model win56.0%
No-vig market45.4%
No-vig edge+10.6%
Model-implied EV+15.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Ryan Flournoy

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 36.5
fanduel -113
Projection47.8
Proj. gap+11.3
Model win49.8%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-0.2%
Model-implied EV-6.2%
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 →