WEEK 8 · Sun, Nov 1, 11:00 AM CST

Baltimore Ravens @ Buffalo Bills

13 qualified model plays · 6 modeled lines did not qualify · 10-3-0
← Back to Week 8
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 13 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 72.6% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +21.3% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +33.3% 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

Lamar Jackson

Passing yards
WIN
UNDER 237.5
fanduel -113
Projection 163.5
Proj. gap -74.0
Model win 83.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +33.7%
Model-implied EV +57.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 163.5 is 74.0 below the 237.5 line.
Model win probability 83.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +33.7% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 83.7% model win, +33.7% no-vig edge, and +57.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 0 passing yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Zay Flowers

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 6.5
fanduel -160
Projection 4.9
Proj. gap -1.6
Model win 83.6%
No-vig market 57.5%
No-vig edge +26.1%
Model-implied EV +35.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.9 is 1.6 below the 6.5 line.
Model win probability 83.6% vs 57.5% no-vig market probability creates a +26.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 83.6% model win, +26.1% 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: 0 receptions
#3 MODEL PLAY

Ray Davis

Rushing yards
WIN
OVER 4.5
fanduel -113
Projection 38.3
Proj. gap +33.8
Model win 80.2%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +30.2%
Model-implied EV +51.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 38.3 is 33.8 above the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 80.2% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +30.2% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 80.2% model win, +30.2% no-vig edge, and +51.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 30 rushing yards
#4 MODEL PLAY

Zay Flowers

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 82.5
fanduel -113
Projection 69.1
Proj. gap -13.4
Model win 78.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +28.6%
Model-implied EV +48.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 69.1 is 13.4 below the 82.5 line.
Model win probability 78.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +28.6% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 78.6% model win, +28.6% no-vig edge, and +48.2% 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
#5 MODEL PLAY

Mark Andrews

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 3.5
fanduel -154
Projection 2.5
Proj. gap -1.0
Model win 77.6%
No-vig market 56.7%
No-vig edge +20.9%
Model-implied EV +28.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.5 is 1.0 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 77.6% vs 56.7% no-vig market probability creates a +20.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 77.6% model win, +20.9% no-vig edge, and +28.0% 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
#6 MODEL PLAY

DJ Moore

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 4.5
fanduel -174
Projection 3.8
Proj. gap -0.7
Model win 73.8%
No-vig market 59.4%
No-vig edge +14.5%
Model-implied EV +16.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.8 is 0.7 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 73.8% vs 59.4% no-vig market probability creates a +14.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 73.8% model win, +14.5% no-vig edge, and +16.2% 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
#7 MODEL PLAY

Mark Andrews

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 27.5
fanduel -113
Projection 20.5
Proj. gap -7.0
Model win 73.2%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +23.2%
Model-implied EV +38.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 20.5 is 7.0 below the 27.5 line.
Model win probability 73.2% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +23.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 73.2% model win, +23.2% no-vig edge, and +38.0% 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

James Cook

Rushing yards
WIN
UNDER 82.5
fanduel -113
Projection 74.1
Proj. gap -8.4
Model win 71.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +21.6%
Model-implied EV +35.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 74.1 is 8.4 below the 82.5 line.
Model win probability 71.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +21.6% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 71.6% model win, +21.6% no-vig edge, and +35.0% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 80 rushing yards
#9 MODEL PLAY

Ty Johnson

Rushing yards
WIN
OVER 1.5
fanduel -113
Projection 27.6
Proj. gap +26.1
Model win 71.0%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +21.0%
Model-implied EV +33.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 27.6 is 26.1 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 71.0% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +21.0% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 71.0% model win, +21.0% no-vig edge, and +33.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 4 rushing yards
#10 MODEL PLAY

Keon Coleman

Receiving yards
LOSS
OVER 29.5
fanduel -113
Projection 52.8
Proj. gap +23.3
Model win 68.2%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +18.2%
Model-implied EV +28.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 52.8 is 23.3 above the 29.5 line.
Model win probability 68.2% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +18.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 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: 2154
Final: 4 receiving yards
#11 MODEL PLAY

Derrick Henry

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 78.5
fanduel -113
Projection 100.1
Proj. gap +21.6
Model win 64.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +14.6%
Model-implied EV +21.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 100.1 is 21.6 above the 78.5 line.
Model win probability 64.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +14.6% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 64.6% model win, +14.6% no-vig edge, and +21.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 53 rushing yards
#12 MODEL PLAY

Khalil Shakir

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 41.5
fanduel -113
Projection 59.5
Proj. gap +18.0
Model win 60.0%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +10.0%
Model-implied EV +13.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 59.5 is 18.0 above the 41.5 line.
Model win probability 60.0% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +10.0% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 60.0% model win, +10.0% no-vig edge, and +13.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 64 receiving yards
#13 MODEL PLAY

Keon Coleman

Receptions
LOSS
OVER 2.5
fanduel +118
Projection 3.8
Proj. gap +1.3
Model win 57.7%
No-vig market 42.8%
No-vig edge +14.9%
Model-implied EV +25.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.8 is 1.3 above the 2.5 line.
Model win probability 57.7% vs 42.8% no-vig market probability creates a +14.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 57.7% model win, +14.9% no-vig edge, and +25.8% 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
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Other lines PDR reviewed

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

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

DJ Moore

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 53.5
fanduel -113
Projection59.4
Proj. gap+5.9
Model win40.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-9.1%
Model-implied EV-22.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Josh Allen

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel +110
Projection1.4
Proj. gap-0.1
Model win56.0%
No-vig market44.7%
No-vig edge+11.4%
Model-implied EV+17.6%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Josh Allen

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 247.5
fanduel -113
Projection248.8
Proj. gap+1.3
Model win49.8%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-0.2%
Model-implied EV-6.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Josh Allen

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 35.5
fanduel -113
Projection39.8
Proj. gap+4.3
Model win42.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-7.9%
Model-implied EV-20.7%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Khalil Shakir

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -154
Projection5.0
Proj. gap+1.5
Model win62.7%
No-vig market56.7%
No-vig edge+6.0%
Model-implied EV+3.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model-implied EV did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Lamar Jackson

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel -110
Projection1.4
Proj. gap-0.1
Model win56.2%
No-vig market49.2%
No-vig edge+7.0%
Model-implied EV+7.3%
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 →