WEEK 8 · Sun, Nov 1, 11:00 AM CST

Indianapolis Colts @ Jacksonville Jaguars

8 qualified model plays · 13 modeled lines did not qualify · 4-4-0
← Back to Week 8
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 8 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 +24.1% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +39.0% 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

Brian Thomas Jr.

Receiving yards
LOSS
OVER 15.5
fanduel -113
Projection 61.0
Proj. gap +45.5
Model win 92.9%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +42.9%
Model-implied EV +75.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 61.0 is 45.5 above the 15.5 line.
Model win probability 92.9% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +42.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 92.9% model win, +42.9% no-vig edge, and +75.0% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 12 receiving yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Chris Rodriguez Jr.

Rushing yards
WIN
OVER 31.5
fanduel -113
Projection 68.4
Proj. gap +36.9
Model win 83.9%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +33.9%
Model-implied EV +58.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 68.4 is 36.9 above the 31.5 line.
Model win probability 83.9% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +33.9% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 83.9% model win, +33.9% no-vig edge, and +58.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 41 rushing yards
#3 MODEL PLAY

Brian Thomas Jr.

Receptions
LOSS
OVER 1.5
fanduel -114
Projection 4.1
Proj. gap +2.6
Model win 82.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +32.5%
Model-implied EV +54.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.1 is 2.6 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 82.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +32.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 82.5% model win, +32.5% no-vig edge, and +54.8% 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
#4 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Warren

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 4.5
fanduel -108
Projection 3.7
Proj. gap -0.8
Model win 75.5%
No-vig market 48.6%
No-vig edge +26.9%
Model-implied EV +45.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.7 is 0.8 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 75.5% vs 48.6% no-vig market probability creates a +26.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 75.5% model win, +26.9% no-vig edge, and +45.4% 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
#5 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Warren

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 39.5
fanduel -113
Projection 33.5
Proj. gap -6.0
Model win 72.4%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +22.4%
Model-implied EV +36.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 33.5 is 6.0 below the 39.5 line.
Model win probability 72.4% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +22.4% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 72.4% model win, +22.4% no-vig edge, and +36.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 18 receiving yards
#6 MODEL PLAY

Daniel Jones

Passing TDs
WIN
OVER 0.5
fanduel -188
Projection 1.3
Proj. gap +0.8
Model win 69.6%
No-vig market 61.2%
No-vig edge +8.3%
Model-implied EV +6.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 1.3 is 0.8 above the 0.5 line.
Model win probability 69.6% vs 61.2% no-vig market probability creates a +8.3% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 69.6% model win, +8.3% no-vig edge, and +6.6% 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
#7 MODEL PLAY

Keenan Allen

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 4.5
fanduel -122
Projection 4.2
Proj. gap -0.3
Model win 68.8%
No-vig market 51.4%
No-vig edge +17.4%
Model-implied EV +25.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.2 is 0.3 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 68.8% vs 51.4% no-vig market probability creates a +17.4% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 68.8% model win, +17.4% no-vig edge, and +25.3% 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
#8 MODEL PLAY

Parker Washington

Receiving yards
LOSS
OVER 67.5
fanduel -113
Projection 84.6
Proj. gap +17.1
Model win 58.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +8.5%
Model-implied EV +10.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 84.6 is 17.1 above the 67.5 line.
Model win probability 58.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +8.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 58.5% model win, +8.5% no-vig edge, and +10.3% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 16 receiving yards
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Other lines PDR reviewed

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

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Brenton Strange

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -166
Projection4.1
Proj. gap+0.6
Model win47.8%
No-vig market58.3%
No-vig edge-10.5%
Model-implied EV-23.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Brenton Strange

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 41.5
fanduel -113
Projection54.5
Proj. gap+13.0
Model win52.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+2.1%
Model-implied EV-1.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Daniel Jones

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 192.5
fanduel -113
Projection201.6
Proj. gap+9.1
Model win52.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+2.9%
Model-implied EV-0.3%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jonathan Taylor

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 50.5
fanduel -113
Projection59.9
Proj. gap+9.4
Model win47.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-2.1%
Model-implied EV-9.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jonathan Taylor

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel +104
Projection3.1
Proj. gap+0.6
Model win47.5%
No-vig market45.8%
No-vig edge+1.7%
Model-implied EV-3.0%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jonathan Taylor

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 15.5
fanduel -113
Projection23.0
Proj. gap+7.5
Model win43.5%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-6.5%
Model-implied EV-17.9%
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 +114
Projection3.7
Proj. gap+0.2
Model win38.5%
No-vig market43.9%
No-vig edge-5.4%
Model-implied EV-17.6%
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 32.5
fanduel -113
Projection45.8
Proj. gap+13.3
Model win52.3%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+2.3%
Model-implied EV-1.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Keenan Allen

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 35.5
fanduel -113
Projection42.2
Proj. gap+6.7
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: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Parker Washington

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 4.5
fanduel -138
Projection5.1
Proj. gap+0.6
Model win46.8%
No-vig market54.2%
No-vig edge-7.3%
Model-implied EV-19.2%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Trevor Lawrence

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel -220
Projection2.2
Proj. gap+0.7
Model win67.2%
No-vig market64.6%
No-vig edge+2.7%
Model-implied EV-2.2%
Why it did not qualify: No-vig market edge did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Trevor Lawrence

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 237.5
fanduel -113
Projection256.6
Proj. gap+19.1
Model win56.8%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+6.8%
Model-implied EV+7.0%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Trevor Lawrence

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 11.5
fanduel -113
Projection24.2
Proj. gap+12.7
Model win52.5%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+2.5%
Model-implied EV-1.0%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
PDR is part of The Buffet. Turn your sports takes into challenges with friends at Buffet Bets →