WEEK 8 · Sun, Nov 1, 2:25 PM CST

Kansas City Chiefs @ Denver Broncos

11 qualified model plays · 14 modeled lines did not qualify · 5-6-0
← 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 73.7% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +22.5% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +35.7% 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

J.K. Dobbins

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 30.5
fanduel -113
Projection 76.3
Proj. gap +45.8
Model win 91.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +41.7%
Model-implied EV +72.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 76.3 is 45.8 above the 30.5 line.
Model win probability 91.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +41.7% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 91.7% model win, +41.7% no-vig edge, and +72.9% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 13 rushing yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Kenneth Walker III

Rushing yards
WIN
UNDER 85.5
fanduel -113
Projection 56.7
Proj. gap -28.8
Model win 85.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +35.3%
Model-implied EV +60.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 56.7 is 28.8 below the 85.5 line.
Model win probability 85.3% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +35.3% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 85.3% model win, +35.3% no-vig edge, and +60.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 69 rushing yards
#3 MODEL PLAY

Travis Kelce

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 46.5
fanduel -113
Projection 31.8
Proj. gap -14.7
Model win 79.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +29.3%
Model-implied EV +49.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 31.8 is 14.7 below the 46.5 line.
Model win probability 79.3% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +29.3% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 79.3% model win, +29.3% no-vig edge, and +49.6% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 67 receiving yards
#4 MODEL PLAY

Kenneth Walker III

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 3.5
fanduel -188
Projection 2.5
Proj. gap -1.0
Model win 77.6%
No-vig market 61.0%
No-vig edge +16.5%
Model-implied EV +18.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.5 is 1.0 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 77.6% vs 61.0% no-vig market probability creates a +16.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 77.6% model win, +16.5% no-vig edge, and +18.8% 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

Travis Kelce

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 4.5
fanduel -144
Projection 3.7
Proj. gap -0.8
Model win 75.6%
No-vig market 55.1%
No-vig edge +20.5%
Model-implied EV +28.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.7 is 0.8 below the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 75.6% vs 55.1% no-vig market probability creates a +20.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 75.6% model win, +20.5% no-vig edge, and +28.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 5 receptions
#6 MODEL PLAY

Jaylen Waddle

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 3.5
fanduel +102
Projection 3.1
Proj. gap -0.4
Model win 69.9%
No-vig market 46.2%
No-vig edge +23.7%
Model-implied EV +41.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.1 is 0.4 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 69.9% vs 46.2% no-vig market probability creates a +23.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 69.9% model win, +23.7% no-vig edge, and +41.2% 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
#7 MODEL PLAY

Xavier Worthy

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 3.5
fanduel -154
Projection 3.2
Proj. gap -0.3
Model win 69.5%
No-vig market 56.7%
No-vig edge +12.8%
Model-implied EV +14.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.2 is 0.3 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 69.5% vs 56.7% no-vig market probability creates a +12.8% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 69.5% model win, +12.8% no-vig edge, and +14.7% 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
#8 MODEL PLAY

Troy Franklin

Receiving yards
LOSS
OVER 14.5
fanduel -113
Projection 37.9
Proj. gap +23.4
Model win 68.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +18.5%
Model-implied EV +29.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 37.9 is 23.4 above the 14.5 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 +29.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 3 receiving yards
#9 MODEL PLAY

Troy Franklin

Receptions
LOSS
OVER 1.5
fanduel -106
Projection 3.3
Proj. gap +1.8
Model win 67.8%
No-vig market 48.1%
No-vig edge +19.7%
Model-implied EV +31.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.3 is 1.8 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 67.8% vs 48.1% no-vig market probability creates a +19.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 67.8% model win, +19.7% no-vig edge, and +31.8% 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
#10 MODEL PLAY

Rashee Rice

Receptions
WIN
OVER 4.5
fanduel +104
Projection 6.1
Proj. gap +1.6
Model win 65.3%
No-vig market 45.8%
No-vig edge +19.5%
Model-implied EV +33.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 6.1 is 1.6 above the 4.5 line.
Model win probability 65.3% vs 45.8% no-vig market probability creates a +19.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 65.3% model win, +19.5% no-vig edge, and +33.3% 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
#11 MODEL PLAY

Rashee Rice

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 49.5
fanduel -113
Projection 67.2
Proj. gap +17.7
Model win 59.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +9.6%
Model-implied EV +12.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 67.2 is 17.7 above the 49.5 line.
Model win probability 59.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +9.6% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 59.6% model win, +9.6% no-vig edge, and +12.4% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 53 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

Bo Nix

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel -225
Projection1.2
Proj. gap-0.3
Model win60.1%
No-vig market65.0%
No-vig edge-4.9%
Model-implied EV-13.2%
Why it did not qualify: No-vig market edge did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Bo Nix

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 208.5
fanduel -113
Projection214.4
Proj. gap+5.9
Model win52.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+2.1%
Model-implied EV-1.7%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Bo Nix

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 14.5
fanduel -113
Projection25.6
Proj. gap+11.1
Model win50.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+0.1%
Model-implied EV-5.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Courtland Sutton

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel +102
Projection4.0
Proj. gap+0.5
Model win45.0%
No-vig market46.2%
No-vig edge-1.2%
Model-implied EV-9.0%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Courtland Sutton

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 38.5
fanduel -113
Projection52.9
Proj. gap+14.4
Model win54.5%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+4.5%
Model-implied EV+2.7%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Evan Engram

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -122
Projection3.2
Proj. gap+0.7
Model win48.9%
No-vig market51.4%
No-vig edge-2.5%
Model-implied EV-11.0%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Evan Engram

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 24.5
fanduel -113
Projection30.8
Proj. gap+6.3
Model win41.8%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-8.2%
Model-implied EV-21.2%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Jaylen Waddle

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 37.5
fanduel -113
Projection42.5
Proj. gap+5.0
Model win39.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-10.1%
Model-implied EV-24.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Kenneth Walker III

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 18.5
fanduel -113
Projection18.6
Proj. gap+0.1
Model win33.3%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-16.7%
Model-implied EV-37.2%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Marvin Mims Jr.

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel -162
Projection2.7
Proj. gap+1.2
Model win56.5%
No-vig market57.9%
No-vig edge-1.4%
Model-implied EV-8.7%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Marvin Mims Jr.

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 16.5
fanduel -113
Projection25.0
Proj. gap+8.5
Model win45.2%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-4.8%
Model-implied EV-14.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Patrick Mahomes

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel -198
Projection1.2
Proj. gap-0.3
Model win59.3%
No-vig market62.4%
No-vig edge-3.1%
Model-implied EV-10.7%
Why it did not qualify: No-vig market edge did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Patrick Mahomes

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 220.5
fanduel -113
Projection215.0
Proj. gap-5.5
Model win54.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+4.1%
Model-implied EV+1.9%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Xavier Worthy

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 29.5
fanduel -113
Projection44.2
Proj. gap+14.7
Model win55.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+5.1%
Model-implied EV+3.9%
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 →