WEEK 8 · Sun, Nov 1, 2:05 PM CST

Los Angeles Chargers @ Los Angeles Rams

17 qualified model plays · 11 modeled lines did not qualify · 11-6-0
← Back to Week 8
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 17 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 73.3% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +23.0% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +38.1% 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

Omarion Hampton

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 31.5
fanduel -113
Projection 73.1
Proj. gap +41.6
Model win 88.3%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +38.3%
Model-implied EV +66.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 73.1 is 41.6 above the 31.5 line.
Model win probability 88.3% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +38.3% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 88.3% model win, +38.3% no-vig edge, and +66.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 20 rushing yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Keaton Mitchell

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 14.5
fanduel -113
Projection 53.6
Proj. gap +39.1
Model win 86.4%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +36.4%
Model-implied EV +62.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 53.6 is 39.1 above the 14.5 line.
Model win probability 86.4% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +36.4% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 86.4% model win, +36.4% no-vig edge, and +62.9% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 6 rushing yards
#3 MODEL PLAY

Kimani Vidal

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 23.5
fanduel -113
Projection 61.7
Proj. gap +38.2
Model win 86.1%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +36.1%
Model-implied EV +62.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 61.7 is 38.2 above the 23.5 line.
Model win probability 86.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +36.1% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 86.1% model win, +36.1% no-vig edge, and +62.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 23 rushing yards
#4 MODEL PLAY

Kyren Williams

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 3.5
fanduel -152
Projection 2.1
Proj. gap -1.4
Model win 81.6%
No-vig market 56.3%
No-vig edge +25.2%
Model-implied EV +35.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.1 is 1.4 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 81.6% vs 56.3% no-vig market probability creates a +25.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 81.6% model win, +25.2% no-vig edge, and +35.2% 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
#5 MODEL PLAY

Matthew Stafford

Passing TDs
LOSS
OVER 1.5
fanduel -176
Projection 2.7
Proj. gap +1.2
Model win 80.8%
No-vig market 59.9%
No-vig edge +20.9%
Model-implied EV +26.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.7 is 1.2 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 80.8% vs 59.9% no-vig market probability creates a +20.9% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 80.8% model win, +20.9% no-vig edge, and +26.7% 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
#6 MODEL PLAY

Quentin Johnston

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 33.5
fanduel -113
Projection 64.3
Proj. gap +30.8
Model win 79.1%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +29.1%
Model-implied EV +49.0%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 64.3 is 30.8 above the 33.5 line.
Model win probability 79.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +29.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 79.1% model win, +29.1% no-vig edge, and +49.0% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 37 receiving yards
#7 MODEL PLAY

Omarion Hampton

Receptions
WIN
OVER 1.5
fanduel +144
Projection 3.9
Proj. gap +2.4
Model win 79.0%
No-vig market 38.3%
No-vig edge +40.7%
Model-implied EV +92.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.9 is 2.4 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 79.0% vs 38.3% no-vig market probability creates a +40.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 79.0% model win, +40.7% no-vig edge, and +92.8% 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
#8 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Higbee

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 3.5
fanduel -108
Projection 2.8
Proj. gap -0.7
Model win 75.1%
No-vig market 48.6%
No-vig edge +26.5%
Model-implied EV +44.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.8 is 0.7 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 75.1% vs 48.6% no-vig market probability creates a +26.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 75.1% model win, +26.5% no-vig edge, and +44.7% 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
#9 MODEL PLAY

Kyren Williams

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 23.5
fanduel -113
Projection 17.5
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 17.5 is 6.0 below the 23.5 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: 3 receiving yards
#10 MODEL PLAY

Puka Nacua

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 7.5
fanduel +104
Projection 7.0
Proj. gap -0.5
Model win 71.5%
No-vig market 45.8%
No-vig edge +25.7%
Model-implied EV +45.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 7.0 is 0.5 below the 7.5 line.
Model win probability 71.5% vs 45.8% no-vig market probability creates a +25.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 71.5% model win, +25.7% no-vig edge, and +45.9% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 11 receptions
#11 MODEL PLAY

Tyler Higbee

Receiving yards
WIN
UNDER 36.5
fanduel -113
Projection 32.1
Proj. gap -4.4
Model win 70.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +20.7%
Model-implied EV +33.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 32.1 is 4.4 below the 36.5 line.
Model win probability 70.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +20.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 70.7% model win, +20.7% 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: 14 receiving yards
#12 MODEL PLAY

Oronde Gadsden II

Receptions
WIN
OVER 1.5
fanduel -154
Projection 3.2
Proj. gap +1.7
Model win 66.3%
No-vig market 56.7%
No-vig edge +9.6%
Model-implied EV +9.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 3.2 is 1.7 above the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 66.3% vs 56.7% no-vig market probability creates a +9.6% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 66.3% model win, +9.6% no-vig edge, and +9.4% 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
#13 MODEL PLAY

Quentin Johnston

Receptions
WIN
OVER 2.5
fanduel -114
Projection 4.1
Proj. gap +1.6
Model win 65.1%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +15.1%
Model-implied EV +22.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.1 is 1.6 above the 2.5 line.
Model win probability 65.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +15.1% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 65.1% model win, +15.1% no-vig edge, and +22.3% 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
#14 MODEL PLAY

Omarion Hampton

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 5.5
fanduel -113
Projection 26.2
Proj. gap +20.7
Model win 63.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +13.5%
Model-implied EV +19.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 26.2 is 20.7 above the 5.5 line.
Model win probability 63.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +13.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 63.5% model win, +13.5% no-vig edge, and +19.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 7 receiving yards
#15 MODEL PLAY

Oronde Gadsden II

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 15.5
fanduel -113
Projection 36.0
Proj. gap +20.5
Model win 63.4%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +13.4%
Model-implied EV +19.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 36.0 is 20.5 above the 15.5 line.
Model win probability 63.4% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +13.4% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 63.4% model win, +13.4% no-vig edge, and +19.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 52 receiving yards
#16 MODEL PLAY

Justin Herbert

Passing yards
WIN
OVER 205.5
fanduel -113
Projection 231.4
Proj. gap +25.9
Model win 59.1%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +9.1%
Model-implied EV +11.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 231.4 is 25.9 above the 205.5 line.
Model win probability 59.1% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +9.1% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 59.1% model win, +9.1% no-vig edge, and +11.4% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 257 passing yards
#17 MODEL PLAY

Matthew Stafford

Passing yards
LOSS
OVER 248.5
fanduel -113
Projection 268.7
Proj. gap +20.2
Model win 57.9%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +7.9%
Model-implied EV +9.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 268.7 is 20.2 above the 248.5 line.
Model win probability 57.9% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +7.9% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 57.9% model win, +7.9% no-vig edge, and +9.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 157 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

Blake Corum

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 46.5
fanduel -113
Projection52.1
Proj. gap+5.6
Model win43.3%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-6.7%
Model-implied EV-18.3%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Justin Herbert

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel +146
Projection1.5
Proj. gap+0.0
Model win50.2%
No-vig market38.2%
No-vig edge+12.0%
Model-implied EV+23.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Justin Herbert

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 23.5
fanduel -113
Projection30.1
Proj. gap+6.6
Model win44.6%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-5.4%
Model-implied EV-15.9%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Konata Mumpfield

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel -130
Projection2.2
Proj. gap+0.7
Model win48.1%
No-vig market52.8%
No-vig edge-4.7%
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

Konata Mumpfield

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 17.5
fanduel -113
Projection31.5
Proj. gap+14.0
Model win53.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+3.9%
Model-implied EV+1.7%
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 58.5
fanduel -113
Projection67.0
Proj. gap+8.5
Model win46.5%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-3.5%
Model-implied EV-12.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Ladd McConkey

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -160
Projection3.8
Proj. gap+0.3
Model win41.8%
No-vig market57.5%
No-vig edge-15.7%
Model-implied EV-32.0%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Ladd McConkey

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 47.5
fanduel -113
Projection50.5
Proj. gap+3.0
Model win37.3%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-12.7%
Model-implied EV-29.7%
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 91.5
fanduel -113
Projection107.3
Proj. gap+15.8
Model win57.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+7.1%
Model-implied EV+7.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Tre Harris

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -148
Projection3.2
Proj. gap+0.7
Model win49.2%
No-vig market55.9%
No-vig edge-6.7%
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

Tre Harris

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 35.5
fanduel -113
Projection44.8
Proj. gap+9.3
Model win46.3%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-3.7%
Model-implied EV-12.8%
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 →