WEEK 8 · Sun, Nov 1, 11:00 AM CST

Las Vegas Raiders @ New York Jets

12 qualified model plays · 7 modeled lines did not qualify · 3-9-0
← Back to Week 8
MODEL OVERVIEW

What the board is seeing

Qualified plays 12 Published sides that cleared the current model thresholds.
Avg model win 68.2% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +18.8% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +30.1% 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

Brock Bowers

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 68.5
fanduel -113
Projection 51.7
Proj. gap -16.8
Model win 80.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +30.7%
Model-implied EV +52.2%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 51.7 is 16.8 below the 68.5 line.
Model win probability 80.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +30.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 80.7% model win, +30.7% no-vig edge, and +52.2% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 92 receiving yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Ashton Jeanty

Receptions
WIN
UNDER 3.5
fanduel -106
Projection 2.8
Proj. gap -0.7
Model win 74.0%
No-vig market 48.1%
No-vig edge +25.9%
Model-implied EV +43.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 2.8 is 0.7 below the 3.5 line.
Model win probability 74.0% vs 48.1% no-vig market probability creates a +25.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 74.0% model win, +25.9% no-vig edge, and +43.8% 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
#3 MODEL PLAY

Geno Smith

Passing yards
LOSS
UNDER 225.5
fanduel -113
Projection 179.7
Proj. gap -45.8
Model win 73.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +23.6%
Model-implied EV +38.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 179.7 is 45.8 below the 225.5 line.
Model win probability 73.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +23.6% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 73.6% model win, +23.6% no-vig edge, and +38.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 290 passing yards
#4 MODEL PLAY

Garrett Wilson

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 63.5
fanduel -113
Projection 56.9
Proj. gap -6.6
Model win 73.0%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +23.0%
Model-implied EV +37.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 56.9 is 6.6 below the 63.5 line.
Model win probability 73.0% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +23.0% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 73.0% model win, +23.0% no-vig edge, and +37.6% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 83 receiving yards
#5 MODEL PLAY

Brock Bowers

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 5.5
fanduel +116
Projection 5.0
Proj. gap -0.5
Model win 71.6%
No-vig market 43.3%
No-vig edge +28.3%
Model-implied EV +54.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 5.0 is 0.5 below the 5.5 line.
Model win probability 71.6% vs 43.3% no-vig market probability creates a +28.3% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 71.6% model win, +28.3% no-vig edge, and +54.7% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 7 receptions
#6 MODEL PLAY

Garrett Wilson

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 5.5
fanduel -125
Projection 5.1
Proj. gap -0.4
Model win 71.2%
No-vig market 51.9%
No-vig edge +19.3%
Model-implied EV +28.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 5.1 is 0.4 below the 5.5 line.
Model win probability 71.2% vs 51.9% no-vig market probability creates a +19.3% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 71.2% model win, +19.3% 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: 6 receptions
#7 MODEL PLAY

Ashton Jeanty

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 27.5
fanduel -113
Projection 24.4
Proj. gap -3.1
Model win 69.8%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +19.8%
Model-implied EV +31.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 24.4 is 3.1 below the 27.5 line.
Model win probability 69.8% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +19.8% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 69.8% model win, +19.8% no-vig edge, and +31.5% 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
#8 MODEL PLAY

Ashton Jeanty

Rushing yards
LOSS
OVER 49.5
fanduel -113
Projection 73.6
Proj. gap +24.1
Model win 68.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +18.5%
Model-implied EV +29.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 73.6 is 24.1 above the 49.5 line.
Model win probability 68.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +18.5% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 68.5% model win, +18.5% no-vig edge, and +29.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
Final: 9 rushing yards
#9 MODEL PLAY

Adonai Mitchell

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 24.5
fanduel -113
Projection 42.9
Proj. gap +18.4
Model win 60.5%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +10.5%
Model-implied EV +14.1%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 42.9 is 18.4 above the 24.5 line.
Model win probability 60.5% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +10.5% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 60.5% model win, +10.5% no-vig edge, and +14.1% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 142 receiving yards
#10 MODEL PLAY

Kirk Cousins

Passing yards
LOSS
UNDER 232.5
fanduel -113
Projection 216.6
Proj. gap -15.9
Model win 59.1%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +9.1%
Model-implied EV +11.4%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 216.6 is 15.9 below the 232.5 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: 247 passing yards
#11 MODEL PLAY

Michael Mayer

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 25.5
fanduel -113
Projection 42.3
Proj. gap +16.8
Model win 58.2%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +8.2%
Model-implied EV +9.7%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 42.3 is 16.8 above the 25.5 line.
Model win probability 58.2% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +8.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 58.2% model win, +8.2% no-vig edge, and +9.7% 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
#12 MODEL PLAY

Kirk Cousins

Passing TDs
LOSS
UNDER 1.5
fanduel -110
Projection 1.3
Proj. gap -0.2
Model win 57.9%
No-vig market 49.2%
No-vig edge +8.8%
Model-implied EV +10.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 1.3 is 0.2 below the 1.5 line.
Model win probability 57.9% vs 49.2% no-vig market probability creates a +8.8% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 57.9% model win, +8.8% no-vig edge, and +10.6% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 3 passing TDs
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Other lines PDR reviewed

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

MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Adonai Mitchell

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel +154
Projection3.4
Proj. gap+0.9
Model win51.7%
No-vig market36.8%
No-vig edge+14.9%
Model-implied EV+31.2%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Geno Smith

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 1.5
fanduel -144
Projection1.3
Proj. gap-0.2
Model win57.4%
No-vig market55.3%
No-vig edge+2.0%
Model-implied EV-2.8%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Mason Taylor

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -138
Projection3.2
Proj. gap+0.7
Model win49.0%
No-vig market54.2%
No-vig edge-5.2%
Model-implied EV-15.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Mason Taylor

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 22.5
fanduel -113
Projection26.8
Proj. gap+4.3
Model win39.1%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-10.9%
Model-implied EV-26.3%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Michael Mayer

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -168
Projection3.6
Proj. gap+1.1
Model win54.3%
No-vig market58.6%
No-vig edge-4.3%
Model-implied EV-13.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Tre Tucker

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -120
Projection4.3
Proj. gap+0.8
Model win49.6%
No-vig market51.0%
No-vig edge-1.4%
Model-implied EV-9.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Tre Tucker

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 48.5
fanduel -113
Projection54.8
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
PDR is part of The Buffet. Turn your sports takes into challenges with friends at Buffet Bets →