WEEK 8 · Sun, Nov 1, 11:00 AM CST

Tennessee Titans @ Cincinnati Bengals

8 qualified model plays · 18 modeled lines did not qualify · 3-4-0 - 1 void
← 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 69.4% Average estimated win probability across this game's qualified plays.
Avg no-vig edge +16.5% Model probability minus the market's no-vig implied probability.
Avg model-implied EV +24.2% 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

Calvin Ridley

Receiving yards
LOSS
OVER 22.5
fanduel -113
Projection 52.5
Proj. gap +30.0
Model win 77.9%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +27.9%
Model-implied EV +46.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 52.5 is 30.0 above the 22.5 line.
Model win probability 77.9% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +27.9% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 77.9% model win, +27.9% no-vig edge, and +46.9% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 10 receiving yards
#2 MODEL PLAY

Tee Higgins

Receptions
LOSS
UNDER 5.5
fanduel -172
Projection 4.6
Proj. gap -0.9
Model win 77.5%
No-vig market 59.0%
No-vig edge +18.4%
Model-implied EV +22.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 4.6 is 0.9 below the 5.5 line.
Model win probability 77.5% vs 59.0% no-vig market probability creates a +18.4% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 77.5% model win, +18.4% no-vig edge, and +22.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 10 receptions
#3 MODEL PLAY

Tee Higgins

Receiving yards
LOSS
UNDER 70.5
fanduel -113
Projection 63.9
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 63.9 is 6.6 below the 70.5 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: 155 receiving yards
#4 MODEL PLAY

Cam Ward

Passing TDs
WIN
OVER 0.5
fanduel -210
Projection 1.4
Proj. gap +0.9
Model win 71.3%
No-vig market 63.6%
No-vig edge +7.7%
Model-implied EV +5.3%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 1.4 is 0.9 above the 0.5 line.
Model win probability 71.3% vs 63.6% no-vig market probability creates a +7.7% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 71.3% model win, +7.7% no-vig edge, and +5.3% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 2 passing TDs
#5 MODEL PLAY

Michael Carter

Rushing yards
VOID
OVER 12.5
fanduel -113
Projection 35.7
Proj. gap +23.2
Model win 67.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +17.7%
Model-implied EV +27.6%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 35.7 is 23.2 above the 12.5 line.
Model win probability 67.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +17.7% edge.
Qualified with 796 residual samples, 67.7% model win, +17.7% no-vig edge, and +27.6% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 796
#6 MODEL PLAY

Wan'Dale Robinson

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 48.5
fanduel -113
Projection 69.5
Proj. gap +21.0
Model win 64.2%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +14.2%
Model-implied EV +20.9%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 69.5 is 21.0 above the 48.5 line.
Model win probability 64.2% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +14.2% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 64.2% model win, +14.2% no-vig edge, and +20.9% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 57 receiving yards
#7 MODEL PLAY

Joe Burrow

Passing yards
LOSS
UNDER 272.5
fanduel -113
Projection 244.0
Proj. gap -28.5
Model win 63.6%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +13.6%
Model-implied EV +19.8%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 244.0 is 28.5 below the 272.5 line.
Model win probability 63.6% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +13.6% edge.
Qualified with 516 residual samples, 63.6% model win, +13.6% no-vig edge, and +19.8% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 516
Final: 462 passing yards
#8 MODEL PLAY

Daniel Bellinger

Receiving yards
WIN
OVER 10.5
fanduel -113
Projection 28.4
Proj. gap +17.9
Model win 59.7%
No-vig market 50.0%
No-vig edge +9.7%
Model-implied EV +12.5%
WHY THIS PLAY
Projection 28.4 is 17.9 above the 10.5 line.
Model win probability 59.7% vs 50.0% no-vig market probability creates a +9.7% edge.
Qualified with 2154 residual samples, 59.7% model win, +9.7% no-vig edge, and +12.5% model-implied EV; publication floors are 500 samples, 57.5% win, +5.0% edge, and +5.0% EV.
Historical residual sample: 2154
Final: 36 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

Calvin Ridley

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel -168
Projection2.9
Proj. gap+1.4
Model win59.6%
No-vig market58.6%
No-vig edge+1.0%
Model-implied EV-4.9%
Why it did not qualify: No-vig market edge did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Cam Ward

Passing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 192.5
fanduel -113
Projection187.1
Proj. gap-5.4
Model win53.9%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+3.9%
Model-implied EV+1.6%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Chase Brown

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 58.5
fanduel -113
Projection65.0
Proj. gap+6.5
Model win44.5%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-5.5%
Model-implied EV-16.2%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Chase Brown

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 3.5
fanduel -102
Projection3.5
Proj. gap+0.0
Model win36.7%
No-vig market47.2%
No-vig edge-10.5%
Model-implied EV-27.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Chase Brown

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 18.5
fanduel -113
Projection24.9
Proj. gap+6.4
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

Daniel Bellinger

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel +116
Projection2.6
Proj. gap+1.1
Model win55.4%
No-vig market43.3%
No-vig edge+12.1%
Model-implied EV+19.6%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Elic Ayomanor

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -136
Projection3.2
Proj. gap+0.7
Model win48.2%
No-vig market53.8%
No-vig edge-5.6%
Model-implied EV-16.4%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Elic Ayomanor

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 32.5
fanduel -113
Projection46.1
Proj. gap+13.6
Model win53.2%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+3.2%
Model-implied EV+0.2%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Gunnar Helm

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 2.5
fanduel -140
Projection3.4
Proj. gap+0.9
Model win51.6%
No-vig market54.6%
No-vig edge-3.0%
Model-implied EV-11.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Gunnar Helm

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 21.5
fanduel -113
Projection27.7
Proj. gap+6.2
Model win41.6%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-8.4%
Model-implied EV-21.7%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Ja'Marr Chase

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 6.5
fanduel -130
Projection6.9
Proj. gap+0.4
Model win42.5%
No-vig market52.8%
No-vig edge-10.3%
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

Ja'Marr Chase

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 79.5
fanduel -113
Projection83.7
Proj. gap+4.2
Model win39.0%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-11.0%
Model-implied EV-26.5%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Joe Burrow

Passing TDs
Did not qualify
Model side: UNDER 2.5
fanduel -170
Projection2.5
Proj. gap-0.0
Model win55.0%
No-vig market59.2%
No-vig edge-4.1%
Model-implied EV-12.6%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 516
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Michael Carter

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 1.5
fanduel -118
Projection2.3
Proj. gap+0.8
Model win50.3%
No-vig market50.6%
No-vig edge-0.3%
Model-implied EV-7.1%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Michael Carter

Receiving yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 7.5
fanduel -113
Projection17.5
Proj. gap+10.0
Model win47.6%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-2.4%
Model-implied EV-10.3%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 2154
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Samaje Perine

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 22.5
fanduel -113
Projection36.7
Proj. gap+14.2
Model win54.6%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge+4.6%
Model-implied EV+3.0%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Tony Pollard

Rushing yards
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 65.5
fanduel -113
Projection70.0
Proj. gap+4.5
Model win42.5%
No-vig market50.0%
No-vig edge-7.5%
Model-implied EV-20.0%
Why it did not qualify: Model win probability did not clear the publication floor.
Historical residual sample: 796
MODELED - DID NOT QUALIFY

Wan'Dale Robinson

Receptions
Did not qualify
Model side: OVER 5.5
fanduel -112
Projection6.0
Proj. gap+0.5
Model win44.7%
No-vig market49.4%
No-vig edge-4.7%
Model-implied EV-15.5%
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 →