Props and Pivots: NFL Week 2
In daily fantasy, our goal should always be to have as much information as possible when making a decision. One thing I’ve noticed over the last few NFL seasons is that newer players aren’t fully utilizing player props. In articles across the industry, you’ll hear analysts state that a high over/under is a reason why you want heavy exposure to a certain game. Just because a lot of points will be scored in a game doesn’t mean that every player in that game will score a lot of fantasy points.
Around the middle of last season, I discovered the reason player props aren’t being fully utilized in DFS. The reason is simple: Vegas does not post player props until Sunday morning. That’s far too late for many props to be included in things like the NFL Grind Down here on RotoGrinders. This is a huge advantage for those of us still making our decisions Sunday morning. What I’m going to do in this article is explain how to break down the implied probability of a prop. We’ll then look at some “chalk options” and whether or not Vegas thinks they are worth it. Finally, we’ll seek out some “pivots” where Vegas expects a lower-owned player to do just as good as the chalk option.
Before we dive into the player props, let’s do a quick primer to catch everyone up on betting terminology. With player prop bets, you will see two numbers. One is the odds for the over, and the other is the under. What do those numbers mean? Quite simply, they are the amount of money you would need to bet in order to win $100. For a line that reads -115, you would need to bet $115 to win $100. If you win the bet, you would collect your $115 back plus $100 profit. If the line is +115 then you need to bet $100 to win $115 (you would collect your original $100 plus $115 for a total of $215).
Now that we understand what the lines mean, let’s talk about how Vegas makes money. The best way to look at Vegas is as a market. Ideally, Vegas wants to set a line that gets equal amounts of action on each side. Imagine a line is -115 on both sides. Now imagine that you placed a $115 bet on each side (please don’t do this). As long as the bet doesn’t “push”, one of your tickets will win $115 back plus $100 profit. This would result in a $5 loss on your original $230 investment. That $5 is known as the “vig” or “rake.”
Alright, now that we understand how Vegas makes money, let’s talk about what the lines mean. As I mentioned above, Vegas tries to set lines that are as accurate as possible in order to create an efficient market. Basically, Vegas would love to connect two people who want to bet against each other while Vegas collects the vig. Betting lines aren’t just drawn out of a hat, though. Several factors go into them. For the purpose of this article, I’m not concerned with how the lines are set. I simply want to know what they mean. Every line can be converted back to its original probability using a very simple formula.
The formula for converting a negative moneyline is as follows: ( -(moneyline) ) / ( – ( minus moneyline odds ) ) +100 ). I hope I didn’t lose you there. Let’s do one real fast using a -125 line.
(-(-125))/(( -(-125))+100
=125/225
=0.556
=55.6%
Vegas thinks that an event with a -125 line is likely to happen 55.6% of the time. How about an event with a positive moneyline? That’s an even simpler formula. It is just 100/(plus moneyline odds + 100). Let’s try it real fast with a line of +115.
=100/115+100
=100/215
=0.4651
=46.5%
If Vegas sets a line at +115, they think that it will happen 46.5% of the time. Real quick, before some of you leave an argumentative comment, I realize that adding up the two sides of any bet will result in roughly 105%. The method I described above is the industry standard. If you don’t agree with it please don’t shoot the messenger. The extra percentage is because of the vig.
Also, I realize that props have a rather low maximum bet so they are not always the sharpest lines. Please don’t use this article as your only piece of research. Props are one thing to look at but they shouldn’t be the only thing. With that in mind, let’s move into the meat and potatoes of this article.
Quarterbacks
| Player | PaYDs | Odds | Implied% | PaTDs | Odds | Implied% | DK/FD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan Tannehill | 250.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1.5 | 155 | 39.2% | 16.0 | |
| Jimmy Garoppolo | 265.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -140 | 58.3% | 16.6 | |
| Drew Brees | 325.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 2.5 | 120 | 45.5% | 23.0 | |
| Eli Manning | 295.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 2.5 | 145 | 40.8% | 21.8 | |
| Kirk Cousins | 280.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -150 | 60.0% | 17.2 | |
| Dak Prescott | 225.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | 145 | 40.8% | 15.0 | |
| Blaine Gabbert | 220.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | 145 | 40.8% | 14.8 | |
| Cam Newton | 250.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -175 | 63.6% | 16.0 | |
| Andy Dalton | 240.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -150 | 60.0% | 15.6 | |
| Ben Roethlisberger | 290.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 2.5 | 135 | 42.6% | 21.6 | |
| Joe Flacco | 255.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -150 | 60.0% | 16.2 | |
| Josh McCown | 225.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1.5 | 135 | 42.6% | 15.0 | |
| Marcus Mariota | 240.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | 100 | 50.0% | 15.6 | |
| Matthew Stafford | 285.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 2 | 100 | 50.0% | 19.4 | |
| Brock Osweiler | 235.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 15.4 | |
| Alex Smith | 229.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | 120 | 45.5% | 15.2 | |
| Russell Wilson | 240.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 9.6 | |
| Carson Palmer | 289.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 2 | -150 | 60.0% | 19.6 | |
| Andrew Luck | 260.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1.5 | -150 | 60.0% | 16.4 | |
| Jameis Winston | 235.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 15.4 | |
| Trevor Siemian | 240.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 15.6 | |
| Matt Ryan | 279.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -165 | 62.3% | 17.2 | |
| Derek Carr | 285.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 2 | 100 | 50.0% | 19.4 | |
| Blake Bortles | 255.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 10.2 | |
| Sam Bradford | 225.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 9.0 |
Props: As expected Drew Brees and Eli Manning grade out as the highest projected options.
Pivots: Right behind Manning and Brees are some sneaky options in Roethlisberger, Palmer, and Carr. Cam Newton would also grade out at the top if I included his rushing yardage prop of 40 yards.
Running Backs
| Player | RuYDs | Odds | Implied% | RuTDs | Odds | Implied% | DK/FD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arian Foster | 60.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 150 | 40.0% | 12.1 |
| LeGarrette Blount | 62.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -110 | 52.4% | 12.3 |
| James White | 45.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 250 | 28.6% | 10.6 |
| Mark Ingram | 65.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -110 | 52.4% | 12.6 |
| Rashad Jennings | 67.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -125 | 55.6% | 12.8 |
| Ezekiel Elliott | 75.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -125 | 55.6% | 13.6 |
| Jonathan Stewart | 57.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1 | -115 | 53.5% | 11.8 |
| Jeremy Hill | 45.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 125 | 44.4% | 10.6 |
| DeAngelo Williams | 85.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -120 | 54.5% | 14.6 |
| Giovani Bernard | 50.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 225 | 30.8% | 11.1 |
| Isaiah Crowell | 50.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 200 | 33.3% | 11.1 |
| Spencer Ware | 67.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 1 | 140 | 41.7% | 12.8 |
| Lamar Miller | 85.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -120 | 54.5% | 14.6 |
| Todd Gurley | 85.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -110 | 52.4% | 14.6 |
| Doug Martin | 69.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 100 | 50.0% | 13.0 |
| Latavius Murray | 67.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -125 | 55.6% | 12.8 |
| Adrian Peterson | 79.5 | -135 | 57.4% | 1 | -150 | 60.0% | 14.0 |
| DeMarco Murray | 62.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 125 | 44.4% | 12.3 |
| Ameer Abdullah | 54.5 | -105 | 51.2% | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 11.5 |
| David Johnson | 85.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1 | 300 | 0.0% | 14.6 |
| T.J. Yeldon | 62.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 100 | 0.0% | 12.3 |
| Eddie Lacy | 67.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 125 | 0.0% | 12.8 |
Props: Not surprisingly, DeAngelo Williams and David Johnson grade out as top options. Lamar Miller and Ezekiel Elliott also grade out well. C.J. Anderson would also be near the top but his props were not listed when I pulled my data.
Pivots: T.J. Yeldon grades out surprisingly well in the middle of the pack. His price is in the lower tier on both FD and DK.
Wide Receivers
| Player | ReYDs | Odds | Implied% | ReTDs | Odds | Implied% | Rec | Odds | Implied% | DK/FD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kenny Stills | 25.5 | -105 | 51.2% | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 100 | 50.0% | 10.6 |
| Jarvis Landry | 67.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 140 | 41.7% | 6 | -130 | 56.5% | 18.8 |
| Julian Edelman | 67.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 100 | 50.0% | 6 | -130 | 56.5% | 18.8 |
| Danny Amendola | 29.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 250 | 28.6% | 2.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 11.5 |
| Brandin Cooks | 77.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -105 | 51.2% | 5.5 | -140 | 58.3% | 19.3 |
| Willie Snead | 70.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 150 | 40.0% | 5 | -150 | 60.0% | 18.1 |
| Victor Cruz | 42.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 225 | 30.8% | 3.5 | -140 | 58.3% | 13.8 |
| Odell Beckham | 95.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -175 | 63.6% | 6.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 22.1 |
| Sterling Shepard | 55.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 4 | -115 | 53.5% | 15.6 |
| Dez Bryant | 67.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1 | -105 | 51.2% | 5 | -125 | 55.6% | 17.8 |
| Cole Beasley | 37.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 225 | 30.8% | 2.5 | -140 | 58.3% | 12.3 |
| Pierre Garcon | 47.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 185 | 35.1% | 4.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 15.3 |
| Desean Jackson | 72.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 130 | 43.5% | 4.5 | -150 | 60.0% | 17.8 |
| Torrey Smith | 40.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 275 | 26.7% | 3 | -115 | 53.5% | 13.1 |
| Antonio Brown | 110.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -170 | 63.0% | 8.5 | 100 | 50.0% | 25.6 |
| A.J. Green | 90.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1 | -15 | 13.0% | 6.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 21.6 |
| Steve Smith | 52.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 150 | 40.0% | 4.5 | -135 | 57.4% | 15.8 |
| Tajae Sharpe | 57.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 150 | 40.0% | 4.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 16.3 |
| Marvin Jones | 67.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 1 | -115 | 53.5% | 4.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 17.3 |
| Golden Tate | 57.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -120 | 54.5% | 5.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 17.3 |
| Jeremy Maclin | 59.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 175 | 36.4% | 5 | -115 | 53.5% | 17.0 |
| Chris Conley | 30.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 9.1 |
| Will Fuller | 52.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 175 | 36.4% | 4.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 15.8 |
| DeAndre Hopkins | 79.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -120 | 54.5% | 6 | -115 | 53.5% | 20.0 |
| Kenny Britt | 45.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 300 | 25.0% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 10.6 |
| Mike Evans | 74.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 100 | 50.0% | 5 | -115 | 53.5% | 18.5 |
| Julio Jones | 100.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -135 | 57.4% | 7.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 23.6 |
| Charles Johnson | 32.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 300 | 25.0% | 2 | -130 | 56.5% | 11.3 |
| Stefon Diggs | 72.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 200 | 33.3% | 5 | -115 | 53.5% | 18.3 |
| Davate Adams | 35.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 275 | 26.7% | 3 | 100 | 50.0% | 12.6 |
| Jordy Nelson | 65.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 125 | 44.4% | 5 | -130 | 56.5% | 17.6 |
| Randall Cobb | 60.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 150 | 40.0% | 5.5 | 100 | 50.0% | 17.6 |
| Terrelle Pryor | 47.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 200 | 33.3% | 3 | -115 | 53.5% | 13.8 |
| Doug Baldwin | 67.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1 | 125 | 44.4% | 5.5 | 100 | 50.0% | 18.3 |
| Vincent Jackson | 42.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 175 | 36.4% | 3.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 13.8 |
| Emmanuel Sanders | 67.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 100 | 50.0% | 5 | 100 | 50.0% | 17.8 |
| Donte Moncreif | 47.5 | -105 | 51.2% | 1 | 150 | 40.0% | 4 | -115 | 53.5% | 14.8 |
| T.Y. Hilton | 60.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 125 | 44.4% | 4.5 | 100 | 50.0% | 16.6 |
| Allen Robinson | 76.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 100 | 50.0% | 5 | -115 | 53.5% | 18.7 |
| Allen Hurns | 56.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 130 | 43.5% | 3.5 | -150 | 60.0% | 15.2 |
| Travis Benjamin | 69.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 5 | -125 | 55.6% | 18.0 |
Props: Hey, look at that! Antonio Brown, Julio Jones, and Odell Beckham grade out as the top options. Beckham will be much higher owned than the other two.
Pivots: Scroll down the chart a little ways and you’ll find Marvin Jones ahead of options that cost $1000 more than he does. Tajae Sharpe is also in this tier, as well as pretty much every WR in the Saints-Giants game.
Tight Ends
| Player | ReYDs | Odds | Implied% | ReTDs | Odds | Implied% | Rec | Odds | Implied% | DK/FD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Cameron | 22.5 | 100 | 50.0% | 1 | 250 | 28.6% | 2.5 | 110 | 47.6% | 10.8 |
| Coby Fleener | 29.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 140 | 41.7% | 2.5 | -150 | 60.0% | 11.5 |
| Jason Witten | 47.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 200 | 33.3% | 4.5 | -150 | 60.0% | 15.3 |
| Jordan Reed | 62.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 100 | 50.0% | 6 | -115 | 53.5% | 18.3 |
| Delanie Walker | 47.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 160 | 38.5% | 4.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 15.3 |
| Travis Kelce | 55.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 175 | 36.4% | 5 | -130 | 56.5% | 16.6 |
| Kyle Rudolph | 39.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 225 | 0.0% | 3.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 13.5 |
| Jared Cook | 25.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 250 | 28.6% | 1.5 | -150 | 60.0% | 10.1 |
| Greg Olsen | 67.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -130 | 53.5% | 5.5 | -150 | 60.0% | 18.3 |
| Dennis Pitta | 32.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 175 | 36.4% | 3 | -115 | 53.5% | 12.3 |
| Gary Barnidge | 49.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 200 | 33.3% | 3.5 | -140 | 58.3% | 14.5 |
| Virgil Green | 30.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 175 | 36.4% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 9.1 |
| Antonio Gates | 40.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 110 | 47.6% | 3 | -130 | 56.5% | 13.1 |
| Julius Thomas | 36.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 150 | 40.0% | 3 | -115 | 53.5% | 12.7 |
| Jesse James | 32.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 160 | 38.5% | 3.5 | -140 | 58.3% | 12.8 |
| C.J. Uzomah | 29.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 175 | 36.4% | 2.5 | 100 | 50.0% | 11.5 |
Props: Greg Olsen is the highest projected option (along with Jordan Reed), but there are several usable options for cheap. Delanie Walker grades out about the same as Jason Witten and Antonio Gates.
Pivots: If you are finishing at the bottom of the barrel Virgil Green makes a lot of sense. He’s dirt cheap. The same goes for Jesse James.