Props and Pivots: NFL Week 1
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blake Bortles | 245.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -150 | 60.0% | 15.8 | |
| Aaron Rodgers | 270.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 2 | -130 | 56.5% | 18.82 | |
| Brock Osweiler | 235.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 15.42 | |
| Jay Cutler | 225.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | 135 | 42.6% | 15.02 | |
| Carson Wentz | 230.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | 120 | 45.5% | 15.22 | |
| Robert Griffin | 225.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | 135 | 42.6% | 15.02 | |
| Drew Brees | 295.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 2 | 100 | 50.0% | 19.82 | |
| Derek Carr | 275.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 2 | 100 | 50.0% | 19.02 | |
| Alex Smith | 229.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -105 | 51.2% | 15.18 | |
| Philip Rivers | 250.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 16.02 | |
| Joe Flacco | 250.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 1.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 16.02 | |
| Tyrod Taylor | 215.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 1.5 | 145 | 40.8% | 14.62 | |
| Marcus Mariota | 229.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | 100 | 50.0% | 15.18 | |
| Matt Ryan | 275.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1.5 | -150 | 60.0% | 17.02 | |
| Jameis Winston | 250.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1.5 | -150 | 60.0% | 16.02 | |
| Ryan Fitzpatrick | 235.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 15.42 |
It’s a bit disappointing that Bovada does not have any props for Dak Prescott. To me, this implies that Vegas believes the range of outcomes is extreme. At the bare minimum on both FanDuel and DraftKings, Prescott is certainly the chalk option. If you are looking to move away from the chalk option, Vegas thinks that Oakland at New Orleans will be a shootout. In the table above, you can sort by any of the columns. If you sort by yardage, Brees and Carr come in as the two highest. Brees is projected for 295 yards and Carr 275. Brees, Carr, and Rodgers are also the only three QBs with a 2-TD prop. The rest are projected at 1.5. Vegas says that there is a 50/50 chance that Carr and Brees will throw two TDs.
Running Backs
| Player | RuYDs | Odds | Implied% | RuTDs | Odds | Implied% | DK/FD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TJ Yeldon | 49.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 175 | 36.4% | 11.0 |
| Eddie Lacy | 67.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -150 | 60.0% | 12.8 |
| James Starks | 42.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 200 | 33.3% | 10.3 |
| Lamar Miller | 77.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -150 | 60.0% | 13.8 |
| Jeremy Langford | 57.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 5.8 |
| Ryan Mathews | 70.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1 | -105 | 51.2% | 13.1 |
| Duke Johnson | 50.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 5.1 |
| Mark Ingram | 65.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -150 | 60.0% | 12.6 |
| Latavius Murray | 72.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -130 | 56.5% | 13.3 |
| Melvin Gordon | 52.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 150 | 40.0% | 11.3 |
| Danny Woodhead | 50.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 150 | 40.0% | 11.1 |
| Justin Forsett | 50.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 125 | 44.4% | 11.1 |
| DeMarco Murray | 65.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 100 | 50.0% | 12.6 |
| Adrian Peterson | 87.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -200 | 66.7% | 14.8 |
| Devonta Freeman | 65.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -150 | 60.0% | 12.6 |
| Doug Martin | 75.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -150 | 60.0% | 13.6 |
| Matt Forte | 59.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 105 | 48.8% | 12.0 |
| Ezekiel Elliott | 85.5 | -135 | 57.4% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 8.6 |
A few things jump out here. The first is Adrian Peterson at 87.5 yards and a 66% chance to score a touchdown. With the value available, it makes a lot of sense to pay up for Adrian Peterson on a 0.5 PPR site like FanDuel where yardage and touchdowns matters more than receptions.
Lamar Miller projects as an excellent option as well, but he’s certainly seeing enough love across the injury. He’ll be highly owned and he should be worth it. If you are looking for some mid-range options Latavius Murray and Ryan Mathews both project out very well. Each has over a 50% chance to score a touchdown.
Wide Receivers
| Player | ReYDs | Odds | Implied% | ReTDs | Odds | Implied% | Rec | Odds | Implied% | DK/FD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allen Hurns | 57.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 150 | 40.0% | 3.5 | -140 | 58.3% | 11.0 |
| Allen Robinson | 75.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1 | 100 | 50.0% | 5 | 100 | 50.0% | 12.8 |
| Jordy Nelson | 72.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -120 | 54.5% | 5.5 | 100 | 50.0% | 10.3 |
| Randall Cobb | 55.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 100 | 50.0% | 5 | 100 | 50.0% | 13.8 |
| DeAndre Hopkins | 85.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -150 | 60.0% | 6 | -130 | 56.5% | 5.8 |
| Alshon Jeffery | 79.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 1 | 120 | 45.5% | 5.5 | -140 | 58.3% | 13.1 |
| Jordan Matthews | 57.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 120 | 45.5% | 5 | 100 | 50.0% | 5.1 |
| Corey Coleman | 52.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 200 | 33.3% | 4 | 100 | 50.0% | 12.6 |
| Brandin Cooks | 70.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -130 | 56.5% | 5 | -125 | 55.6% | 13.3 |
| Willie Snead | 65.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 125 | 44.4% | 4.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 11.3 |
| Amari Cooper | 77.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -125 | 55.6% | 5 | -125 | 55.6% | 11.1 |
| Michael Crabtree | 54.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 1 | -110 | 52.4% | 5 | 100 | 50.0% | 11.1 |
| Jeremy Maclin | 65.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 125 | 44.4% | 5 | -105 | 51.2% | 12.6 |
| Keenan Allen | 67.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 125 | 44.4% | 5.5 | 100 | 50.0% | 14.8 |
| Kamar Aiken | 55.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 150 | 40.0% | 4.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 12.6 |
| Steve Smith | 55.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 125 | 44.4% | 4.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 13.6 |
| Robert Woods | 32.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 250 | 28.6% | 3 | -115 | 53.5% | 12.0 |
| Sammy Watkins | 79.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1 | -110 | 52.4% | 5 | -125 | 55.6% | 8.6 |
| Rishard Matthews | 49.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 200 | 33.3% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 0.0 |
| Stefon Diggs | 60.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 150 | 40.0% | 4.5 | 100 | 50.0% | 0.0 |
| Julio Jones | 99.5 | -125 | 55.6% | 1 | -150 | 60.0% | 7.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 0.0 |
| Mike Evans | 80.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -110 | 52.4% | 5.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 0.0 |
| Vincent Jackson | 52.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 130 | 43.5% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 0.0 |
| Brandon Marshall | 75.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 100 | 50.0% | 6 | -115 | 53.5% | 0.0 |
| Eric Decker | 59.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 125 | 44.4% | 5 | -130 | 56.5% | 0.0 |
| AJ Green | 79.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | -130 | 56.5% | 5.5 | -105 | 51.2% | 0.0 |
The thing that jumps off the page here is Julio Jones projected at 99.5 yards and 7.5 receptions. He’s far and away the top receiving option. One sneaky name that keeps coming up is Sammy Watkins. With a yardage prop of 79.5 and a 52% chance to score a touchdown, he seems like a good bet to reach value at his mid-range price.
Tight Ends
| Player | ReYDs | Odds | Implied% | ReTDs | Odds | Implied% | Rec | Odds | Implied% | DK/FD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jared Cook | 42.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 200 | 33.3% | 3.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 13.8 |
| Zach Miller | 37.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 200 | 33.3% | 4 | 100 | 50.0% | 13.8 |
| Zach Ertz | 42.5 | -130 | 56.5% | 1 | 175 | 36.4% | 4 | 100 | 50.0% | 14.3 |
| Gary Barnidge | 47.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 160 | 38.5% | 4 | -115 | 53.5% | 14.8 |
| Travis Kelce | 55.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 130 | 43.5% | 5 | 100 | 50.0% | 16.6 |
| Antonio Gates | 40.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 125 | 44.4% | 4 | -115 | 53.5% | 14.1 |
| Charles Clay | 32.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 3.5 | 120 | 45.5% | 6.8 |
| Delanie Walker | 55.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 175 | 36.4% | 5 | 100 | 50.0% | 16.6 |
| Kyle Rudolph | 32.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 200 | 33.3% | 3 | -115 | 53.5% | 12.3 |
| Jacob Tamme | 32.5 | -115 | 53.5% | 1 | 200 | 33.3% | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 9.3 |
The most notable thing here is that Jared Cook projects out just as well as other far more expensive options. I’ve been saying this all week, but Jared Cook is far too cheap. He isn’t getting near as much love as he deserves.