form_wnba

834–597 over 1431 priced bets · +96.6u · ROI +6.8% +1.9% to +11.6% · CLV +1.16¢ +1.0% to +1.3%

Beats break-even — the ROI interval clears zero.

THE PICKS · priced bets only, newest first

Every day, every game, every miss.

Day by day

these are the form_wnba picks — the same set listed in the sheet below. The record in the header bar is a different formula, so the two totals will not match.

594–398 · 60% · +93.64u across these days · 8 voided, nothing staked

08/0645–2465%+20.54u3 games

permalink to 2026-08-06 →

TOR @ POR3–7−4.98u

Carla Leite Under 17.5 PTS27 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Carla Leite Under 8.5 AST11 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Julie Allemand Under 8.5 PTS11 vs 8.5no clean explanation
Nyara Sabally Under 14.5 PTS17 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Megan DiLeo Under 16.5 PTS17 vs 16.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
Bridget Carleton Over 2.5 3PM2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held up

LVA @ IND8–4+2.59u

Aliyah Boston Under 8.5 REB12 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Kelsey Mitchell Over 2.5 3PM2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Chelsea Gray Over 11.5 PTS11 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
Aliyah Boston Under 9.5 REB12 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBoston exceeded the rebounding line by crashing the glass relentlessly in 38 minutes of heavy usage, grabbing 12 boards on strong efficiency (70% TS) to carry the offensive load despite a team-worst -9 +/-. The high volume and floor time proved decisive for the over-9.5 rebound prop.

LAS @ MIN34–13+22.92u

Cameron Brink Under 6.5 REB8 vs 6.5**Void – DNP (Did Not Play).** Brink was ruled out before tipoff and did not enter the game, rendering the rebounding prop ungraded.
Ariel Atkins Over 10.5 PTS7 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Nneka Ogwumike Over 7.5 REB7 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationOgwumike fell one rebound short despite 30 minutes and solid efficiency (7-13 FG, 62% TS), as the game's pace and available opportunities simply didn't generate the board activity needed to clear 7.5. Her zero fouls kept her on court, but the deficit in second-chance or defensive rebounding chances—reflected in her modest 27% usage rate—limited her path to 8+.
Nneka Ogwumike Over 2.5 AST0 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgwumike scored efficiently (16 pts on 62% TS in 30 min) but recorded zero assists despite 27% usage, turning the ball over 5 times and failing to facilitate for teammates. The volume was there but playmaking never materialized, leaving the over well short of the 2.5 threshold.
Courtney Williams Over 3.5 AST0 vs 3.5no clean explanationWilliams played 34 minutes but recorded zero assists despite 17% usage, operating primarily as a scorer (12 points on 5-12 shooting) rather than a facilitator in the offense. The complete absence of playmaking opportunities—just one turnover in a game where she touched the ball infrequently—made the over an impossible hit.
Kayla McBride Over 17.5 PTS15 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMcBride fell just short despite playing 34 minutes, as a poor 5-13 shooting night (38 FG%) limited her to 15 points despite decent volume at 21% usage. The miss came down to inefficiency rather than opportunity—she had the minutes and touches but couldn't convert at her typical rate.

08/0526–2551%−3.81u4 games

permalink to 2026-08-05 →

SEA @ NYL2–7−5.12u

Ezi Magbegor Under 6.5 PTS7 vs 6.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
Rebecca Allen Under 5.5 PTS12 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Sabrina Ionescu Over 19.5 PTS15 vs 19.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Flau'jae Johnson Over 15.5 PTS11 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Sabrina Ionescu Over 18.5 PTS15 vs 18.5paid over the fair numberIonescu's inefficient 4-14 shooting (28.6% FG) despite 31 minutes of work left her 3.5 points short, as she couldn't compensate for her poor field-goal accuracy with her free-throw prowess (6-6). Her 23% usage rate also indicated the offense didn't lean heavily on her scoring in this matchup.
Awa Fam Over 5.5 REB5 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberFam finished exactly at the line with 5 rebounds in 23 minutes of play, unable to secure the extra board needed to cash the over despite solid shooting efficiency (59% TS). Limited minutes and moderate usage (23%) kept her rebound opportunities constrained.

LAS @ CHI6–6−1.40u

Ariel Atkins Over 10.5 PTS8 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Nneka Ogwumike Over 8.5 REB7 vs 8.5no clean explanation
Natasha Cloud Under 12.5 PTS15 vs 12.5paid over the fair number
Nneka Ogwumike Over 17.5 PTS10 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Cameron Brink Under 5.5 REB6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair number
Erica Wheeler Over 5.5 AST5 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberWheeler came up one assist short despite efficient scoring (6-9 FG), limited by 24 minutes and modest usage (20%) that restricted her playmaking opportunities.

PHO @ ATL9–7+0.60u

Rhyne Howard Under 3.5 3PM5 vs 3.5no clean explanation
Kelsey Plum Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Natasha Mack Over 4.5 REB1 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Rhyne Howard Under 16.5 PTS23 vs 16.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward's elite efficiency—74% TS on 22% usage with a 6-13 FG line anchored by 5-9 from three—carried her well past 16.5 despite modest volume, as she made 6 of 6 free throws to reach 23 points in 34 minutes.
Rhyne Howard Under 17.5 PTS23 vs 17.5paid over the fair numberHoward's elite efficiency—74% true shooting on 22% usage—combined with perfect free-throw shooting (6-6) to push her 5 points over the line despite moderate volume from the field (13 FG attempts).
Jordin Canada Over 7.5 AST4 vs 7.5no clean explanationCanada's assist total was dragged down by five turnovers and limited playmaking opportunities despite 30 minutes of work; she recorded only 4 dimes against an opponent that forced her into a shoot-first role (32% usage, 4-13 FG).

DAL @ WAS9–5+2.10u

Azzi Fudd Over 12.5 PTS9 vs 12.5paid over the fair number
Michaela Onyenwere Under 8.5 PTS10 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Azzi Fudd Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Alanna Smith Under 3.5 REB11 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upSmith's 11 rebounds—triple the over/under line—came from 32 minutes of heavy usage (32%) and her ability to crash the glass on both ends, collecting boards on 9 made field goals and generating extra possessions despite shooting just 5-for-7 from the free-throw line.
Michaela Onyenwere Over 1.5 AST1 vs 1.5no clean explanationOnyenwere logged only 19 minutes and recorded just 1 assist despite solid efficiency (62% TS), unable to generate enough ball movement in limited run to clear the 1.5 threshold.

08/0416–1355%+0.75u1 game

permalink to 2026-08-04 →

TOR @ GSV16–13+0.75u

Kaila Charles Over 5.5 PTS2 vs 5.5no clean explanation
Kiki Rice Over 10.5 PTS2 vs 10.5no clean explanation
Marina Mabrey Over 16.5 PTS12 vs 16.5no clean explanation
Kayla Thornton Under 9.5 PTS20 vs 9.5no clean explanation
Kaitlyn Chen Over 6.5 PTS2 vs 6.5game script — blowout or foul trouble
Marina Mabrey Over 17.5 PTS12 vs 17.5no clean explanation

08/0321–1657%+1.91u3 games

permalink to 2026-08-03 →

LVA @ ATL5–6−1.79u

Jackie Young Under 4.5 REB11 vs 4.5no clean explanation
Allisha Gray Over 19.5 PTS7 vs 19.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Rhyne Howard Under 17.5 PTS19 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationHoward exceeded the under by hitting 7-of-13 from the field (54%) and 3-of-7 from three (43%) while playing a season-high 33 minutes, capitalizing on efficient shooting to reach 19 points despite a modest 18% usage rate.
Allisha Gray Over 18.5 PTS7 vs 18.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's shot never fell, connecting on just 2-of-10 from the field (20%) and 0-of-6 from three despite playing 30 minutes, unable to generate the scoring volume needed to clear 18.5 points.
Rhyne Howard Under 16.5 PTS19 vs 16.5no clean explanationHoward shot an efficient 7-13 (54%) from the field with a 68% true shooting percentage, exceeding her season averages to finish 3 points above the 16.5 line despite modest 18% usage.
Jordin Canada Over 7.5 AST7 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upCanada fell one assist short despite playing 31 minutes, hampered by a 17% usage rate and 4 turnovers that limited her playmaking opportunities in the offense.

SEA @ NYL6–6−0.74u

Sabrina Ionescu Over 19.5 PTS18 vs 19.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
Dominique Malonga Over 8.5 REB6 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMalonga fell two boards short despite solid scoring efficiency (6-11 FG, 67% TS), hampered by limited opportunities in 28 minutes and early foul trouble (4 PF) that likely reduced her time on the glass.
Natisha Hiedeman Over 2.5 REB1 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHiedeman was a facilitator tonight (7 assists), but grabbed just 1 rebound across 33 minutes despite high volume on offense, failing to crash the glass even as a primary ball-handler; her guard role and lack of offensive rebounding opportunities led to a significant shortfall on the boards.
Rebecca Allen Under 2.5 REB5 vs 2.5no clean explanationAllen's rebounding activity far exceeded expectations despite shooting 0-for-7, as she corralled 5 boards in 26 minutes—double the under line—by staying active on the glass even when her offensive game disappeared. Her elite shot-blocking (2 blocks) and defense (+10 rating) kept her on the floor and positioned her for rebound opportunities despite negligible offensive usage.
Dominique Malonga Over 7.5 REB6 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMalonga fell one board short despite efficient scoring (6-11 FG) because she logged only 28 minutes and picked up 4 fouls, limiting her time on the glass and availability for the final stretch.
Rebecca Allen Under 3.5 REB5 vs 3.5no clean explanation

PHO @ CHI10–4+4.44u

Kahleah Copper Under 22.5 PTS31 vs 22.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
DiJonai Carrington Under 9.5 PTS16 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Elizabeth Williams Under 4.5 REB6 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilliams exceeded the 4.5 rebound line by grabbing 6 boards in 15 minutes, benefiting from increased opportunity in a game where Atlanta likely dominated the glass or faced extended possessions. Despite modest scoring (5 pts on 15% usage), her rebounding floor as a 6'5" big man proved sufficient to clear the under in limited minutes.

08/0221–17 ·4 void55%+0.07u4 games

permalink to 2026-08-02 →

IND @ MIN7–8−2.58u

Natasha Howard Under 12.5 PTS13 vs 12.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
Kayla McBride Over 2.5 3PM2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Aliyah Boston Under 3.5 AST7 vs 3.5no clean explanation
Natasha Howard Over 5.5 REB4 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward fell one rebound short despite efficient scoring (6-9 FG), limited by 23 minutes of playing time and picking up 4 fouls that likely restricted her availability on the glass in the final quarter.
Napheesa Collier Under 7.5 REB8 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upCollier cleared the under by one rebound despite modest usage (21%), grabbing 8 boards in 32 minutes as Minnesota's primary floor-spacer and secondary playmaker; the extra rebound came via heavy involvement in transition and offensive glass work that wasn't fully priced into the 7.5 line.
Caitlin Clark Under 8.5 AST10 vs 8.5no clean explanationClark exceeded the assist line by distributing the ball at a high rate despite modest scoring efficiency (8-18 FG); her 30% usage and full 34 minutes gave her sufficient opportunities to reach double-digit dimes even in a low-efficiency shooting night.

TOR @ GSV3–3−0.54u

Isabelle Harrison Over 12.5 PTS4 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Isabelle Harrison Over 5.5 REB2 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHarrison was held to just 2 rebounds in 17 minutes despite 27% usage, falling well short of the 5.5 line; her poor offensive efficiency (2-9 FG, 22% TS) likely limited second-chance opportunities and kept her off the glass.
Isabelle Harrison Over 11.5 PTS4 vs 11.5no clean explanationHarrison's ice-cold 2-9 shooting (22% TS) left her far short at just 4 points, compounded by a blowout loss that limited her to 17 minutes and 27% usage. A combination of poor efficiency and reduced playing time in a lopsided game made the over an easy miss.

CON @ DAL2–2−0.44u

Arike Ogunbowale Over 15.5 PTS15 vs 15.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
Paige Bueckers Over 3.5 REB3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upBueckers fell one rebound short despite playing 25 minutes, finishing with 3 boards as her offensive struggles (3-9 FG, 18% usage) limited her ability to generate extra possessions and offensive rebounding opportunities.

LAS @ POR9–4 ·4 void+3.63u

Emily Engstler Over 8.5 PTS7 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Dearica Hamby Under 7.5 REB10 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHamby exceeded the 7.5 rebound line with 10 boards despite playing only 29 minutes, capitalizing on elite 73% true shooting and high volume touches (26% usage) that kept her heavily involved in the offensive glass. The under missed because she secured 0.34 rebounds per minute—well above her typical rate—in a game where she stayed out of foul trouble with just 4 fouls.
Nneka Ogwumike Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgwumike's ball-handling was minimal despite 30 minutes and high usage (31%), as she recorded just 2 assists while turning it over twice, suggesting the offense ran through her scoring rather than playmaking in this game.
Emily Engstler Over 4.5 REB3 vs 4.5no clean explanationEngstler managed only 3 rebounds in 22 minutes of play, falling one board short of the 4.5 target; her limited floor time and 4 fouls (one shy of fouling out) restricted her rebounding opportunities despite a team that may have needed boards.

08/0113–862%+3.02u2 games

permalink to 2026-08-01 →

LVA @ CHI6–5−0.32u

Courtney Vandersloot Over 7.5 PTS7 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
Chelsea Gray Over 11.5 PTS5 vs 11.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Kamilla Cardoso Over 14.5 PTS8 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Kamilla Cardoso Over 13.5 PTS8 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCardoso's 36% FG mark and 0-for-1 from three combined with limited free-throw volume (0-1) to leave her well short despite 26 minutes of work. Poor shooting efficiency—not a lack of opportunity—sank the over, as her 22% usage rate showed she remained involved in the offense.
Natasha Cloud Over 4.5 AST4 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upCloud fell one assist short despite solid efficiency and 30 minutes of run, held back by low usage (13%) that limited her playmaking opportunities. She committed 5 fouls, which may have affected her aggression on offense.

NYL @ PHO7–3+3.34u

Natasha Mack Over 5.5 REB3 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Natasha Mack Over 6.5 PTS5 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Breanna Stewart Over 21.5 PTS14 vs 21.5shots didn't fall — the read held up

07/3121–2150%−3.52u3 games

permalink to 2026-07-31 →

IND @ POR5–8−3.64u

Emily Engstler Over 5.5 REB2 vs 5.5no clean explanation
Emily Engstler Over 4.5 REB2 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upEngstler's rebounding dried up despite 28 minutes played, grabbing only 2 boards—well short of the 4.5 line—as her offensive usage (14%) kept her in a playmaking role rather than crashing the glass. A minus-15 rating suggests the team was outmatched in rebounding margin, limiting her opportunities on the glass.
Bridget Carleton Over 3.5 REB3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upCarleton came one rebound short despite playing 34 minutes and shooting efficiently (9-14 FG), as the game's pace and her 20% usage rate limited her opportunities on the glass in a low-possession contest. She picked up 3 fouls without fouling out, which may have caused her to play more cautiously defensively in the second half.
Caitlin Clark Under 4.5 REB10 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upClark's aggressive offensive approach—26 points on 79% TS and 34 minutes—naturally created more rebounding opportunities, and she crashed the glass hard enough to pull down 10 boards, more than double the under threshold. Her elite efficiency and high volume usage meant she stayed on the floor and in the action for extended stretches, driving the rebounding output well past expectations.
Caitlin Clark Under 8.5 AST10 vs 8.5no clean explanationClark's elite efficiency (79% TS, 14-17 FT) and high volume (34 min, 25% usage) created numerous scoring opportunities that also opened passing lanes, allowing her to reach double-digit assists despite moderate turnover rate (4 TO). The +23 rating reflected her dominance in a blowout, where she had more freedom to distribute without defensive pressure.
Aliyah Boston Under 8.5 REB9 vs 8.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationBoston grabbed one more board than the line anticipated, finishing with 9 rebounds across 30 minutes of play—her consistent interior presence and 6 assists suggesting strong overall involvement despite modest 20% usage.

DAL @ WAS6–6−1.79u

Azzi Fudd Over 12.5 PTS8 vs 12.5no clean explanation
Jessica Shepard Over 13.5 PTS8 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Lauren Betts Over 5.5 PTS3 vs 5.5no clean explanation
Azzi Fudd Over 1.5 AST0 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upFudd recorded zero assists despite 33 minutes and 18% usage, as she was largely a scorer-only on a poor shooting night (3-11 FG, 36% TS) with no secondary playmaking involvement. The combination of inefficient shot-taking and minimal ball movement—just one turnover in 33 minutes—left her with no dimes in a blowout loss.
Arike Ogunbowale Over 2.5 REB2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale came up one rebound short despite efficient scoring (20 pts on 68% TS%), as her 30 minutes and high usage were concentrated on perimeter scoring rather than offensive glass work in a game that didn't create additional rebounding opportunities for her.

SEA @ ATL10–7+1.91u

Angel Reese Under 11.5 REB13 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
Allisha Gray Over 19.5 PTS16 vs 19.5no clean explanation
Flau'jae Johnson Over 13.5 PTS9 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Brionna Jones Under 11.5 PTS14 vs 11.5no clean explanation
Flau'jae Johnson Over 12.5 PTS9 vs 12.5no clean explanation
Allisha Gray Over 18.5 PTS16 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationGray fell just short despite heavy minutes (31) and solid volume (13 FG attempts), as poor overall efficiency—5-13 FG and 1-4 from three—left her two points shy of the line. Her 51% true shooting was below her usual standard and made up the difference on a night she couldn't generate enough makes to reach 18.5.

07/3021–1854%−0.95u3 games

permalink to 2026-07-30 →

MIN @ TOR7–9−3.63u

Marina Mabrey Over 20.5 PTS16 vs 20.5no clean explanation
Maria Conde Over 4.5 REB2 vs 4.5no clean explanation
Marina Mabrey Over 2.5 3PM2 vs 2.5no clean explanation
Olivia Miles Over 17.5 PTS16 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
Julie Allemand Over 6.5 PTS0 vs 6.5no clean explanation
Julie Allemand Over 2.5 REB2 vs 2.5no clean explanationAllemand fell one rebound short despite playing 22 minutes, finishing with just 2 boards in a low-usage role (8%) where she contributed primarily through playmaking (6 assists) rather than rebounding activity.

NYL @ LVA6–4+0.86u

Jackie Young Under 7.5 AST9 vs 7.5no clean explanation
NaLyssa Smith Over 9.5 PTS7 vs 9.5no clean explanation
Sabrina Ionescu Over 18.5 PTS15 vs 18.5no clean explanation
Jonquel Jones Over 8.5 REB7 vs 8.5no clean explanationJones fell one rebound short despite 28 minutes of action, hampered by a poor 2-11 shooting night that limited her offensive opportunities and kept her out of rhythm on the glass. Five personal fouls also likely forced her into a more cautious defensive posture down the stretch.

CON @ CHI8–5+1.82u

Aneesah Morrow Under 13.5 PTS21 vs 13.5no clean explanation
Charlisse Leger-Walker Over 3.5 AST2 vs 3.5no clean explanation
Courtney Vandersloot Over 7.5 PTS6 vs 7.5no clean explanationVandersloot's shooting touch abandoned her early and often, connecting on just 2-of-7 from the field (28.6%) despite 23 minutes of action; the low-volume shooting night combined with modest free-throw attempts (2-2) left her 1.5 points short of the over.
Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 13.5 PTS16 vs 13.5no clean explanationNelson-Ododa exceeded the under by converting 6 of 6 free throws and posting a 59% true shooting percentage despite modest field-goal volume, combining efficient scoring from the line with elevated 33% usage to reach 16 points in 25 minutes.
Aneesah Morrow Under 14.5 PTS21 vs 14.5no clean explanationMorrow torched the under with elite 8-12 shooting (67% FG) and 72% true shooting efficiency while logging 31 minutes and maintaining high usage at 22%, converting her opportunities at a rate well above her season norms.

07/2916–1062%+4.43u2 games

permalink to 2026-07-29 →

GSV @ PHO9–7+1.27u

Kayla Thornton Under 5.5 REB8 vs 5.5no clean explanation
Cecilia Zandalasini Under 8.5 PTS16 vs 8.5no clean explanation
Veronica Burton Under 12.5 PTS15 vs 12.5no clean explanation
Cecilia Zandalasini Under 9.5 PTS16 vs 9.5no clean explanation
Veronica Burton Under 13.5 PTS15 vs 13.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationBurton shot an efficient 6-10 (60%) from the field and 2-5 (40%) from three despite modest 15% usage, converting at a 72% true shooting clip to exceed the 13.5-point threshold. She stayed on the floor for 34 minutes without fouling out and capitalized on her limited opportunities at a high efficiency rate.

ATL @ DAL7–3+3.16u

Angel Reese Under 11.5 REB12 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
Paige Bueckers Over 20.5 PTS16 vs 20.5no clean explanation
Paige Bueckers Over 19.5 PTS16 vs 19.5no clean explanationBueckers fell 3.5 points short despite solid efficiency (61% TS) and heavy minutes (37), hampered by her lowest usage rate of the season at 22% and a quiet 1-5 three-point night that limited her scoring upside. The combination of reduced offensive touches and off-target shooting from deep—where she typically generates volume—kept her in the mid-teens rather than the low 20s the over required.

07/2832–1963%+5.87u5 games

permalink to 2026-07-28 →

NYL @ LAS2–5−3.40u

Ariel Atkins Under 11.5 PTS16 vs 11.5no clean explanation
Cameron Brink Under 10.5 PTS11 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
Nneka Ogwumike Over 8.5 REB4 vs 8.5no clean explanationOgwumike's offensive efficiency (88% TS on 20% usage) kept her in a rhythm as a facilitator rather than rebounder, and she fouled out with 5 fouls in 28 minutes, limiting her ability to crash the glass aggressively.
Jonquel Jones Over 8.5 REB5 vs 8.5no clean explanationJones fell well short of the rebound line despite solid efficiency, limited to just 5 boards in 24 minutes while picking up 3 fouls that restricted her floor time and opportunities on the glass. Her 18% usage rate and minus-23 rating indicate she was a healthy scratch in a lopsided game where Boston likely controlled the boards without needing her volume.
Dearica Hamby Over 14.5 PTS12 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHamby shot just 5-11 from the field despite 33 minutes of run, falling two points short of the 14.5 line; her 18% usage rate limited volume even as she stayed out of foul trouble.

CON @ WAS5–4−0.07u

Olivia Nelson-Ododa Over 6.5 REB6 vs 6.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair number
Aneesah Morrow Over 7.5 REB4 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Shakira Austin Over 9.5 REB6 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Leila Lacan Over 11.5 PTS9 vs 11.5shots didn't fall — the read held up

POR @ LVA6–3+1.51u

Carla Leite Over 14.5 PTS11 vs 14.5no clean explanation
A'ja Wilson Under 27.5 PTS28 vs 27.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
Carla Leite Over 5.5 AST3 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upLeite fell short of the assist line despite decent scoring output, hampered by just 22 minutes of playing time and 6 fouls that limited her floor presence and ball-handling opportunities.

IND @ SEA8–4+2.26u

Zia Cooke Under 7.5 PTS10 vs 7.5no clean explanation
Natisha Hiedeman Under 2.5 3PM6 vs 2.5no clean explanation
Flau'jae Johnson Over 4.5 REB3 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Flau'jae Johnson Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5no clean explanationJohnson fell one assist short despite 33% usage, hampered by poor shot selection (0-6 from three) that limited her ability to generate offense and create for teammates in 24 minutes. Six personal fouls also likely restricted her playmaking aggression late in the game.

TOR @ MIN11–3+5.57u

Napheesa Collier Over 18.5 PTS15 vs 18.5no clean explanation
Kayla McBride Under 2.5 AST4 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMcBride's 4 assists exceeded the 2.5 line despite modest 14% usage, driven by efficient ball movement in a game where she played all 35 available minutes without foul trouble. Her zero turnovers and high-volume shooting role (10 FG attempts) left room for playmaking opportunities that pushed her just over the threshold.
Kayla McBride Over 18.5 PTS18 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMcBride fell one point short despite efficient shooting (6-10 FG, 4-7 3PT) because her 14% usage rate limited her volume—she needed more shot attempts or free-throw attempts to clear 18.5 in a game where she played 35 minutes without getting to the line.

07/2252–3957%+3.42u6 games

permalink to 2026-07-22 →

DAL @ POR3–9−6.43u

Arike Ogunbowale Under 15.5 PTS24 vs 15.5no clean explanation
Emily Engstler Over 5.5 REB1 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Emily Engstler Over 8.5 PTS6 vs 8.5no clean explanation
Carla Leite Over 15.5 PTS12 vs 15.5no clean explanation
Sarah Ashlee Barker Over 9.5 PTS2 vs 9.5game script — blowout or foul trouble
Arike Ogunbowale Under 16.5 PTS24 vs 16.5shots didn't fall — the read held up

CHI @ NYL4–7−3.90u

Kamilla Cardoso Over 13.5 PTS10 vs 13.5no clean explanation
Azura Stevens Over 12.5 PTS8 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Breanna Stewart Over 21.5 PTS20 vs 21.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
Kamilla Cardoso Over 7.5 REB5 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Kamilla Cardoso Over 12.5 PTS10 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCardoso fell short despite getting 25 minutes and a healthy 22% usage rate, hampered by poor efficiency—she shot just 5-for-11 from the field and 0-for-0 from three while posting a 46% TS%, leaving her 2.5 points shy of the over. Five personal fouls also limited her effectiveness and may have caused the Bulls to manage her minutes or aggression down the stretch.
Azura Stevens Over 11.5 PTS8 vs 11.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStevens shot just 2-5 from the field despite playing 30 minutes, and her 13% usage rate—well below her typical offensive load—limited her scoring opportunities even though she stayed efficient at the line (4-4 FT).

PHO @ LAS9–9−1.44u

Monique Akoa Makani Under 10.5 PTS14 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Ariel Atkins Under 11.5 PTS15 vs 11.5no clean explanation
Nneka Ogwumike Over 17.5 PTS13 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgwumike's 4-10 FG efficiency (40%) fell short despite 30 minutes and solid free-throw shooting (4-4), as her 21% usage rate limited volume opportunities to reach the 17.5-point threshold.
Natasha Mack Over 5.5 REB3 vs 5.5no clean explanationMack fell short of 5.5 rebounds despite efficient scoring (5-8 FG), limited by just 15 minutes of playing time and finishing with only 3 boards—a shortfall driven by her reduced opportunity on the court rather than poor rebounding activity.
Natasha Mack Over 6.5 REB3 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMack grabbed just 3 rebounds in 15 minutes of action, held well below her over line despite efficient scoring (5-8 FG); the limited floor time was the primary culprit in missing the rebound total.
Nneka Ogwumike Over 16.5 PTS13 vs 16.5no clean explanationOgwumike's inefficient 4-10 shooting (40% FG) combined with modest 21% usage limited her to 13 points despite playing 30 minutes. She stayed out of foul trouble (3 PF) and grabbed 13 boards, but simply didn't get enough shot attempts to reach the over.

LVA @ WAS7–3+2.40u

NaLyssa Smith Over 9.5 PTS4 vs 9.5no clean explanation
Shakira Austin Over 9.5 REB6 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAustin's efficient 25-point night (10-18 FG) kept her on the floor for 29 minutes, but limited her rebounding opportunities—she grabbed just 6 boards despite a 57% true shooting rate, suggesting the game flow favored her scoring over crashing the glass.
Chelsea Gray Over 6.5 AST4 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's playmaking was bottlenecked by limited offensive touches—she logged just 22% usage despite 37 minutes, finishing with only 4 assists well short of the 6.5 line. The low usage rate, despite efficient scoring (65% TS), left her without enough ball-handling opportunities to generate assists.

MIN @ SEA15–7+5.65u

Nia Coffey Under 6.5 PTS7 vs 6.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
Jade Melbourne Over 8.5 PTS4 vs 8.5no clean explanation
Olivia Miles Over 17.5 PTS13 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Natasha Howard Over 11.5 PTS11 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
Natasha Howard Over 7.5 REB5 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Jade Melbourne Over 7.5 PTS4 vs 7.5no clean explanationMelbourne's 4 points fell short of the 7.5 line despite 28 minutes of floor time due to brutal 2-6 shooting (33% TS) and an 0-4 night from three, leaving her with minimal offensive impact despite high availability.

CON @ IND14–4+7.15u

Diamond Miller Under 9.5 PTS15 vs 9.5no clean explanation
Olivia Nelson-Ododa Over 6.5 REB1 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Aliyah Boston Over 0.5 3PM0 vs 0.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Aliyah Boston Over 7.5 REB6 vs 7.5no clean explanationBoston's efficient 22-point night on 10-14 shooting came in just 20 minutes, limiting her board opportunities; she pulled down only 6 rebounds despite high usage, falling one short of the 7.5 line.

07/2048–2269%+16.49u4 games

permalink to 2026-07-20 →

NYL @ DAL16–11+1.08u

Arike Ogunbowale Under 2.5 3PM3 vs 2.5no clean explanation
Awak Kuier Under 6.5 PTS10 vs 6.5no clean explanation
Pauline Astier Over 2.5 AST1 vs 2.5no clean explanationAstier's playmaking dried up despite 25 minutes of run, recording just 1 assist while turning the ball over once and posting a team-worst -7 rating. Her 20% usage rate and poor offensive efficiency (35% TS%) limited her ability to create for teammates in a game where the team struggled overall.
Arike Ogunbowale Under 13.5 PTS29 vs 13.5no clean explanation
Arike Ogunbowale Under 16.5 PTS29 vs 16.5no clean explanationOgunbowale's elite free-throw shooting (8-8) and high usage rate (37%) powered her well past the under, as she compensated for below-average field-goal efficiency (9-24 FG) by drawing fouls and staying on the court for 38 minutes in a competitive game. The combination of volume opportunities and perfect shooting from the line nearly doubled the betting line.
Arike Ogunbowale Under 15.5 PTS29 vs 15.5no clean explanationOgunbowale nearly doubled the 15.5 line by dominating usage at 37% while staying efficient from three (3-5) and perfect from the free-throw line (8-8), combining volume with precision to reach 29 points across 38 minutes.

WAS @ GSV8–4+2.62u

Sonia Citron Over 3.5 REB2 vs 3.5no clean explanation
Veronica Burton Under 11.5 PTS12 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
Tiffany Hayes Over 5.5 PTS0 vs 5.5game script — blowout or foul trouble
Sonia Citron Over 2.5 REB2 vs 2.5no clean explanationCitron fell one rebound short despite heavy usage (26%) and 32 minutes, limited by her role as a primary ball-handler (6 assists) in a game where the team controlled pace and she didn't crash the glass enough to reach 3 boards.

MIN @ SEA12–4+5.97u

Jade Melbourne Over 7.5 PTS5 vs 7.5no clean explanation
Natisha Hiedeman Over 14.5 PTS12 vs 14.5no clean explanation
Courtney Williams Under 15.5 PTS21 vs 15.5no clean explanation
Courtney Williams Under 16.5 PTS21 vs 16.5no clean explanationWilliams torched the under with efficient scoring, shooting 8-of-13 from the field (62%) and converting all four free throws to reach 21 points in 33 minutes. Her 71% true shooting and high-volume scoring night—despite a modest 21% usage rate—indicates she capitalized on premium looks and shot selection rather than heavy ball handling.

LVA @ TOR12–3+6.83u

Marina Mabrey Over 21.5 PTS14 vs 21.5no clean explanation
Marina Mabrey Over 2.5 3PM1 vs 2.5no clean explanation
Laura Juskaite Over 3.5 REB3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation

07/1920–1754%−0.80u3 games

permalink to 2026-07-19 →

LAS @ DAL3–5−2.38u

Nneka Ogwumike Over 17.5 PTS17 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
Arike Ogunbowale Under 13.5 PTS20 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Jessica Shepard Under 5.5 AST6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
Jessica Shepard Over 14.5 PTS11 vs 14.5no clean explanation
Arike Ogunbowale Under 14.5 PTS20 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale torched the under by going 7-13 from the field (54% FG) and 5-6 from the free-throw line while seeing a healthy 31 minutes of run, generating 20 points on efficient 64% true shooting that far exceeded her typical scoring pace.

CON @ PHO6–6−1.49u

Charlisse Leger-Walker Over 7.5 PTS5 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
Natasha Mack Over 6.5 PTS4 vs 6.5paid over the fair number
Kahleah Copper Over 20.5 PTS18 vs 20.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
Monique Akoa Makani Under 2.5 REB6 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMakani stayed on the floor for a full 32 minutes and crashed the glass aggressively, pulling down 6 rebounds despite modest offensive touches—more than double the 2.5-rebound line. Her extended playing time and activity on the boards in a blowout win (+17) meant higher rebounding volume than the projection accounted for.
Natasha Mack Over 6.5 REB5 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMack came up one rebound short despite solid efficiency, held back by just 20 minutes of playing time in a blowout where her team didn't need extended minutes.
Kahleah Copper Under 2.5 AST4 vs 2.5no clean explanationCopper's elevated 35 minutes and 30% usage rate—well above typical for her—gave her more opportunities to facilitate, and she converted those chances with 4 assists despite a modest 5-14 shooting night. The extended run in a competitive game pushed her over the 2.5 threshold.

CHI @ ATL11–6+3.08u

Allisha Gray Under 19.5 PTS29 vs 19.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's elite efficiency—87% true shooting on 7-11 shooting and 11-13 from the line—propelled her well past 19.5 despite moderate 21% usage, as she converted at an unusually high rate in 35 minutes of action.
Kamilla Cardoso Over 7.5 REB4 vs 7.5paid over the fair numberCardoso came up well short at just 4 rebounds despite efficient scoring (6-9 FG), limited by only 24 minutes played and a quiet night on the glass that never materialized despite her inside presence. The under-25 minute workload was the primary culprit, preventing her from accumulating the volume needed to reach 7.5 boards.
Brionna Jones Over 6.5 PTS6 vs 6.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upJones shot just 1-6 from the field (17%) and played only 15 minutes, limiting her scoring despite converting all four free throws. The poor field-goal efficiency and restricted minutes prevented her from reaching the 7-point threshold needed to cash the over.
Brionna Jones Over 7.5 PTS6 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJones shot just 1-for-6 from the field (17% FG) despite 15 minutes of run, and while she converted all four free throws, the poor field-goal efficiency left her one point short of the over.
Allisha Gray Under 3.5 REB6 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's elite shooting night (7-11 FG, 4-6 3PT, 11-13 FT) kept her on the floor for a game-high 35 minutes, allowing her to crash the glass more opportunistically than her modest 21% usage rate might suggest. She secured 6 boards despite modest volume, exceeding the under by one rebound in a high-efficiency performance.
Sydney Taylor Under 2.5 REB3 vs 2.5no clean explanationTaylor grabbed exactly 3 rebounds in 28 minutes—one more than the 2.5 line required—despite modest usage (28%) and a balanced box score that didn't suggest heavy offensive load or extended possessions. The under missed by the smallest margin; she needed to stay at 2 or fewer boards.

07/1840–2562%+8.34u3 games

permalink to 2026-07-18 →

WAS @ GSV4–9−5.76u

Cecilia Zandalasini Over 7.5 PTS6 vs 7.5no clean explanation
Kiki Iriafen Over 8.5 REB2 vs 8.5no clean explanation
Sonia Citron Over 14.5 PTS12 vs 14.5no clean explanation
Veronica Burton Under 10.5 PTS11 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationBurton exceeded the 10.5 line by converting 50% from the field (4-8 FG) with efficient shooting at 62% TS despite modest 16% usage, and played 32 minutes in a blowout win (+16), allowing her to stay on the court and accumulate 11 points on limited volume rather than the projected 9.8.
Sonia Citron Over 13.5 PTS12 vs 13.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
Kiki Iriafen Over 12.5 PTS6 vs 12.5no clean explanation

POR @ MIN11–6+2.82u

Emily Engstler Under 10.5 PTS12 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
Natasha Howard Over 7.5 REB7 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
Olivia Miles Over 17.5 PTS14 vs 17.5no clean explanation
Olivia Miles Over 16.5 PTS14 vs 16.5no clean explanation
Nia Coffey Under 8.5 PTS9 vs 8.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationCoffey narrowly exceeded the total on 4-8 shooting (50% FG) in 20 minutes, with her offensive efficiency—particularly a 3-for-4 night from two-point range—pushing her just past the 8.5-point threshold despite modest volume.
Olivia Miles Under 6.5 AST10 vs 6.5no clean explanationMiles exceeded the 6.5 assist line by dishing out 10 assists on 34 minutes and 23% usage, operating as the primary ball-handler in a game flow that favored her playmaking over scoring. Despite shooting inefficiently (5-14 FG), her elevated minutes and offensive touches created plenty of assist opportunities that she converted at a high rate.

NYL @ IND25–10+11.28u

Marine Johannes Under 7.5 PTS12 vs 7.5no clean explanation
Jonquel Jones Over 8.5 REB6 vs 8.5no clean explanation
Aliyah Boston Over 7.5 REB7 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
Lexie Hull Under 7.5 PTS8 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
Caitlin Clark Over 18.5 PTS17 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
Caitlin Clark Over 17.5 PTS17 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation

07/1734–1176%+14.82u4 games

permalink to 2026-07-17 →

LAS @ CHI7–5−0.04u

Rae Burrell Over 14.5 PTS9 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurrell shot just 3-7 from the field (42.9%) despite playing 31 minutes, and her 16% usage rate—well below her typical offensive load—limited scoring opportunities in what became a blowout loss (-21 +/-). The combination of poor efficiency and reduced volume left her 5.5 points short of the 14.5 line.
Natasha Cloud Under 11.5 PTS15 vs 11.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCloud exceeded her L10 average of 9.4 and the 11.5 line by posting 15 points on elite 69% true shooting, including 3-for-6 from three, while playing a full 32 minutes without foul trouble to constrain her opportunities.
Erica Wheeler Over 4.5 AST4 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationWheeler played 32 minutes with elevated usage (22%), but generated only 4 assists despite 14 points, suggesting shot-heavy offense rather than playmaking—she took 12 FG attempts compared to her typical distribution. The -13 +/- indicates the team played poorly around her, limiting assist opportunities even with extended run.
Natasha Cloud Under 6.5 AST9 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCloud's 9 assists crushed the under despite modest 14% usage, as she operated in a high-pace environment (0 turnovers in 32 minutes) that generated plenty of kick-out opportunities from her 69% TS efficiency and ball movement. Her recent 4.5 L10 average proved a poor proxy for a game where she played full minutes in a +11 blowout that created natural assist inflation.
Natasha Cloud Under 5.5 AST9 vs 5.5no clean explanationCloud nearly doubled the target with 9 assists on a game-high 32 minutes and zero turnovers, functioning as the primary initiator in a blowout win (+11) where her efficiency (69% TS) kept the offense flowing without forcing shots.

ATL @ TOR6–3+1.17u

Isabelle Harrison Over 11.5 PTS10 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upHarrison fell one point shy despite adequate opportunity, going 4-8 from the field but unable to convert at the rim or from three (0-1 3PT, 2-4 FT) in her 21 minutes of work.
Maria Conde Over 4.5 REB4 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upConde finished with just 4 rebounds despite 31 minutes and solid free-throw volume (8-9 FT), falling one board short; Atlanta's elite defensive rebounding (rank 1, 30.13 RPG allowed) clamped down on second-chance opportunities and limited her to the exact season-average mark that looked like an outlier against her recent L5 (6.2 RPG) and L10 (5.83 RPG) trends.
Isabelle Harrison Over 5.5 REB3 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHarrison fell short of the 5.5 rebound line despite a respectable 21 minutes and 50% FG, finishing with just 3 boards—likely a function of limited opportunity in a game where she wasn't the primary rebounder and recorded only 3 fouls, suggesting minimal aggressive interior presence or rebounding activity.

CON @ PHO7–3+2.35u

Olivia Nelson-Ododa Over 10.5 PTS6 vs 10.5no clean explanationNelson-Ododa's 2-for-3 FG efficiency masked a dramatic collapse in volume—she took just 3 shots in 21 minutes (10% usage) compared to her pre-game averages, rendering her typical scoring pace irrelevant despite solid shooting splits.
Monique Akoa Makani Under 3.5 AST4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upDespite a season-low 20 minutes and invisible scoring (0-for-6), Akoa Makani still reached 4 assists on modest 19% usage, suggesting she maintained setup duties even in limited action and off-night shooting. Her recent L10 average of 2.3 assists underestimated her floor playmaking role, which proved resilient enough to clear 3.5 despite the offensive drought.
Kahleah Copper Over 3.5 REB3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upCopper fell one rebound short despite 35 minutes and heavy usage (28%), finishing with only 3 boards as Phoenix's spacing and ball movement limited her offensive rebounding opportunities and she didn't crash the glass enough on a night when the team controlled pace.

SEA @ IND14–0+11.34u

07/166–460%+0.72u1 game

permalink to 2026-07-16 →

POR @ WAS6–4+0.72u

Emily Engstler Over 5.5 REB3 vs 5.5no clean explanationEngstler played only 22 minutes and fouled out with 5 PF, severely limiting her opportunity to reach 5.5 rebounds despite her recent averages suggesting the over was value; she grabbed just 3 boards in the shortened run.
Shakira Austin Under 15.5 PTS19 vs 15.5no clean explanationAustin's 9-of-9 free throw shooting (vs. her season norm) combined with 34 minutes of heavy usage (28%) pushed her past the 15.5 line despite modest 6-of-15 field goal efficiency, as she converted her trips to the stripe at an elite rate that inflated her scoring beyond her 13.1 L10 average.
Carla Leite Over 5.5 AST5 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationLeite fell short despite historical averages favoring the over, held to just 23 minutes—a sharp drop from her 27.5 pregame baseline—which limited her opportunity to reach 6+ assists. The reduced playing time, likely game-flow dependent given the +18 margin, proved the decisive factor in missing a line she'd cleared in 60% of her last 10 games.
Shakira Austin Under 3.5 AST4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upAustin's 4 assists came on 34 minutes and 28% usage, exceeding her L5 average of 2.4 and hitting the over despite a modest 50% TS%; the elevated floor time and offensive involvement in what became a close game pushed her into more playmaking opportunities than her recent trend suggested.

07/1517–2046%−6.84u3 games

permalink to 2026-07-15 →

SEA @ CHI3–8−5.84u

Natasha Cloud Under 10.5 PTS13 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCloud exceeded the 10.5 line despite Seattle's elite perimeter defense (3rd in PPG allowed to guards) by executing at an elite 85% true shooting, including 2-for-3 from three and 5-for-6 from free throw, while playing a full 30 minutes at 16% usage. The combination of efficient shot-making and free-throw volume proved too much for the matchup-based under thesis.
Natisha Hiedeman Over 16.5 PTS6 vs 16.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHiedeman's shot selection and efficiency collapsed despite 30 minutes of run: she went 3-11 from the field (27% TS) and bricked all five 3-point attempts, falling well short of the 16.5-point line on just 18% usage.
Sydney Taylor Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5no clean explanationTaylor went 1-for-6 from three despite solid overall efficiency (7-15 FG), as cold perimeter shooting derailed what looked like a favorable matchup; the extra 3 minutes of run didn't offset the 33% three-point rate that fell well short of her recent 2.8 per-game average.
Azura Stevens Under 13.5 PTS20 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStevens torched the under on 8-16 shooting (50% FG, 59% TS%) with extended run at 33 minutes, delivering 20 points on efficient volume that far exceeded the 13.5-point threshold despite moderate 25% usage. The over price of +106 punished bettors who followed the pre-game lean on what proved to be a hot-shooting, high-minute performance.
Natisha Hiedeman Over 15.5 PTS6 vs 15.5paid over the fair numberHiedeman's 27% TS and 3-11 shooting (27% FG) represented a catastrophic collapse from her L10/L5 averages of 18.5–18.8 PPG, despite logging 30 minutes and maintaining her typical 18% usage rate. The offensive efficiency breakdown—compounded by 0-5 from three—overwhelmed volume to render the over unplayable.
Natasha Cloud Under 5.5 AST6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberCloud exceeded the under threshold by a single assist despite modest 16% usage, generating 6 dimes in 30 minutes with efficient scoring (85% TS%) that kept her engaged in the offense—the sharp +130 value proved vulnerable to even slight playmaking variance in a close final tally.

GSV @ IND6–8−3.05u

Aliyah Boston Over 15.5 PTS15 vs 15.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upBoston fell just short despite solid efficiency (63% TS, 6-11 FG), but 25 minutes—nearly 5 below her recent average—combined with 26% usage limited her to exactly 15 points, one shy of the line. The under-time and reduced offensive role in a close game (+1 +/-) prevented her from reaching the scoring volume needed to cash the over.
Kayla Thornton Under 8.5 PTS11 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThornton exceeded the under despite modest 3-8 shooting (37.5% FG) by staying on the court for 31 minutes and converting all three free throws, combining for 11 points on 59% true shooting—outpacing her L10 average of 6.2 by nearly 5 points. The blowout win (+21 +/-) likely kept her in longer than typical, and her perfect 3-3 FT performance compensated for below-average field goal volume.
Monique Billings Over 6.5 PTS4 vs 6.5paid over the fair numberBillings shot just 1-5 from the field and converted only 2 of 4 free throws, finishing at 30% TS—well below her season norm—despite playing 26 minutes and maintaining healthy usage at 12%. The poor shooting efficiency, not reduced opportunity, sank the over.
Monique Billings Over 5.5 PTS4 vs 5.5no clean explanationBillings shot just 1-5 from the field (20%) and 2-4 from free throw, combining for a 30% true shooting rate that made up the entire scoring shortfall; despite playing 26 minutes with reasonable opportunity, inefficient shot selection and poor finishing prevented her from reaching 6 points.
Kelsey Mitchell Over 21.5 PTS20 vs 21.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationMitchell fell just short despite 35 minutes of work, as Las Vegas's elite perimeter defense (allowing 31.3 PPG to guards, league's best) held her to 7-16 shooting (43.8%)—a significant dip from her 27.6 PPG average over her previous five games. The one-point miss came down to shot-making: she needed just 22 points to cash but couldn't overcome the cold shooting night against the WNBA's top-ranked defense.
Kelsey Mitchell Over 20.5 PTS20 vs 20.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationMitchell shot 7-16 from the field and missed critical attempts down the stretch in a tight game, falling one point short despite her heavy usage and efficient free-throw shooting. The recent 25.9 PPG average didn't materialize due to below-season-average efficiency (58% TS vs her typical output), costing her the half-point push needed to clear 20.5.

LAS @ MIN8–4+2.05u

Courtney Williams Under 15.5 PTS19 vs 15.5no clean explanationWilliams shot 7-13 (54%) from the field and got to the line 5 times despite the expected blowout script, converting 4 free throws to reach 19 points and exceed the 15.5 line. The game stayed closer than the -12 spread suggested (she finished -3), keeping her in the game's flow longer than pre-game models anticipated.
Courtney Williams Over 4.5 REB2 vs 4.5no clean explanationWilliams played 35 minutes with solid efficiency (62% TS) but crashed the boards far below expectation, nabbing just 2 rebounds—well short of the 4.5 line—despite 23% usage suggesting adequate opportunity and only 1 foul that wouldn't have limited her availability.
Olivia Miles Over 18.5 PTS18 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationMiles fell one point short despite solid efficiency (57% TS, 7-14 FG), limited by just 26 minutes of playing time in what turned into a closer contest than anticipated, preventing her from reaching the volume needed to clear 18.5.
Courtney Williams Under 16.5 PTS19 vs 16.5no clean explanationWilliams exceeded the 16.5 line by converting 7-of-13 shots (53.8% FG) with efficient free-throw shooting (4-5), offsetting her cold 3-point night to reach 19 points on 62% true shooting despite modest 23% usage. The bet missed because she played high-volume interior offense in a competitive game (35 minutes, -3 +/-) rather than defaulting to her recent 13.5 ppg pace.

07/148–850%−0.97u2 games

permalink to 2026-07-14 →

WAS @ TOR4–7−3.38u

Sonia Citron Over 3.5 REB2 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCitron got 31 minutes but was a non-factor on the glass with just 2 rebounds despite her season average of 4.7, likely due to a rare shooting collapse (1-6 FG, 11% usage) that kept her off the offensive glass and reduced her overall engagement in the paint. Her minutes were there, but her 17 TS% and minimal offensive involvement—coupled with a blowout win (+19) reducing hustle-stat opportunities—meant she couldn't compensate for her historically poor shooting night on the boards.
Shakira Austin Under 14.5 PTS17 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAustin shot an efficient 7-14 (50%) from the field and 3-4 from the line to reach 17 points in 28 minutes, outpacing her L10 average of 12.6 despite stable playing time. Her 54% true shooting and high-volume looks (26% usage) proved more than enough to clear the 14.5 mark.
Isabelle Harrison Over 12.5 PTS8 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHarrison's shot selection and efficiency collapsed: she went just 4-10 from the field (40% TS) despite her recent 15-point average, and picked up 6 fouls in 21 minutes that limited her run and aggression, combining for a season-low 8 points.
Maria Conde Over 9.5 PTS2 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upConde played 30 minutes but shot just 1-for-5 from the field (20% TS%), generating only 2 points on 10% usage—a catastrophic efficiency collapse from her typical scoring profile that made the over untenable despite meaningful playing time.
Marina Mabrey Over 2.5 3PM2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMabrey shot just 2-for-7 from three despite 30 minutes and 28% usage in the high-pace environment, falling short of her 4.2 L10 average due to brutal overall efficiency (23% FG, 31% TS) that limited her scoring opportunities on a night the Raptors blew out Washington by 22.
Kiki Iriafen Under 10.5 REB14 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIriafen crushed the under, pulling down 14 rebounds in 28 minutes with elite efficiency (9-14 FG, 71% TS) and high usage (33%), dominating both the glass and the paint to finish +16 in a blowout where volume opportunities were abundant.

POR @ CON4–1+2.41u

Emily Engstler Over 5.5 REB5 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upEngstler fell short by one rebound despite 29 minutes and elevated usage (24%), held back by foul trouble (5 PF) that likely limited her aggressive rebounding activity in the paint. Her 7 assists suggest ball-handling duties took priority over crash rebounding, a deviation from her recent L5 average of 8.4 boards.

07/1321–775%+9.16u2 games

permalink to 2026-07-13 →

PHO @ MIN7–3+2.63u

Alyssa Thomas Under 7.5 REB8 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upThomas stayed on the court for 37 minutes at 25% usage and capitalized on high efficiency (60% TS), grabbing 8 rebounds—just one more than the line—to narrowly clear the under by virtue of her extended playing time and involvement in a close game.
Natasha Howard Over 7.5 REB3 vs 7.5no clean explanationDespite playing 35 minutes and maintaining strong usage at 23%, Howard crashed the glass for only 3 rebounds—a dramatic drop from her 8.9 L10 average—suggesting either limited offensive rebounding opportunities in a game flow that didn't generate second chances, or reduced box-out positioning despite the heavy minutes.
Kahleah Copper Over 3.5 REB3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationCopper's 3 rebounds fell short despite 32 minutes and elite 80% TS efficiency, as the Phoenix offense's pace and ball movement (1 assist, 26% usage) limited her individual rebounding opportunities compared to her L10 average of 5.2. Her scoring prowess (26 pts on 9-14 FG) came at the expense of the glass work needed to hit the over.

LAS @ ATL14–4+6.53u

Ariel Atkins Under 9.5 PTS13 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAtkins exceeded her recent 7.9 PPG average by shooting efficiently from the field (5-11 FG, 45.5%) and getting to the line (3-3 FT) while playing 34 minutes, pushing her well past the 9.5 under despite modest 18% usage.
Allisha Gray Under 19.5 PTS20 vs 19.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upGray's efficient 8-15 shooting (53% FG, 63% TS%) pushed her just over the line despite matching her L10 scoring average of 17.5; her season-high 33 minutes of playing time also exceeded typical volume and boosted total output beyond the modest -2.0 projection gap.
Erica Wheeler Under 9.5 PTS20 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler torched the under on a 50% FG night (8-16) and 59% true shooting—more than 20 percentage points above her season clip of 36.1%—while playing 32 minutes with elevated usage (27%), simply outgunning Atlanta's perimeter defense in a way her season averages (8.0 PPG, 7.7 L10) never suggested was likely.
Ariel Atkins Under 10.5 PTS13 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAtkins exceeded the 10.5 line by converting 5-of-11 from the field (45% FG) and staying out of foul trouble (4 PF in 34 min), pushing her above recent trends despite a modest 18% usage rate and 0-3 three-point shooting. The recency fade proved vulnerable when her mid-range shot was falling and she stayed on the floor.

07/1268–3467%+22.19u4 games

permalink to 2026-07-12 →

SEA @ WAS6–4+0.77u

Kiki Iriafen Under 9.5 REB13 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIriafen grabbed 13 rebounds in 29 minutes, benefiting from elevated offensive rebounding activity and a game script that extended playing time slightly above the 28.4-minute projection. Her 13 boards came despite modest scoring (12 pts on 40% FG), making her a glass-cleaner on a night where the rebound battle favored her availability.
Shakira Austin Under 12.5 PTS27 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAustin torched the under with elite efficiency, shooting 10-18 from the field (55.6%) and 5-7 from the line (71.4%) across a season-high 33 minutes and 30% usage, converting at 64% true shooting to nearly double the 12.5-point projection.
Shakira Austin Over 8.5 REB5 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAustin played 33 minutes with high usage (30%) and elite scoring efficiency (64% TS%), but grabbed just 5 boards—a sharp departure from her L10 average of 10.2—suggesting opponent box-outs or a slower rebounding pace limited her glass work despite heavy offensive touches.
Shakira Austin Under 13.5 PTS27 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAustin exploded far beyond her recent baseline, shooting 55.6% from the field (10-18) with 64% true shooting and 30% usage—a dramatic uptick from her L10 average of 10.9 PPG—to finish with 27 points in 33 minutes, completely invalidating the under at 13.5.

CHI @ DAL9–5+2.14u

Kamilla Cardoso Over 13.5 PTS12 vs 13.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationDespite playing 29 minutes—in line with her recent 26-minute average—Cardoso's 50% true shooting and 20% usage rate fell short of the volume and efficiency needed to clear 13.5, as she managed just 12 points on 6-12 shooting with zero free-throw attempts.
Kamilla Cardoso Over 14.5 PTS12 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCardoso fell two points short despite efficient 50% true-shooting and 29 minutes of run, as she made only 6 of 12 field goals and drew zero free-throw attempts in a game where Chicago's offensive load was spread across the roster. The -8 plus/minus and low-volume usage (20%) suggest she played a complementary role rather than shouldering scoring load in what appears to have been a competitive contest.
Paige Bueckers Under 7.5 AST11 vs 7.5no clean explanationBueckers ran the offense aggressively in a blowout win (+14), logging 36 minutes and 25% usage to rack up 11 assists—well above her 6.4 L10 average and the 7.5 line, with only 1 turnover enabling efficient orchestration. The game script and extended run time allowed her to exceed her season tendency by nearly 5 dimes.
Natasha Cloud Under 11.5 PTS15 vs 11.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCloud exceeded her L10 average of 8.3 PPG by converting 5-of-8 from the field (62.5%) and going a perfect 5-for-5 from the line on 32 minutes, offsetting a quiet 0-2 three-point night to reach 15 points.
Natasha Cloud Under 10.5 PTS15 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCloud shot 5-8 from the field (62.5%) with a perfect 5-5 from free throw, converting at 74% TS despite her season usage staying modest at 18%—elite efficiency on limited volume overwhelmed her recent scoring averages. The bet needed her to stay within her L5 average of 8.6 points, but a hot shooting night pushed her past the line even without elevated shot attempts.

IND @ LVA28–14+8.74u

Caitlin Clark Over 6.5 AST6 vs 6.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationClark finished with exactly 6 assists—one short of the over—despite a 7.7 assist average over her last 10 games, limited by 24 minutes of action and a balanced offensive load (5-11 FG, 7 rebounds) that reduced her playmaking volume in a game that stayed competitive (+6 margin).
Jackie Young Over 17.5 PTS15 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upYoung's efficient 70% TS kept her close to the line, but 32 minutes and a modest 16% usage rate limited her volume—she'd need to hit at a nearly 55% clip from the field to reach 17.5 points, and her 4-8 FG fell just short of that threshold.
NaLyssa Smith Over 10.5 PTS9 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upSmith fell just short despite solid efficiency (4-7 FG, 51% TS) because reduced minutes (21 vs. her 24.8 L10 average) and lower usage (19%) limited her scoring opportunities to nine points. The combination of playing three fewer minutes and touching the ball less frequently kept her below the 10.5-point line despite hitting over half her field-goal attempts.
NaLyssa Smith Over 9.5 PTS9 vs 9.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationSmith fell short despite solid 4-7 shooting (57% FG) by playing just 21 minutes—3.8 below her recent average—which capped her at 9 points and limited her opportunities to reach double figures. The missed free throws (1-4) and lower-than-expected usage (19%) further restricted her scoring upside on a night where bench depth may have reduced her run.
Caitlin Clark Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upClark played just 24 minutes—below her 30.2 L10 average—and went 1-for-5 from three, suggesting both reduced volume and a rare cold shooting night that undercut her 2.4-per-game recent baseline above the line.
A'ja Wilson Over 23.5 PTS20 vs 23.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationWilson shot 42% TS on 39% usage—well below her standards—and finished 9-23 from the field in a game that stayed competitive rather than the high-pace, high-scoring environment the 182.5 total suggested, leaving her 3.5 points short of the over.

NYL @ TOR25–11+10.53u

Sabrina Ionescu Under 17.5 PTS28 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu torched the under by shooting 9-18 from the field (50%) with a perfect 7-8 from the line for 65% true shooting, far exceeding the efficiency needed to clear 17.5 points in 33 minutes of play. Despite modest 26% usage, elite shot-making—particularly from three (3-7, 43%)—allowed her to reach 28 points on volume that should've landed comfortably under the number.
Pauline Astier Under 10.5 PTS14 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAstier's perfect 4-4 free-throw shooting and efficient 62.5% two-point rate (5-8 FG) pushed her to 14 points in 25 minutes, exceeding the 10.5 line despite modest usage at 22%, as she converted her limited opportunities at an elite clip.
Jonquel Jones Over 14.5 PTS10 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJones shot just 3-8 from the field (37.5% FG) despite playing 31 minutes—a significant efficiency collapse from her L10 average of 16.3 PPG—and couldn't compensate with three-point shooting (1-5), falling 4.5 points short of the over. The poor shooting splits, not reduced minutes or usage (15%), were the primary culprit in missing the 14.5 threshold.
Maria Conde Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upConde played 34 minutes and shot efficiently (63% TS), but her 16% usage rate—well below her season norm—limited her playmaking opportunities, and she recorded just 2 assists despite the extended floor time.
Jonquel Jones Over 13.5 PTS10 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJones shot just 3-8 from the field (37.5% FG) and 1-5 from three despite playing 31 minutes, falling short of her 13.5 prop due to inefficient scoring rather than lack of opportunity. Her 15% usage rate and 51% true shooting—well below her season norms—indicate cold shooting was the primary culprit in missing the total by 3.5 points.
Sabrina Ionescu Under 16.5 PTS28 vs 16.5paid over the fair numberIonescu torched the under with efficient, high-volume scoring: 9-18 FG (50%), 3-7 from three, and 7-8 from the line (87.5% TS) across 33 minutes, nearly doubling the 16.5 projection despite a modest 26% usage rate that indicated she wasn't forced into volume.

07/1121–16 ·1 void57%+1.38u3 games

permalink to 2026-07-11 →

PHO @ LVA2–7−5.58u

Jackie Young Over 17.5 PTS8 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held upYoung's efficiency collapsed to 44% TS on just 16% usage—a historically poor shooting night (3-9 FG, 2-6 3PT) that obliterated her L10 19.5 PPG average despite solid 24-minute run and team blowout context.
Chelsea Gray Under 12.5 PTS15 vs 12.5paid over the fair numberGray's efficient 6-12 shooting (50% FG, 37.5% 3PT) and elevated usage at 20% in a blowout win (+42) pushed her past 12.5 despite her L10 average of 10.4 PPG, as the game script allowed her to stay on the floor for all 28 minutes without foul trouble.
Jackie Young Over 16.5 PTS8 vs 16.5paid over the fair numberYoung played just 24 minutes—8 minutes shy of the pre-game projection—and shot 3-9 (33%) with a dismal 44% true shooting, combining for a mere 8 points despite the game's high-scoring total. The shortened run and poor efficiency torpedoed the over regardless of minutes availability.
A'ja Wilson Over 24.5 PTS21 vs 24.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upWilson played just 24 minutes—8 fewer than her recent 32.9-minute average—and despite efficient 59% true shooting, her 33% usage rate and early foul trouble (2 PF) limited her to 21 points, 3.5 below the line.
Kahleah Copper Over 20.5 PTS9 vs 20.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCopper's ice-cold 4-14 shooting (29% FG, 32% TS%) and uncharacteristic 0-0 from the free-throw line derailed the over despite playing 29 minutes at elevated usage (27%), a stark collapse from her recent 25–26 ppg form. The -41 rating suggests a blowout environment that limited her volume and efficiency opportunities.
Kahleah Copper Over 19.5 PTS9 vs 19.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCopper's catastrophic 4-14 FG (29% from the field) and 1-6 from three despite playing 29 minutes and maintaining her usual 27% usage rate torpedoed the over; a -41 +/- suggests she faced a blowout environment that limited her offensive rhythm.

POR @ ATL3–3 ·1 void−0.55u

Carla Leite Over 13.5 PTS13 vs 13.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationLeite fell one point short despite strong efficiency (59% TS, 8-9 FT), undone by poor field-goal shooting (2-7 FG) and limited opportunities in 26 minutes with 31% usage. The free-throw volume alone kept her close, but cold two-point shooting prevented her from clearing 13.5.
Naz Hillmon Under 9.5 PTS15 vs 9.5paid over the fair numberHillmon shot 6-11 (55%) from the field with efficient free-throw usage (2-3), a sharp uptick from her L5 average of 3.8 points, and played 36 minutes despite the game staying close enough to keep her on the floor rather than in the bench role that typically limited her scoring. Her 61% true shooting and 17% usage rate still trailed her season norms, but the volume and efficiency combination proved just enough to clear 9.5.
Naz Hillmon Under 5.5 REB8 vs 5.5paid over the fair numberHillmon crushed the boards with 8 rebounds despite matching her season average in usage (17%), getting a boost from 36 minutes—10 minutes above her pre-game baseline—in a competitive game that stayed tight enough to keep her on the floor. The elevated playing time, combined with her 6 offensive rebounds, easily cleared the 5.5 line.

NYL @ MIN16–6+7.51u

Breanna Stewart Over 7.5 REB7 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationStewart fell one rebound short despite playing 37 minutes; she grabbed only 7 boards on 16 FG attempts, suggesting limited offensive rebounding activity and a lower-volume night that didn't generate the extra possession opportunities needed to clear the 7.5 threshold.
Breanna Stewart Over 18.5 PTS17 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationStewart played her expected 37 minutes in a competitive game, but inefficient shooting (7-16 FG, 43.8%) and uncharacteristically low usage (24%) held her to 17 points—one short of the 18.5 line despite elevated playing time.
Marine Johannes Under 6.5 PTS14 vs 6.5no clean explanationJohannes torched the line on 70% true shooting, going 5-10 from the field with 4-9 from three, a sharp departure from her recent L5 average of 4.6 points on much cooler efficiency. She also played 23 minutes—her highest in the recent sample—giving her more opportunities to exceed the 6.5-point threshold.
Marine Johannes Under 7.5 PTS14 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJohannes doubled her projected total on 70% true shooting, draining 4 three-pointers in 23 minutes of efficient offensive output that far exceeded the 7.5-point threshold. The under relied on her staying in single digits, but she turned a modest 19% usage rate into elite scoring efficiency that proved too high a bar.
Sabrina Ionescu Under 15.5 PTS25 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu's elite 57% true shooting on 31% usage—fueled by a perfect 4-for-4 night from the stripe and efficient 9-for-20 overall—pushed her well over the 15.5 threshold despite modest three-point volume (3-12). She played 35 minutes without foul trouble, giving her the volume and efficiency runway to hit 25 points in a game where the offense clicked.
Sabrina Ionescu Under 14.5 PTS25 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu torched the under by playing 35 minutes (6 more than projected) and shooting an efficient 57% TS on 31% usage, converting 9-of-20 from the field including 4 foul shots with no fouls to limit her floor time. The game flow and blowout margin (+7) allowed her to stay on the court and accumulate volume in a way the tight 3.5-point spread and 173.5 total suggested wouldn't materialize.

07/1012–1840%−9.32u3 games

permalink to 2026-07-10 →

GSV @ CON3–8−5.54u

Kennedy Burke Over 7.5 PTS0 vs 7.5no clean explanationBurke went scoreless on 0-3 shooting despite 20 minutes of run, completely shutting down her 9.6 L10 average and failing to convert any of her three shot attempts (0-2 FT included). The shooting collapse—not reduced minutes or foul trouble—was the sole driver of the miss.
Veronica Burton Under 10.5 PTS17 vs 10.5no clean explanationBurton torched the under with efficient scoring (7-12 FG, 64% TS) and extended floor time (33 min), converting a season-high usage rate (22%) into 17 points versus her modest 9.0 L10 average. The gap between her pre-game expectation and performance was driven by both elevated shot volume and elite finishing, which the -1.5 deviation had undervalued.
Cecilia Zandalasini Over 7.5 PTS4 vs 7.5no clean explanationZandalasini shot just 2-5 from the field (40% TS) in 17 minutes, falling short of her 7.5-point line despite near her recent 18.5-minute average. Her cold shooting and modest 23% usage rate made up the difference in a game where she couldn't generate enough scoring volume.
Leila Lacan Over 12.5 PTS6 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held upLacan's 2-for-4 shooting (50% FG) fell well short of her season norm despite solid efficiency and near-full minutes, suggesting an off-night rather than role compression—the over needed her to approach her L10 average of 13.9, and a 6-point output represents a significant individual underperformance against the 12.5 line.
Veronica Burton Under 5.5 AST6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upBurton's 6 assists came on an efficient 33-minute outing with elevated ball-handling responsibilities (22% usage), as she orchestrated the offense in a blowout win (+16) without foul trouble (4 PF) to slow her playmaking. The sharp under relied on lower usage and minutes, but game script and her role expansion pushed her to exactly one dime above the threshold.
Veronica Burton Under 13.5 PTS17 vs 13.5no clean explanationBurton shot 58% from the field (7-12) and logged 33 minutes with elevated usage (22%), exceeding her L10 average of 9.0 PPG by 8 points and surpassing the 13.5 line despite the pre-game gap suggesting regression risk.

CHI @ LAS6–6−1.91u

Dearica Hamby Under 16.5 PTS17 vs 16.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upHamby's efficient 7-13 shooting (54% FG) and 30 minutes of run in a blowout win (+12) pushed her past 16.5 despite modest usage at 22%, as she converted at a higher rate than her season average suggested.
Courtney Vandersloot Over 8.5 PTS6 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upVandersloot managed just 6 points on 2-5 shooting (40% FG) in 19 minutes, falling short despite respectable efficiency; limited playing time and modest volume in a game where she logged fewer than 20 minutes prevented her from reaching the 8.5-point threshold.
Erica Wheeler Under 8.5 PTS15 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler's 75% true shooting on 10 field goal attempts—notably 3-for-6 from three—converted her modest 28 minutes and 18% usage into 15 points, well above the 8.5 line despite matching her pre-game per-minute pace. Her efficient off-ball role in a blowout win (+19) meant volume stayed contained but scoring efficiency spiked far above her recent 6.8 PPG average.
Ariel Atkins Under 9.5 PTS17 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAtkins torched the under with an unusually efficient 7-13 shooting night (54% FG) despite modest 21% usage, converting at a 63% true shooting rate that far exceeded her season baseline and the game script. The sharp under thesis crumbled on her hot hand—she simply shot the lights out in 29 minutes rather than the inefficient, limited-volume night the projection anticipated.
Ariel Atkins Under 10.5 PTS17 vs 10.5no clean explanationAtkins erupted to 7-13 FG (54%) with efficient 63% True Shooting, well above her recent 6.8 ppg average, and played the full 29 minutes without foul trouble despite 4 PF. The +24 net rating and team blowout win gave her both elevated opportunity and the freedom to stay on court and capitalize on hot shooting.
Natasha Cloud Under 5.5 AST7 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCloud exceeded her recent assist averages (L10: 4.2, L5: 4.6) by recording 7 dimes in 27 minutes, benefiting from elevated usage at 23% and primary ball-handling duties that pushed her distribution volume above the 5.5 line despite shooting just 18% from the field (2-11 FG). The bet's foundation on her sub-4.6 recent trend proved vulnerable to a game where she prioritized playmaking over shot-creation in a losing effort.

DAL @ TOR3–4−1.87u

Maria Conde Under 11.5 PTS12 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upConde eclipsed the under by just one point on efficient 5-9 shooting (56 FG%), staying within her recent scoring range despite the modest 17% usage rate and limited free-throw opportunities (0 attempts). The line's -2.2 gap to her L10 average left minimal margin for variance, and above-average shooting efficiency proved just enough to push her over.
Arike Ogunbowale Under 14.5 PTS20 vs 14.5no clean explanationOgunbowale's elite efficiency—71% TS on 21% usage with a perfect 7-7 from the line—combined with her elevated 30 minutes in a blowout win (+14) to push her well past 14.5 despite modest volume. Her last-10 average of 11.7 didn't account for games where she gets extended run and converts at this level of accuracy.
Isabelle Harrison Under 15.5 PTS18 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHarrison's elite 80% field-goal percentage (8-10 FG) and efficient 83% true shooting far exceeded her season averages, lifting her 3 points above the 15.5 line despite 26 minutes of play and 22% usage that aligned with pre-game expectations. The shooting variance—particularly her 2-3 mark from three—was the decisive factor, as her volume remained modest but her efficiency was outlier-hot.
Isabelle Harrison Under 7.5 REB8 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationHarrison's elite 80% shooting efficiency (8-10 FG) kept her on the floor for a full 26 minutes despite the team's blowout loss, and she grabbed 8 boards on just 22% usage—matching her L5 average of 7.2 and exceeding the 7.5 line by one rebound in a game where volume should have favored the under.

07/0915–6 ·3 void71%+6.74u3 games

permalink to 2026-07-09 →

LVA @ POR2–3−1.65u

Megan Gustafson Over 3.5 REB3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationGustafson played just 26 minutes—below her typical run—and despite solid shooting efficiency (61% TS), she grabbed only 3 rebounds, falling short of her recent 4.5 L10 average due to limited opportunities and a blowout context (+7, low possessions).
Megan Gustafson Over 11.5 PTS11 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationGustafson fell just short on a quiet night, shooting 5-9 from the field but unable to get to the free-throw line (0-0 FT) and seeing limited usage at 18% despite playing 26 minutes. Her 61% TS was efficient but volume-constrained, leaving her one point shy of the over.
Bridget Carleton Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5no clean explanationCarleton delivered exactly one more assist than her 1.5 L10 average despite playing under her typical 31.2 min, aided by a game situation that likely generated more ball movement; her 20% usage and modest shooting efficiency (3-10 FG) meant she wasn't forcing playmaking, but the extra dime came through nonetheless.

SEA @ ATL1–0+1.20u

IND @ PHO12–3 ·3 void+7.20u

Lexi Held Over 7.5 PTS0 vs 7.5no clean explanationHeld's minutes (12) and usage (8%) were both well below her season baseline, and she went 0-for-1 from the field with no scoring opportunities, leaving her far short of the 7.5-point line despite modest per-minute efficiency expectations.
Tyasha Harris Under 1.5 3PM3 vs 1.5no clean explanationHarris hit 3-of-4 from three (75%) in 22 minutes—a massive efficiency spike from her 0.4 L10 average—as she ran hot early and stayed aggressive despite the modest minutes, converting at a rate that overrode her usage limitations.
Tyasha Harris Under 3.5 AST5 vs 3.5no clean explanationHarris exceeded her season trend with 5 assists in 22 minutes—a pace that would have yielded 11+ assists over a full game—as she operated as the primary ball-handler in a blowout win (+4 net rating), bucking her L10 average of 1.9 dimes that had made the 3.5 line vulnerable to the under.

Flat 1 unit per priced bet, settled at the price we posted. Voids are not bets — excluded from the record, the hit rate and the units. Open a day for the per-game split and why each loss lost.