← priced_lineedges · WNBA
2026-08-21
Day by day
Latest 1 graded days from the same CORE benchmark shown in the headline, charts and sheet: priced_lineedges.
23–17 · 57% · +2.56u across the last 1 days
08/2123–1757%+2.56u3 games
MIN @ WAS9–8−0.83u
- Shakira Austin Over 18.5 PTS17 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
- Nia Coffey Under 6.5 PTS8 vs 6.5no clean explanation
- Michaela Onyenwere Over 1.5 AST0 vs 1.5no clean explanation
- Lauren Betts Over 4.5 REB1 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBetts played only 13 minutes and grabbed just 1 rebound, falling 4 short of the over; limited run and low usage (10%) kept her well below the 4.5 threshold despite the playing time she did receive.
- Kayla McBride Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5no clean explanationMcBride hit the over with a modest 3 assists despite moderate usage (20%), as she played all 35 minutes and operated as a secondary ball-handler in an efficient offensive game where Las Vegas's spacing kept defenses honest.
- Olivia Miles Over 3.5 REB3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMiles fell one board short despite heavy offensive involvement (42% usage, 29 min), as her scoring creation (24 pts, 7 ast) came primarily through perimeter shooting rather than interior activity, and five personal fouls limited her ability to crash the glass aggressively.
POR @ TOR6–5+0.01u
- Brittney Sykes Over 12.5 PTS0 vs 12.5game script — blowout or foul trouble
- Brittney Sykes Over 13.5 PTS0 vs 13.5game script — blowout or foul troubleSykes played just 2 minutes with 1 personal foul, effectively sidelined early and unable to contribute on the scoresheet. With minimal court time and zero shot attempts, she couldn't approach the 13.5-point threshold despite the 30% usage rate context.
- Isabelle Harrison Over 1.5 AST1 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHarrison recorded only 1 assist despite heavy offensive usage (38%) and 28 minutes, as she functioned primarily as a scorer and rebounder rather than a playmaker in this game. Her assist-to-usage rate fell well short of what the over implied, with most of her 25 points coming from direct scoring rather than ball movement.
- Emily Engstler Under 9.5 PTS13 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upEngstler exceeded the 9.5-point line despite shooting just 38% from the field, benefiting from elevated usage (22%) and 30 minutes of floor time that provided enough volume to reach 13 points on modest efficiency.
- Bridget Carleton Over 4.5 REB4 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationCarleton fell one rebound short despite 33 minutes and solid offensive efficiency (61% TS), as she logged just 4 boards in a game where her 22% usage rate limited her overall volume and rebounding opportunities.
GSV @ CHI8–4+3.38u
- Sydney Taylor Over 14.5 PTS14 vs 14.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
- Courtney Vandersloot Over 2.5 REB1 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upVandersloot grabbed just 1 rebound despite playing 29 minutes, well below the 2.5 line—a stark departure from her usual rebounding activity and likely attributable to limited offensive rebounding opportunities and her primary role as a floor-running guard rather than a glass-cleaner.
- 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 heavy usage (36 min, 20% usage rate), held back by a quiet playmaking night—she recorded four turnovers and didn't generate the extra helper needed to push past 4.5.
- Kayla Thornton Over 6.5 PTS0 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThornton's OVER 6.5 missed badly as she went scoreless on just 2 shot attempts in 19 minutes, posting 0% TS and a 5% usage rate that left her virtually out of the offensive flow. The combination of limited touches and cold shooting (0-2 FG) made any scoring production impossible.
Each eligible priced formula signal is normalized to a flat 1-unit outcome at its recorded price. Voids are excluded from the record, hit rate, and units. Open a day for the per-game split and loss review.