DIME
WNBANBA
Get the picksJoin

← all formulas · WNBA

priced_lineedges

730–514 over 1244 priced bets · +50.3u · ROI +4.0% -0.9% to +9.0% · CLV +0.98¢ +0.8% to +1.1%

Not yet separable from break-even — the ROI interval spans zero, so this record is consistent with a real edge AND with none.

THE PICKS · priced bets only, newest first

Every day, every game, every miss.

Day by day

Latest 30 graded days from the same CORE benchmark shown in the headline, charts and sheet: priced_lineedges.

492–351 · 58% · +27.14u across the last 30 days · 2 voided, zero benchmark units

09/244–736%−4.41u3 games

permalink to 2026-09-24 →

IND @ MIN0–4−4.00u
  • Caitlin Clark Over 21.5 PTS2 vs 21.5paid over the fair numberClark shot 1-12 from the field and 0-7 from three, combining for just 2 points in 18 minutes despite 30% usage, as historically poor efficiency derailed the over by 19.5 points. The 8% true shooting percentage was the primary culprit—she simply couldn't convert looks that were available within her usage rate.
  • Caitlin Clark Over 20.5 PTS2 vs 20.5paid over the fair numberClark shot 1-12 from the field and 0-7 from three despite 30% usage, posting an 8% true shooting percentage—a historically poor offensive night that made the 20.5-point line impossible to reach. Her 18 minutes of playing time compounded the issue, leaving her with insufficient volume to overcome the shooting collapse.
  • Kelsey Mitchell Over 23.5 PTS10 vs 23.5no clean explanationMitchell shot just 3-12 from the field (25% FG) in 22 minutes, falling well short of the scoring volume needed to reach 24 points despite solid free-throw shooting (2-2). Her poor efficiency and limited opportunities combined to leave her 13.5 points short of the over.
  • Caitlin Clark Over 19.5 PTS2 vs 19.5paid over the fair numberClark shot 1-12 from the field and 0-7 from three on 30% usage, combining historically poor efficiency with limited volume to fall far short of the 19.5-point line. Her 18 minutes of action and lopsided +/- (-27) suggest Iowa was blown out early, limiting scoring opportunities.
LVA @ PHO1–1−0.32u
  • Jackie Young Under 4.5 REB7 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upYoung grabbed 7 rebounds despite a brutal 2-8 shooting night, as the Las Vegas offense stalled (15% usage) and forced her into extended floor time (34 min) where she accumulated boards on high volume attempts. The under missed because rebounding opportunity, not scoring efficiency, was the key variable—she was on the glass hunting for her own misses and her teammates' bricks.
CHI @ WAS3–2−0.09u
  • Sydney Taylor Under 3.5 AST4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationTaylor reached 4 assists despite poor offensive efficiency (5-18 FG, 0-7 3PT), suggesting she leaned into playmaking as a secondary option when her shot wasn't falling, and her 24 minutes of high usage (42%) gave her enough opportunities to exceed the 3.5 line by one.
  • Shakira Austin Under 3.5 AST5 vs 3.5no clean explanationAustin exceeded the assist line despite shooting 0-for-9 from the field, as her 23 minutes and 25% usage rate kept her involved in ball movement and decision-making even when her shot wasn't falling. She recorded 5 dimes on just 1 turnover, suggesting a facilitation-focused role that compensated for her offensive struggles.
09/2314–767%+3.26u2 games

permalink to 2026-09-23 →

ATL @ NYL9–7+0.20u
  • Angel Reese Over 10.5 REB6 vs 10.5no clean explanationReese was limited to just 17 minutes—5-7 below her season average—which capped her rebounding opportunities at 6, well short of the 10.5 line. The limited run was the decisive factor, as her rebounding rate would have easily cleared the over with standard playing time.
  • Angel Reese Over 14.5 PTS6 vs 14.5no clean explanationReese was held to just 6 points on 2-7 shooting (29% FG) in only 17 minutes, well short of the 14.5-point line. Limited offensive opportunity and poor efficiency combined to make the over a non-factor.
  • Leonie Fiebich Over 2.5 REB2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upFiebich fell one rebound short despite playing 16 minutes, collecting just 2 boards on a night when low usage (12%) and a scoreless performance (0-1 FG) limited her opportunities to crash the glass.
  • Rhyne Howard Over 15.5 PTS8 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward shot just 4-of-12 (33% FG) and 0-of-5 from three despite playing 34 minutes, unable to generate scoring efficiency even with the volume to hit over 15.5 points.
  • Leonie Fiebich Over 1.5 AST0 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upFiebich was a non-factor in 16 minutes with just 2 rebounds and 3 turnovers, recording zero assists despite 12% usage; she failed to generate any playmaking opportunities in a limited role.
  • Angel Reese Over 15.5 PTS6 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upReese's scoring collapsed due to severe shooting inefficiency (2-7 FG, 28.6% from the field) and limited opportunities, finishing with just 17 minutes and 21% usage—well below the workload needed to reach 15.5 points.
DAL @ SEA5–0+3.06u
09/2219–2049%−5.79u5 games

permalink to 2026-09-22 →

LAS @ LVA0–5−5.00u
  • Rae Burrell Over 2.5 AST0 vs 2.5paid over the fair numberBurrell's playmaking disappeared despite 29 minutes and solid usage; she recorded zero assists while turning the ball over four times, suggesting poor decision-making and an inability to create for teammates in a low-efficiency outing (41% TS).
  • Jackie Young Under 4.5 REB5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upYoung's heavy 34-minute workload and 27% usage rate—playing nearly the full game as the primary ball-handler—gave her enough opportunities to grab 5 boards despite shooting just 6-16 from the field, pushing past the 4.5 rebound line.
  • Rae Burrell Over 15.5 PTS11 vs 15.5paid over the fair numberBurrell's inefficient 4-12 shooting (33% FG) and 0-2 from three combined with modest free-throw volume (3 attempts) left her 4.5 points shy despite 29 minutes of play. Her 29% usage rate proved insufficient to generate the scoring volume needed to clear the 15.5-point threshold.
  • Chelsea Gray Under 11.5 PTS17 vs 11.5paid over the fair numberGray torched the under on an efficient 7-12 shooting night (58% FG) with extended 33-minute run, nearly doubling the 11.5-point line at 17 points. Her 68% true shooting and zero fouls allowed her to stay on court and capitalize on a high-volume opportunity despite modest 21% usage.
  • Rae Burrell Over 14.5 PTS11 vs 14.5paid over the fair numberBurrell's inefficient 4-12 shooting (33% FG) despite solid court time (29 min) left her three points shy, compounded by a scoreless night from three-point range on two attempts.
CON @ WAS2–4−2.51u
  • Charlisse Leger-Walker Over 3.5 AST3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberLeger-Walker came up one assist short despite playing 30 minutes, held back by low offensive involvement at just 14% usage and a 3-8 shooting night that limited her ability to create offense. She finished with exactly 3 dimes, falling one short of the over due to her reduced playmaking opportunities in a blowout loss.
  • Kiki Iriafen Over 9.5 REB5 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIriafen fell well short with just 5 rebounds due to a combination of limited minutes (18) and early foul trouble (5 PF), which restricted her ability to crash the glass and accumulate the volume needed to clear 9.5.
  • Sonia Citron Over 4.5 AST3 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCitron fell just short at 3 assists despite playing 30 minutes; she operated with only 19% usage and didn't generate enough offensive opportunities to reach 5 dimes, relying heavily on her scoring (6-6 FT) rather than playmaking.
  • Aaliyah Edwards Over 9.5 PTS8 vs 9.5no clean explanationEdwards' historically poor shooting night—just 4-for-14 (29% TS)—kept her a point short despite healthy 27 minutes and 13 rebounds; she couldn't convert enough looks to reach double figures.
GSV @ POR3–4−1.88u
  • Kayla Thornton Under 3.5 REB7 vs 3.5paid over the fair numberThornton nearly doubled the over/under by grabbing 7 boards in 26 minutes, benefiting from elevated opportunity on a night when her team needed rebounding help and she drew only 2 fouls despite heavy box-out work.
  • Kayla Thornton Under 9.5 PTS11 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThornton's efficient 62% true shooting on 20% usage was enough to clear the 9.5-point line, converting 4-of-8 from the field and both her three-point attempts in 26 minutes despite modest volume.
  • Kayla Thornton Under 8.5 PTS11 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThornton exceeded the under despite modest volume, converting 4-of-8 from the field (50%) and 2-of-4 from three (50%) on 26 minutes to reach 11 points, as efficient shooting made up for her low usage rate of just 20%.
  • Kayla Thornton Under 4.5 REB7 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThornton grabbed 7 rebounds in 26 minutes, exceeding the 4.5 line by collecting 3 extra boards despite modest usage (20%) and shooting efficiency (62% TS%), likely benefiting from active interior presence and limited competition for available rebounds.
TOR @ CHI3–2+0.44u
  • Sydney Taylor Under 15.5 PTS18 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upTaylor exceeded the under with efficient shooting, going 5-12 from the field (42%) with a perfect 5-5 from free throw while maintaining 31% usage over 24 minutes. Her 63% true shooting and aggressive free throw attempts (5 attempts) proved the scoring floor was higher than the 15.5-point line anticipated.
  • Kiki Rice Over 13.5 PTS9 vs 13.5no clean explanationRice's inefficient 4-11 shooting (36% FG) and lack of free-throw attempts (0-0 FT) left her 4.5 points short despite playing 30 minutes with solid usage; her poor 41% true shooting prevented her from reaching 13.5 even with meaningful playing time.
MIN @ IND11–5+3.16u
  • Natasha Howard Over 11.5 PTS6 vs 11.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward played just 12 minutes and shot 2-for-5 from the field, combining for only 6 points well short of the 11.5 target; limited run and inefficient scoring made the over impossible to hit.
  • Natasha Howard Over 10.5 PTS6 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward played just 12 minutes and shot 2-for-5 from the field, limiting her to 6 points well short of the 10.5 line; the minimal playing time and modest usage rate (27%) prevented her from accumulating scoring opportunities.
  • Kelsey Mitchell Over 24.5 PTS20 vs 24.5no clean explanationMitchell fell short of 24.5 despite efficient shooting (64% TS) because she logged only 27 minutes and generated just 26% usage, limiting her volume—she needed roughly 3 more points from her 13 field-goal attempts to clear the line.
  • Natasha Howard Over 9.5 PTS6 vs 9.5no clean explanationHoward logged just 12 minutes and converted only 2 of 5 field-goal attempts (40% FG), falling 3.5 points short of the over despite a decent efficiency rate; limited playing time was the primary constraint, as she couldn't generate enough volume to reach double figures.
  • Sophie Cunningham Under 6.5 PTS11 vs 6.5no clean explanationCunningham torched the under with efficient scoring, going 4-7 from the field (57%) including 3-6 from three, nearly doubling the 6.5-point line despite limited 12% usage—her hot shooting and full 29 minutes of run were the difference.
09/2110–1245%−5.02u2 games

permalink to 2026-09-21 →

ATL @ NYL6–12−7.71u
  • Breanna Stewart Under 9.5 REB14 vs 9.5no clean explanation
  • Breanna Stewart Under 8.5 REB14 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStewart dominated the glass with 14 rebounds on 37 minutes and 31% usage, nearly doubling the 8.5 line as the team's primary frontcourt presence in a low-scoring affair where boards were heavily contested.
  • Leonie Fiebich Over 2.5 REB2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upFiebich played 32 minutes but finished with just 2 rebounds, one short of the line, due to minimal offensive involvement (5% usage, 0-3 from the field) that limited her opportunities to crash the glass in a game where she was ineffective on the perimeter.
  • Pauline Astier Under 3.5 AST4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberAstier exceeded the 3.5 assist line by hitting exactly 4 dimes in 30 minutes of play, benefiting from efficient offensive execution (76% TS%) that likely created more ball-movement opportunities despite her modest 15% usage rate.
  • Jonquel Jones Under 2.5 AST4 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJones exceeded the assist line by distributing the ball from the post in 35 minutes of heavy usage (22%), recording 4 dimes while dominating the glass with 12 rebounds. Her elevated role as a facilitator—typical for a big handling the ball in the mid-post—pushed her playmaking volume just beyond the low 2.5 threshold.
  • Allisha Gray Over 2.5 AST1 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's usage rate sat at just 16%, well below what's needed to generate assist opportunities, and she recorded only 1 dime despite playing 32 minutes—a clear indicator the offense ran through other creators rather than her facilitating. She compensated with efficient scoring (5-8 FG), but low volume and assist distribution prevented her from reaching the 2.5 assists threshold.
DAL @ PHO4–0+2.69u
09/2020–1361%+1.92u5 games

permalink to 2026-09-20 →

POR @ LAS0–2−2.00u
  • Rae Burrell Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurrell fell one assist short despite an efficient 25 minutes and elite scoring (20 pts on 84% TS), as her shot-heavy usage (25%) left little margin for playmaking duties. With only 2 turnovers and minimal ball-handling responsibilities in the flow of the offense, she simply didn't generate enough assist opportunities to clear the 2.5 line.
  • Ariel Atkins Under 7.5 PTS14 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAtkins was remarkably efficient, converting 5 of 7 from the field (71%) with perfect 3-for-3 free-throw shooting to nearly double the betting line despite playing just 20 minutes. Her elite 84% true shooting and hot hand from the floor—particularly from inside the arc—overcame the limited minutes that would typically support an under bet.
WAS @ IND6–5−0.71u
  • Kelsey Mitchell Over 25.5 PTS22 vs 25.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMitchell fell just short despite heavy minutes (35) and usage (29%), hampered by poor shooting efficiency—she connected on just 8-of-20 FG (40%) and 3-of-10 from three, leaving her three points shy of the line.
  • Kelsey Mitchell Over 1.5 REB0 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberMitchell played 35 minutes and took 20 shots but failed to grab a single rebound despite 29% usage, unable to convert her offensive opportunities into board work. Her scoring volume masked a complete absence of rebounding activity—a rare outcome for a guard in heavy rotation that left the over vulnerable.
  • Shakira Austin Under 9.5 REB10 vs 9.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upAustin grabbed one board over the line, finishing with 10 rebounds on 26 minutes of play while drawing only 3 fouls—enough activity to stay on the court and collect boards at a modest rate that pushed her just past the 9.5 threshold.
  • Kelsey Mitchell Over 24.5 PTS22 vs 24.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMitchell fell two points short despite playing 35 minutes, hampered by inefficient shooting (8-20 FG, 3-10 3PT) that yielded just 52% true shooting—well below her typical efficiency needed to clear 24.5 points.
  • Cotie McMahon Over 1.5 REB0 vs 1.5game script — blowout or foul troubleMcMahon's limited 9-minute role—likely due to early foul trouble (2 PF)—left her with insufficient opportunities to reach the rebound threshold, finishing scoreless on the glass despite solid efficiency in her limited touches.
SEA @ LVA6–4+0.58u
  • Chelsea Gray Under 11.5 PTS15 vs 11.5paid over the fair numberGray's efficient 70% true shooting—fueled by a perfect 5-for-6 night from the free-throw line—pushed her past the 11.5 threshold despite modest volume (4-8 FG, 20% usage), as her ball-handling and interior activity generated enough free throws to compensate for limited field-goal attempts.
  • A'ja Wilson Under 27.5 PTS30 vs 27.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationWilson's elite efficiency at the line (16-18 FT) and high usage rate (34%) carried her past 27.5 despite modest field-goal shooting (7-13 FG), as Las Vegas leaned heavily on her in a blowout win (+24).
  • Flau'jae Johnson Under 4.5 REB6 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJohnson grabbed two more rebounds than the line anticipated, finishing with 6 boards on 32 minutes of heavy usage (33%) in a game where she was heavily involved on both ends of the floor.
  • Natisha Hiedeman Over 3.5 AST3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
MIN @ CON3–1+1.65u
  • Saniya Rivers Over 7.5 PTS0 vs 7.5game script — blowout or foul troubleRivers saw just 5 minutes of action with zero shot attempts, indicating she was a healthy scratch or buried on the bench, making any scoring prop untenable. With no field goal opportunities in limited minutes, the over 7.5 was never in play.
NYL @ TOR5–1+2.40u
  • Marine Johannes Under 6.5 PTS9 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJohannes exceeded the line by shooting 3-for-8 from three, converting at 37.5% from deep to reach 9 points in 18 minutes—enough volume in limited time to clear the 6.5-point threshold despite modest overall efficiency.
09/1915–1452%−0.76u3 games

permalink to 2026-09-19 →

CHI @ ATL3–7−4.55u
  • Naz Hillmon Over 4.5 REB4 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon fell one rebound short despite playing 19 minutes, hampered by dismal 0-5 shooting that likely limited her interior activity and offensive rebounding opportunities. Her 13% usage rate suggests limited involvement in the offense, reducing the number of possessions and second-chance situations that typically generate rebound volume.
  • Naz Hillmon Over 7.5 PTS2 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon shot 0-for-5 from the field and generated only 13% usage in 19 minutes, leaving her entirely dependent on free throws for scoring and unable to reach 8 points. Her 17% true shooting percentage reflects a near-complete offensive drought that rendered the over unplayable.
  • Kamilla Cardoso Over 11.5 PTS11 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationCardoso's efficient 74% TS on 24% usage fell just short as she scored exactly 11 points in 19 minutes, missing the mark by a single point despite a strong 5-7 shooting night. Limited run and conservative offensive touches in a game that didn't require high volume from her prevented the slight scoring bump needed to clear 11.5.
  • Rhyne Howard Over 16.5 PTS14 vs 16.5paid over the fair numberHoward fell just short despite efficient shooting (71% TS on 18% usage) because her 24 minutes and modest volume—only 9 FG attempts—capped her scoring at 14 points, two shy of the line.
  • Kamilla Cardoso Over 12.5 PTS11 vs 12.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upCardoso's efficient 5-7 shooting (71%) wasn't enough to clear 12.5 points due to limited minutes (19) and usage (24%), holding her to 11 points despite a strong True Shooting percentage.
  • Rhyne Howard Over 17.5 PTS14 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward shot efficiently (71% TS) but saw limited volume with just 18% usage and 24 minutes, falling 3.5 points short of the over despite solid shooting splits (5-9 FG, 3-6 3PT).
PHO @ DAL4–3+0.37u
  • Awak Kuier Under 9.5 PTS11 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upKuier's perfect 4-for-4 shooting from the field (including 1-for-1 from three) on limited 27 minutes was the outlier—she converted at 100% TS despite her low 9% usage rate, pushing her just over the 9.5 line despite minimal offensive involvement.
  • Alyssa Thomas Under 16.5 PTS19 vs 16.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThomas exceeded the under on efficient interior scoring, shooting 8-11 from the field (73%) while playing a full 30 minutes in a game that stayed competitive throughout. Her high-volume inside looks and near-perfect shooting from close range—combined with 10 assists that kept her involved in the offense—pushed her well past 16.5 despite modest usage at 22%.
  • Alyssa Thomas Under 15.5 PTS19 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThomas torched the under with an efficient 8-11 shooting night (72.7% FG), converting nearly three-quarters of her attempts from the field to reach 19 points despite modest usage at 22%. Her elite scoring efficiency—well above her season baseline—was the difference maker in pushing past the 15.5-point threshold.
SEA @ GSV8–4+3.42u
  • Natisha Hiedeman Over 4.5 AST3 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHiedeman fell just short despite playing 30 minutes, finishing with only 3 assists due to low offensive involvement—her 11% usage rate and 2-5 shooting kept her off the ball and limited playmaking opportunities.
  • Flau'jae Johnson Under 4.5 REB5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationJohnson grabbed one more board than the line despite inefficient shooting (6-18 FG), staying on the court for 34 minutes and maintaining high usage (34%) to accumulate volume opportunities on the glass.
  • Kayla Thornton Under 4.5 REB6 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThornton grabbed 6 rebounds in 30 minutes despite shooting 0-for-6, as her role shifted toward perimeter defense and rebounding activity rather than offensive usage. The 9% usage rate and scoreless night limited her impact elsewhere, but high playing time ensured she collected enough boards to clear the 4.5 line.
  • Natisha Hiedeman Over 3.5 AST3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationHiedeman fell one assist short despite playing 30 minutes, held back by low usage (11%) and limited offensive opportunities that resulted in just 5 points on 5 shot attempts. Her playmaking was constrained by the team's overall offensive rhythm rather than foul trouble or bench time.
09/1811–955%−0.99u3 games

permalink to 2026-09-18 →

POR @ GSV1–4−3.21u
  • Kayla Thornton Under 10.5 PTS13 vs 10.5paid over the fair numberThornton exceeded the under despite modest efficiency (4-10 FG), hitting 3-of-8 from three to reach 13 points in 25 minutes with elevated usage at 23%, relying on volume rather than shooting accuracy to push past the 10.5 line.
  • Kayla Thornton Under 9.5 PTS13 vs 9.5paid over the fair numberThornton exceeded the under on efficient scoring, going 4-10 from the field with a 3-8 clip from three to reach 13 points in 25 minutes of solid role-player production. Her 57% true shooting and 23% usage rate kept her on pace to clear 9.5 despite modest volume.
  • Emily Engstler Over 9.5 PTS3 vs 9.5no clean explanation
  • Emily Engstler Over 10.5 PTS3 vs 10.5no clean explanation
NYL @ MIN4–2+0.92u
  • Courtney Williams Over 3.5 AST2 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilliams played 29 minutes with low usage (19%) in a blowout loss, recording only 2 assists despite 5 rebounds, suggesting limited offensive flow and playmaking opportunities in a game that didn't require sustained ball movement. Five fouls also may have constrained her aggression late, limiting her ability to generate additional assists.
  • Breanna Stewart Under 8.5 REB10 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStewart grabbed two boards beyond the line in 38 full minutes of action, capitalizing on her team's offensive rebounding opportunities in a blowout win (+13). Her elite efficiency (58% TS) and high usage kept her on the floor throughout, providing extra chances to clean the glass.
IND @ TOR6–3+1.30u
  • Caitlin Clark Under 4.5 REB6 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upClark grabbed one more rebound than the line anticipated, finishing with 6 boards across 34 minutes of heavy usage (39%) in a game Indiana won by 10, staying active on the glass despite her primary role as a scorer and facilitator.
  • Kiki Rice Under 3.5 REB6 vs 3.5no clean explanationRice doubled her rebounding projection with 6 boards in 29 minutes, benefiting from elevated usage (34%) and activity that extended beyond her typical scoring role in a competitive game.
  • Isabelle Harrison Under 15.5 PTS16 vs 15.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upHarrison's 6-for-11 free-throw shooting (55%) provided the cushion needed to sneak over 15.5 despite a poor 4-for-13 field-goal night, as her 32 minutes and 24% usage were enough to generate scoring opportunities from the line.
09/1728–2355%−2.48u5 games

permalink to 2026-09-17 →

CON @ ATL7–10−3.36u
  • DeWanna Bonner Over 7.5 PTS2 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBonner's minutes (11) and usage rate (12%) were well below her typical load, limiting her scoring opportunities to just three field-goal attempts, of which she made only one.
  • Rhyne Howard Over 19.5 PTS10 vs 19.5no clean explanationHoward shot just 3-14 from the field (21% FG) and 1-9 from three (11%), combining for a 32% true shooting percentage that fell well short of what was needed to reach 20 points even with 28 minutes played.
  • Aaliyah Edwards Over 12.5 PTS7 vs 12.5paid over the fair numberEdwards shot just 3-8 from the field (37.5%) with only 16 minutes of action, limiting her scoring well short of the 12.5-point line. Four fouls in a blowout loss (-27) further restricted her opportunity to get back on track.
  • DeWanna Bonner Over 6.5 PTS2 vs 6.5paid over the fair numberBonner was held to just 2 points on 1-3 shooting in limited 11-minute action, managing only 12% usage despite a positive +14 rating. The minimal volume and inefficient 33% true shooting were the clear culprits in missing the over by a wide margin.
  • Rhyne Howard Over 17.5 PTS10 vs 17.5paid over the fair numberHoward's inefficiency at the rim doomed the over: she shot just 3-14 from the field (21%) and 1-9 from three (11%), combining for a dismal 32% TS despite adequate playing time and usage at 28 minutes and 27% usage rate.
  • Rhyne Howard Over 18.5 PTS10 vs 18.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward's shot selection and efficiency collapsed: she went 3-14 from the field (21% FG) and 1-9 from three despite playing 28 minutes, leaving her 8.5 points shy of the over despite solid playmaking (8 ast, 4 stl).
LAS @ DAL8–8−2.18u
  • Erica Wheeler Over 1.5 REB0 vs 1.5no clean explanation
  • Cameron Brink Over 1.5 AST1 vs 1.5no clean explanation
  • Dearica Hamby Over 1.5 AST1 vs 1.5paid over the fair number
  • Jessica Shepard Under 10.5 REB11 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationShepard grabbed 11 boards in 28 minutes, just clearing the number despite modest 22% usage, as her team's +18 margin and defensive rebounding opportunities kept her in high-volume rebound situations.
  • Rae Burrell Over 14.5 PTS12 vs 14.5no clean explanationBurrell shot just 5-14 from the field (36%) and 1-4 from three despite 24 minutes and 27% usage, falling two points short of the 14.5 line. Her inefficient shooting night, combined with limited free-throw attempts (1-1), prevented her from reaching the scoring threshold.
  • Jessica Shepard Under 5.5 AST12 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upShepard's playmaking was the engine of her impact despite modest scoring, dishing 12 assists on 28 minutes of floor time while maintaining efficiency (55% TS%) and recording a team-leading +18, nearly doubling the 5.5 assist line. Her ball movement and high-volume involvement in the offense—facilitated by low foul trouble (2 PF)—drove her well above the projection.
LVA @ SEA4–2+0.77u
  • A'ja Wilson Under 26.5 PTS29 vs 26.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberWilson's perfect 10-10 free-throw shooting and elite 69% two-point conversion (8-of-11) powered her to 29 points despite modest usage, as her 83% true shooting easily cleared the 26.5 line. She stayed out of foul trouble with just 3 PF in 29 minutes, allowing her to maintain high-efficiency offense throughout the game.
  • Chelsea Gray Under 3.5 REB9 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray crashed the glass hard despite minimal offensive involvement, pulling down 9 rebounds in 26 minutes—more than double the projected total—as a primary rebounder in a game where Las Vegas controlled pace and rebounding opportunities.
PHO @ POR3–1+1.02u
  • Alyssa Thomas Under 15.5 PTS18 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThomas torched the under with efficient inside scoring, converting 6 of 8 from the field (75%) while getting to the free-throw line 10 times in 31 minutes, offsetting her zero three-pointers with dominant paint production.
WAS @ CHI6–2+1.28u
  • Kamilla Cardoso Over 13.5 PTS10 vs 13.5paid over the fair numberCardoso's 10 points fell short of 13.5 despite solid volume (11 FG attempts), as she converted just 5 shots (45% FG) and took zero free throws in 23 minutes—a below-average efficiency night that couldn't overcome her limited offensive output. Four fouls in limited minutes also likely restricted her aggressive play late in the game.
  • Kamilla Cardoso Over 12.5 PTS10 vs 12.5paid over the fair numberCardoso fell short of 12.5 despite solid volume (11 FG attempts), hampered by poor efficiency at 45.5% TS and zero free-throw attempts that limited her scoring upside. Foul trouble (6 PF in 23 minutes) likely curtailed her aggression and playing time in a blowout loss.
08/3023–1856%+0.83u4 games

permalink to 2026-08-30 →

MIN @ ATL4–9−6.27u
  • Angel Reese Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upReese fell one assist short despite 33 minutes and heavy involvement (22% usage, 11 rebounds), as her ball-handling struggles—5 turnovers in limited playmaking opportunities—kept her from the 3+ assists threshold.
  • Natasha Howard Over 10.5 PTS9 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
  • Naz Hillmon Over 4.5 REB3 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon played a full 30 minutes but couldn't secure boards despite adequate opportunity, finishing with just 3 rebounds on 18% usage and a poor 3-9 shooting line that likely limited her presence around the rim.
  • Rhyne Howard Over 16.5 PTS16 vs 16.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationHoward fell one point short despite heavy playing time (35 min), held back by inefficient shooting (6-16 FG, 2-9 3PT) that kept her TS% at 47%—well below her season average and insufficient to push her over 16.5.
  • Rhyne Howard Over 18.5 PTS16 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationHoward's inefficient 6-16 shooting night (37.5% FG, 22% from three) left her two points shy despite logging heavy minutes, as poor shot selection and limited free-throw opportunities (2-2 on just 2 attempts) prevented her from reaching the 18.5 threshold.
  • Kayla McBride Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5no clean explanationMcBride hit the over by a single assist despite modest usage (20%), benefiting from extended floor time (37 minutes) that created enough playmaking opportunities to reach 3 dimes.
GSV @ POR6–8−2.84u
  • Kayla Thornton Under 7.5 PTS17 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThornton torched the under with elite efficiency, shooting 5-8 from the field and 3-5 from three while posting a 87% true shooting percentage in 25 minutes—nearly double the scoring needed to clear 7.5 points on just 19% usage.
  • Megan DiLeo Over 13.5 PTS12 vs 13.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberDiLeo fell just short despite efficient shooting (60% FG), limited by 24 minutes of run and a 23% usage rate in a game where the team's offensive load was distributed elsewhere. One made three-pointer instead of going 0-for-3 from deep would have cleared the line.
  • Kayla Thornton Under 8.5 PTS17 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThornton's efficient 5-8 shooting night (62.5% FG, 60% from three) easily doubled the expected output, and her 25 minutes of run time at 19% usage provided the volume to cash in on her hot shooting from the field and foul line (4-4 FT).
  • Kiah Stokes Over 5.5 REB1 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStokes was limited to just 12 minutes and recorded only 1 rebound, as her minimal playing time and 0% usage rate prevented her from approaching the 5.5 rebound threshold.
  • Kaila Charles Under 5.5 REB8 vs 5.5paid over the fair numberCharles grabbed 8 boards on 30 minutes played despite modest 24% usage, translating to a rebound rate well above her season baseline and enough to clear the 5.5 line. Her +20 rating and the team's blowout win likely kept her on the floor for garbage-time opportunities that inflated her rebounding total.
  • Kaitlyn Chen Under 9.5 PTS15 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upChen torched the under with an efficient 5-8 shooting night (62.5% FG, 60% from three) while playing a full 27 minutes, combining volume and accuracy to nearly double the 9.5-point projection.
CON @ DAL4–1+2.14u
  • Awak Kuier Over 8.5 PTS4 vs 8.5no clean explanationKuier's 4 points fell well short of the 8.5-point line due to minimal offensive involvement—she posted just 7% usage and took only 2 field-goal attempts despite playing 20 minutes. Though she was efficient when she did shoot (50% FG, 100% FT), the volume simply wasn't there to reach the over.
LAS @ SEA9–0+7.81u
08/298–373%+2.73u2 games

permalink to 2026-08-29 →

CHI @ NYL2–2−0.79u
  • Kamilla Cardoso Over 14.5 PTS9 vs 14.5paid over the fair number
  • Breanna Stewart Under 8.5 REB9 vs 8.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationStewart grabbed one extra rebound to push past the line, fueled by 26 minutes of floor time and active interior presence with 2 blocks that kept her in rebounding position despite modest 4-11 shooting.
TOR @ PHO6–1+3.52u
  • Alyssa Thomas Over 7.5 REB6 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThomas fell one rebound short despite solid floor time (22 min), held back by low volume—her 14% usage and pass-first role (12 assists) limited her opportunities on the glass in a blowout win (+38).
08/2818–578%+9.59u4 games

permalink to 2026-08-28 →

CON @ IND3–1+1.50u
  • Caitlin Clark Under 4.5 REB5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationClark grabbed one more rebound than the line allowed, finishing with 5 boards in 34 minutes of heavy usage (34%) while playing efficiently and staying out of foul trouble (4 PF), which kept her on the floor and in position to crash the glass.
WAS @ LAS4–1+1.82u
  • Sonia Citron Under 17.5 PTS22 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCitron exceeded the under by hitting 50% from three (4-7) and shot efficiently overall at 60% TS despite modest volume, posting 22 points in 32 minutes to easily clear 17.5.
POR @ ATL5–2+2.51u
  • Bridget Carleton Over 14.5 PTS4 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCarleton was ice-cold from the field, shooting just 1-6 (17%) with 0-3 from three despite playing 33 minutes, and her 10% usage rate left her with minimal scoring opportunities in the game. Even with free throws, she could only muster 4 points—well short of 14.5—on a historically poor 29% true shooting night.
  • Carla Leite Under 2.5 REB3 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upLeite grabbed 3 rebounds in 29 minutes, just one more than the under's threshold, as her elite scoring efficiency (9-13 FG, 88% TS) kept her heavily involved on offense rather than crashing the glass.
TOR @ LVA6–1+3.76u
  • Isabelle Harrison Over 7.5 REB7 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationHarrison came up one rebound short despite solid 24 minutes and high usage (36%), held back by limited opportunities on the glass—she grabbed only 7 boards while shooting just 5-for-14 from the field in a game where her team was outrebounded.
08/277–944%−4.32u2 games

permalink to 2026-08-27 →

GSV @ NYL2–5−3.59u
  • Janelle Salaun Over 11.5 PTS7 vs 11.5no clean explanationSalaun's efficient rebounding (7 boards in 24 minutes) kept her on the floor, but she shot just 3-10 from the field (30%) with poor efficiency across the board, falling 4.5 points short of the over despite solid playing time and a positive plus-minus.
  • Sabrina Ionescu Over 3.5 REB2 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu's inefficiency (2-12 FG, 27% TS) and modest 26% usage rate limited her opportunities to crash the glass, while her 29 minutes—typical for her role—weren't enough to generate the necessary volume at a position where she averaged limited rebounding activity. The blowout loss (-17 +/-) also reduced garbage-time opportunities that could've pushed her toward the over.
  • Pauline Astier Over 6.5 PTS4 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAstier's ice-cold 2-6 shooting (33% TS) left her stuck at 4 points despite 24 minutes of run, as poor shot selection and execution prevented her from reaching the 6.5-point threshold. Her 16% usage rate compounded the issue, limiting her scoring opportunities in a game where she struggled to find rhythm offensively.
  • Janelle Salaun Under 4.5 REB7 vs 4.5no clean explanationSalaun exceeded the rebound total despite poor offensive efficiency (3-10 FG), grabbing 7 boards in 24 minutes—a 17.5 rebound rate that capitalized on high volume opportunities and her size advantage on the glass. The under missed because she stayed active on the boards even as her scoring touch completely deserted her (30% FG).
  • Cecilia Zandalasini Over 1.5 AST1 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberZandalasini played a high-volume scorer's role (29% usage, 20 pts on 8-17 shooting) with limited playmaking opportunities, recording just 1 assist across 31 minutes despite solid efficiency. The offensive-focused game script didn't create natural setup opportunities for an assist-heavy performance.
WAS @ PHO5–4−0.73u
  • Alyssa Thomas Over 13.5 PTS4 vs 13.5no clean explanationThomas was held to just 1-5 from the field (20% FG) despite playing 32 minutes, rendering her 11% usage rate irrelevant; the offensive inefficiency—compounded by zero 3-pointers—left her stranded well short of 13.5 points.
  • Betnijah Laney-Hamilton Under 5.5 PTS6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
  • Shakira Austin Over 17.5 PTS11 vs 17.5no clean explanationAustin shot just 3-9 from the field despite playing 30 minutes, and her 17% usage rate—well below her season average—limited her scoring opportunities in a game where she didn't get enough offensive touches to reach 18+.
  • Shakira Austin Over 16.5 PTS11 vs 16.5no clean explanationAustin's 11 points fell short of 16.5 despite playing 30 minutes due to inefficient shooting (3-9 FG, 33%), as she relied heavily on free throws (5-5) to generate scoring rather than consistent field-goal production.
08/267–847%−2.49u2 games

permalink to 2026-08-26 →

GSV @ CON3–4−2.19u
  • Tiffany Hayes Over 10.5 PTS5 vs 10.5game script — blowout or foul troubleHayes played only 3 minutes, severely limiting her scoring opportunities despite efficient shooting (2-3 FG, 1-1 3PT); reduced playing time was the decisive factor in missing the over.
  • Tiffany Hayes Over 2.5 AST0 vs 2.5game script — blowout or foul troubleHayes played just 3 minutes with minimal ball-handling responsibilities, recording zero assists despite efficient scoring; the severe minutes restriction made the over unplayable regardless of her assist rate.
  • Kennedy Burke Over 9.5 PTS2 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurke shot just 1-5 from the field (20% FG) and missed both free-throw attempts despite 22 minutes of action, combining for only 2 points well below the 9.5 line. Her 12% usage rate and 17% true shooting percentage indicate she was both limited in touches and inefficient when she did get the ball.
  • Tiffany Hayes Over 2.5 REB0 vs 2.5game script — blowout or foul troubleHayes played only 3 minutes, leaving insufficient opportunity to accumulate rebounds despite efficient scoring (2-3 FG); the severe minutes restriction was the prohibitive factor for hitting 2.5+ boards.
TOR @ SEA4–4−0.30u
  • Isabelle Harrison Under 15.5 PTS17 vs 15.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upHarrison exceeded the under on volume rather than efficiency, taking 16 shots across 32 minutes (27% usage) and converting 7-of-10 free throws to reach 17 points despite shooting just 31% from the field and 0-for-4 from three. Her elevated free-throw attempts (10 FT) and heavy workload proved enough to clear 15.5 despite poor overall shooting splits.
  • Isabelle Harrison Under 14.5 PTS17 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHarrison converted 7 of 10 free throws (70%) to reach 17 points despite shooting just 31% from the field, leaning heavily on free-throw volume to exceed the 14.5-point line. Her 32 minutes and 27% usage rate provided enough offensive opportunities for her to push over despite poor overall efficiency.
  • Jade Melbourne Under 6.5 AST7 vs 6.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMelbourne pushed one assist over the line despite modest usage (19%), as she operated efficiently in 33 minutes and found cutters consistently in a game flow that favored ball movement with her low turnover rate (2 TOs).
  • Jade Melbourne Under 5.5 AST7 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMelbourne eclipsed the 5.5 assist line by distributing the ball at elevated volume—she posted 7 assists across 33 minutes of heavy involvement, commanding 19% usage and operating as a primary playmaker in the offense. Her efficiency across all shot types (61% TS, 5-10 FG) kept her on the floor and in rhythm to generate multiple looks for teammates.
08/2513–1645%−6.47u3 games

permalink to 2026-08-25 →

WAS @ PHO5–8−4.24u
  • Shakira Austin Over 17.5 PTS16 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upAustin fell just short despite efficient 7-11 shooting (64% FG) because limited free-throw attempts (2-5) and 24 minutes of action left her one point shy of the over. Her 28% usage rate and lack of three-point volume meant she needed a perfect night from the line to clear 17.5, and two makes there weren't enough.
  • Alyssa Thomas Over 7.5 REB6 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThomas fell one board short despite solid efficiency (8-13 FG) and heavy involvement (32 min, 10 ast), likely limited by foul trouble (4 PF) that may have made her more cautious on the glass in a blowout loss (-13 +/-).
  • Shakira Austin Over 18.5 PTS16 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationAustin fell just short despite efficient shooting (7-11 FG, 61% TS) because limited minutes (24) and modest usage (28%) capped her scoring opportunities at 16 points. She needed to maintain this shooting efficiency while playing closer to 30+ minutes to clear 18.5.
  • Natasha Mack Under 6.5 REB8 vs 6.5paid over the fair numberMack crashed the glass hard despite limited minutes, pulling down 8 rebounds in just 25 minutes on elite 75% true shooting—her aggressive interior presence on a hot shooting night (9-12 FG) translated to more available boards than anticipated at the under line.
  • Natasha Mack Under 7.5 REB8 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMack eclipsed the 7.5 rebound line with 8 boards despite playing just 25 minutes, as her elite 75% true shooting and dominant 9-12 field-goal performance kept her on the floor and in rhythm throughout the game. Her 4 personal fouls stayed manageable enough to avoid foul trouble, allowing her to maintain consistent court time and secure the extra rebound needed to push past the over.
  • Kelsey Plum Over 3.5 AST1 vs 3.5paid over the fair numberPlum's playmaking was non-existent despite 38% usage, recording just 1 assist in 17 minutes while turning the ball over once and fouling out with 5 fouls, limiting her ability to orchestrate the offense. Her role was reduced to isolation scoring rather than facilitating, and she couldn't generate the dribble drive opportunities needed to hit the assist total.
POR @ DAL3–4−1.47u
  • Bridget Carleton Over 4.5 REB2 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCarleton played 30 minutes with heavy offensive usage (22%) but failed to crash the glass, grabbing just 2 rebounds despite taking 13 shots—a clear departure from her rebounding role that left the over well short.
  • Paige Bueckers Under 6.5 AST11 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBueckers nearly doubled the assist line with 11 dimes, thriving in a game where UConn dominated (+26) and she played all 33 available minutes without foul trouble, creating easy looks for teammates in a blowout environment.
  • Jessica Shepard Under 5.5 AST6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberShepard orchestrated the offense efficiently in 34 minutes with a game-high 26% usage rate, recording one more assist than the under required while shooting a scorching 10-15 from the field to facilitate easy movement of the ball. Her elite efficiency and high volume created natural playmaking opportunities that pushed her over the 5.5 threshold.
  • Jessica Shepard Under 15.5 PTS21 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upShepard torched the under with 10-15 shooting (67% FG) in 34 minutes, staying out of foul trouble (0 PF) to maintain heavy volume and elite efficiency at 64% true shooting. Her 26% usage rate combined with near-perfect shot selection meant she needed just 15 attempts to reach 21 points, well above the 15.5 projection.
CHI @ CON5–4−0.76u
  • Sydney Taylor Over 9.5 PTS4 vs 9.5no clean explanation
  • Saniya Rivers Under 4.5 AST5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upRivers pushed over the line with exactly 5 assists despite shooting just 3-10 and posting poor efficiency (35% TS), relying on playmaking volume rather than scoring to stay productive in 29 minutes.
  • Sydney Taylor Over 12.5 PTS4 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held upTaylor's shooting was catastrophic, going 2-11 from the field (18% TS%) with an 0-6 three-point night in 20 minutes, making it mathematically impossible to reach 12.5 points. Despite moderate usage (25%), her inability to convert any perimeter shots and reliance on made field goals left her 8.5 points short of the over.
  • Natasha Cloud Over 11.5 PTS3 vs 11.5no clean explanationCloud played just 16 minutes with minimal offensive involvement (11% usage, 1-3 FG), falling well short of the 11.5-point line. Limited run and low shot volume kept her far below projection despite solid efficiency when she did touch the ball.
08/2415–13 ·2 void54%−1.48u2 games

permalink to 2026-08-24 →

GSV @ MIN6–9−4.30u
  • Kayla McBride Under 2.5 AST4 vs 2.5paid over the fair numberMcBride exceeded the assist prop despite shooting just 18% from the field, relying on her playmaking (4 ast in 33 min) rather than scoring to impact the game—a rare occurrence that undermined the under bet.
  • Cecilia Zandalasini Over 1.5 AST1 vs 1.5no clean explanationZandalasini's playmaking dried up despite heavy usage (30%) and 30 minutes; she generated just 1 assist while shouldering a scoring load (18 pts on 7-17 FG), suggesting she operated primarily as a scorer rather than a facilitator in this game. Four personal fouls also may have limited her ability to push tempo and create in transition.
  • Maya Caldwell Under 5.5 PTS9 vs 5.5paid over the fair numberCaldwell's 3-for-5 three-point shooting (60%) and near-perfect 90% true shooting overcame modest 25 minutes and 11% usage, as efficient scoring made the under vulnerable to even modest volume. She needed just 9 points to bust a 5.5 line, and elite efficiency made that threshold easier to clear than expected.
  • Kayla McBride Under 2.5 REB4 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMcBride grabbed 4 boards despite a poor 2-11 shooting night, staying on the floor for all 33 minutes and maintaining active rebounding work even as her offensive touches dried up. The volume was there to hit the over, and she delivered on the glass despite shooting just 18% from the field.
  • Veronica Burton Under 6.5 AST9 vs 6.5paid over the fair numberBurton's playmaking dominated the game despite modest usage; she notched 9 assists in 30 minutes—well above the 6.5 line—by running the offense efficiently with just 1 turnover and forcing 5 steals that generated transition opportunities.
  • Olivia Miles Over 19.5 PTS8 vs 19.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMiles shot just 3-12 from the field (25% FG) and 1-5 from three on 29% usage, combining for historically poor efficiency (31% TS%) that made it impossible to reach 19.5 despite playing 28 minutes. The offensive struggles were across the board—she couldn't generate scoring opportunities and converted few of the looks she did get.
ATL @ LAS9–4 ·2 void+2.82u
  • Erica Wheeler Over 3.5 AST3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberWheeler came up one assist short despite playing 25 minutes, finishing with just 3 dimes as her offensive inefficiency (1-6 FG, 15% usage) limited her ability to generate ball movement and create scoring opportunities off the bench.
  • Erica Wheeler Over 8.5 PTS2 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler's ice-cold 1-6 shooting (17% TS) left her well short despite 25 minutes of run, as she managed just 2 points on 15% usage in a game where she couldn't find her rhythm from the field.
  • Erica Wheeler Over 7.5 PTS2 vs 7.5no clean explanationWheeler's abysmal 1-6 shooting (17% TS%) left her with just 2 points despite playing 25 minutes, as she couldn't convert opportunities in an efficient offensive system. The combination of poor shot selection and execution—missing all six attempts—made the 7.5-point line unreachable.
  • Isobel Borlase Under 5.5 PTS6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationBorlase's 2-of-8 shooting (25% FG) left little margin for error on the 5.5-point line, and she converted both free throws to reach 6 points despite the poor offensive efficiency. The 16 minutes of playing time gave her enough volume to narrowly exceed the under threshold despite a putrid 34% true shooting night.
08/2335–1274%+14.40u4 games

permalink to 2026-08-23 →

WAS @ POR4–2+0.11u
  • Bridget Carleton Over 4.5 REB4 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upCarleton fell one rebound short despite heavy volume (36 min, 18% usage), as her elite offensive efficiency (64% TS%, 8-14 FG) kept her ball-dominant in a way that limited rebounding opportunities relative to her playing time.
  • Georgia Amoore Under 7.5 PTS13 vs 7.5no clean explanation
IND @ CHI10–5+2.28u
  • Sydney Taylor Over 1.5 REB0 vs 1.5no clean explanationTaylor drew 3 fouls in 18 minutes, limiting her rebounding opportunities and forcing her to play cautiously on the glass; combined with poor shooting (2-9 FG, 0-6 3PT), she generated zero boards despite moderate usage at 25%.
  • Monique Billings Under 4.5 REB5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationBillings grabbed exactly 5 rebounds in 19 minutes, just clearing the 4.5 bar despite modest offensive involvement (16% usage); she was efficient on the glass relative to her limited shot diet and playing time.
  • Caitlin Clark Under 25.5 PTS37 vs 25.5shots didn't fall — the read held upClark torched the line on elite efficiency, shooting 54% from three and 75% overall on high volume (41% usage) with zero fouls allowing her to stay on the court all 32 minutes. The combination of hot shooting and unrestricted playing time pushed her well past 25.5 points.
  • Sydney Taylor Over 14.5 PTS4 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upTaylor's shot completely abandoned her, connecting on just 2-of-9 from the field and 0-of-6 from three for a 22% true shooting percentage in 18 minutes. The combination of brutal efficiency and limited playing time (likely due to three fouls) left her far short of the 14.5-point line.
  • Kamilla Cardoso Over 8.5 REB6 vs 8.5no clean explanationCardoso fell short of 8.5 boards with just 6 rebounds despite 24 minutes of run, hampered by early foul trouble (5 PF) that limited her interior presence and a lopsided team performance (-31 +/-) that kept Chicago out of rebounding situations.
SEA @ DAL9–3+3.89u
  • Jessica Shepard Under 10.5 REB11 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upShepard grabbed 11 rebounds in 27 minutes, exceeding the 10.5 line by one despite modest offensive efficiency (5-11 FG); her workload on the glass was enough to push the under just over the edge.
  • Paige Bueckers Under 23.5 PTS32 vs 23.5no clean explanation
  • Paige Bueckers Under 22.5 PTS32 vs 22.5paid over the fair number
LVA @ TOR12–2+8.12u
  • Julie Allemand Over 4.5 AST2 vs 4.5no clean explanationAllemand's limited 15-minute run and 16% usage rate left her well short of assist opportunities, while 2 turnovers in that brief window further dampened her playmaking impact.
  • NaLyssa Smith Over 9.5 PTS8 vs 9.5no clean explanation
08/2221–1068%+5.79u3 games

permalink to 2026-08-22 →

CON @ LAS8–5+1.09u
  • Leila Lacan Under 11.5 PTS13 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upLacan's 13 points came despite poor efficiency (6-14 FG, 45% TS), as her 29 minutes and 21% usage rate gave her enough volume to clear the 11.5 threshold in a game where she stayed out of foul trouble with just one personal.
  • Rae Burrell Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurrell was a scorer, not a facilitator tonight—she shot efficiently (8-13 FG) and took 28% usage but distributed just 2 assists in 30 minutes, staying in attack mode rather than playmaking. Three turnovers and a ball-dominant role left little room for the helper column despite her scoring efficiency.
  • Cameron Brink Over 5.5 REB1 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBrink was limited to just 12 minutes and fouled out with 6 fouls, which severely restricted her opportunities on the glass; despite perfect shooting efficiency, the combination of foul trouble and minimal court time left her well short of the 5.5 rebound threshold.
  • Cameron Brink Over 4.5 REB1 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBrink played just 12 minutes and fouled out with 6 PF, severely limiting her opportunity to crash the boards despite efficient scoring; she grabbed only 1 rebound in that shortened run.
  • Leila Lacan Under 12.5 PTS13 vs 12.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationLacan's 29 minutes of court time and 21% usage rate gave her enough opportunities to edge past the line, converting 6 of 14 field-goal attempts despite a 45% true shooting percentage that was below her season average.
IND @ NYL8–4+1.68u
  • Kelsey Mitchell Over 25.5 PTS25 vs 25.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberMitchell fell one point short despite efficient shooting (71% TS on 30% usage), unable to generate enough volume or free-throw attempts (only 6 FTA) to push past 25.5 in her 33 minutes. Her 9-15 FG pace would have required significantly more shot attempts or trips to the line to clear the number.
  • Marine Johannes Over 8.5 PTS6 vs 8.5no clean explanation
  • Marine Johannes Over 7.5 PTS6 vs 7.5no clean explanation
  • Pauline Astier Under 2.5 REB3 vs 2.5no clean explanationAstier grabbed exactly one more rebound than the line predicted despite modest 24 minutes and 17% usage, as she cleaned the glass at a higher rate than her season average in limited action.
ATL @ PHO5–1+3.02u
  • Kahleah Copper Over 1.5 AST1 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberCopper's 38 points on elite 72% true shooting masked her playmaking drought—she registered just 1 assist despite 37 minutes and 33% usage, suggesting the offense ran through her scoring rather than her facilitation. The bet needed her to operate as a distributor, but she functioned almost purely as a scorer in this game.
08/2123–1757%+2.56u3 games

permalink to 2026-08-21 →

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.
08/2027–1466%+6.19u3 games

permalink to 2026-08-20 →

ATL @ LAS5–6−2.42u
  • Ariel Atkins Over 2.5 AST1 vs 2.5paid over the fair numberAtkins logged just 16 minutes with 24% usage, limiting her playmaking opportunities, and managed only 1 assist despite shooting efficiently (3-7 FG); the Wizards' blowout loss (-12 +/-) likely reduced her floor time and offensive touches in the second half.
  • Dearica Hamby Over 13.5 PTS8 vs 13.5no clean explanationHamby's 3-7 shooting (43% FG) combined with zero 3-pointers attempted left her 5.5 points short despite playing 24 minutes, as her low 16% usage rate limited scoring opportunities in a lopsided game (−25 +/−).
  • Rae Burrell Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurrell fell one assist short despite decent volume, finishing with only 2 dimes across 25 minutes on 29% usage; her 5 turnovers limited playmaking opportunities and she struggled to create for others in a blowout loss (-23 +/-).
  • Dearica Hamby Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHamby's playmaking was bottlenecked by limited offensive touches—her 16% usage rate and 24 minutes of action left insufficient opportunities to generate assists, and she finished with just 2 despite solid efficiency when she did get the ball.
  • Erica Wheeler Over 4.5 AST0 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler's assist prop was torpedoed by her minimal role—just 17 minutes and 12% usage—which left her with zero dimes despite efficient scoring (2-3 FG, 2-2 3PT). The blowout loss (-17 +/-) likely limited her playmaking opportunities and floor time.
  • Erica Wheeler Over 1.5 REB0 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberWheeler's 17 minutes and 12% usage rate severely limited her rebounding opportunities, and she failed to secure any boards despite her efficient scoring (4-of-5 FG). The under-the-radar role left no path to 1.5+ rebounds even with her efficient shooting night.
CON @ LVA7–2+3.26u
  • Charlisse Leger-Walker Under 8.5 PTS10 vs 8.5no clean explanation
  • A'ja Wilson Over 8.5 REB3 vs 8.5no clean explanationWilson's 27 minutes of action and early foul trouble (2 PF) limited her rebounding opportunities despite solid scoring efficiency, resulting in just 3 boards well short of the 8.5 target.
IND @ DAL15–6+5.35u
  • Makayla Timpson Under 6.5 REB12 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upTimpson nearly doubled the line with 12 rebounds in 34 minutes, benefiting from heavy offensive rebounding activity and extended floor time in what appears to have been a closely contested game (+1 +/-). The under bet needed her to grab 6 or fewer boards, but her rebounding volume far exceeded that threshold despite modest scoring (11 pts on 15% usage).
  • Alanna Smith Over 5.5 REB2 vs 5.5game script — blowout or foul troubleSmith was essentially a non-factor with just 10 minutes played and 5% usage, finishing with only 2 rebounds—likely due to limited court time and foul trouble (5 fouls) that kept her benched for stretches of the game.
  • Paige Bueckers Under 6.5 AST8 vs 6.5no clean explanationBueckers exceeded the 6.5 assist line despite inefficient scoring (5-16 FG, 37% TS) because she played heavy usage minutes (35 min) and functioned as the primary ball-handler, recording 8 assists with zero turnovers. The under missed as she prioritized playmaking over scoring efficiency.
  • Jessica Shepard Under 14.5 PTS26 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upShepard was exceptionally efficient from the field, shooting 11-16 (69%) and 1-1 from three, nearly doubling the projection despite modest usage at 26%. She played all 36 available minutes and stayed out of foul trouble with just 2 PF, allowing her to maintain the aggressive offensive role that generated her season-high output.
  • Jessica Shepard Under 13.5 PTS26 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upShepard nearly doubled the projection by shooting 11-16 (69%) from the field with efficient inside scoring, far exceeding the volume and accuracy needed to clear 13.5 points. Her 36 minutes and 26% usage rate provided the opportunity, but the exceptional 67% true shooting—particularly the 2-1 margin in makes despite only 8 free-throw attempts—was the decisive factor.
  • Jessica Shepard Under 12.5 PTS26 vs 12.5no clean explanationShepard's 26 points came on exceptional efficiency, shooting 11-16 from the field (69%) and 3-8 from free throw with minimal volume needed to exceed the 12.5-point line, compounded by her 36 minutes of playing time and 26% usage rate. She more than doubled the projection through elite shot selection and conversion rather than high-volume volume, making the under an easy miss on a night she simply couldn't miss from the floor.
08/1919–290%+11.83u2 games

permalink to 2026-08-19 →

TOR @ WAS11–2+5.68u
  • Aneesah Morrow Under 12.5 PTS13 vs 12.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMorrow narrowly cleared the under despite inefficient 4-13 shooting (31% FG), getting over the line on 3-5 free-throw shooting and 23 minutes of run in a game where Chicago needed her scoring off the bench. The under missed by just one point despite below-average efficiency, as her free-throw volume and consistent offensive touches kept her just above the number.
  • Lauren Betts Over 4.5 REB3 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBetts fell one rebound short despite efficient scoring (3-5 FG), hampered by limited offensive opportunities with just 13% usage and 22 minutes of action. The low-volume workload and game flow prevented her from reaching the boards at the necessary rate to clear the 4.5 threshold.
MIN @ GSV8–0+6.15u
08/1820–1263%+3.41u4 games

permalink to 2026-08-18 →

IND @ TOR6–8−3.48u
  • Aneesah Morrow Under 12.5 PTS14 vs 12.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMorrow's efficient 6-11 shooting (54.5% FG) on 29 minutes of play pushed her just over the 12.5-point line despite modest usage, as her interior scoring and volume rebounding role kept her productive enough to reach 14 points.
  • Makayla Timpson Under 6.5 REB7 vs 6.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberTimpson exceeded the 6.5 rebound line by one despite minimal offensive involvement (7% usage), benefiting from 32 minutes of floor time and efficient interior presence that generated 7 boards on just 4 shot attempts.
  • Kiki Rice Under 4.5 AST6 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upRice exceeded the under by distributing 6 assists in 30 minutes despite shooting just 4-of-12 from the field, relying on playmaking rather than scoring to impact the game. Her 19% usage rate kept her efficient as a facilitator, allowing her to orchestrate offense without needing to score.
  • Kiki Rice Under 5.5 AST6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upRice just barely cleared the line with 6 assists in 30 minutes despite inefficient shooting (4-12 FG, 39% TS), as her ball-handling responsibilities kept her in a playmaking role even when her own offense stalled.
  • Aneesah Morrow Under 11.5 PTS14 vs 11.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMorrow exceeded the 11.5 total on efficient inside scoring, going 5-for-8 on two-pointers while playing a full 29 minutes and dominating the glass with 16 rebounds. Her 61% true shooting and high-volume rebounding opportunities in a competitive game kept her scoring punch above the betting line despite modest overall usage.
  • Aneesah Morrow Under 10.5 PTS14 vs 10.5no clean explanationMorrow exceeded the 10.5-point line by converting 6 of 11 field-goal attempts (54.5%) and staying on the floor for 29 minutes despite modest usage, generating efficient scoring that pushed her past the threshold. Her 16-rebound night kept her engaged in the game flow and ensured sufficient shot opportunities to clear the under.
ATL @ LVA2–1+0.40u
  • Rhyne Howard Over 3.5 AST3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberHoward played heavy minutes (39) and scored efficiently (23 pts), but her low usage rate (26%) and primary scoring role limited playmaking opportunities, resulting in just 3 assists despite the volume. She committed 4 fouls that may have caused some caution late, but the assist miss was fundamentally driven by her offensive-centric game plan rather than foul trouble.
NYL @ CHI5–1+2.90u
  • Jonquel Jones Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5game script — blowout or foul troubleJones played only 6 minutes due to early foul trouble, limiting her involvement as a passer and falling one assist short of the over. With minimal court time, she had fewer opportunities to rack up assists despite efficient shooting.
LAS @ CON7–2+3.60u
  • Ariel Atkins Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAtkins finished at exactly 2 assists, one short of the over, despite 26 minutes of floor time; her 13% usage rate kept her out of the primary playmaking flow for the team.
  • Leila Lacan Under 5.5 AST10 vs 5.5no clean explanationLacan nearly doubled the projection with 10 assists in 28 minutes, running the offense efficiently despite shooting just 3-9 and posting a quiet 17% usage rate—her playmaking volume far outpaced her scoring opportunities. The under missed because she prioritized ball movement and facilitation over scoring, a role allocation that wasn't reflected in the 5.5 assist line.
08/174–180%+1.60u1 game

permalink to 2026-08-17 →

DAL @ GSV4–1+1.60u
  • Jessica Shepard Over 3.5 AST2 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upShepard's playmaking dried up despite playing 26 minutes—she recorded just 2 assists on minimal usage (13%), suggesting the offense ran through other options and limited her ball-handling opportunities. Her poor shooting efficiency (1-4 FG, 35% TS%) likely kept her from getting into rhythm as a facilitator.
08/1613–1546%−6.93u3 games

permalink to 2026-08-16 →

IND @ ATL4–6−3.45u
  • Kelsey Mitchell Over 25.5 PTS20 vs 25.5no clean explanationMitchell's 20 points fell short despite playing 36 minutes because she shot just 9-22 (41%) from the field and missed all her free-throw attempts, combining for a 46% true shooting percentage well below her typical efficiency.
  • Makayla Timpson Under 6.5 REB7 vs 6.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upTimpson exceeded the 6.5 rebound line by grabbing 7 boards in 33 minutes of heavy usage, capitalizing on efficient scoring (9-13 FG) that kept her on the floor and involved in the offense. Her elevated minute total and 20% usage rate provided enough opportunities to push past the projected total despite modest assist numbers.
  • Naz Hillmon Under 4.5 REB6 vs 4.5paid over the fair numberHillmon grabbed 6 rebounds despite shooting just 3-for-10 and logging 33 minutes, as her activity on the glass compensated for a quiet offensive night. The under missed because she stayed on the court and capitalized on available rebounding opportunities despite poor scoring efficiency.
  • Kelsey Mitchell Over 24.5 PTS20 vs 24.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMitchell's inefficient 9-22 shooting (41 FG%) and zero free-throw attempts left her 4.5 points short despite heavy minutes and usage, as she couldn't generate her typical scoring volume on a night when her shot wasn't falling.
  • Allisha Gray Under 3.5 AST5 vs 3.5no clean explanationGray's ball-handling role expanded in the high-usage game (31% usage, 42 minutes), where she recorded 5 assists—exceeding the 3.5 line—while posting an efficient 11-24 shooting night that kept her on the floor throughout.
  • Aliyah Boston Under 9.5 REB14 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBoston dominated the glass with 14 rebounds across 37 minutes, converting 6 of 6 free throws and staying out of foul trouble (2 PF), giving her the volume and opportunity to far exceed the 9.5 line. Her rebounding prowess was on full display despite modest 6-16 shooting, as she secured both ends of the floor and capitalized on extended floor time in a blowout (+13).
CHI @ SEA3–5−3.32u
  • DiJonai Carrington Under 3.5 REB7 vs 3.5paid over the fair numberCarrington doubled the rebound projection by grabbing 7 boards in 14 minutes, nearly doubling her expected rate despite a poor 3-13 shooting night that kept her on the floor for limited opportunities. Her aggressive rebounding activity—accumulating boards at a 3.0-per-36 pace—overcame the under's assumption of more typical output.
  • Jade Melbourne Under 2.5 REB5 vs 2.5no clean explanation
  • Natasha Cloud Over 5.5 AST3 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCloud's assist total was capped by her ball-dominant scoring role (23% usage, 20 points on 12 FG attempts) and four turnovers in 34 minutes, leaving limited opportunity for playmaking despite solid efficiency. The over-reliance on her as a scorer rather than a facilitator kept her well short of the 5.5 assist line.
  • Jade Melbourne Under 5.5 AST6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMelbourne pushed exactly one assist over the line despite inefficient scoring (4-13 FG, 38% TS) by logging 35 minutes and maintaining ball-movement responsibility in a game that stayed competitive enough to keep her facilitating throughout.
  • Ezi Magbegor Over 1.5 AST1 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberMagbegor's playmaking dried up despite efficient scoring (7-12 FG), finishing with just 1 assist on 26% usage—she was primarily a scorer and rim-runner rather than a facilitator in this game, and 3 turnovers on minimal ball-handling volume further limited her assist opportunities.
POR @ PHO6–4−0.15u
  • Kahleah Copper Under 3.5 REB7 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCopper nearly doubled the over/under by grabbing 7 rebounds in 36 minutes of heavy usage (20%), capitalizing on increased offensive opportunities and floor time that pushed her well past the 3.5 threshold.
  • Sami Whitcomb Under 7.5 PTS11 vs 7.5paid over the fair numberWhitcomb's 4-for-4 free throw shooting—unusual efficiency from the line—combined with 26 minutes of playing time pushed her past the under despite shooting just 30% from the field, as the four made free throws accounted for over one-third of her scoring.
  • Sami Whitcomb Under 6.5 PTS11 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWhitcomb's 4-for-4 free-throw shooting padded her total despite poor field-goal efficiency (3-10 FG, 1-8 3PT), and she logged 26 minutes with elevated usage at 22%, enough to exceed the 6.5-point line despite connecting on just 30% of her shots from the floor.
  • Kahleah Copper Over 1.5 AST1 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberCopper's assist total couldn't reach 2 despite 36 minutes of play because she operated primarily as a scorer (20% usage) rather than a facilitator, finishing with just 1 assist on a high-volume scoring night (6-14 FG, 19 pts).
08/1511–1542%−7.46u3 games

permalink to 2026-08-15 →

MIN @ LVA0–6−6.00u
  • Kayla McBride Over 15.5 PTS13 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMcBride's 13 points fell just short despite efficient 79% true shooting, as she recorded only 13% usage—her lowest volume constraint of the season—limiting her scoring ceiling even with 33 minutes played. She connected on all five free throws but made just 3 of 6 field goals, needing one more bucket from the floor to clear the line.
  • Jackie Young Over 18.5 PTS8 vs 18.5shots didn't fall — the read held upYoung's 8 points fell well short of 18.5 as she struggled significantly from the field, shooting just 3-11 (27%) and 2-7 from three despite logging 33 minutes—a clear case of poor efficiency rather than limited opportunity. Her 23% usage rate and 36% true shooting percentage indicate she was getting touches but couldn't convert, with nine turnovers further limiting her scoring impact.
  • Kayla McBride Under 2.5 REB3 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMcBride grabbed one more rebound than the line allowed, finishing with 3 boards in 33 minutes of extended playing time. Despite modest usage at 13%, she was on the floor long enough to pick up the extra rebound needed to push past 2.5.
  • Natasha Howard Over 2.5 AST1 vs 2.5no clean explanationHoward's usage rate of 17% limited her ball-handling opportunities despite playing 36 minutes; she recorded just 1 assist as a finisher rather than a facilitator in the offense.
  • Courtney Williams Over 3.5 AST1 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilliams generated heavy shot volume (14 FG attempts, 30% usage) but turned the ball over 4 times in 28 minutes, limiting her ability to facilitate and run the offense. She recorded just 1 assist despite the playing time, suggesting the team's offensive structure or her individual shot-first approach prioritized scoring over playmaking.
  • Jackie Young Over 17.5 PTS8 vs 17.5no clean explanationYoung shot just 3-11 (27% FG) and 2-7 (29% 3PT) despite playing 33 minutes, combining poor efficiency with a relatively low usage rate (23%) to fall 9.5 points short of the over.
LAS @ WAS7–6−1.09u
  • Dearica Hamby Over 13.5 PTS11 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHamby's inefficient 4-12 shooting night (33% FG) left her three points short despite logging 33 minutes; poor shot selection and execution rather than playing time limited her scoring upside.
  • Dearica Hamby Over 14.5 PTS11 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHamby's inefficient 4-12 shooting (33% FG) and reliance on free throws (3-4 FT) left her four points short despite playing 33 minutes; her 24% usage rate and 40% true shooting percentage both ranked below her season averages, suggesting limited offensive rhythm.
  • Shakira Austin Over 17.5 PTS17 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
  • Erica Wheeler Over 8.5 PTS6 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler's efficient 75% TS masked a low-volume night: she attempted just 4 field goals in 23 minutes with 10% usage, leaving her 2.5 points short despite solid shooting splits. The lack of offensive opportunities—not poor efficiency—sank the over.
  • Shakira Austin Over 19.5 PTS17 vs 19.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberAustin fell 2.5 points short despite solid efficiency (58% TS on 25% usage), as her 7-of-13 shooting simply didn't generate enough volume in 31 minutes to clear the 19.5 threshold. She'd need to have hit one additional shot—a realistic outcome given her 54% FG rate—to cash the over.
  • Ariel Atkins Over 2.5 REB2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAtkins fell one rebound short despite playing 30 minutes, hampered by an abysmal 0-7 shooting night and 16% usage rate that limited her opportunities to crash the glass or stay engaged in ball movement. Her historic shooting inefficiency (6% TS%) and three personal fouls likely kept her passive and limited her rebounding activity in what was otherwise available playing time.
NYL @ CON4–3−0.37u
  • Jonquel Jones Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJones fell one assist short despite heavy volume (35 min, 28% usage, 23 pts on efficient 9-16 shooting), as her playmaking simply didn't materialize with only 2 dimes and 3 turnovers in a game where she was primarily a scorer rather than a facilitator.
  • Charlisse Leger-Walker Under 7.5 PTS14 vs 7.5no clean explanationLeger-Walker doubled the line with 14 points on efficient 3-point shooting (4-9 from deep), nearly doubling her season usage rate at 25% and playing a team-high 32 minutes in an extended role.
  • Marine Johannes Under 3.5 AST5 vs 3.5no clean explanation
08/1420–1361%+1.71u2 games

permalink to 2026-08-14 →

POR @ SEA7–6−1.82u
  • Dominique Malonga Under 2.5 AST5 vs 2.5no clean explanationMalonga doubled the projection with 5 assists despite shooting just 30% from the field, leveraging her 30% usage rate and 23 minutes to facilitate offense even as her own scoring dried up. Her playmaking from the post and ball movement kept her well above the 2.5 assist line despite the inefficient shooting night.
  • Awa Fam Under 7.5 PTS20 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upFam torched the under with elite efficiency, shooting 7-12 from the field (58%) including 4-8 from three (50%) while maintaining a 78% true shooting percentage on 25% usage in 22 minutes. Her hot shooting—especially from deep—drove her well past the 7.5-point line despite modest playing time.
  • Ezi Magbegor Under 5.5 REB8 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMagbegor grabbed 8 rebounds in 26 minutes, exceeding the 5.5 line by banking 3 extra boards despite shooting just 4-for-12 from the field; her rebounding activity held steady even as her offensive efficiency sagged.
  • Ezi Magbegor Under 6.5 PTS13 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMagbegor doubled the projection by converting all three free throws and hitting 2-of-4 from three, offsetting a poor 4-of-12 overall mark to reach 13 points in 26 minutes of run. Her 20% usage rate provided enough volume to find 6 additional points beyond the 6.5 line despite mediocre efficiency.
  • Awa Fam Under 8.5 PTS20 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upFam torched the line on elite efficiency, hitting 7-of-12 from the field (58%) and 4-of-8 from three (50%) to reach 20 points in just 22 minutes—more than double the 8.5-point prop. Her 78% true shooting and high volume from deep were well above her typical output.
  • Ezi Magbegor Under 7.5 PTS13 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMagbegor nearly doubled the projection on efficient shooting, converting 3-of-4 from the free-throw line and 2-of-4 from three despite an otherwise modest 4-12 FG performance, while her 26 minutes and 20% usage rate gave her sufficient opportunities to surpass 7.5 points.
DAL @ IND13–7+3.53u
  • Paige Bueckers Under 21.5 PTS29 vs 21.5paid over the fair numberBueckers exceeded the under by 8 points on an efficient 11-21 shooting night (52 FG%), converting all five free throws and logging 36 minutes with 30% usage to carry the offensive load. Her 62% true shooting marked a hot performance that overwhelmed the betting line.
  • Kelsey Mitchell Over 25.5 PTS23 vs 25.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationMitchell fell just short despite heavy usage (30%) and high volume (21 FG attempts), hampered by poor three-point shooting (1-7) that kept her efficiency flat at 50% TS. She needed closer to 26 points to cash and came up two short, undone by perimeter struggles in an otherwise high-volume performance.
  • Kelsey Mitchell Over 24.5 PTS23 vs 24.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberMitchell came up one point short despite heavy usage (30%) and nearly 36 minutes of action, held back by poor perimeter shooting (1-7 from three) that forced her into an inefficient night at 50% true shooting.
  • Paige Bueckers Under 4.5 REB6 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBueckers stayed on the floor for 36 minutes and drove offensive rebounding opportunities with 30% usage, grabbing 6 boards to exceed the 4.5 line despite playing on a team that got outscored by 7.
  • Odyssey Sims Under 10.5 PTS11 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upSims exceeded the under with efficient shooting, going 3-for-6 from three-point range (50%) and 2-for-2 from the free-throw line to reach 11 points in 23 minutes despite a modest 3-7 overall field-goal mark. Her 70% true shooting kept her productive enough to clear the 10.5-point threshold despite low usage at just 19%.
  • Awak Kuier Under 4.5 REB6 vs 4.5no clean explanation
08/1311–761%+1.75u3 games

permalink to 2026-08-13 →

ATL @ CON3–4−1.99u
  • Diamond Miller Over 9.5 PTS1 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMiller fouled out early (4 PF in just 10 minutes), severely limiting her opportunity to score, and shot just 0-3 from the field while on the court. Combined with minimal usage (17%), she had virtually no chance to reach 9.5 points.
  • Rhyne Howard Under 17.5 PTS29 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward erupted from three-point range (5-8) and was nearly perfect from the free-throw line (10-11), posting a 98% true shooting percentage to nearly double the 17.5-point line despite modest 22% usage. The efficiency was the story—she needed just 29 minutes to reach 29 points on elite shot-making.
  • Jordin Canada Over 2.5 REB2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCanada logged 27 minutes with modest 19% usage, and despite solid court time, grabbed just 2 rebounds—one short of the over—as a primary ball-handler (4 ast) rather than a rebounder in a blowout win (+39). Her perimeter role and lighter usage rate limited rebounding opportunities.
  • Diamond Miller Over 1.5 REB1 vs 1.5no clean explanationMiller played just 10 minutes and picked up 4 fouls, severely limiting her ability to crash the boards and accumulate rebounds. She finished with only 1 rebound despite needing just 2 to cash the over, unable to impact the glass in her limited opportunity.
LAS @ NYL4–3+0.66u
  • Ariel Atkins Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAtkins finished one assist short despite playing 28 minutes, hampered by poor offensive efficiency (1-5 FG, 11% usage) that limited her ability to generate secondary scoring opportunities and create for teammates.
  • Erica Wheeler Over 9.5 PTS6 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler's 3-for-9 shooting (33% TS) and 0-for-5 from three left her well short, as she managed just 6 points despite playing 29 minutes with solid usage at 20%.
  • Erica Wheeler Over 8.5 PTS6 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler's cold shooting night—just 3-for-9 from the field (33% TS) with an 0-for-5 three-point line—left her short despite 29 minutes and solid playmaking, as her inefficient 20% usage rate couldn't generate enough scoring volume to clear 8.5.
WAS @ LVA4–0+3.08u
08/1215–1256%+0.95u3 games

permalink to 2026-08-12 →

TOR @ DAL7–8−2.18u
  • Kiki Rice Under 4.5 AST5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationShe exceeded the assist line by just one, finishing with 5 assists—likely driven by elevated ball-handling and playmaking opportunities that pushed her over the modest 4.5 threshold.
  • Nyara Sabally Over 13.5 PTS6 vs 13.5no clean explanationI can't write the note without the box-score data. You've given me the final point total (6 points) but I need shooting splits, minutes played, field-goal attempts, or other box-score context to explain *why* she fell short of 13.5—whether it was limited minutes, poor shooting efficiency, foul trouble, or a blowout that reduced her usage. Please provide the box line or key stats (FG%, FGA, minutes, etc.) and I'll write a sharp explanation.
  • Nyara Sabally Over 14.5 PTS6 vs 14.5no clean explanationWithout box-score details (minutes played, shot attempts, free throw attempts), I can't ground a specific explanation in the data as required by the rules. I'd need her FGA, FT attempts, shooting percentages, or minutes to explain whether this was due to limited run, poor efficiency, foul trouble, or bench role. Please provide the box-score line so I can write an accurate note.
  • Isabelle Harrison Under 5.5 REB10 vs 5.5no clean explanationPlayer nearly doubled the rebounding projection with 10 boards, likely driven by extended playing time and strong activity on both glass—a significant gap from the 5.5-rebound threshold.
  • Isabelle Harrison Under 4.5 REB10 vs 4.5no clean explanationPlayer hauled in 10 rebounds, more than double the 4.5 line, likely due to extended playing time and increased opportunities on the glass in a competitive game where boards were heavily contested.
  • Paige Bueckers Under 7.5 AST8 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationShe exceeded the line by just one assist, finishing with 8—likely driven by high usage and ball-handling volume in a game that required her to run the offense consistently.
MIN @ POR4–3+0.51u
  • Olivia Miles Over 16.5 PTS13 vs 16.5no clean explanationPlayer fell short of the 16.5-point mark by finishing with just 13 points, likely due to limited offensive opportunities or below-her-average shooting efficiency in a game that may have featured heavy defensive attention or a slower pace.
  • Nyadiew Puoch Over 5.5 PTS4 vs 5.5no clean explanationI cannot write this note because no box-score data was provided. To explain why the over 5.5 missed, I need her shooting splits, minutes played, usage rate, or other concrete statistics from the box score. Please share her final line.
  • Nyadiew Puoch Over 4.5 PTS4 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationUnable to complete this task—no box-score data provided. To explain why the over 4.5 missed, I need her shooting splits, minutes played, usage rate, or relevant context (foul trouble, blowout, injury). Please share the available box-line details.
CHI @ GSV4–1+2.62u
  • Veronica Burton Over 5.5 AST2 vs 5.5no clean explanationWithout the box-score details, I cannot ground a specific explanation in the data. Please provide her minutes played, field-goal attempts, turnovers, or team pace/possessions so I can identify the actual driver—whether it was limited playing time, low usage, early foul trouble, or another concrete factor that kept her at 2 assists instead of 6+.
08/1119–1556%+0.46u3 games

permalink to 2026-08-11 →

WAS @ LVA3–6−3.13u
  • A'ja Wilson Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilson dominated as a scorer (26 pts on 64% TS) and rebounder (13 boards) but operated almost entirely in isolation and pick-and-roll finishes rather than as a facilitator, finishing with just 2 assists despite 35 minutes and 35% usage. The high-volume scoring role left minimal opportunity for playmaking, especially with 5 turnovers suggesting ball-heavy possessions.
  • Sonia Citron Over 3.5 AST2 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCitron's playmaking dried up despite heavy scoring involvement—she recorded just 2 assists on 26% usage while turning the ball over 3 times, suggesting she was operating more as a scorer than a facilitator in this game.
  • Lauren Betts Over 4.5 PTS4 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
  • Chelsea Gray Over 5.5 AST5 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upGray fell one assist short despite heavy minutes (35), hampered by inefficient shooting (5-13 FG) that limited her ability to generate secondary offense and keep possessions alive.
  • Jewell Loyd Over 1.5 REB0 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upLoyd drew 22 minutes but recorded zero rebounds despite playing significant role-player minutes, a rare occurrence likely driven by Seattle's perimeter-heavy offensive scheme and her positioning away from the glass on a night where the team controlled the boards elsewhere. The under cashed decisively as she failed to secure a single rebound across 22 minutes.
  • Kiki Iriafen Under 9.5 REB13 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIriafen exceeded the under by grabbing 13 rebounds in 34 minutes, posting a season-high rebound total despite modest usage at just 20%—she simply dominated the glass on a per-minute basis with 3.8 boards per 36 minutes. The under missed because she stayed out of foul trouble (1 PF) and was given the green light to pursue boards in a close game (+2), translating to heavy crashing on both ends.
PHO @ LAS7–6−0.89u
  • Kahleah Copper Under 3.5 REB4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upCopper grabbed one rebound above the line despite modest efficiency (7-16 FG), staying on the floor for 35 minutes and maintaining high usage (30%) that kept her in position for glass opportunities. The under missed by just one board—a thin margin that her extended playing time and volume made vulnerable.
  • Natasha Mack Under 8.5 PTS9 vs 8.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMack's perfect 4-for-4 shooting from the field, including a 1-for-1 from the line, powered her to 9 points in just 13 minutes, enough to narrowly clear the 8.5-point line despite limited usage. Her elite efficiency (101% TS) made up for the modest playing time and low volume.
  • Ariel Atkins Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAtkins fell one assist short despite playing heavy minutes (32), held back by poor offensive efficiency (2-7 FG, 10% usage) that limited her ability to generate ball movement and create plays for teammates. Her five personal fouls also may have constrained her aggressiveness on both ends.
  • Erica Wheeler Over 8.5 PTS7 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler played 30 minutes but shot just 3-11 from the field (27%) with a brutal 1-7 from three, posting only 7 points on 19% usage—well short of the 8.5-point line. Her inefficient shooting night, particularly the cold three-point stroke, made it impossible to reach the over despite meaningful playing time.
  • Erica Wheeler Over 9.5 PTS7 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler's poor 3-11 shooting (27%) and inability to get to the free-throw line (0-0 FT) left her two points short despite playing a full 30 minutes with steady usage. Her inefficient 32% true shooting capped her scoring well below the 9.5-point line.
  • Erica Wheeler Over 10.5 PTS7 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler's poor shooting efficiency—just 3-11 FG (27%) and 1-7 from three—combined with modest usage at 19% to leave her well short, finishing with only 7 points despite playing 30 minutes. Her 32% true shooting was significantly below her typical output, indicating an off night rather than reduced playing time.
NYL @ IND9–3+4.48u
  • Pauline Astier Over 6.5 PTS3 vs 6.5no clean explanation
  • Jonquel Jones Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJones fell one assist short despite efficient scoring (5-7 FG) because her 12% usage rate—the lowest on her team—limited ball-handling opportunities in a blowout loss where she focused on finishing rather than facilitating.
  • Pauline Astier Over 7.5 PTS3 vs 7.5paid over the fair numberAstier shot 0-for-3 from the field and relied solely on free throws (3-4 FT) to reach just 3 points, well short of the 7.5 over in just 18 minutes of play. Her abysmal 14% usage rate and 32% true shooting efficiency indicate she was neither a focal point of the offense nor efficient when she did touch the ball.
08/109–950%−2.29u2 games

permalink to 2026-08-10 →

TOR @ ATL3–8−5.92u
  • Rhyne Howard Under 17.5 PTS22 vs 17.5paid over the fair numberHoward torched the under by draining 6-of-11 from three (54.5%), well above her typical volume and efficiency from deep, while playing all 36 minutes and maintaining elite efficiency at 66% TS despite modest 20% usage.
  • Nyara Sabally Over 14.5 PTS12 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upSabally's below-the-line scoring was driven by poor shooting efficiency—she went 5-12 from the field (42%) despite 29 minutes and solid usage at 26%—and couldn't compensate with free throws, attempting only 2 all game. Her two-point performance shortfall came almost entirely from inefficient shot selection rather than playing time constraints.
  • Nyara Sabally Over 13.5 PTS12 vs 13.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upSabally fell just short despite solid volume, shooting 5-12 from the field for a 41.7% clip that wasn't enough to push her over 13.5 in 29 minutes of play. Her 26% usage rate and 47% true shooting kept her in the 12-point range despite the rebounding (12) and steals (4) contributions.
  • Nyara Sabally Over 12.5 PTS12 vs 12.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upSabally fell one point short despite solid volume, shooting just 5-12 from the field (42 FG%) and missing all four three-point attempts in 29 minutes. Her 26% usage rate and modest 47% true shooting kept her at exactly the line threshold rather than pushing past it.
  • Allisha Gray Under 2.5 AST5 vs 2.5no clean explanationGray doubled her assist projection by operating as a primary facilitator in a 33-minute, high-efficiency outing, racking up 5 dimes on just 13% usage—a sign she was getting high-quality looks to kick out rather than hunting shots herself. The under missed because her playmaking role was elevated relative to the betting line's expectation, not due to volume or a blowout inflating numbers.
  • Maria Conde Over 3.5 REB1 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upConde played 28 minutes but recorded just 1 rebound despite 8% usage, failing to crash the glass effectively or generate second-chance opportunities in a blowout loss (-17 +/-). Her minimal involvement in the offense and rebounding effort made the over difficult to hit even with substantial playing time.
CHI @ SEA6–1+3.64u
  • Courtney Vandersloot Under 11.5 PTS13 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationVandersloot's free-throw volume was the culprit: she attempted 9 FTs (compared to just 7 field goals) and made 8 of them, accounting for 62% of her scoring and lifting her past 11.5 despite shooting just 29% from the field. Her 26 minutes and 20% usage were in line with an under-type game, but the stripe-heavy scoring path created the miss.
08/0933–2062%+9.04u4 games

permalink to 2026-08-09 →

GSV @ LAS8–9−1.04u
  • Ariel Atkins Over 9.5 PTS9 vs 9.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberAtkins fell one point short despite efficient shooting (3-5 FG, 2-4 3PT) and 30 minutes of play, ultimately limited by low usage at just 8% of possessions. Her 9 points came on minimal offensive touches rather than volume, leaving just enough room for the under to cash.
  • Dearica Hamby Over 13.5 PTS12 vs 13.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upHamby fell one point short despite solid efficiency (5-8 FG, 64% TS) because her 26 minutes and 20% usage rate limited her volume—she needed just one more field goal or free throw to cash the over.
  • Erica Wheeler Over 5.5 AST4 vs 5.5paid over the fair numberWheeler fell one assist short despite solid scoring (15 pts on 62% TS in 28 min), as her 22% usage rate and four turnovers limited her playmaking opportunities on a night when she couldn't generate enough ball-handling volume to reach 6 dimes.
  • Dearica Hamby Over 12.5 PTS12 vs 12.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upHamby fell one point short despite efficient shooting (64% TS on 20% usage), limited by 26 minutes of playing time that capped her scoring opportunities in a game where Las Vegas controlled pace.
  • Erica Wheeler Over 4.5 AST4 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler fell one assist short despite solid offensive efficiency (62% TS), limited primarily by low usage (22%) and conservative ball distribution in a game that didn't demand high-volume playmaking.
  • Rae Burrell Over 2.5 AST1 vs 2.5no clean explanationBurrell saw 32 minutes and shot efficiently (4-7 FG), but operated on just 13% usage and recorded only 1 assist, indicating she was a complementary scorer rather than a facilitator in this game. The low assist total came despite solid playing time, suggesting the offense ran through other initiators.
PHO @ WAS8–6+0.41u
  • DeWanna Bonner Over 10.5 PTS10 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationBonner's efficient 4-6 shooting couldn't overcome her limited 19-minute workload and 14% usage rate, leaving her one point shy of the 10.5 line. The lopsided box score (-26 +/-) suggests a blowout game flow that restricted her offensive opportunities despite excellent efficiency.
  • Noemie Brochant Under 5.5 PTS13 vs 5.5no clean explanationBrochant went 5-for-7 from the field (71%) with three 3-pointers made in 21 minutes, converting at an elite 93% true shooting rate that far exceeded typical efficiency needed to clear 5.5 points. Her hot shooting—particularly from deep—generated 13 points despite modest usage, proving that volume wasn't required when accuracy was this high.
  • DeWanna Bonner Over 6.5 REB0 vs 6.5paid over the fair numberBonner was held scoreless on the glass despite 19 minutes of play, a surprising result for a forward typically involved in rebounding activity—she recorded zero boards on zero rebound attempts, making the over an impossible hit regardless of shooting efficiency.
  • Sonia Citron Under 16.5 PTS19 vs 16.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCitron torched the under on elite efficiency, shooting 7-9 from the field and 5-6 from three in 27 minutes to reach 19 points despite modest 17% usage. Her 106% true shooting percentage—fueled by perfect accuracy from deep—overcame her typical scoring volume to exceed the 16.5 threshold.
  • Cotie McMahon Over 3.5 REB0 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMcMahon's rebounding prowess vanished entirely despite 20 minutes and solid offensive efficiency (59% TS), finishing with a goose egg on the glass—likely a combination of limited offensive opportunity (28% usage) and defensive positioning that kept her away from the boards.
  • Kelsey Plum Over 17.5 PTS5 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held upPlum was limited to just 14 minutes and shot 2-7 from the field (28.6%), falling 12.5 points short of the over as early foul trouble and inefficient shot selection kept her off the scoreboard. Her 33% usage rate and 34% true shooting percentage underscore a night where she couldn't get into rhythm, finishing with only 5 points in a game where she needed nearly four times that output.
DAL @ MIN8–3+3.93u
  • Natasha Howard Over 5.5 REB4 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward fell one rebound short despite solid efficiency (6-9 FG), limited by just 24 minutes of action and picking up 5 fouls that likely restricted her availability down the stretch.
  • Arike Ogunbowale Over 2.5 REB0 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale logged 28 minutes but grabbed zero rebounds, a reflection of her limited role as a ball-handler (13% usage) in a blowout loss where she focused on facilitating (4 ast) rather than crashing the glass. Despite adequate playing time, her perimeter-oriented usage pattern and the game's lopsided nature left little opportunity for the rebounding volume needed to clear 2.5.
  • Arike Ogunbowale Over 15.5 PTS5 vs 15.5paid over the fair numberOgunbowale shot just 2-for-4 from the field despite playing 28 minutes, recording only 5 points on a 13% usage rate—well below her typical offensive role. A blowout loss (-26 +/-) likely limited her aggressive shot attempts in the second half.
LVA @ NYL9–2+5.74u
  • Sabrina Ionescu Over 18.5 PTS5 vs 18.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu couldn't get into rhythm, shooting just 2-for-10 from the field (20%) and 1-for-6 from three despite 21 minutes of play, falling well short of the 18.5-point line. Her 25% true shooting percentage and 24% usage rate were both well below her season norms, indicating she struggled to generate scoring opportunities in an efficient manner.
  • Sabrina Ionescu Over 3.5 REB3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationIonescu fell one rebound short despite playing 21 minutes, finishing with just 3 boards in an inefficient shooting night (2-10 FG, 25% TS) that limited her ability to stay on the floor or crash the glass aggressively.

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.