← priced_lineedges_floored · WNBA
2026-08-25
Day by day
Latest 1 graded days from the same CORE benchmark shown in the headline, charts and sheet: priced_lineedges_floored.
8–11 · 42% · −3.87u across the last 1 days
08/258–1142%−3.87u3 games
WAS @ PHO3–6−3.13u
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Natasha Mack Under 8.5 PTS19 vs 8.5no clean explanationMack torched the under by shooting 9-of-12 from the field (75% FG) in 25 minutes, nearly doubling the betting line with efficient interior scoring that required no three-point attempts or free throws to reach 19 points. Her 76% true shooting and high volume from close range exploited a matchup that the oddsmakers had underestimated.
- Shakira Austin Over 16.5 PTS16 vs 16.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upAustin fell one point short despite solid efficiency (61% TS on 28% usage), ultimately limited by 24 minutes of playing time that capped her scoring opportunities just below the line.
CHI @ CON2–3−1.28u
- 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.
POR @ DAL3–2+0.53u
- 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.
- 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.
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.