← priced_lineedges_floored · WNBA
2026-09-30
Day by day
Latest 1 graded days from the same CORE benchmark shown in the headline, charts and sheet: priced_lineedges_floored.
11–15 · 42% · −5.86u across the last 1 days
09/3011–1542%−5.86u2 games
ATL @ WAS5–8−3.53u
- DeWanna Bonner Over 1.5 AST0 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBonner's limited 14-minute run and low 20% usage rate gave her minimal playmaking opportunity, and she recorded zero assists despite shooting efficiently, resulting in a complete miss on the over. Foul trouble (3 PF) likely restricted her floor time and prevented the ball-handling role needed to accumulate assists.
- Georgia Amoore Over 7.5 PTS2 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAmoore's catastrophic 1-5 shooting (20% TS) and 0-4 from three—combined with just 11% usage despite 28 minutes—left her well short of 7.5 points; she scored only 2 and couldn't generate offensive opportunities even with extended floor time.
- Lauren Betts Over 4.5 PTS0 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBetts saw limited run (11 minutes) with minimal offensive opportunities (12% usage), going scoreless on her lone field-goal attempt in what appears to have been a blowout situation (-6 +/-). The restricted role and low shot volume made it nearly impossible to reach 4.5 points.
- Cotie McMahon Over 3.5 PTS0 vs 3.5game script — blowout or foul troubleMcMahon saw just 1 minute of action and took no shots, recording a complete goose egg on the stat sheet. Minimal playing time made the Over 3.5 an impossible ask.
- Allisha Gray Under 19.5 PTS22 vs 19.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationGray's efficient 44% overall shooting (8-18 FG) and perfect 3-for-3 free-throw night pushed her past the 19.5 line despite modest 27% usage, as she capitalized on her 35 minutes of court time with 57% true shooting.
- Georgia Amoore Over 8.5 PTS2 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAmoore shot just 1-for-5 from the field with an 0-for-4 night from three, finishing at 20% TS despite playing 28 minutes—a complete offensive breakdown that left her five points shy of the over even with heavy volume on the court.
GSV @ DAL6–7−2.32u
- Kaitlyn Chen Over 4.5 PTS4 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairgame script — blowout or foul troubleChen fell just short on limited minutes (8) and cold shooting (2-6 FG, 33% TS), unable to reach the over despite a healthy 40% usage rate. Three personal fouls also likely restricted her floor time in what became a blowout loss (-12 +/-).
- Paige Bueckers Over 19.5 PTS10 vs 19.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBueckers' 10 points came on just 3-13 shooting (23% FG) despite playing all 43 minutes, as poor efficiency and low usage (18%) left her well short of the 19.5-point line. A 34% true shooting percentage—her lowest of the season—combined with limited volume kept her output at less than half her scoring threshold.
- Gabby Williams Under 17.5 PTS36 vs 17.5paid over the fair numberWilliams torched the line with elite efficiency, shooting 12-23 from the field (52%) and a perfect 7-7 from the stripe while playing 37 minutes with 36% usage—nearly double the volume implied by a 17.5-point prop. Her 69% true shooting percentage and balanced scoring attack (5 threes, 7 assists) made the under an easy miss.
- Maddy Siegrist Over 7.5 PTS2 vs 7.5game script — blowout or foul troubleSiegrist played just 10 minutes and took only 2 shots, severely limiting her scoring ceiling well below the 7.5-point threshold. The combination of reduced minutes and minimal usage (15%) made it nearly impossible to reach the over regardless of shooting efficiency.
- Tiffany Hayes Over 8.5 PTS6 vs 8.5no clean explanationHayes' limited 15 minutes and modest 1-3 shooting from the field left her short despite efficient free-throw shooting, as foul trouble (4 PF) restricted her opportunities to reach the 8.5-point threshold.
- Kayla Thornton Under 4.5 REB6 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThornton secured two extra boards despite modest usage (15%), capitalizing on 31 minutes of floor time and active rebounding that exceeded her typical volume for the game situation.
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.