DIME
WNBANBAEuroLeagueEuro

← all formulas · WNBA

priced_lineedges_floored

256–241 over 497 priced bets · -18.6u · ROI -3.7% -12.0% to +4.5% · CLV +1.53¢ +1.3% to +1.8%

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 28 graded days from the same CORE benchmark shown in the headline, charts and sheet: priced_lineedges_floored.

256–241 · 52% · −18.62u across the last 28 days · 1 voided, zero benchmark units

10/262–340%−1.19u1 game

permalink to 2026-10-26 →

ATL @ GSV2–3−1.19u
  • Gabby Williams Under 4.5 REB6 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
  • Angel Reese Under 11.5 REB15 vs 11.5paid over the fair number
  • Angel Reese Under 12.5 REB15 vs 12.5no clean explanation
10/241–420%−2.83u1 game

permalink to 2026-10-24 →

GSV @ ATL1–4−2.83u
  • Jordin Canada Over 6.5 AST4 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
  • Jordin Canada Over 11.5 PTS10 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
  • Jordin Canada Over 12.5 PTS10 vs 12.5no clean explanation
  • Jordin Canada Over 10.5 PTS10 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
10/198–753%+1.02u1 game

permalink to 2026-10-19 →

ATL @ GSV8–7+1.02u
  • Kayla Thornton Over 3.5 PTS2 vs 3.5no clean explanationThornton shot just 1-for-3 from the field despite logging 19 minutes, a significant underperformance that kept her well short of the 3.5-point line; her 7% usage rate and 33% true shooting indicate limited offensive involvement and poor efficiency when she did touch the ball.
  • Kayla Thornton Over 4.5 PTS2 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThornton's 7% usage rate and 1-3 shooting (33% TS) left her well short of the 4.5-point line despite adequate 19-minute run; she simply didn't get enough volume or hit enough of her limited attempts to clear the threshold.
  • Angel Reese Under 10.5 REB16 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held upReese dominated the glass with 16 rebounds on 34 minutes and elite 72% true shooting, translating her high-volume touches (30% usage) into both scoring and rebounding opportunities that far exceeded the 10.5 line. Her 5 fouls without fouling out meant she stayed on the floor for a full game script, capturing 6 offensive rebounds that typically swing the over/under on this type of bet.
  • Kiah Stokes Over 1.5 AST0 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStokes was purely a rebounder and rim-protector tonight, recording 11 boards and 4 blocks but zero assists despite 30 minutes played—her minimal offensive involvement (0-0 FG, 3% usage) meant she simply didn't handle the ball enough to facilitate a single pass.
  • DeWanna Bonner Over 3.5 REB2 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBonner pulled down only 2 rebounds despite playing 20 minutes, falling well short of the 3.5 line—she was outrebounded and didn't crash the glass enough to hit the mark. Her night was heavily weighted toward perimeter activity (4 steals) and free-throw shooting rather than rebounding production.
  • Kayla Thornton Over 3.5 REB2 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThornton fell short with just 2 rebounds on limited opportunities, playing only 19 minutes with a 7% usage rate that left her outside the game's flow. Her minimal court time and low involvement made it difficult to accumulate boards despite a positive plus-minus.
10/174–1029%−6.71u1 game

permalink to 2026-10-17 →

ATL @ GSV4–10−6.71u
  • Naz Hillmon Over 1.5 AST0 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberHillmon's playmaking evaporated despite 30 minutes on court—she recorded zero assists while turning the ball over once, suggesting she operated primarily as a scorer rather than a facilitator in this game's flow.
  • DeWanna Bonner Over 7.5 PTS2 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBonner played just 13 minutes with a 7% usage rate and went 1-2 from the field, severely limiting her scoring opportunities well below the 7.5-point threshold. The minimal playing time and shot volume—not poor efficiency—were the primary factors in the missed over.
  • Jordin Canada Over 11.5 PTS8 vs 11.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCanada played 38 minutes but shot just 3-9 from the field (33%) with a 40% true shooting percentage, falling well short of the scoring volume needed to clear 11.5 despite her high usage rate of 16%.
  • Tiffany Hayes Over 8.5 PTS3 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHayes' 1-for-12 shooting night (8% FG) fell well short of the offensive output needed to clear 8.5 points, as poor shot selection and execution—not playing time or foul trouble—sank the over.
  • Angel Reese Under 10.5 REB12 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upReese grabbed 12 rebounds in 35 minutes of heavy involvement, staying out of foul trouble (5 PF) and dominating the glass despite modest offensive efficiency. The under missed because she logged enough volume and minutes to consistently crash the boards, landing just over the 10.5 threshold.
  • Angel Reese Over 14.5 PTS14 vs 14.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upReese fell one point short despite 35 minutes and solid 5-11 shooting (45% FG), as four fouls limited her aggression and she converted only 4-of-7 free throws, costing her the scoring cushion needed to clear 14.5.
10/095–1131%−6.81u2 games

permalink to 2026-10-09 →

ATL @ NYL2–8−6.46u
  • Pauline Astier Over 1.5 REB0 vs 1.5game script — blowout or foul troubleAstier played only 8 minutes with minimal involvement (12% usage), leaving her no opportunity to accumulate the 2 rebounds needed to clear the over. Her limited court time and complete absence from the glass made the 1.5 rebound line unsustainable.
  • Leonie Fiebich Over 3.5 REB2 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upFiebich played heavy minutes (37) but generated minimal rebounding activity, finishing with just 2 boards despite 12% usage—a reflection of her perimeter-heavy role and limited interior presence in a game where she struggled shooting (2-7 FG). The combination of low usage and her positioning kept her off the glass despite the extended run.
  • Jonquel Jones Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJones stayed on court for all 38 minutes and seized playmaking opportunities in a high-usage game (26%), finishing one assist above the line despite modest assist volume. Her dominance in scoring (26 pts on elite 71% TS) and rebounding (14) kept her involved in the offense enough to reach 3 dimes.
  • Pauline Astier Over 2.5 REB0 vs 2.5game script — blowout or foul troubleAstier logged just 8 minutes with 12% usage, providing minimal opportunity to accumulate boards, and failed to secure a single rebound in that limited run.
  • Pauline Astier Over 4.5 PTS0 vs 4.5game script — blowout or foul troubleAstier saw just 8 minutes of action with minimal usage (12%), going 0-1 from the field to finish scoreless—a far cry from the 5+ points needed to cash the over. Limited playing time and a quick hook made scoring opportunities non-existent.
  • Pauline Astier Over 5.5 PTS0 vs 5.5game script — blowout or foul troubleAstier saw just 8 minutes of action with minimal involvement (12% usage), going 0-1 from the field with no free-throw attempts, leaving her well short of the 5.5-point line. Limited playing time and negligible offensive opportunities made it impossible for her to reach the over threshold.
GSV @ LVA3–3−0.35u
  • Jackie Young Over 6.5 AST2 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upYoung's playmaking dried up despite heavy usage and 42 minutes on the floor, tallying just 2 assists while turning the ball over 5 times—a combination of ball-handling issues and the team's offensive struggles (evident in her -10 rating) that prevented her from facilitating at the expected rate.
  • Jackie Young Over 5.5 AST2 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upYoung played 42 minutes with heavy usage (27%) but generated just 2 assists while turning the ball over 5 times, suggesting she was attacking downhill rather than facilitating, and picked up 5 fouls that limited her ability to dictate tempo. A blowout loss (-10 +/-) in which she shot inefficiently (6-16 FG) likely forced Las Vegas into isolation-heavy, low-rhythm offense rather than the ball-movement sets needed to accumulate assists.
  • Stephanie Talbot Over 5.5 PTS0 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upTalbot was a complete no-show offensively despite 21 minutes of run, going 0-for-2 from the field with a 5% usage rate—she simply didn't get enough touches or couldn't convert when she did, failing to reach even one made basket.
10/0713–381%+7.97u2 games

permalink to 2026-10-07 →

LVA @ GSV5–2+2.09u
  • A'ja Wilson Over 25.5 PTS24 vs 25.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upWilson fell just short despite efficient shooting (9-16 FG, 6-6 FT) because she generated only 24 points in 36 minutes with 29% usage—she needed one more scoring possession to clear 25.5. The tight margin suggests near-elite efficiency couldn't overcome modest shot volume on the night.
  • A'ja Wilson Over 24.5 PTS24 vs 24.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upWilson fell one point short despite efficient shooting (9-16 FG, 6-6 FT) because she didn't get enough volume—29% usage and 36 minutes limited her shot diet just enough to miss the over by a single point.
NYL @ ATL8–1+5.88u
  • Pauline Astier Over 3.5 REB1 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAstier played just 14 minutes and grabbed only 1 rebound, far short of the 3.5 over; limited run and a modest usage rate (25%) kept her off the glass and unable to accumulate boards.
10/047–944%−2.95u2 games

permalink to 2026-10-04 →

LVA @ GSV4–5−1.92u
  • Tiffany Hayes Over 8.5 PTS3 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHayes shot just 1-for-4 from the field and 1-for-4 from the line while logging only 11 minutes, leaving her well short of the 8.5-point line. Her 26% true shooting and limited floor time were the primary culprits in a significant underperformance.
  • Tiffany Hayes Over 7.5 PTS3 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHayes shot just 1-for-4 from the field and 1-for-4 from the free-throw line while playing only 11 minutes, combining for a 26% true shooting percentage that made scoring difficult despite a reasonable usage rate of 27%.
  • Jackie Young Over 17.5 PTS11 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held upYoung's 4-15 shooting (26.7% FG) and 37% true shooting marked a sharp offensive collapse despite logging 38 minutes and maintaining high usage (24%), leaving her well short of the 17.5-point line.
  • Jackie Young Over 5.5 AST5 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upYoung fell one assist short despite 38 minutes of heavy usage, held back by poor shot efficiency (4-15 FG) that forced her into a more scoring-dependent role rather than facilitating opportunities for teammates.
  • A'ja Wilson Over 24.5 PTS24 vs 24.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upWilson fell one point short despite 35 minutes and heavy 39% usage, hampered by inefficient 8-21 shooting (38% FG) that couldn't overcome her 8-11 free-throw production.
NYL @ ATL3–4−1.03u
  • Sabrina Ionescu Under 15.5 PTS27 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu torched the under, shooting 10-20 from the field (50%) and 3-8 from three while logging 34 minutes and commanding 35% usage—well above what's needed to clear 15.5 points. Her elite 62% true shooting efficiency and high volume made the under untenable.
  • Sabrina Ionescu Under 14.5 PTS27 vs 14.5no clean explanationIonescu torched the line on 10-20 shooting (50% FG) and 4-4 from the free-throw line, nearly doubling the under projection with her 62% true shooting and elite 35% usage rate over 34 minutes.
  • Naz Hillmon Over 6.5 PTS0 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon played heavy minutes (37) but was nearly invisible offensively, going 0-2 from the field with minimal shot attempts (6% usage), rendering her rebounding and assist contributions unable to compensate for a complete scoring drought.
  • Han Xu Over 3.5 PTS3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairgame script — blowout or foul troubleXu fell one point short despite efficient shooting (75% TS) due to severely limited floor time at just 8 minutes, holding her to only 2 shot attempts despite a 21% usage rate.
10/024–640%−2.61u1 game

permalink to 2026-10-02 →

DAL @ GSV4–6−2.61u
  • Aziaha James Over 1.5 REB0 vs 1.5game script — blowout or foul troubleJames played just 8 minutes and fouled out with 4 fouls, severely limiting her opportunity to grab boards; she recorded zero rebounds despite a 33% usage rate in her limited floor time.
  • Awak Kuier Over 6.5 PTS6 vs 6.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberKuier fell one point short despite efficient 75% true shooting and 33 minutes of floor time, undone by minimal usage (8%) that limited her scoring opportunities despite converting 3 of 4 from the field.
  • Arike Ogunbowale Over 3.5 AST2 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale's shot-heavy usage (44%) and high volume (21 FG attempts) left little room for playmaking, and she turned the ball over 5 times while recording just 2 assists—well short of the 3.5 line despite her 30-point performance.
  • Aziaha James Over 5.5 PTS2 vs 5.5game script — blowout or foul troubleJames shot just 1-for-5 from the field and fouled out with only 8 minutes played, making it impossible to reach the over despite a respectable usage rate. Her 20% true shooting was a killer—she couldn't convert opportunities when she had them.
  • Janelle Salaun Over 3.5 REB0 vs 3.5game script — blowout or foul troubleSalaun logged just 8 minutes with minimal impact, grabbing zero rebounds despite her 23% usage rate—a stark departure from the volume needed to clear 3.5 boards. The combination of limited playing time and lack of activity on the glass made the over an easy miss.
  • Awak Kuier Over 4.5 REB4 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upKuier fell one rebound short despite playing 33 minutes, held back by low usage (8%) that limited her opportunities to crash the glass in a game where she was a complementary scorer rather than a focal point of the offense.
10/011–420%−3.22u1 game

permalink to 2026-10-01 →

IND @ LVA1–4−3.22u
  • Chelsea Gray Under 13.5 PTS23 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray exploded well beyond expectation on 8-15 shooting (53% FG) and a perfect 6-6 from the line, nearly doubling the 13.5 total despite modest 25% usage, powered by elite 65% true shooting efficiency.
  • Aliyah Boston Under 6.5 REB10 vs 6.5no clean explanationBoston dominated the glass with 10 rebounds in 32 minutes, delivering 3.3 boards per 36 minutes, well above the pace needed to clear the 6.5 line. Her activity on the boards—including 2 blocks that often correlate with glass time—kept her rebounding volume high despite moderate usage at 22%.
  • Aliyah Boston Under 7.5 REB10 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBoston dominated the glass with 10 rebounds in 32 minutes, converting 50% of her shot attempts and drawing four fouls that kept her on the court despite foul trouble, easily clearing the 7.5 line.
  • Aliyah Boston Under 8.5 REB10 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBoston grabbed 10 rebounds in 32 minutes with 4 personal fouls, staying active on the glass despite foul trouble and hitting the board for 1.5 more than the 8.5 line required. Her 22% usage rate kept her in the game long enough to accumulate boards without getting benched, allowing the rebounding total to creep over.
09/3011–1542%−5.86u2 games

permalink to 2026-09-30 →

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.
09/2913–959%+3.16u2 games

permalink to 2026-09-29 →

MIN @ NYL8–8−0.52u
  • Olivia Miles Over 12.5 PTS5 vs 12.5no clean explanationMiles shot just 1-for-8 from the field (12.5% FG) in 17 minutes, unable to find rhythm early and finishing with only 5 points despite 28% usage. Foul trouble (3 PF) limited her availability to make an impact in what became a lopsided game.
  • Leonie Fiebich Over 3.5 REB3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upFiebich fell one rebound short despite playing 29 minutes, held back by a low usage rate (9%) that limited her opportunities to crash the glass and compete for boards.
  • Courtney Williams Under 4.5 REB8 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilliams nearly doubled the projected total, grabbing 8 rebounds across 38 minutes of heavy involvement while posting a 24% usage rate that kept her in rebounding position throughout the game. The under missed decisively due to her elevated floor time and offensive workload creating consistent opportunities on the glass despite modest scoring efficiency.
  • Courtney Williams Under 12.5 PTS18 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilliams exceeded the under by shooting 8-of-17 from the field (47%) and playing all 38 minutes, generating 24% usage in a game where she stayed out of foul trouble with just 3 PF. Her efficient scoring night on high volume and heavy minutes availability was the key driver in surpassing 12.5 points.
  • Sabrina Ionescu Under 15.5 PTS18 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu exceeded the under on efficient shooting, going 7-15 from the field (47%) with 4 made threes despite modest usage, and played all 33 available minutes without foul trouble to compile her 18 points. Her 60% true shooting and elevated three-point volume (10 attempts) proved enough to clear 15.5 in a blowout where New York's +15 margin allowed her to stay on the floor.
  • Sabrina Ionescu Under 16.5 PTS18 vs 16.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu exceeded the under on efficient shooting, going 7-15 from the field (46.7%) with 4 three-pointers on high volume (33 minutes, 24% usage) to reach 18 points despite a quiet free-throw line. Her true shooting of 60% was well above her season baseline, allowing her to clear 16.5 on moderate shot attempts.
LVA @ IND5–1+3.68u
  • Caitlin Clark Under 10.5 AST15 vs 10.5no clean explanationClark's 15 assists came in a high-volume offensive game (32% usage, 68% TS%) where she dominated as the primary playmaker, easily clearing the 10.5 line. The under was a misjudgment of her usage rate and the offensive pace of a game where Indiana controlled the tempo.
09/2728–2454%+0.40u4 games

permalink to 2026-09-27 →

WAS @ ATL6–10−4.93u
  • Angel Reese Over 2.5 AST1 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upReese recorded just 1 assist despite 30 minutes played, as her offensive role centered on scoring and rebounding (13 points, 12 rebounds) rather than facilitating—she turned the ball over only once but generated minimal playmaking opportunities in Chicago's balanced attack.
  • Naz Hillmon Over 6.5 PTS4 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon's 20 minutes and 8% usage were both well below her typical workload, limiting her to just 2 made field goals despite solid efficiency, and she didn't attempt a free throw to compensate.
  • Naz Hillmon Over 3.5 REB3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon fell one rebound short despite playing 20 minutes, held back by minimal usage (8%) and a box-out role that limited her opportunities on the glass in a game without significant volume demands.
  • Lauren Betts Over 5.5 PTS2 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBetts went 1-for-4 from the field with a 25% true shooting percentage, well below the scoring efficiency needed to hit 5.5 points in 23 minutes of play. Her 11% usage rate and shooting struggles—missing 3-of-4 attempts—left her well short of the projection.
  • Michaela Onyenwere Under 2.5 REB4 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOnyenwere grabbed 4 rebounds in 26 minutes despite shooting just 3-9 from the field, as she stayed active on the glass even when her offensive touches weren't falling. The under missed because she reached the mark through volume availability rather than efficiency—she logged solid floor time and pulled down boards at a reasonable rate despite the poor shooting night.
  • Allisha Gray Over 2.5 AST0 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray was a pure scorer tonight, posting 22 points on efficient shooting (60% TS) but recorded zero assists despite 35 minutes of play—she operated almost exclusively as a volume scorer rather than a facilitator, with her 23% usage channeled entirely into shot attempts rather than playmaking.
IND @ LVA1–5−4.04u
  • Makayla Timpson Over 6.5 PTS2 vs 6.5paid over the fair numberTimpson's 25 minutes of playing time couldn't overcome ice-cold shooting—she went 1-for-4 from the field (25% TS) with no free-throw attempts, leaving her well short of the 6.5-point line despite solid rebound production.
  • A'ja Wilson Under 9.5 REB16 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilson's elite efficiency (15-19 FG, 86% TS) kept her on the floor for all 35 minutes, and her 32% usage rate generated enough possessions to rack up 16 boards—well above the 9.5 line despite only fouling three times in a blowout win.
  • Chelsea Gray Under 12.5 PTS14 vs 12.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upGray's efficient 4-8 shooting (50% FG) combined with a 6-7 free-throw line performance pushed her past the under despite modest volume, as she capitalized on high-efficiency looks in 34 minutes of play.
  • Chelsea Gray Under 13.5 PTS14 vs 13.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationGray pushed just over the line with 14 points on efficient 63% true shooting, converting 6-of-7 free throws to make up for modest field-goal volume (4-8 FG) in her 34 minutes of play.
  • A'ja Wilson Under 10.5 REB16 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilson dominated the glass with 16 rebounds in 35 minutes, fueled by her elite 79% field-goal rate (15-19) that kept her on the floor and offensive rebounding opportunities alive in a blowout win (+29).
DAL @ GSV11–7+2.51u
  • Awak Kuier Over 5.5 REB4 vs 5.5no clean explanationKuier fell one rebound short despite playing 20 minutes, hampered by poor offensive efficiency (1-5 FG) that limited her involvement and kept her off the glass in a lopsided game where she finished -25. Her 15% usage rate indicates minimal touches and opportunities to crash the boards.
  • Janelle Salaun Over 3.5 REB2 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upSalaun grabbed just 2 rebounds in 21 minutes despite decent playing time, falling 2 short of the 3.5 line—her limited opportunities on the glass were compounded by inefficient offensive play (1-6 FG) that kept her out of rhythm and reduced her involvement in hustle situations.
  • Arike Ogunbowale Over 13.5 PTS10 vs 13.5paid over the fair numberOgunbowale shot just 2-7 from the field despite playing 26 minutes, and while she converted all six free throws, the inefficient field-goal performance (28.6% FG) left her three points short of the over. Her 21% usage rate and modest 52% true shooting capped her scoring ceiling in a game where Dallas fell into a blowout (-31 +/-).
  • Kayla Thornton Under 4.5 REB5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upThornton grabbed exactly one more rebound than the line predicted, finishing with 5 boards in 19 minutes of solid efficiency (4-6 FG, 83% TS); the under missed by the slimmest margin despite her limited role and low usage rate.
  • Gabby Williams Under 16.5 PTS20 vs 16.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilliams shot 50% from the field (8-16) and maintained efficient scoring throughout her 27 minutes, easily clearing the 16.5-point threshold with 20 points on high volume and elite True Shooting percentage (58%).
  • Kayla Thornton Under 8.5 PTS10 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upThornton's efficient 4-6 shooting (67% FG) and 2-4 from three pushed her past the under despite modest 19 minutes and 15% usage, as she converted at an elite 83% true shooting clip in limited opportunities.
NYL @ MIN10–2+6.87u
  • Breanna Stewart Under 22.5 PTS34 vs 22.5paid over the fair numberStewart torched the under with elite efficiency, shooting 11-18 from the field and 10-12 from the stripe for a 73% true shooting rate while logging a game-high 38 minutes in a blowout. Her 34% usage rate and near-perfect free-throw shooting (83%) transformed what looked like a modest scoring line into a 34-point performance.
  • Breanna Stewart Under 9.5 REB12 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStewart dominated the glass with 12 rebounds across 38 minutes of heavy usage (34%), converting at an elite 73% TS and staying out of foul trouble (3 PF), far exceeding the 9.5 threshold.
09/241–517%−4.25u3 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 19.5no clean explanationClark 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 @ PHO0–1−1.00u
  • 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 @ WAS1–0+0.75u
09/238–467%+2.86u2 games

permalink to 2026-09-23 →

DAL @ SEA1–0+0.76u
ATL @ NYL7–4+2.11u
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Angel Reese Over 16.5 PTS6 vs 16.5shots didn't fall — the read held upReese was held to just 6 points on 2-7 shooting (29% FG) in 17 minutes, well short of the 16.5-point target, as limited floor time and poor offensive efficiency kept her well below projection. Her 21% usage rate and 38% true shooting percentage—both well below her season norms—reflect a difficult scoring night in limited minutes.
09/2215–1550%−2.46u5 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.
GSV @ POR2–3−1.48u
  • 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%.
CON @ WAS2–2−0.51u
  • 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.
TOR @ CHI2–2−0.21u
  • 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 @ IND9–3+4.74u
  • 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.
  • 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.
09/216–650%−1.12u2 games

permalink to 2026-09-21 →

ATL @ NYL4–6−2.65u
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Angel Reese Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upReese's ball-handling was minimal despite 34 minutes and heavy usage (25%), finishing with only 2 assists as she operated primarily as a scorer and rebounder rather than a playmaker. She drew 4 fouls, which limited her aggression and floor time in key stretches where she might have generated extra dimes.
  • Naz Hillmon Over 4.5 REB3 vs 4.5paid over the fair numberHillmon's minimal 17 minutes of playing time left insufficient opportunities to reach 5 rebounds, and she grabbed just 3 boards despite efficient scoring; limited court exposure due to roster depth or game flow was the primary limiting factor.
  • Isobel Borlase Over 3.5 PTS0 vs 3.5game script — blowout or foul troubleBorlase played only 8 minutes and took just one shot (missing both her field goal and three-point attempt), leaving her well short of the 3.5-point line with zero points on 6% usage.
  • Rhyne Howard Over 16.5 PTS16 vs 16.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upHoward fell one point shy despite heavy usage (25%) and full availability (38 min), undone by inefficient shooting (6-16 FG, 2-8 3PT) that kept her at exactly 16 points on poor 45% true shooting.
DAL @ PHO2–0+1.53u
09/2012–1152%−1.02u5 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 @ IND3–4−1.53u
  • 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.
  • 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 @ LVA3–3−0.45u
  • 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.
NYL @ TOR3–1+1.31u
  • 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.
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.
09/1913–1252%+0.24u3 games

permalink to 2026-09-19 →

CHI @ ATL3–6−3.55u
  • 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 @ DAL3–3+0.03u
  • 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 @ GSV7–3+3.76u
  • 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.
09/188–657%+0.41u3 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
IND @ TOR4–2+1.22u
  • 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.
NYL @ MIN3–0+2.39u
09/1715–1747%−3.70u5 games

permalink to 2026-09-17 →

CON @ ATL6–10−3.94u
  • 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).
WAS @ CHI1–2−1.25u
  • 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.
PHO @ POR1–1−0.22u
  • 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.
LVA @ SEA2–1+0.66u
  • 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.
LAS @ DAL5–3+1.04u
  • 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.
  • Maddy Siegrist Under 8.5 PTS12 vs 8.5paid over the fair numberSiegrist converted 5 of 10 from the field (50% FG) and 2 of 5 from three for 12 points in 23 minutes, exceeding the 8.5-point line through efficient shooting rather than elevated usage (17%). She stayed out of foul trouble with only 3 personal fouls, allowing her to play her typical role without restriction.
08/3016–1552%−0.75u4 games

permalink to 2026-08-30 →

MIN @ ATL1–6−5.13u
  • 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.
  • 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 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.
  • Rhyne Howard Over 17.5 PTS16 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upHoward fell one point short despite heavy usage (35 min, 20% usage rate), undone by poor shooting efficiency—she connected on just 6-of-16 from the field (37.5% FG) and 2-of-9 from three, both well below her season norms. The 47% true shooting wasn't enough volume to reach 18 points, the realistic threshold for a profitable over.
  • Allisha Gray Over 2.5 AST2 vs 2.5no clean explanationGray's playmaking touch disappeared despite heavy offensive load—she fired 16 shots and scored 23 points on elite efficiency but generated just 2 assists, suggesting ball-dominant usage that prioritized scoring over distribution in a blowout win (+17).
  • Naz Hillmon Over 7.5 PTS7 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon fell one point short despite playing 30 minutes, hamstrung by a brutal 3-9 shooting night (33% FG) that left her unable to reach 8 points even with decent volume. Her 18% usage rate suggests limited offensive touches, compounding the damage of her below-average efficiency.
GSV @ POR5–8−3.54u
  • 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 @ DAL3–1+1.47u
  • 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 @ SEA7–0+6.45u
08/294–267%+1.33u2 games

permalink to 2026-08-29 →

CHI @ NYL0–1−1.00u
  • Kamilla Cardoso Over 14.5 PTS9 vs 14.5paid over the fair number
TOR @ PHO4–1+2.33u
  • 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).
08/2814–382%+9.03u4 games

permalink to 2026-08-28 →

WAS @ LAS1–1−0.13u
  • 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.
CON @ IND3–0+2.50u
TOR @ LVA5–1+3.15u
  • 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.
POR @ ATL5–1+3.51u
  • 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.
08/273–633%−3.69u2 games

permalink to 2026-08-27 →

WAS @ PHO2–4−2.53u
  • 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.
GSV @ NYL1–2−1.16u
  • 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.
  • 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.
08/263–633%−2.97u2 games

permalink to 2026-08-26 →

GSV @ CON0–2−2.00u
  • 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.
  • 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.
TOR @ SEA3–4−0.97u
  • 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.
08/258–1142%−3.87u3 games

permalink to 2026-08-25 →

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.
08/2410–8 ·1 void56%+0.28u2 games

permalink to 2026-08-24 →

GSV @ MIN5–6−1.93u
  • 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 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurton'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.
  • Olivia Miles Over 18.5 PTS8 vs 18.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMiles shot just 25% from the field (3-12) with brutal 31% true shooting, falling well short of the 18.5-point line despite playing 28 minutes and maintaining solid usage at 29%. Cold shooting across the board—1-5 from three and inefficient overall—was the primary culprit in the 10.5-point shortfall.
  • Olivia Miles Over 17.5 PTS8 vs 17.5no clean explanation
  • Maya Caldwell Under 4.5 PTS9 vs 4.5paid over the fair numberCaldwell's rare 3-5 three-point shooting night—capped by a 90% true shooting percentage—doubled her expected output despite modest 25 minutes and 11% usage, as efficient volume from deep proved enough to clear 4.5. The under missed because elite efficiency on limited attempts can still generate ceiling-level scoring in short bursts.
ATL @ LAS5–2 ·1 void+2.21u
  • 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.
08/2323–972%+10.71u4 games

permalink to 2026-08-23 →

WAS @ POR2–2−0.35u
  • 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 @ CHI6–4+0.96u
  • 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 @ DAL6–3+1.91u
  • 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 @ TOR9–0+8.19u

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.