← scout_ml · WNBA
2026-06-27
Day by day
these are the scout_ml picks — the book grading is currently serving, and the same set listed in the sheet below. The season figure in the header bar is that same book over the whole season; this is a recent window of it.
37–21 · 64% · +11.79u across the last 1 days · 2 voided, nothing staked
06/2737–21 ·2 void64%+11.79u3 games
PHO @ TOR8–10 ·2 void−3.46u
- Maria Conde Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberConde shot just 1-for-8 from three (12.5%) despite heavy usage and full availability in 37 minutes, a historically cold performance that crushed the over despite the sharp model's +EV projection.
- Julie Allemand Under 6.5 PTS11 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAllemand played 39 minutes—13 minutes more than the 26.5 projected—and converted 4-of-6 FG with 3-of-5 from three for 92% true shooting, turning her low usage into efficient scoring that easily cleared the 6.5-point line. The extended run time and hot shooting (4-for-11 combined from the field would have pushed her right to the line) were the decisive factors.
- DeWanna Bonner Under 19.5 PR24 vs 19.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBonner's 24 PR exceeded the 19.5 line despite modest scoring (13 pts) because she logged 33 minutes and accumulated 11 rebounds plus 3 steals, combining volume and peripheral stats to surpass the threshold. The UNDER missed on her rebounding production and defensive activity rather than offensive output.
- Nyara Sabally Under 0.5 3PM2 vs 0.5no clean explanationSabally connected on 2-of-3 from deep despite modest overall volume, as she maintained efficient spacing within her 26 minutes and 26% usage rate. The under missed because she converted at a 67% clip from three, well above her season average, on limited but high-efficiency attempts.
- Kahleah Copper Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberCopper shot just 1-for-4 from three despite 34 minutes and high usage (26%), converting at 25% from deep compared to her season baseline; the sharp signal on the over failed to account for an off night from range despite efficient overall play (73% TS%).
- DeWanna Bonner Under 6.5 REB11 vs 6.5no clean explanationBonner crushed the glass with 11 rebounds in 33 minutes despite inefficient shooting (4-13 FG), suggesting strong effort on the boards that overwhelmed the under's modest 6.5 threshold. The under missed badly because she was a net positive rebounder relative to her modest 20% usage rate—volume on the glass compensated for low offensive involvement.
ATL @ SEA8–3+4.15u
- Rhyne Howard Under 21.5 PA30 vs 21.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward torched the opposition on elite 74% true shooting (10-17 FG, 4-10 from three), nearly doubling her season usage rate at 22% to reach 30 points in 38 minutes, far exceeding the 21.5 projection.
- Dominique Malonga Under 8.5 REB11 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMalonga crashed the glass hard with 11 rebounds in 28 minutes—a 0.39 rebound rate that exceeded her season trends—and despite heavy fouls (6) that typically limit her activity, she stayed on court and dominated the boards in a blowout win (+11). The under was a tight number built on her historical averages, but she simply out-rebounded the projection across a full complement of minutes.
- Flau'jae Johnson Under 7.5 RA15 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJohnson's efficient 9-12 shooting (75% FG) and high-volume rebounding role—she grabbed 11 boards in 33 minutes—easily cleared the 7.5 assists under, finishing with 4 assists but 15 total RA (assists plus rebounds combined). The blowout environment (+12) and her team's ball-movement success meant she didn't need to facilitate heavily, but her 25% usage rate ensured she stayed involved in multiple facets rather than being limited to pure scoring.
LAS @ IND21–8+11.10u
- Aliyah Boston Under 16.5 PTS17 vs 16.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberBoston's elite 98% true shooting—fueled by a perfect 6-6 from the free throw line and 5-6 field goal efficiency—allowed her to reach 17 points in just 21 minutes, beating the under despite modest usage at 22%.
- Kelsey Mitchell Under 25.5 PR29 vs 25.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationMitchell's elite 88% true shooting on 27% usage—fueled by a scorching 9-13 (69%) from the field and 4-4 from free throw—gave her far more efficient scoring than her 26 minutes and usage rate typically allow, pushing her to 29 points and well past the 25.5 line.
- Kelsey Mitchell Under 29.5 PRA31 vs 29.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMitchell's elite scoring efficiency (9-13 FG, 4-6 3PT, 4-4 FT for 88% TS) and high usage rate (27%) combined with 26 minutes of play to push her to 31 PRA, exceeding the 29.5 line by converting nearly every shot attempt. The hot shooting and volume were the primary drivers, as she accumulated 26 points alone to nearly hit the threshold before adding 5 more combined boards and assists.
- Kelsey Mitchell Under 24.5 PTS26 vs 24.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationMitchell's elite 88% true shooting—fueled by perfect 4-for-4 free-throw shooting and 67% from three—carried her past the 24.5 line despite playing just 26 minutes, as she needed only 13 field-goal attempts to reach 26 points. The models' UNDER thesis underestimated her efficiency in a blowout (+30) where she didn't need high volume to score.
- Lexie Hull Under 4.5 REB7 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHull grabbed 7 rebounds in 22 minutes despite poor offensive efficiency (2-7 FG), nearly doubling her L5 average of 2.2 and far exceeding the 4.5 line—she was active on the glass early and maintained rebounding activity even as her scoring stalled.
- Monique Billings Under 5.5 REB6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upBillings grabbed one more rebound than the line despite playing only 22 minutes, benefiting from efficient interior presence (6-10 FG, 62% TS) and strong floor spacing that kept her involved in the offensive glass during a blowout win (+38). The modest minute total and low foul trouble (2 PF) meant she stayed on court long enough to reach 6 boards despite limited opportunities.
Flat 1 unit per priced bet, settled at the price we posted. Voids are not bets — excluded from the record, the hit rate and the units. Open a day for the per-game split and why each loss lost.