DIME
WNBA 2025–26: 134–82 ATS · +37.4u
Get the picks

← scout_ml · WNBA

2026-06-28

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.

44–50 · 47% · −12.77u across the last 1 days

06/2844–5047%−12.77u4 games

permalink to 2026-06-28 →

LVA @ CHI13–21−9.48u
  • Jackie Young Under 29.5 PRA41 vs 29.5no clean explanationYoung's elite 84% true shooting and 9-14 field goal efficiency (64% FG) powered her to 28 points in 36 minutes, while 8 assists and 5 rebounds added another 13 PRA to comfortably surpass the 29.5 line. The high-efficiency performance—despite modest 22% usage—proved the under was vulnerable to variance on a player shooting this effectively.
  • Chelsea Gray Under 12.5 PTS18 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray torched a perfect 5-for-5 from the free-throw line and shot 67% from the field (6-9 FG), converting efficiently enough on 35 minutes and 18% usage to blow past 12.5 points with 18 total.
  • A'ja Wilson Under 12.5 RA17 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilson dominated the glass with 15 rebounds on 34 minutes and 33% usage, exceeding the 12.5 line by five boards despite modest shot volume. Her elite efficiency (71% TS on 8-14 FG) and season-high rebound rate made her a relentless force on the glass in a competitive game.
  • A'ja Wilson Under 28.5 PA32 vs 28.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationWilson's elite free-throw shooting (13-16, 81%) and high usage rate (33%) pushed her over the total, as she generated 32 points on efficient overall scoring (71% TS) while playing 34 minutes without foul trouble (2 PF).
  • Natasha Cloud Under 3.5 AST4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upCloud's 4 assists matched her recent L10 average of 3.8 despite modest usage (12%), just clearing the 3.5 line in a game where she played 23 stable minutes without foul trouble limiting her floor time.
  • Azura Stevens Under 17.5 PR30 vs 17.5no clean explanationStevens torched the under with elite efficiency, shooting 57% from the field (8-14) and 71% from three (3-6) while playing a season-high 30 minutes to rack up 24 points and 6 rebounds. Her 70% true shooting and nearly 25% usage rate in extended playing time proved far more lethal than the 17.5 projection accounted for.
POR @ WAS9–13−4.59u
  • Lauren Betts Over 3.5 REB2 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBetts played just 13 minutes—5.9 fewer than her recent average—which gave her limited opportunity to reach 4 rebounds despite her 4.8 rebound average over her last five games.
  • Kiki Iriafen Under 1.5 AST6 vs 1.5no clean explanationIriafen's 6 assists quadrupled the 1.5 line, driven by 48 minutes of heavy involvement (29% usage) and her role as a primary ball-handler in a blowout win (+19) where she facilitated 11 rebounds worth of offensive activity. The stretched under lacked margin for error against a player operating at full throttle in extended minutes.
  • Emily Engstler Under 5.5 REB11 vs 5.5no clean explanationEngstler nearly doubled the line with 11 rebounds despite poor offensive efficiency (3-11 FG), securing a game-high rebound total by playing heavy minutes (38) and dominating the glass on a team that struggled to shoot (27% TS). Her defensive presence and available playing time made her a glass-cleaner rather than a scorer, turning what looked like a quiet shooting night into a rebounding outlier.
  • Megan Gustafson Under 12.5 PTS20 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGustafson's efficient 7-14 shooting (50% FG, 57% 3PT) and 46 minutes of heavy run in a close game pushed her well past 12.5 points despite her modest 17% usage rate. She stayed out of foul trouble until late (6 PF), allowing the floor time needed to accumulate 20 points on high-efficiency looks.
  • Shakira Austin Under 2.5 AST6 vs 2.5no clean explanationAustin's 6 assists doubled the 2.5 line, driven by a season-high 47 minutes of floor time that inflated her opportunity to facilitate—she averaged 0.128 assists per minute, well above her typical rate. The blowout nature of the game and her extended run kept her on court as a floor-spacing rim-runner rather than forcing early exit via foul trouble (just 1 PF).
  • Shakira Austin Under 24.5 PRA28 vs 24.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationAustin crushed the glass with 13 rebounds across 47 minutes of heavy run, accumulating 26 of her 28 PRA from boards and assists despite modest 3-9 shooting, as the high volume rebounding opportunity proved too valuable to stay under the closing line.
MIN @ DAL8–9−3.09u
  • Azzi Fudd Under 18.5 PRA25 vs 18.5no clean explanationFudd's 25 PRA crushed the under despite inefficient 45% TS%, as she logged a game-high 38 minutes and accumulated 4 steals that padded the assist/steal categories beyond typical scoring output. Playing 28% usage in an extended role, she generated enough defensive counting stats (7 combined AST+STL) to push past 18.5 even on a below-average shooting night.
  • Arike Ogunbowale Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale went just 1-for-9 from the field and 1-for-3 from three, finishing well below expectation despite playing 26 minutes; brutal 25% TS% and 19% usage rate indicate she couldn't get into rhythm offensively in a game where Dallas fell behind early (-14 +/-).
  • Arike Ogunbowale Over 2.5 AST0 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale's historically poor 1-9 shooting (11% FG) and 19% usage rate left her unable to generate offensive flow or create opportunities for teammates, resulting in zero assists despite 26 minutes of play.
  • Olivia Miles Under 23.5 PR24 vs 23.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationMiles' perfect 8-for-8 night from the free-throw line was the difference-maker, converting eight of her 24 points from the stripe to narrowly clear the 23.5 line despite shooting just 46% from the field.
  • Olivia Miles Under 18.5 PTS21 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationMiles shot 8-for-8 from the free throw line and posted a 64% true shooting percentage, converting efficiently on 28% usage to easily clear 18.5 points despite modest field-goal volume (6-13 FG). Her 34 minutes and low foul trouble (2 PF) gave her ample opportunity to accumulate scoring on a high-efficiency night.
  • Arike Ogunbowale Under 3.5 REB4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberOgunbowale grabbed 4 rebounds in 26 minutes despite shooting just 1-for-9 from the field, as Dallas controlled the glass in a low-scoring affair where she was forced into a complementary rebounding role. The under missed by one board on an off-shooting night where she stayed on the floor and cleaned up possessions despite minimal offensive involvement.
NYL @ GSV14–7+4.39u
  • Veronica Burton Under 9.5 RA14 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurton's 14 rebounds easily cleared the 9.5 line despite modest scoring (8 pts on 3-7 FG), as she hauled in 6 boards herself and benefited from extended 27-minute run time in a blowout (+25) that created extra possessions and offensive rebounding opportunities.
  • Leonie Fiebich Over 1.5 3PM0 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberFiebich played 31 minutes but took only 4 total field-goal attempts (7% usage), missing her lone three-point try; the efficient scoring (3-4 FG, 75% TS%) came entirely from two-pointers, defying her recent L5 average of 2.8 threes despite elevated playing time.
  • Veronica Burton Under 5.5 AST8 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurton's assist total jumped significantly above her L10 average of 4.5, partly due to elevated usage (13%) and a team-high 27 minutes in a blowout win (+25), which gave her more ball-handling opportunities than the modest -1.0 gap from pre-game suggested.
  • Veronica Burton Under 21.5 PRA22 vs 21.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upBurton's 22 PRA came almost entirely from her 8 assists and 6 rebounds, as her scoring stayed modest at 8 points on 3-7 shooting; the over-reliance on playmaking and rebounding—rather than scoring—pushed her just over the 21.5 threshold despite efficient play.
  • Kayla Thornton Under 14.5 PR15 vs 14.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upThornton's efficient 4-7 shooting (57%) and perfect 1-1 from the line combined with 26 minutes of run to push her to 11 points, but the bet missed because the 4 rebounds gave her 15 total PRA, just over the 14.5 line. Her +16 rating and high TS% suggested the team leaned on her more in a blowout win where every contribution counted.
  • Kayla Thornton Under 8.5 PTS11 vs 8.5no clean explanationThornton shot an efficient 4-7 from the field (57%) with 26 minutes of run, pushing her past the 8.5 line despite a modest 18% usage rate that suggested lower scoring potential pre-game. Her 74% true shooting and uptick in shot volume—particularly 2-5 from three—proved enough to eclipse the under as the matchup allowed her to operate comfortably in limited touches.

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.