← scout_ml · WNBA
2026-07-18
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.
8–11 · 42% · −5.09u across the last 1 days
07/188–1142%−5.09u3 games
POR @ MIN4–6−2.96u
- Emily Engstler Under 12.5 PA15 vs 12.5no clean explanationEngstler exceeded the under despite modest shooting (3-8 FG) by converting all four free-throw attempts and draining both her 3-pointers, combining for 7 points from efficiency plays that lifted her to 15 PA on 62% true shooting. Her 29 minutes gave her adequate opportunity to accumulate scoring, and the 18% usage rate was offset by clean shot selection that kept her out of foul trouble (3 PF).
- Emily Engstler Under 15.5 PR18 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upEngstler exceeded the 15.5 prop by converting all four free throws and hitting 2-of-3 from three, lifting her scoring efficiency to 62% TS despite modest 18% usage in 29 minutes. The strong shooting nights on limited volume proved enough to push her past the line.
- Emily Engstler Under 18.5 PRA21 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationEngstler's efficient 4-for-4 free-throw shooting and high true shooting (62%) pushed her over the line despite modest field-goal volume, as she converted 9 of her 12 points from the stripe to reach 21 PRA in 29 minutes.
- Nia Coffey Under 8.5 PTS9 vs 8.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upCoffey narrowly exceeded the total on 4-8 shooting (50% FG) in 20 minutes, with her offensive efficiency—particularly a 3-for-4 night from two-point range—pushing her just past the 8.5-point threshold despite modest volume.
- Courtney Williams Under 21.5 PA22 vs 21.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationWilliams exceeded the under by just one point on efficient shooting (58% TS, 6-12 FG) while logging a full 32 minutes with clean foul trouble (0 PF), allowing her to sustain offensive involvement throughout the game.
- Courtney Williams Under 4.5 AST7 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilliams exceeded the assist line by orchestrating the offense at a high rate despite moderate usage, dishing out 7 assists across 32 minutes of floor time with only 2 turnovers to manage the ball efficiently.
NYL @ IND1–3−2.34u
- Kelsey Mitchell Under 29.5 PRA34 vs 29.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMitchell's elite 84% true shooting—fueled by 10-of-14 field goal accuracy and 4-of-6 from three—pushed her well past 29.5 pra despite playing only 30 minutes in a blowout. Her 32% usage rate was high enough to generate scoring volume, and near-perfect efficiency on those attempts made the over inevitable.
- Jonquel Jones Over 13.5 PTS13 vs 13.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationJones fell one point short despite efficient shooting (63% TS) because 27 minutes and 24% usage limited her volume—she needed to average 0.50 PPM to hit the over and managed only 0.48 PPM with just 9 field goal attempts.
- Caitlin Clark Over 26.5 PA24 vs 26.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationClark's 24 points fell just short despite solid efficiency (52% TS), held back by only 26 minutes of playing time and 5-14 shooting from the field—she needed to either extend her minutes or improve her 36% FG rate to clear 26.5.
WAS @ GSV3–2+0.22u
- Michaela Onyenwere Under 1.5 3PM3 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOnyenwere went 3-for-6 from three despite modest usage, hitting at a 50% clip from deep to easily clear the 1.5 threes line. She stayed on the floor for 34 minutes without fouling out, giving her enough volume to cash the over despite a relatively quiet overall game.
- Gabby Williams Under 2.5 AST5 vs 2.5no clean explanationWilliams doubled the assist projection with a team-high 5 dimes while maintaining high usage (32%) and floor time (28 min), operating as a primary facilitator in the offense. The under was simply overpriced given her playmaking role and ample opportunity to rack up helpers.
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.