← scout_ml · WNBA
2026-10-09
Day by day
Latest 1 graded days from the same CORE benchmark shown in the headline, charts and sheet: scout_ml.
22–19 · 54% · −1.41u across the last 1 days
10/0922–1954%−1.41u2 games
ATL @ NYL4–5−2.50u
- Naz Hillmon Over 13.5 PRA7 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon's scoreless night (0-7 FG, 0-3 3PT) was the killer—she played 32 minutes but couldn't convert any shot attempts, leaving her 6.5 points short despite chipping in 4 rebounds and 3 assists. The shooting drought turned what should've been a playable volume into an outlier performance that cratered her PRA total.
- Sabrina Ionescu Over 15.5 PTS12 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu's poor shooting (4-12 FG, 4-11 3PT) combined with zero free throw attempts left her well short at 12 points despite playing 36 minutes, as her 50% TS% couldn't overcome the volume needed to clear 15.5.
- Pauline Astier Over 3.5 RA0 vs 3.5game script — blowout or foul troubleAstier saw minimal court time (8 min) with just 12% usage, providing no opportunity to accumulate assists when the bet required 4+. She recorded no offensive contributions and finished with a team-worst -9 rating, likely limiting her role for the remainder of the game.
- Leonie Fiebich Over 10.5 PR10 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upFiebich finished just shy at 10 points despite heavy minutes (37) and high usage (12%), undone by poor shooting efficiency (2-7 FG, 1-5 3PT) that left her one point short of the over. The 48% true shooting and low free-throw volume (3 attempts) meant she couldn't generate enough scoring volume to eclipse 10.5 despite opportunity.
- Pauline Astier Over 1.5 AST0 vs 1.5game script — blowout or foul troubleAstier's minimal 8-minute run and 12% usage rate left no opportunity to accumulate assists, and she recorded zero total contributions across points and boards, making playmaking chances unlikely in such limited action.
GSV @ LVA18–14+1.09u
- Kiah Stokes Under 0.5 3PM1 vs 0.5paid over the fair numberStokes hit her only three-point attempt in 38 minutes of extended run, converting 1-of-1 from deep on a rare long-range look that wasn't part of her typical usage pattern (8% overall). The under missed because she stepped outside even once in a game where she stayed primarily around the basket.
- Chelsea Gray Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5no clean explanationGray shot 2-for-3 from three on a season-high 43 minutes, hitting both of her makes in the first half to exceed the 1.5 line despite modest usage; the extended playing time in what appears to have been a close game kept her on the floor longer than typical, providing the extra opportunity needed to clear the mark.
- Chelsea Gray Under 17.5 PA22 vs 17.5paid over the fair numberGray exceeded the under on a hot shooting night, converting 6-of-12 from the field (50%) and 2-of-3 from three while playing all 43 minutes, allowing her to generate 22 points on just 22% usage—a significantly efficient output that pushed her past 17.5 despite moderate volume.
- Chelsea Gray Under 3.5 REB5 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's 43 minutes of court time—well above her season average—inflated her rebound opportunity despite modest usage, landing her at 5 boards to beat the 3.5 line.
- Chelsea Gray Under 14.5 PR22 vs 14.5no clean explanationGray torched a 64% TS% on 22% usage, converting 6-of-12 from the field and going a perfect 3-for-3 from three, far exceeding her typical efficiency and volume needed to clear 14.5 points. Her elite shooting night—particularly from deep—was the decisive factor in her 22-point output crushing the under.
- Chelsea Gray Under 20.5 PRA27 vs 20.5no clean explanationGray's efficient 64% TS and high volume (43 minutes, 22% usage) drove her to 27 PRA despite modest shot attempts, as her 6-12 FG and perfect 3-3 FT shooting made up for limited rebounds and assists.
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.