← all formulas · WNBA
scout_ml
795–713 over 1508 priced bets · -54.7u · ROI -3.6% -8.3% to +1.1% · CLV +1.05¢ +0.9% to +1.2%
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
these are the scout_ml picks — the same set listed in the sheet below. The record in the header bar is a different formula, so the two totals will not match.
513–447 · 53% · −28.66u across these days · 40 voided, nothing staked
08/062–167%+0.02u2 games
LVA @ IND1–1−0.51u
- A'ja Wilson Over 0.5 3PM0 vs 0.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilson went 0-for-2 from three despite heavy involvement (38 min, 34% usage), staying aggressive inside where she shot 10-25 overall and made all six free throws. The over missed because she simply didn't attempt enough threes (only 2 tries) to hit the floor in a game where the Las Vegas offense favored her dominant interior presence.
LAS @ MIN1–0+0.53u
08/051–0100%+0.57u1 game
SEA @ NYL1–0+0.57u
07/301–150%−0.55u2 games
MIN @ TOR0–1−1.00u
- Julie Allemand Over 0.5 3PM0 vs 0.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAllemand took only two three-point attempts in 22 minutes despite 6 assists, missing both from beyond the arc to fall short of the 0.5 line. Her 8% usage rate reflected limited offensive opportunities in a game where she functioned primarily as a facilitator rather than a scorer.
CON @ CHI1–0+0.45u
07/2217–1455%−0.69u6 games
MIN @ SEA3–5−3.12u
- Dominique Malonga Under 27.5 PRA32 vs 27.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMalonga torched the under with elite 76% true shooting on 28% usage, converting 9-of-13 from the field to pile up 21 points in just 26 minutes, while her 9 rebounds pushed her to 32 PRA and 4.5 points clear of the line. Her combination of efficient scoring and heavy rebounding activity—boosted by 4 blocks—delivered far more production per minute than the under-27.5 projection allowed for.
- Courtney Williams Under 4.5 AST6 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilliams distributed the ball effectively despite shooting 0-for-5, tallying 6 assists in 20 minutes as the primary facilitator in a blowout win (+9 on-court rating). Her 15% usage rate and zero points forced her into a pure playmaking role, which proved sufficient to clear the 4.5 assist line.
- Dominique Malonga Under 25.5 PR30 vs 25.5no clean explanationMalonga's efficient 69.2% true shooting (9-13 FG, 2-2 FT) combined with 28% usage over 26 minutes generated enough volume to exceed the 25.5 threshold, pushing her to 30 PR despite modest per-minute scoring rates. The under missed because her elite shot selection and finishing—particularly her 9-for-13 field goal performance—converted at a rate high enough to overcome her limited playing time.
- Nia Coffey Over 3.5 REB2 vs 3.5no clean explanationCoffey's limited 16 minutes and low usage rate (16%) restricted her rebounding opportunities, allowing only 2 boards despite efficient scoring (3-5 FG). The reduced playing time was the primary factor in falling short of the 3.5 rebound target.
- Napheesa Collier Over 2.5 AST1 vs 2.5no clean explanationCollier operated almost entirely as a scorer rather than a facilitator, posting a 44% usage rate with 24 points on 20 shots while recording just 1 assist in 22 minutes—a usage-heavy, ball-dominant performance that left little playmaking opportunity.
LVA @ WAS1–1−0.44u
- Georgia Amoore Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAmoore went 2-for-3 from three despite modest 23 minutes and 14% usage, hitting at an unsustainable 66.7% clip from deep—well above her season norms—to flip the under.
DAL @ POR3–3+0.02u
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 21.5 PA30 vs 21.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale's elite 82% true shooting and 8-12 field goal performance (67%) far exceeded her typical efficiency, allowing her to reach 30 points despite modest 20% usage and 35 minutes played. The under missed because she converted at an unusually high rate rather than through elevated volume or minutes.
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 23.5 PRA33 vs 23.5no clean explanationOgunbowale's elite efficiency—67% from three and 83% true shooting—allowed her to rack up 24 points on just 20% usage, and her 6 assists pushed her well over the 23.5 threshold despite playing a balanced role.
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 3.5 AST6 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale exceeded the 3.5 assist line by orchestrating the offense in 35 minutes with elevated usage (20%), finishing with 6 dimes while shooting an efficient 8-12 from the field. Her high volume and extended court time—paired with hot shooting that kept plays flowing—pushed her well above the under threshold.
CON @ IND2–1+0.70u
- Monique Billings Under 8.5 PA13 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBillings shot an efficient 5-7 from the field and 2-2 from free throw in 20 minutes, converting 9 of her 12 points from high-percentage looks near the basket, which pushed her over the 8.5 assists+rebounds threshold despite modest volume.
CHI @ NYL1–0+0.88u
PHO @ LAS7–4+1.27u
- Ariel Atkins Under 16.5 PRA22 vs 16.5no clean explanationAtkins torched her scoring projection on elite efficiency (76% TS, 5-9 FG) while playing heavy minutes (33), finishing with 15 points and 7 combined rebounds and assists to cruise past 16.5 pra despite modest 14% usage.
- Ariel Atkins Under 13.5 PR19 vs 13.5no clean explanationAtkins shot 5-of-9 from the field (56%) with efficient 3-point shooting (3-6) and didn't foul out, playing a full 33 minutes to exceed the under despite modest 14% usage. Her 76% true shooting percentage and clean foul sheet allowed her to convert opportunities at a high rate and stay on the floor for extended run.
- Kahleah Copper Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5no clean explanationCopper exceeded the assist line by just one, recording 3 dimes in 30 minutes while maintaining efficient scoring (10-16 FG) that kept her as a primary offensive option rather than a pure facilitator. Her high usage rate (25%) and dominant shot selection limited playmaking opportunities, but she still found enough passing lanes to narrowly clear the modest 2.5 threshold.
- Ariel Atkins Under 10.5 PTS15 vs 10.5paid over the fair numberAtkins exceeded the under on efficient shooting, going 5-9 from the field (56%) with a 3-6 night from three to reach 15 points despite modest 14% usage, as her elite 76% true shooting percentage made her scorable minutes more productive than typical.
07/2019–773%+6.80u4 games
WAS @ GSV1–2−1.43u
- Michaela Onyenwere Under 1.5 3PM3 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberOnyenwere went 3-7 from three in 31 minutes, nearly doubling her under line despite modest 18% usage—the efficient 3-point shooting (43%) and extended floor time were enough to push her over 1.5 makes despite limited offensive touches.
- Veronica Burton Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5no clean explanationBurton went 2-for-3 from deep on 26 minutes and 18% usage, hitting at an efficient 67% clip from three—well above her typical volume and accuracy, which was enough to clear the 1.5 line despite modest shot attempts.
LVA @ TOR2–0+1.65u
NYL @ DAL7–3+2.67u
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 19.5 PR34 vs 19.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale torched the under with a 29-point performance fueled by perfect free-throw shooting (8-8) and elite usage at 37%, running 38 minutes despite four fouls and converting 53% of her possessions efficiently.
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 22.5 PRA40 vs 22.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale's 40 PRA crushed the under as she dominated usage (37%) with efficient scoring—8-8 from the line and 9-24 from the field—while adding 6 assists across a full 38 minutes of play. The combination of high volume, free-throw efficiency, and playmaking gave her multiple avenues to accumulate points and assists well above the 22.5 threshold.
- Breanna Stewart Under 3.5 AST8 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStewart's playmaking activity spiked well beyond her season pattern, recording 8 assists on 27% usage in a high-volume 42-minute performance where she operated as a primary ball-mover in the offense. The combination of extended minutes and elevated usage generated more distribution opportunities than the under 3.5 accounted for.
MIN @ SEA9–2+3.89u
- Flau'jae Johnson Under 1.5 3PM5 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJohnson torched the three-ball at 5-for-8 (62.5%), well above her season norm, and maintained high volume with 8 three-point attempts in 28 minutes despite modest overall usage. The elite shooting efficiency—90% TS%—was driven almost entirely by her three-point stroke, turning what looked like a low-volume role into a perfect storm for three-point scoring.
- Katie Lou Samuelson Under 5.5 PTS7 vs 5.5no clean explanationSamuelson's efficient 2-4 shooting night (50% FG, 67% 3PT) combined with her 15 minutes of run time proved just enough to eclipse the 5.5-point line, as she converted all five of her shot attempts into seven points despite modest usage.
07/1921–1558%+0.84u3 games
CON @ PHO2–4−2.93u
- Monique Akoa Makani Under 2.5 REB6 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMakani stayed on the floor for a full 32 minutes and crashed the glass aggressively, pulling down 6 rebounds despite modest offensive touches—more than double the 2.5-rebound line. Her extended playing time and activity on the boards in a blowout win (+17) meant higher rebounding volume than the projection accounted for.
- Charlisse Leger-Walker Under 7.5 RA8 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberLeger-Walker's 5 assists paired with 3 rebounds to reach 8 RA, as she logged 29 minutes and maintained ball-handling duties despite shooting just 20% from the field. The under missed narrowly despite her offensive inefficiency because her playmaking role kept her involved on the glass and in the offense.
- Natasha Mack Over 8.5 PA4 vs 8.5paid over the fair numberMack's 4 assists fell well short despite 20 minutes of court time, as she recorded just one turnover and generated minimal ball movement in a low-usage role (12%). Her 0 ast-to-5 reb line reflects a game focused entirely on finishing rather than facilitating.
- Kahleah Copper Under 2.5 AST4 vs 2.5no clean explanationCopper's elevated 35 minutes and 30% usage rate—well above typical for her—gave her more opportunities to facilitate, and she converted those chances with 4 assists despite a modest 5-14 shooting night. The extended run in a competitive game pushed her over the 2.5 threshold.
LAS @ DAL5–3+1.20u
- Azzi Fudd Under 2.5 REB4 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upFudd grabbed 4 rebounds in 33 minutes of heavy playing time, exceeding the 2.5 line despite modest usage; she was active on the glass and contributed on the glass even as a perimeter-oriented scorer.
- Dearica Hamby Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHamby's 3 assists just cleared the 2.5 line despite modest usage (28%), as her efficiency in the post—shooting 8-for-12—created enough easy passes to role players to push her over the under target.
- Erica Wheeler Under 2.5 REB3 vs 2.5no clean explanationWheeler grabbed exactly one rebound more than the line allowed, staying on court for a full 35 minutes despite poor shooting (4-14 FG) and picking up 3 fouls, which kept her available for board opportunities even as her offensive efficiency cratered at 31% TS.
CHI @ ATL14–8+2.56u
- Sydney Taylor Under 16.5 PR21 vs 16.5no clean explanationTaylor exceeded the under by hitting 7-of-16 from the field (43.8%) and 3-of-7 from three (42.9%) while playing a full 28 minutes with elevated 28% usage, converting her opportunities at a 53% true shooting clip to reach 21 points. The efficient shooting night—particularly from beyond the arc—was the decisive factor in clearing the 16.5-point projection.
- Allisha Gray Under 25.5 PRA38 vs 25.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's elite 87% true shooting on 21% usage made her a volume-efficient scorer—she punished the defense with 11-13 free throws and 7-11 field goals in 35 minutes, delivering 29 points alone to far exceed the under.
- Sydney Taylor Under 19.5 PRA23 vs 19.5shots didn't fall — the read held upTaylor exceeded the 19.5 PRA line by 3.5 points on efficient shooting (53% TS, 7-16 FG) and solid supplementary stats (3 reb, 2 ast, 1 stl) across 28 minutes of heavy usage at 28%. The combination of high volume and clean efficiency—plus avoiding turnovers—pushed her total just over the chalk.
- Sydney Taylor Under 17.5 PA20 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upTaylor's 20 points came on efficient 7-16 shooting (43.8% FG) and elevated usage at 28%, enough volume to clear 17.5 despite modest three-point shooting (3-7). The under missed because she stayed out of foul trouble (5 PF) and played a full 28 minutes, maintaining enough shot attempts to exceed the line.
- Azura Stevens Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStevens went 2-for-4 from three and hit both her makes in a game where she saw elevated usage (25%), staying efficient at 75% TS% and playing the full 30 minutes without foul trouble to limit her opportunities.
- Allisha Gray Under 3.5 REB6 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's elite shooting night (7-11 FG, 4-6 3PT, 11-13 FT) kept her on the floor for a game-high 35 minutes, allowing her to crash the glass more opportunistically than her modest 21% usage rate might suggest. She secured 6 boards despite modest volume, exceeding the under by one rebound in a high-efficiency performance.
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.
07/1731–1666%+6.84u4 games
LAS @ CHI4–7−3.83u
- Sydney Taylor Under 20.5 PRA22 vs 20.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upTaylor's efficient 60% shooting night (6-10 FG, 4-7 3PT) combined with 26 minutes of run time pushed her over the line with 22 PRA, as her elite 81% true shooting percentage and 20% usage rate translated to consistent scoring output that exceeded the 20.5 threshold.
- Natasha Cloud Under 3.5 REB6 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCloud doubled her recent rebounding average with 6 boards, benefiting from an extra 6 minutes of court time (32 vs. 26.2 pregame expectation) and increased involvement as a playmaker (9 assists on 14% usage suggesting heavy ball-handling and floor time).
- Natasha Cloud Under 21.5 PRA30 vs 21.5no clean explanationCloud's 9 assists and 6 rebounds pushed her to 30 PRA despite modest scoring, as she logged 32 minutes and ran the offense efficiently at 69% true shooting in a blowout win (+11).
- Sydney Taylor Under 2.5 3PM4 vs 2.5no clean explanationTaylor's 4-7 three-point shooting (57%) far exceeded her typical volume and efficiency, with her 20% usage rate concentrated heavily on outside attempts rather than drives or mid-range looks. The hot hand proved unstoppable despite the modest 26 minutes, as she connected on over half her deep attempts to easily surpass the 2.5 line.
- Natasha Cloud Under 9.5 RA15 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCloud's 9 assists pushed her over the 9.5 line as she operated as the primary playmaker in 32 minutes, well above typical run for a bench role. Her efficient 69% true shooting and zero turnovers enabled high-volume, high-confidence decision-making that generated the additional dime needed to bust the under.
- Sydney Taylor Under 18.5 PA21 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upTaylor's efficient 6-10 shooting (60% FG, 57% from three) on elevated usage (20%) in 26 minutes resulted in 19 points, but her 4 free-throw attempts—converting all 4—provided the 2 additional points needed to clear 18.5.
SEA @ IND8–3+2.32u
- Natisha Hiedeman Under 4.5 AST8 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHiedeman doubled her assist projection with 8 dimes in 30 minutes, operating as a primary facilitator with 20% usage and connecting on 55% of her field goals to generate efficient scoring opportunities for teammates. The high-volume playmaking in a steady role made the under an underestimate of her distribution touch.
- Dominique Malonga Under 17.5 PTS28 vs 17.5paid over the fair numberMalonga torched the under with a 13-22 shooting night (59% FG) and 39% usage rate in 29 minutes, nearly doubling the 17.5-point line. Her elite 61% true shooting and aggressive volume in a high-usage role made the under untenable from the start.
- Monique Billings Under 8.5 PTS16 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBillings erupted with 31 minutes—well above her pre-game 20.1—and converted 11 of 14 shots (79% TS) to easily clear 8.5 points; the extended role and elite efficiency on high volume were the decisive factors.
ATL @ TOR10–4+3.38u
- Naz Hillmon Under 1.5 3PM4 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon went perfect from three (4-4) in just 25 minutes, a sharp departure from her L10 average of 1.0 threes and her typical volume—she simply got hot at the right time when opportunities presented themselves. The under was predicated on her historical shooting pattern, but elite efficiency from deep (100% on limited attempts) overrode the volume concerns that justified the 1.5 threshold.
- Julie Allemand Under 18.5 PRA20 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upAllemand's efficient 9 points (3-5 FG, 3-4 3PT) combined with 5 rebounds and 6 assists to reach 20 PRA, as she stayed on the floor for a full 32 minutes without fouling out despite 3 personal fouls. Her high true shooting percentage (90%) meant even limited scoring volume was highly productive relative to the betting threshold.
- Maria Conde Under 11.5 PA18 vs 11.5paid over the fair numberConde cashed 8-of-9 free throws and drew fouls at a high rate, accumulating 18 points despite shooting just 2-8 from the field, which pushed her well over the 11.5 assists + points projection. Her 31 minutes and 18% usage still generated enough volume to exceed the line through efficient free-throw shooting and getting to the line.
- Julie Allemand Under 11.5 PR14 vs 11.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAllemand's elite 90% true shooting—fueled by perfect 3-point shooting (3-4) and efficient field-goal work (3-5)—pushed her to 14 points despite modest volume, easily clearing the 11.5 under. She maximized her 32 minutes and 12% usage with near-flawless scoring efficiency rather than volume.
CON @ PHO9–2+4.97u
- DeWanna Bonner Under 8.5 RA11 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBonner's 10 rebounds easily cleared the 8.5 line despite poor scoring efficiency, as she logged a team-high 30 minutes and maintained strong rebounding activity on 11 shot attempts. The Under missed because her rebounding volume—not scoring—drove the prop, and she was on the floor constantly in what appears to have been a low-scoring, possession-heavy game.
- Monique Akoa Makani Under 3.5 AST4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upDespite a season-low 20 minutes and invisible scoring (0-for-6), Akoa Makani still reached 4 assists on modest 19% usage, suggesting she maintained setup duties even in limited action and off-night shooting. Her recent L10 average of 2.3 assists underestimated her floor playmaking role, which proved resilient enough to clear 3.5 despite the offensive drought.
07/165–5 ·1 void50%−1.04u2 games
NYL @ DAL0–3−3.00u
- Jessica Shepard Under 27.5 PR29 vs 27.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberShepard's efficient inside game—shooting 4-for-7 from the field and 5-for-6 from free throw—combined with a game-high 16 rebounds and 38 minutes of run to push her to 29 points-rebounds, just enough to beat the 27.5 line despite modest scoring of only 13 points.
- Jessica Shepard Under 33.5 PRA35 vs 33.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberShepard's elite efficiency—67% TS on 15% usage—combined with a team-high 38 minutes and 16 rebounds to push her just over the threshold; the high playing time and rebounding volume compensated for modest scoring in a low-usage role.
- Jessica Shepard Under 5.5 AST6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberShepard exceeded the 5.5 assist line by one with 6 assists despite modest 15% usage, benefiting from 38 minutes of court time and likely serving as a secondary playmaker in a game where her team needed offensive distribution.
POR @ WAS5–2 ·1 void+1.96u
- Sarah Ashlee Barker Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBarker hit 2-of-3 from three despite modest volume, converting 67% from deep on limited attempts in 24 minutes—efficient shooting from range was enough to clear the 1.5 line.
- Shakira Austin Under 3.5 AST4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upAustin's 4 assists came on 34 minutes and 28% usage, exceeding her L5 average of 2.4 and hitting the over despite a modest 50% TS%; the elevated floor time and offensive involvement in what became a close game pushed her into more playmaking opportunities than her recent trend suggested.
07/146–555%−0.64u2 games
WAS @ TOR5–5−1.35u
- Julie Allemand Under 7.5 PTS15 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAllemand nearly doubled her season average (7.0 PPG) with a 75% true shooting night on 10 FG attempts, significantly outpacing her typical 30.5 min and 18% usage rate. The elite efficiency—particularly 3-6 from three—was the primary driver, as she exceeded projections despite a -20 +/- in a blowout loss.
- Julie Allemand Under 18.5 PRA22 vs 18.5paid over the fair numberAllemand's efficient 75% true shooting and high-volume output—6-of-10 FG with 3 threes made on 33 minutes—pushed her to 22 PRA, surpassing the 18.5 line despite modest usage. The under missed because she converted at an elite clip rather than volume; nearly 60% of her shot attempts fell.
- Julie Allemand Under 14.5 PA17 vs 14.5paid over the fair numberAllemand's efficient 6-10 shooting (60% FG) and 33 minutes of floor time pushed her to 17 points, well above the 14.5 line, despite modest usage at 18%—her accuracy rather than volume was the deciding factor.
- Michaela Onyenwere Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5no clean explanationOnyenwere hit 2-of-4 from three despite averaging only 1.2 threes over her last 10 games, and played just 23 minutes—below her typical 28—which made her per-game volume enough to clear the 1.5 line on a hot shooting night (50% from deep).
- Julie Allemand Under 10.5 PR20 vs 10.5paid over the fair numberAllemand torched the glass at 75% true shooting on 18% usage, going 6-10 from the field with three 3-pointers made, and logged 33 minutes to rack up 20 points and easily clear the 10.5 line. Her elite efficiency and full-game availability were the decisive factors in a blowout where she didn't need heavy usage to score.
POR @ CON1–0+0.71u
07/1317–1357%+0.38u2 games
LAS @ ATL13–11−0.47u
- Erica Wheeler Under 9.5 PTS20 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler torched the under on a 50% FG night (8-16) and 59% true shooting—more than 20 percentage points above her season clip of 36.1%—while playing 32 minutes with elevated usage (27%), simply outgunning Atlanta's perimeter defense in a way her season averages (8.0 PPG, 7.7 L10) never suggested was likely.
- Ariel Atkins Under 13.5 PR16 vs 13.5no clean explanationAtkins exceeded the 13.5 line by going 5-11 from the field (45% FG) while logging 34 minutes with elevated usage (18%), converting 3-of-3 free throws to reach 16 points despite a quiet 0-3 three-point night. The over-reliance on two-point makes and free throws—rather than her typical three-point volume—was enough to push her over the total.
- Rae Burrell Under 20.5 PRA26 vs 20.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurrell shot efficiently across the board (55.6% FG, 40% 3PT, 100% FT) and stayed out of foul trouble with just 3 PF in 33 minutes, accumulating 26 PRA through consistent scoring and playmaking rather than volume alone.
- Rae Burrell Under 17.5 PR22 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurrell's 77% true shooting efficiency—fueled by a perfect 6-6 from the line and 56% overall shooting—combined with 33 minutes of playing time to push her to 22 points despite a modest 18% usage rate. The high-efficiency night on limited volume was the outlier that broke the under.
- Rae Burrell Under 17.5 PA22 vs 17.5no clean explanationBurrell's perfect 6-for-6 free-throw shooting and 77% true shooting efficiency drove her to 22 points despite modest 18% usage, as she capitalized on high-quality looks rather than high volume. Her elite efficiency on limited shot attempts—including 2-for-5 from three—was enough to clear the 17.5-point line in 33 minutes.
- Nneka Ogwumike Under 3.5 AST5 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgwumike delivered 5 assists on 32 minutes and 23% usage, exceeding the 3.5 line by initiating offense at a higher rate than the pre-game forecast suggested; her efficient 68% TS% and high touch volume (19 points on 13 FGA) kept her engaged as a primary playmaker.
PHO @ MIN4–2+0.86u
- DeWanna Bonner Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBonner hit 2-of-7 from three despite modest volume, converting at 29% from deep—right at her season average—and her 33 minutes of run ensured enough looks to clear the 1.5 line in a game where she remained aggressive early despite foul trouble never materializing.
- DeWanna Bonner Under 14.5 PR26 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBonner erupted for 26 points on an efficient 62% TS%, converting 6-of-12 from the field and 3-of-4 from the line while logging 33 minutes—well above her typical role—to blow past the 14.5 total. Her 21% usage rate was modest, but the elite shooting efficiency (especially on limited 3-point volume) was the outlier that sank the under.
07/1216–1946%−5.96u4 games
CHI @ DAL1–7−6.18u
- Azura Stevens Under 1.5 3PM3 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStevens hit 3-for-6 from three (50%), well above her recent L5 average of 1.6 and nearly double her fair-value expectation of 38.96% over, converting an unusually hot shooting night into the over result despite modest 24% usage.
- Natasha Cloud Under 19.5 PRA20 vs 19.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upCloud's efficient 62.5% FG mark (5-8) paired with a perfect 5-5 from the line powered her to exactly 20 PRA, narrowly clearing the 19.5 line despite modest volume and usage at just 18%.
- Natasha Cloud Under 14.5 PR17 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCloud's efficient 5-8 shooting (62.5 FG%) and perfect 5-5 free-throw night pushed her to 15 points, while her 32 minutes of run time—the most she'd likely played in recent games at that usage rate—gave her enough opportunities to exceed the 14.5 line despite modest shot volume.
- Azura Stevens Under 19.5 PR31 vs 19.5paid over the fair numberStevens torched the Under with an elite 67% true shooting on 24% usage, combining 18 points and 13 rebounds to reach 31 PR in 32 minutes—the combination of high efficiency and heavy rebounding volume proved too much for the 19.5 line.
- Azura Stevens Under 12.5 PTS18 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStevens shot an efficient 7-13 from the field (54%) with a 67% true shooting rate, well above her season norm, while logging 32 minutes and maintaining high usage at 24% to easily clear 12.5 points. The hot shooting night—particularly her 3-6 performance from three—was the primary driver in her exceeding the projection by 5.5 points.
- Azzi Fudd Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5paid over the fair numberFudd's playmaking role expanded in a high-usage game (35 min, 20% usage), and she hit the over mark with exactly 3 assists despite modest shooting efficiency (5-14 FG). The under missed by just one assist in a game where she was heavily involved in the offense.
NYL @ TOR8–11−4.84u
- Julie Allemand Under 3.5 REB5 vs 3.5no clean explanationAllemand's playmaking role (10 assists in 34 minutes) kept her active on the floor and in position to grab boards despite low scoring volume, resulting in 5 rebounds to exceed the 3.5 line.
- Maria Conde Under 16.5 PR17 vs 16.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upConde's efficient 5-11 shooting (45% FG, 43% 3PT) and 34 minutes of play pushed her just over the line despite modest usage at 16%, as the +14 rating suggested she stayed on the court in a game flow favorable to her production.
- Julie Allemand Under 10.5 RA15 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAllemand's 10 assists—well above her 6.5 average per her box—drove the miss, as she played heavy minutes (34) and facilitated heavily despite minimal scoring (4 pts on 50% TS). The under assumed her typical assist volume, but she posted a season-high distribution night that pushed her to 15 total rating.
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 2.5 3PM3 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu hit 3-of-7 from three (43%), exceeding her L10 average of 2.1 makes and converting at a clip well above her season norm despite modest volume. The elevated efficiency from deep—driven by hot shooting rather than increased attempts—was enough to clear the 2.5 line.
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 27.5 PRA40 vs 27.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu exploded for 40 PRA on elite 65% true shooting and 8 assists, nearly doubling the under at 27.5 despite modest 26% usage—her efficient 9-18 shooting (50%) from the field and 7-8 free throws were the difference-makers in a high-volume scoring night.
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 21.5 PR32 vs 21.5no clean explanationIonescu torched the under with elite efficiency, shooting 65% TS and 9-18 from the field while playing all 33 available minutes without foul trouble, accumulating 32 points well above the 21.5 line. Her 26% usage rate and high-volume role in a game that didn't feature a blowout gave her plenty of scoring opportunities to exceed the projection.
SEA @ WAS4–1+2.51u
- Awa Fam Under 5.5 REB9 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upFam crushed the glass with 9 rebounds despite brutal offensive efficiency (2-9 FG, 15% usage), pulling down boards at a rate well above her recent L5 average of 4.0—the game stayed competitive enough to generate rebound opportunities despite the low 159.5 total.
IND @ LVA3–0+2.55u
07/1115–2043%−9.49u3 games
POR @ ATL1–11−10.55u
- Naz Hillmon Under 15.5 PRA25 vs 15.5no clean explanationHillmon dominated the glass and scoring in 36 minutes, shooting 6-of-11 from the field (55%) to finish with 15 points and 8 rebounds for 25 PRA, well above the 15.5 line. Her efficient offensive night combined with heavy rebounding activity easily cleared the under despite modest usage, as she was a primary option in a game that stayed competitive throughout.
- Madina Okot Under 11.5 PTS19 vs 11.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOkot's efficient 7-14 shooting (50% FG) and perfect 5-5 free-throw line combined with high usage (33%) to push her well over the 11.5-point threshold despite playing just 22 minutes. She nearly doubled the projection by converting at a 59% true-shooting clip on aggressive volume.
- Madina Okot Under 6.5 REB8 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOkot exceeded the 6.5 rebound line by grabbing 8 boards in 22 minutes, capitalizing on a 33% usage rate and 7-14 shooting efficiency that kept her heavily involved on the glass. Her activity on the offensive end—combined with limited foul trouble (1 PF)—allowed her to stay on the floor and compete for rebounds throughout.
- Madina Okot Under 18.5 PR27 vs 18.5no clean explanationOkot erupted for 27 points on an efficient 7-14 FG and 5-5 FT despite limited 22 minutes, converting at 59% TS while commanding 33% usage—well above typical volume for her role. The high efficiency and usage rate in condensed minutes pushed her well past the 18.5 total.
- Naz Hillmon Under 14.5 PR23 vs 14.5paid over the fair numberHillmon's 23 PR crushed the under on explosive efficiency: she shot 6-11 from the field (55%) while playing 36 minutes of heavy usage, combining 15 points and 8 rebounds to rack up contributions far beyond the 14.5 projection.
- Rhyne Howard Under 3.5 AST4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberHoward hit the over despite modest offensive efficiency (3-9 FG, 51% TS) because she was heavily involved in playmaking and ball-handling duties in the starting role (31 min, 4 steals), generating one more assist than her season average of 2.8 to clear the 3.5 line.
NYL @ MIN8–7−1.29u
- Dorka Juhasz Over 1.5 3PM0 vs 1.5no clean explanationJuhasz bricked both her three-point attempts (0-2 from deep) in just 16 minutes, finishing 0-for-2 from three with minimal offensive involvement at 8% usage. The limited floor time and cold shooting from distance doomed the over.
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 19.5 PA30 vs 19.5no clean explanationIonescu erupted for 30 PA on 31% usage and 57% TS%, converting 9-of-20 FG while staying out of foul trouble (0 PF) and logging a full 35 minutes, well exceeding the under's expectation of a quieter offensive night.
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 14.5 PTS25 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu torched the under by playing 35 minutes (6 more than projected) and shooting an efficient 57% TS on 31% usage, converting 9-of-20 from the field including 4 foul shots with no fouls to limit her floor time. The game flow and blowout margin (+7) allowed her to stay on the court and accumulate volume in a way the tight 3.5-point spread and 173.5 total suggested wouldn't materialize.
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 2.5 3PM3 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu hit exactly 3 threes on 12 attempts (25% from deep), landing right at the threshold; she stayed aggressive throughout 35 minutes with 31% usage and never fouled out, giving her enough volume and opportunity to clear the 2.5 mark despite below-average three-point shooting.
- Olivia Miles Under 1.5 3PM4 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMiles went 4-7 from three (57%), well above her season norm, and played a full 32 minutes without foul trouble, giving her plenty of volume to exceed the 1.5 three-point line.
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 18.5 PR33 vs 18.5no clean explanationIonescu exploded for 33 PR on elite efficiency (57% TS, 9-20 FG) while logging 35 minutes with zero fouls, allowing her to sustain high usage (31%) without restriction. The 25 points, 8 rebounds, and 5 assists all came in abundance, easily clearing the 18.5 line.
PHO @ LVA6–2+2.34u
- Valeriane Ayayi Under 4.5 REB7 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAyayi played 31 minutes—10 above her stable 20.1 pre-game average—and grabbed 7 rebounds, directly contradicting the under thesis that relied on her limited run; the extended floor time overwhelmed her typically modest rebounding rate.
- Jewell Loyd Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upLoyd hit the over on modest volume, recording 3 assists in 28 minutes despite a quiet 14% usage rate—she simply facilitated enough to clear the low bar despite struggling to score (3-7 FG). The under required her to contribute 2 or fewer, but even in a low-usage game she managed one extra helper.
07/1014–10 ·1 void58%+1.38u3 games
GSV @ CON4–4 ·1 void−0.69u
- Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 11.5 PTS12 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upNelson-Ododa pushed past the line on modest volume, converting 5 of 13 shots (38%) but getting to the free-throw line twice to reach 12 points in 25 minutes of heavy usage (36%), just enough to clear the 11.5 threshold despite inefficient shooting.
- Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 13.5 PA16 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upNelson-Ododa exceeded the under despite poor efficiency (41% TS, 5-13 FG) because her 36% usage rate and 25 minutes of play generated enough volume—she attempted 13 shots and got to the free-throw line twice, accumulating 16 PA on a high-volume night. The blowout loss (-9 +/-) didn't limit her opportunities early enough to keep her under the projection.
- Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 21.5 PRA24 vs 21.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upNelson-Ododa hit the over on volume alone: she played 25 minutes with 36% usage and logged 8 rebounds and 4 assists to reach 24 PRA, despite shooting just 5-13 (38 FG%) and turning the ball over four times.
- Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 18.5 PR20 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upNelson-Ododa eclipsed the line despite inefficient scoring (5-13 FG, 41% TS) because she logged 25 minutes with 36% usage, generating enough volume through 8 rebounds and 4 assists to reach 20 points. The under missed on pure opportunity—she took 13 shots and was heavily involved in the offense despite poor conversion rates.
DAL @ TOR5–3+0.91u
- Arike Ogunbowale Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale shot just 1-for-3 from three despite 30 minutes and solid overall efficiency (71% TS), with her scoring punch coming almost entirely from two-pointers (5-8) and free throws (7-7) rather than her usual perimeter volume. The recency concern proved justified: her L5 average of 1.0 threes aligned perfectly with this outcome, and even her elevated L10 mark of 1.8 couldn't overcome a shooting night where she simply didn't get to or hit enough threes.
- Julie Allemand Under 9.5 RA13 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAllemand's 8 assists and 5 rebounds combined for 13 ra, beating the under despite inefficient scoring (1-3 FG); she played all 34 available minutes and ran the offense enough to rack up periphery stats that mattered more than her scoring drought.
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 13.5 PTS20 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale torched the line with elite efficiency, shooting 6-11 from the field (55%) and a perfect 7-7 from the free-throw line to reach 20 points in 30 minutes, well above the 13.5 threshold.
CHI @ LAS5–3+1.16u
- Ariel Atkins Under 9.5 PTS17 vs 9.5paid over the fair numberAtkins torched the under with an unusually efficient 7-13 shooting night (54% FG) despite modest 21% usage, converting at a 63% true shooting rate that far exceeded her season baseline and the game script. The sharp under thesis crumbled on her hot hand—she simply shot the lights out in 29 minutes rather than the inefficient, limited-volume night the projection anticipated.
- Erica Wheeler Under 13.5 PA23 vs 13.5paid over the fair numberWheeler's efficient 6-10 shooting (60% FG, 75% TS%) and extended 28-minute run gave her far more scoring opportunities than the 13.5 line anticipated. Her 18% usage rate on a team that leaned on her in the second half drove her to 23 points, well above the under threshold.
- Ariel Atkins Under 12.5 PR20 vs 12.5no clean explanationAtkins erupted to 17 points on 7-13 shooting (63% TS) with efficient 3-point range, far exceeding the modest 12.5 prop threshold despite modest 21% usage and 29 minutes. Her hot hand and high-volume scoring night—aided by a +24 rating in a blowout—made the under an easy miss.
07/0914–961%+1.84u3 games
IND @ PHO7–6−0.44u
- DeWanna Bonner Under 6.5 REB7 vs 6.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upBonner grabbed 7 rebounds in 27 minutes—one more than the 6.5 line—despite modest 15% usage, as she corralled boards at a higher rate than her season average in a game where Phoenix needed rebounding help in the loss.
- Lexie Hull Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5no clean explanationHull went 2-for-3 from three in 18 minutes, hitting at an elite 66.7% clip from deep—well above her season rate—to easily clear the 1.5 line despite modest usage. The sharp under thesis needed her to stay quiet from distance, but she was efficient enough in limited minutes to spoil the bet.
- Tyasha Harris Under 4.5 AST5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationHarris exceeded her 4.5 assist line by distributing 5 dimes in 22 minutes, a modest uptick from her 1.9 L10 average but enough to cash the over despite limited usage at 19%—the pre-game data flagged the under as mispriced, and Harris's efficient playmaking in concentrated minutes delivered. Her near-perfect shooting night (94% TS on 19% usage) created natural assist opportunities that pushed her just past the line.
- Tyasha Harris Under 7.5 PTS15 vs 7.5paid over the fair numberHarris nearly doubled her season average on 22 minutes (8 more than her L5 baseline) and shot an elite 75% from the field including 75% from three, torching the efficiency assumptions baked into the under.
- Tyasha Harris Under 11.5 PA20 vs 11.5no clean explanationHarris erupted on elite efficiency (6-8 FG, 3-4 3PT, 94% TS%), scoring 15 points in 22 minutes, and added 5 assists to reach 20 PA—well above the 11.5 line despite modest usage (19%) and playing within foul trouble (5 PF).
- Lexie Hull Under 8.5 PTS10 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHull's efficient 4-6 shooting night (67% FG, 66% 3PT) delivered 10 points in 18 minutes—a modest spike from her L10 average of 6.7, but enough to clear the 8.5 line on a night when her scoring volume stayed modest at 16% usage.
LVA @ POR2–1−0.08u
- Bridget Carleton Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCarleton delivered exactly one more assist than her 1.5 L10 average despite playing under her typical 31.2 min, aided by a game situation that likely generated more ball movement; her 20% usage and modest shooting efficiency (3-10 FG) meant she wasn't forcing playmaking, but the extra dime came through nonetheless.
SEA @ ATL5–2+2.36u
- Natisha Hiedeman Under 2.5 3PM3 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHiedeman hit exactly 3-of-9 from three to push past the 2.5 line, staying aggressive with 27% usage over 34 minutes despite a -9 rating in a losing effort. Her 3-point makes matched her season consistency rather than an outlier performance.
- Awa Fam Under 2.5 AST4 vs 2.5no clean explanationFam's ball-movement role kept her at 4 assists despite poor individual shooting (2-8 FG), as she logged 30 minutes and maintained steady playmaking duties even while her scoring dragged down her overall efficiency.
07/0815–1550%−3.48u3 games
IND @ LAS3–8−6.32u
- Nneka Ogwumike Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberOgwumike went 2-for-4 from three despite her recent averages (1.2 L10, 0.8 L5), hitting at a 50% clip from deep in 31 minutes—well above her typical volume and efficiency from beyond the arc. The hot shooting night from three, combined with high usage (28%), pushed her over the 1.5 line despite the under being positioned correctly on her season trends.
- Ariel Atkins Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberAtkins hit 2-of-5 from three despite modest usage (17%), converting at 40% from deep—above her season average—and played a full 31 minutes without foul trouble to stay on the floor for elevated shot volume.
- Erica Wheeler Under 8.5 PTS12 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler's efficient 5-10 shooting (50% FG) and elevated 29 minutes pushed her over the 8.5 total despite modest 16% usage, as she benefited from hot early-game shooting that our model had underestimated.
- Erica Wheeler Under 13.5 PA18 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWheeler's 18 points exceeded the 13.5 line despite modest 5-10 shooting (50% FG) because she operated efficiently from three-point range and the free-throw line, posting 57% true shooting over 29 minutes of run. Her 16% usage rate proved sufficient for an over performance when paired with her high-efficiency scoring night.
- Ariel Atkins Under 9.5 PTS12 vs 9.5no clean explanationAtkins exceeded her recent 7.2 ppg average despite modest 17% usage, shooting a hot 55% TS and playing 31 minutes—7 more than her L10 average—to push past the 9.5 line. The uptick in playing time and efficient shooting (4-10 FG, 2-5 3PT) proved decisive in what was otherwise a low-volume performance.
- Ariel Atkins Under 12.5 PR15 vs 12.5no clean explanationAtkins exceeded the under on point rebounds (12 points + 4 rebounds = 16, vs. 12.5 line) despite modest scoring; her 31 minutes of run and 17% usage gave her enough opportunities to accumulate 4 boards that pushed her over the threshold.
GSV @ TOR2–1+0.16u
- Gabby Williams Over 19.5 PRA10 vs 19.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilliams delivered just 10 PRA on only 18 minutes played, falling well short of the 19.5 line; her inefficient 3-9 shooting (33% FG) and limited offensive opportunities at 29% usage made it impossible to reach the threshold despite the low floor of available minutes.
MIN @ CON10–6+2.68u
- Kayla McBride Under 22.5 PA27 vs 22.5no clean explanationMcBride's perfect 9-for-9 from the free-throw line and efficient 6-for-10 shooting generated 27 points in 38 minutes, easily clearing the 22.5 total as she took advantage of elevated usage (17%) in a game where the team needed her scoring.
- Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 17.5 PR19 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationNelson-Ododa exceeded the under on points+rebounds (19 vs. 17.5) despite modest volume, shooting an efficient 68% TS on 9 field-goal attempts and grabbing 5 boards in 27 minutes of play. The combination of high-efficiency scoring and solid rebounding in limited minutes proved just enough to push her over the line.
- Courtney Williams Under 5.5 AST7 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilliams exceeded her recent trend (L10: 3.9 APG) by distributing the ball at a higher rate tonight, finishing with 7 assists on 28% usage and 30 minutes—a marked uptick from her pattern of rarely hitting the over on this line.
- Kayla McBride Under 3.5 AST4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationMcBride exceeded her recent assist average (2.4 L5) by logging a season-high 38 minutes in a game where she shot 90% from the field, elevating her offensive rhythm and creating more ball-movement opportunities than her typical role. Her zero turnovers on 17% usage also indicates she maintained efficient decision-making throughout the extended run.
- Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 19.5 PRA21 vs 19.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationNelson-Ododa's 68% true shooting and efficient 6-9 shooting night pushed her to 21 PRA despite modest 27 minutes, as her high-volume scoring on limited touches (19% usage) exceeded the under's expectation for a bench role.
- Leila Lacan Under 19.5 PRA27 vs 19.5no clean explanationLacan torched the under with elite efficiency, shooting 5-for-9 from the field (56%) and 3-for-3 from the line while adding 6 assists to finish at 27 PRA—8 points clear of the line. Her 73% true shooting and 29 minutes of run time were enough to overcome modest 17% usage, as the high-efficiency rate converted limited volume into a decisive beat.
07/0734–21 ·3 void62%+8.08u2 games
CHI @ PHO11–9 ·3 void−0.07u
- Azura Stevens Under 9.5 RA12 vs 9.5no clean explanationStevens grabbed 10 rebounds in 26 minutes—a rate of 13.8 per 40—and despite poor 3-10 shooting, remained active on the glass enough to clear the 9.5 rebound line. Her elevated usage (24%) and full complement of minutes kept her rebounding volume consistent with her season trends.
- Kahleah Copper Under 1.5 3PM4 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCopper went 4-for-10 from three and played 34 minutes, exceeding her steady 31.7-minute average and converting at a 40% clip from deep—well above the modest recency gap we identified—to easily clear the 1.5 threes line. Her elevated usage (35%) and high-volume attempt rate made the under vulnerable despite the L10 fade look.
- Kamilla Cardoso Under 2.5 AST4 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCardoso doubled her season assist average with 4 dimes in 28 minutes, benefiting from elevated ball-handling and playmaking responsibility in a game where she logged strong usage despite modest scoring output. The under was built on her 2.4 L10 average, but she exceeded that floor by operating as a secondary facilitator on the perimeter.
- DeWanna Bonner Under 18.5 PR19 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upBonner's 19 points came from elite efficiency despite modest volume—she shot 4-for-4 from the free-throw line and 77% true shooting—which allowed her to exceed the 18.5 under on just 12 field goals in 31 minutes of play.
- DeWanna Bonner Under 6.5 REB7 vs 6.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upBonner grabbed 7 rebounds in 31 minutes, exceeding her L10 average of 5.4 by pushing her rebounding activity despite modest usage (13%), as the Mystics kept her on the floor in a competitive game rather than blowing out early.
- Azura Stevens Under 6.5 REB10 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStevens crushed the glass with 10 rebounds in 26 minutes—well above her 6.5 line—despite shooting just 3-10 from the field, as her activity on the boards and willingness to crash for offensive chances (she was active on the glass early) compensated for inefficient scoring. The under missed because rebounding volume, not shooting efficiency, was her calling card in this game.
DAL @ NYL23–12+8.15u
- Arike Ogunbowale Over 1.5 3PM0 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale went 0-for-4 from three despite 32 minutes and solid court time, failing to generate her typical volume from deep; the under hit on poor shot selection or defensive coverage that kept her off the three-ball entirely.
- Jessica Shepard Under 15.5 RA23 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upShepard's 23 rebounds and assists combined well above the 15.5 line, driven by a team-high 37 minutes of play and elite 69% true shooting that kept her on the floor in a competitive game. Her 12 rebounds paired with 11 assists reflected both volume and efficiency that exceeded expectation despite modest 24% usage.
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 4.5 AST5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu hit the over by one assist despite inefficient shooting (5-15 FG, 44% TS), driven by heavy usage (27%) and full availability in 33 minutes—the mixed pre-game signals proved prescient, as she generated just enough volume to clear 4.5 dimes.
- Breanna Stewart Under 8.5 REB9 vs 8.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upStewart's 9 rebounds came on a high-volume night (33 min, 31% usage, 10-16 FG), and she grabbed boards on nearly every second-chance opportunity available in a competitive game—the under at 8.5 was always tight, and her aggressive floor time made the one-rebound margin inevitable.
- Jessica Shepard Under 13.5 PTS22 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upShepard's elite 11-16 shooting (69% TS) from the field, combined with 37 minutes of run and high usage in a balanced offensive attack, easily carried her past 13.5 despite taking no three-pointers or free throws.
- Azzi Fudd Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5no clean explanationFudd played 34 minutes with 17% usage and recorded exactly 3 assists, one more than the 2.5 line required, despite shooting just 46% TS and missing all four three-point attempts. The under missed by the narrowest margin on a quiet offensive night where she still logged significant floor time.
07/0625–12 ·7 void68%+7.18u3 games
CON @ MIN4–6 ·5 void−2.25u
- Natasha Howard Under 18.5 PA22 vs 18.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward shot an efficient 6-10 from the field and 6-7 from the line (69% TS) while maintaining high usage (25%) over 26 minutes, accumulating 22 points to blow past the 18.5 line. Her aggressive free-throw rate (7 attempts) and hot field-goal percentage made up for zero three-pointers and kept her scoring pace well above the projection.
- Nia Coffey Over 11.5 PA5 vs 11.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCoffey's 15% usage rate and brutal 0-6 shooting night (0% from three) left her with just 5 points, far short of the 11.5 pa line, as she managed only 2 made field goals in 20 minutes of action.
- Natasha Howard Over 7.5 REB6 vs 7.5paid over the fair numberHoward fell one rebound short despite efficient scoring (69% TS on 25% usage), held back by just 26 minutes of playing time and five personal fouls that limited her availability on the glass.
- Kayla McBride Under 18.5 PA30 vs 18.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMcBride went nuclear from the field, shooting 10-19 (52.6%) with 4-8 from three to rack up 28 points in 38 minutes, easily eclipsing the 18.5 line with her 31% usage rate and elite 66% true shooting efficiency.
- Kayla McBride Under 16.5 PTS28 vs 16.5no clean explanationMcBride torched the under with 28 points on elite 66% true shooting (10-19 FG, 4-8 3PT) while playing 38 minutes—well above the projected 32—in a game that didn't blow out as the model's 62% blowout risk had anticipated, allowing her elevated usage (31%) to translate into heavy volume scoring instead of the expected pace suppression.
- Courtney Williams Under 4.5 AST6 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilliams exceeded the assist line by operating as a secondary playmaker in extended run (36 minutes, 28% usage), recording 6 dimes despite shooting efficiently (10-21 FG) and staying out of foul trouble (3 PF).
GSV @ WAS4–1 ·2 void+1.64u
- Janelle Salaun Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upSalaun's hot streak held up despite inefficient shooting (2-9 from three, 31% TS) because she stayed on the court for 25 minutes—above her season average—and found enough opportunities to hit 2 threes on elevated volume, validating the 70% over rate that defied the fair model.
SEA @ LAS17–5+7.80u
- Ariel Atkins Under 3.5 REB5 vs 3.5no clean explanationAtkins grabbed 5 rebounds in 22 minutes despite a poor offensive night (2-6 FG), as her activity on the glass—particularly on a night when she wasn't scoring—pushed her over the 3.5 line in limited playing time.
- Natisha Hiedeman Under 2.5 REB6 vs 2.5no clean explanationHiedeman's 6 rebounds exceeded the 2.5 line by more than double, driven by 25 minutes of court time and aggressive activity on the glass despite modest usage at 22%. Her +16 rating suggests she benefited from a high-scoring game flow that created additional rebound opportunities.
- Flau'jae Johnson Over 5.5 REB5 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upJohnson fell one rebound short despite heavy usage (38%) and solid scoring efficiency, held back by limited floor time at 27 minutes and the game's blowout nature (+15, likely reducing rebounding opportunities in garbage time).
- Awa Fam Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberFam went 1-for-7 from three on 25 minutes of playing time, converting just 14% of her three-point attempts despite moderate usage at 17%—a significant underperformance from deep that sank the over despite decent overall activity.
- Dearica Hamby Under 14.5 PTS17 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHamby shot 6-9 from the field (67% FG) and 5-7 from the line (71% FT) for elite 70% true shooting, well above her season norm, easily clearing the 14.5 despite playing only 29 minutes and seeing modest 22% usage. The efficient shooting—not increased volume—was the driver; she simply didn't miss.
07/0523–21 ·7 void52%−1.57u2 games
DAL @ TOR7–10 ·3 void−3.95u
- Azzi Fudd Under 19.5 PRA22 vs 19.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upFudd stayed aggressive with 24% usage and hit 5-of-11 from three despite shooting just 6-of-16 overall, combining 17 points with 5 steals and 3 rebounds over 30 minutes to reach 22 PRA. Her three-point volume and efficiency—particularly the 45% clip from deep—proved enough to clear the 19.5 line despite a moderate overall shooting night.
- Maria Conde Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upConde shot just 1-for-3 from three on 28 minutes of work, finishing well short of the over despite solid playing time; her overall offensive inefficiency (1-10 FG, 15% TS%) limited her three-point volume in what was a cold shooting night.
- Marina Mabrey Over 3.5 3PM3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMabrey fell one three-pointer short despite 31 minutes and solid volume, hitting just 3-of-9 from deep (33%) in a game where the team trailed heavily and limited her shooting opportunities in the final quarter.
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 15.5 PR16 vs 15.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale's 10 points fell short of 15.5, so the under should have hit—but the box shows she finished with 16 points, meaning the bet missed because she exceeded the line by one point despite shooting just 4-13 (31%) from the field and 1-7 (14%) from three. Her 27 minutes of playing time and 22% usage kept her volume modest, but her 1-1 free-throw shooting and slightly elevated efficiency allowed her to barely clear the under threshold.
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 5.5 RA8 vs 5.5paid over the fair numberOgunbowale grabbed 6 rebounds in 27 minutes despite shooting just 4-13 from the field, exceeding the 5.5 line as her volume on the boards compensated for inefficient scoring. The blowout victory (+24 rating) likely kept her on the floor for garbage time, inflating rebound opportunities beyond expectations.
- Paige Bueckers Under 27.5 PA29 vs 27.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationBueckers eclipsed the 27.5 PA line with 29 total points and assists combined, fueled by efficient scoring (9-16 FG, 64% TS) and a steady playmaking workload (7 AST) across 30 minutes despite moderate 27% usage. The high shooting efficiency and full allotment of playing time allowed her to accumulate enough volume to push past the number without needing heavy ball dominance.
IND @ LVA16–11 ·4 void+2.38u
- Jewell Loyd Under 10.5 PTS12 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberLoyd's efficient 4-5 free-throw shooting pushed her over the total despite a modest 3-9 field-goal line, as she cashed in on 80% from the stripe to reach 12 points in 32 minutes. The under needed her to stay under 10.5, but her free-throw volume and accuracy made up for below-average shooting from the field.
- Raven Johnson Under 3.5 REB6 vs 3.5no clean explanationJohnson's 6 rebounds crushed the under despite poor offensive efficiency (33% TS), as she logged 22 minutes—a significant bump from her 13.7-minute average—and secured 6 boards on just 9 field goal attempts, suggesting aggressive rebounding activity that overcame her limited scoring role.
- Cheyenne Parker-Tyus Under 7.5 PTS9 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upParker-Tyus exceeded her L10 average despite similar 13-minute run, converting 3-of-5 from the field (60% FG) and adding 3-of-4 free throws for an efficient 67% TS that pushed her just over the 7.5 line. The under missed on elite shot-making rather than increased volume, as her 29% usage stayed in line with projections.
- Lexie Hull Under 7.5 PTS10 vs 7.5no clean explanationHull's recent form (5.6 ppg L10, 4.8 ppg L5) suggested a fade, but she stayed on the court for 22 minutes with elevated 23% usage and converted 50% of her shots, enough to clear 7.5 despite cool 5-10 FG efficiency.
- Monique Billings Under 5.5 REB6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberBillings grabbed exactly one more rebound than the line despite modest 21 minutes and 16% usage, pulling down 6 boards on efficient 3-5 shooting in a blowout where the team dominated the glass (+10 +/-).
- Lexie Hull Under 3.5 REB4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationHull grabbed 4 rebounds in 22 minutes—just one shy of the line—after shooting 50% from the field and staying out of foul trouble (4 PF), keeping her active on the glass despite modest usage (23%). The sharp model's fair value of 0.5801 on the over reflected a real edge, and she hit it by a single rebound.
07/048–1732%−9.42u2 games
GSV @ ATL4–13−8.94u
- Veronica Burton Under 15.5 PR22 vs 15.5no clean explanationBurton torched the under on elite efficiency, shooting 6-9 from the field (67%) and 7-8 from the free throw line (88%) while logging 30 minutes with 24% usage—her high-volume shot-making and free throw rate far exceeded the scoring pace baked into the 15.5 line.
- Gabby Williams Under 21.5 PRA22 vs 21.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationWilliams exceeded the line with efficient scoring, hitting 7-of-14 from the field (50%) and 4-of-8 from three while playing all 27 available minutes without foul trouble, combining 19 points and 3 steals to reach 22 PRA.
- Gabby Williams Under 19.5 PR20 vs 19.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationWilliams hit 7 of 14 from the field and 4 of 8 from three, posting a 66% true shooting percentage that exceeded her season baseline and allowed her to reach 19 points on moderate 24% usage in 27 minutes. The efficient shooting night—particularly the 50% three-point clip—proved just enough to clear the 19.5-point line by a single point.
- Gabby Williams Under 14.5 PTS19 vs 14.5no clean explanationWilliams shot an efficient 7-14 from the field (50%) with a 4-8 night from three to exceed the under, overcoming her typically modest usage rate with elite shot-making. Her 66% true shooting and 27 minutes of floor time powered her to 19 points despite the modest 24% usage, making her a volume-independent scoring threat on this night.
- Rhyne Howard Under 7.5 RA8 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upHoward's 8 rebounds came despite modest volume, as she played heavy minutes (37) and grabbed boards at a higher rate than her season average, with 5 of her 8 boards coming on the offensive glass to generate second-chance opportunities.
- Rhyne Howard Under 24.5 PRA27 vs 24.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationHoward's 27 PRA came from efficient scoring (57% TS on 19% usage) combined with a full 37-minute workload that inflated her rebounding and assist totals beyond typical output. The under missed because her elite shot quality and high minutes generated floor-spacing production that pushed her over the 24.5 threshold despite only hitting 40% from the field.
POR @ SEA4–4−0.48u
- Bridget Carleton Under 3.5 REB7 vs 3.5no clean explanationCarleton nearly doubled the line with 7 rebounds in 31 minutes, benefiting from elevated usage (25%) and a team pace that generated multiple rebounding opportunities despite her poor 4-14 shooting night. The UNDER missed because volume and available minutes, rather than efficiency, drove her to the glass.
- Dominique Malonga Under 26.5 PR27 vs 26.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMalonga's 27 PR came despite modest 19 minutes of play because her 51% usage rate and 55% true shooting efficiency generated outsized scoring value; she needed just 7-17 shooting to reach 27 points, easily clearing the 26.5 threshold.
- Megan Gustafson Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGustafson attempted only 4 threes despite playing 28 minutes—well below the 3–4 projected launch rate—and connected on just 1, likely due to reduced offensive usage (11%) in a game where Seattle's elite perimeter defense (0.47 threes allowed to wings) successfully limited her volume.
- Megan Gustafson Under 3.5 REB9 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGustafson crashed the glass harder than expected, pulling down 9 rebounds in 28 minutes—more than double the 3.5 line—despite modest scoring (10 pts on 57% shooting) that suggested a quiet game. Her rebounding activity and +9 rating indicate she was heavily involved in hustle plays and second-chance opportunities, the kind of under-the-radar production that can easily bust a low rebounding prop.
07/0320–25 ·1 void44%−8.45u2 games
CHI @ LVA8–18 ·1 void−11.95u
- NaLyssa Smith Under 6.5 REB8 vs 6.5paid over the fair numberSmith dominated inside with 11-14 shooting (79% TS) in 34 minutes, naturally accumulating 8 rebounds as the primary interior presence despite modest 27% usage. The under missed because her elite efficiency and high volume of touches in the paint drove additional board opportunities beyond the projected total.
- NaLyssa Smith Under 12.5 PTS29 vs 12.5paid over the fair numberSmith erupted far above her depressed 5-game average (8.0 PPG) by shooting an elite 11-14 FG (79% TS) over 34 minutes with 27% usage, completely overriding the defensive matchup thesis that grounded the under at 12.5.
- Jackie Young Under 5.5 REB6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upYoung grabbed one more board than her L10 average (4.4) despite modest usage at 21%, hitting the over by a single rebound in a game where she played all 39 minutes and drew only 3 fouls. The bet was vulnerable given the tight margin—needing just one rebound above her recent trend—and full availability allowed her to accumulate boards at a slightly elevated rate.
- Azura Stevens Over 2.5 AST0 vs 2.5no clean explanationStevens recorded 0 assists despite 26 minutes and efficient scoring (4-6 FG), as her low 19% usage rate and role as a finisher rather than facilitator left her with minimal ball-handling opportunities to generate helpers.
- NaLyssa Smith Under 12.5 PA30 vs 12.5no clean explanationSmith's elite 79% true shooting on 27% usage—fueled by an 11-14 field goal performance (79%)—generated 30 points in 34 minutes, far exceeding the 12.5-point projection. Her efficiency was the outlier; she shot nearly 20 percentage points above her season average, turning a modest usage rate into an outsized scoring night.
- Skylar Diggins Under 19.5 PA23 vs 19.5no clean explanationDiggins erupted on efficient shooting (7-13 FG, 66% TS) and logged 34 minutes with elevated usage (24%), combining for 23 points to clear the 19.5 line. Her 3-3 performance from the free-throw line and high-volume field-goal attempts (13 total) drove the over-limit output.
MIN @ NYL12–7+3.50u
- Breanna Stewart Under 31.5 PRA43 vs 31.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStewart's elite 83% true shooting and 34% usage rate drove a dominant 36-point, 7-rebound performance—a 11.5-point cushion over the line—as she shot 14-19 from the field in a game her team controlled throughout (+17 plus-minus).
- Kayla McBride Under 17.5 PA19 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upMcBride exceeded the under despite modest efficiency (7-16 FG), staying on court for 33 minutes with 24% usage to accumulate 19 points and cover the over. Her elevated playing time and opportunity volume in what was likely a competitive game drove the bet past 17.5 points.
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 4.5 AST6 vs 4.5paid over the fair numberIonescu exceeded her recent assist average (3.6 per game L5/L10) by recording 6 dimes in 35 minutes, a season-high assist total that reflected increased playmaking opportunities in a blowout win (+18). Despite the modest 21% usage rate, she converted opportunities more freely than her pre-game profile suggested, pushing her over the 4.5 threshold.
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 14.5 PTS17 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu exceeded her recent scoring floor with efficient shooting (62% TS, 4-4 FT) and five extra minutes (35 vs. her 29-min average), lifting her to 17 points despite modest usage at 21%.
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 19.5 PA23 vs 19.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu stuffed the stat sheet with 6 assists and 2 steals across 35 minutes, accumulating 23 PA despite modest 5-12 shooting—the volume came from playmaking and defensive activity rather than scoring attempts alone. Her +18 rating in a blowout win indicated heavy involvement throughout, keeping her engaged on both ends even when her shot wasn't falling.
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 23.5 PRA25 vs 23.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu's 6 assists pushed her over the line despite modest scoring (17 pts on 5-12 FG), as she played 35 minutes in a blowout win (+18) where she operated as the primary playmaker. The under missed by just 2 points largely due to assist volume offsetting her below-average shooting night.
07/0224–24 ·5 void50%−3.04u3 games
SEA @ PHO7–13 ·3 void−6.95u
- Lexi Held Under 8.5 PTS17 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHeld played 31 minutes—9 more than the 22.2 projected—and shot an elite 5-6 from three (83%) on 18% usage, translating her limited role into efficient scoring that easily cleared 8.5 points.
- Natisha Hiedeman Under 2.5 REB4 vs 2.5paid over the fair numberHiedeman exceeded the 2.5 rebound line by grabbing 4 boards in 27 minutes, benefiting from elevated usage (27%) and playing without foul trouble (0 PF) that allowed her extended floor time to accumulate glass. Her activity on the glass proved pivotal despite a blowout loss, as she chipped in across multiple stat categories to stay engaged on both ends.
- Flau'jae Johnson Over 12.5 PTS11 vs 12.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberJohnson's 4-12 shooting night (33% FG) fell just short despite playing 29 minutes with solid usage at 24%; the poor shot selection and execution—she made only 2 of 5 from three—left her one point shy of the over.
- Flau'jae Johnson Over 20.5 PRA17 vs 20.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJohnson's inefficient 4-12 shooting (33% FG) combined with modest usage at 24% left her 3.5 points short despite playing 29 minutes, as she couldn't generate enough volume or efficiency to clear the 20.5 threshold.
- Awa Fam Under 7.5 RA9 vs 7.5no clean explanationFam's efficient 6-8 shooting night (75% FG) kept her on the floor for 27 minutes with elevated usage (17%), allowing her to accumulate 9 rebounds and exceed the 7.5 line despite modest volume. Her three blocks and active defense further extended her playing time in a game where her +/- suggested competitive, close-margin minutes that maximized her rebound opportunities.
- Valeriane Ayayi Under 18.5 PR20 vs 18.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upAyayi's efficient 64% TS% on 26% usage—particularly her 5-7 free-throw shooting—allowed her to reach 20 points despite modest volume, easily clearing the 18.5 line. She stayed out of foul trouble (3 PF in 27 min) and maintained the court presence needed to generate scoring opportunities.
ATL @ WAS7–4 ·2 void+1.35u
- Naz Hillmon Over 7.5 PTS5 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon's shot selection and efficiency collapsed—she went 1-for-5 from the field despite 26 minutes of run, finishing at 42% TS with just 12% usage, well below her recent 9.6-point average. A rare off night where she couldn't generate her typical scoring volume or accuracy, falling 2.5 points short.
- Allisha Gray Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray hit the over despite the recent downturn, recording 3 assists in 33 minutes with elevated 24% usage—enough to clear the modest 2.5 line even though her shot wasn't falling (46% TS, 0-4 from three).
- Angel Reese Under 14.5 RA16 vs 14.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upReese pulled down 13 rebounds and added 3 assists for 16 total, exceeding the 14.5 line as Chicago relied heavily on her playmaking and rebounding in a balanced offensive approach. Despite shooting just 40% TS and 21% usage, her 34 minutes and team's need for ball movement in transition generated enough secondary stats to push past the number.
- Angel Reese Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upReese played 34 minutes—her highest in recent weeks—and logged one extra assist (3 vs. the 2.5 line), breaking her recent 1.6 L10 average despite modest 21% usage, likely due to increased court time and offensive opportunities in what was a close game (±0).
DAL @ CON10–7+2.56u
- Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 11.5 PA12 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationNelson-Ododa's 12 points came on efficient inside scoring (4-6 FG, 5 FT makes) despite limited usage at 22%, as she capitalized on her 24 minutes of playing time and high true shooting percentage (67%) to narrowly exceed the 11.5 line.
- Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 9.5 PTS11 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upNelson-Ododa's efficient 4-6 shooting (67% TS) in 24 minutes was enough to push her past the 9.5-point line despite modest volume, as she converted on limited opportunities rather than forcing shots. The under missed because her per-minute scoring rate (0.46 PPM) combined with her moderate playing time yielded just enough production to clear the threshold.
- Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 16.5 PR19 vs 16.5shots didn't fall — the read held upNelson-Ododa's efficient 67% true shooting—fueled by perfect free-throw shooting (3-5) and solid field-goal work (4-6)—pushed her to 19 points despite modest volume, as her 24 minutes of playing time and 22% usage rate were sufficient to clear the under. The lack of foul trouble (4 PF) kept her on the floor longer than typical, allowing her to accumulate scoring opportunities in a game where her efficiency was elite.
- Azzi Fudd Under 2.5 REB4 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upFudd's 4 rebounds doubled her recent average (L5: 2.2) despite a dismal 29% TS and 17% usage, suggesting increased rebounding activity compensated for her offensive struggles and extended 32-minute rotation role.
- Leila Lacan Under 4.5 AST5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upLacan hit the over by a single assist despite shooting 5-14 from the field; her 32 minutes of run and 25% usage rate gave her enough ball-handling opportunities to reach 5 dimes even as her inefficient shooting limited her scoring impact.
- Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 6.5 REB8 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upNelson-Ododa grabbed 8 rebounds in 24 minutes—one more than the 6.5 line—by maintaining strong rebounding activity despite modest scoring (4-6 FG); her 33% rebound rate was enough to clear the mark even at limited usage.
06/302–25 ·3 void7%−22.92u1 game
LVA @ NYL2–25 ·3 void−22.92u
- Chennedy Carter Under 14.5 PA21 vs 14.5paid over the fair numberCarter's 21 points came on 56% true shooting despite playing just 25 minutes, as her 7-14 FG efficiency and 4-5 free-throw shooting powered a +10 rating in a blowout win that kept her volume high despite limited floor time. The Under missed because she was simply too efficient—converting 50% from the field and 80% from the line compressed scoring into fewer shot attempts than typical.
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 4.5 AST5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu exceeded her recent assist average (3.4 over L10) by getting extended run in a blowout win (+19, 31 minutes) where elevated usage (33%) and offensive opportunities created more kick-out situations than her recent norm. The sharp model's recency concern was valid, but a game script favoring ball movement in a rout proved the decisive factor.
- Chennedy Carter Under 14.5 PRA24 vs 14.5no clean explanationCarter torched the under with an efficient 18-point, 6-assist night on 50% FG, nearly doubling the 14.5 line despite playing just 25 minutes—her high usage rate (29%) and elite true shooting (56%) made her a volume scorer in limited time.
- Chennedy Carter Under 14.5 PR21 vs 14.5no clean explanationCarter torched the under with a 7-14 shooting night (50% FG) and 4-5 from the line, converting at 56% true shooting despite playing just 25 minutes on high 29% usage. She stayed out of foul trouble with only 3 PF, allowing her to maintain aggressive scoring without constraint.
- Chennedy Carter Under 12.5 PTS18 vs 12.5paid over the fair numberCarter torched the under with efficient scoring, going 7-14 from the field (50% FG) and 4-5 from the line to reach 18 points in 25 minutes—well above the 12.5 threshold. Her 29% usage rate and elevated minutes gave her ample scoring opportunities in a game where she shot above her season averages.
- Jackie Young Under 27.5 PRA40 vs 27.5shots didn't fall — the read held upYoung torched the under with elite efficiency, shooting 12-21 (57%) from the field and 4-4 from the line while logging 36 minutes to rack up 40 PRA—13 points over the line. Her 68% true shooting and high-volume scoring (31 points on 29% usage) proved unsustainable relative to the 27.5 projection.
06/2844–5047%−12.77u4 games
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.
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.
06/2639–2165%+13.17u3 games
WAS @ CON2–8−6.23u
- Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5no clean explanationNelson-Ododa's 30 minutes and 22% usage rate gave her sufficient opportunity to reach 3 assists, and she converted that run into ball movement that the models hadn't fully priced in for a player operating as a secondary facilitator in the paint.
- Georgia Amoore Under 7.5 PTS14 vs 7.5no clean explanationAmoore's efficient 5-10 shooting (50% FG, 44% 3PT) and 33 minutes of floor time—well above typical bench guard usage—drove her well past the 7.5-point line despite modest 20% usage, powered by a hot 70% true shooting night.
- Kiki Iriafen Under 8.5 REB14 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIriafen crashed the glass hard, pulling down 14 rebounds in 32 minutes—nearly double the projected total—by dominating the offensive rebounding battle (she was active on misses given the team's poor 43% TS%). The volume and opportunity were there; she finished with 5 personal fouls in a game where her team needed second chances, and she delivered them.
- Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 15.5 PR21 vs 15.5no clean explanationNelson-Ododa exceeded the 15.5 PR line by finishing with 21 (12 pts + 9 reb + 3 ast + 2 stl + 3 blk), powered by a strong rebounding night (9 boards) and elite shot-blocking (3 blocks) across a full 30 minutes of work. Her 22% usage rate limited scoring upside, but the volume of activity on the glass and defensive end proved enough to clear the prop.
- Georgia Amoore Under 11.5 PA19 vs 11.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAmoore's aggressive shooting night—5-of-10 FG with four 3-pointers made—elevated her attempt volume well above the 11.5 line despite modest 33 minutes, as Georgia leaned on her scoring in a blowout loss. Her 20% usage rate and 70% true shooting efficiency indicate she was both aggressive and efficient when given the ball, driving up attempts beyond the betting expectation.
- Olivia Nelson-Ododa Under 9.5 PTS12 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upNelson-Ododa exceeded expectations by playing 30 minutes—12 more than her season average—and efficiently converting 6-of-12 shots (50% FG) to reach 12 points, suggesting either elevated opportunity due to foul trouble elsewhere or a game flow that kept her on the floor longer than her typical backup role.
ATL @ GSV15–5+8.25u
- Jordin Canada Over 5.5 AST2 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCanada shot 84% TS and scored 23 points on 22% usage, creating her own offense rather than facilitating; despite playing 35 minutes in a game that invited assists, she recorded just 2 dimes while turning the ball over 4 times, suggesting scorer's mentality over distributor's role.
- Jordin Canada Over 9.5 RA5 vs 9.5paid over the fair numberCanada's efficient 23-point night (7-11 FG, 6-6 FT) came with minimal ball-handling responsibility—she logged just 2 assists in 35 minutes—suggesting the offense ran through other primary handlers, leaving her without the volume to reach double-digit assists. Her 4 turnovers and low usage rate (22%) further limited her playmaking opportunities despite the scoring load.
- Rhyne Howard Over 2.5 3PM1 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward shot just 1-for-8 from three (12.5%) on 36 minutes of play, a catastrophic collapse from her season norm that no model could have predicted; the volume was there but the accuracy completely failed.
- Cecilia Zandalasini Under 2.5 AST3 vs 2.5no clean explanationZandalasini hit the over despite minimal offensive output (4 pts on 50% TS) because she logged 18 minutes and recorded 3 assists on just 15% usage, suggesting efficient playmaking in a limited role rather than heavy shot-taking. The low-volume, high-assist profile—3 dimes from a bench player in confined minutes—was the outlier that pushed her just over the 2.5 line.
- Allisha Gray Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray played 36 minutes with elevated usage (20%) but made just 1-of-4 threes on a night where her overall shooting was inefficient (5-13 FG, 46% TS%), falling short of the 1.5 line despite the extended run.
POR @ CHI22–8+11.14u
- Megan Gustafson Under 1.5 3PM3 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGustafson went 3-for-6 from three—exactly double the 1.5 threshold—despite modest usage (17%), capitalizing on efficient perimeter shooting (50% 3PT) in 29 minutes of play.
- Bridget Carleton Under 3.5 REB4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberCarleton grabbed one extra rebound than the line predicted, finishing with 4 boards in 29 minutes despite modest 24% usage; she was active on the glass early and stayed out of foul trouble with just 3 PF, keeping her on the court for enough rebounding opportunities to barely push over.
- Skylar Diggins Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5no clean explanationDiggins hit 2-of-4 from three despite modest 23 minutes and 19% usage, converting at 50% from deep—well above her typical rate and enough to clear the 1.5 line even in limited action.
- Skylar Diggins Under 2.5 REB3 vs 2.5no clean explanationDiggins grabbed 3 rebounds in 23 minutes despite modest usage (19%), hitting the over by one board in a game where she operated as a secondary playmaker (9 assists) rather than a volume scorer. The under at -149 required her to stay at or below 2, a tight margin that one extra rebound easily cleared.
- Skylar Diggins Under 8.5 RA12 vs 8.5no clean explanationDiggins's 9 assists easily cleared the 8.5 mark, powered by 23 minutes of court time and a game-high 19% usage rate that kept her orchestrating the offense. Her efficient 4-8 shooting (50%) and 62% true shooting kept defenses honest, enabling her to facilitate rather than force shots.
- Azura Stevens Under 14.5 PA18 vs 14.5paid over the fair numberStevens exceeded the under by distributing at a season-high rate, dishing 6 assists while playing a full 28 minutes with clean foul trouble (2 PF), turning her elevated usage into efficient playmaking rather than shot volume. Her 57% true shooting and +23 rating suggest she was operating as a primary facilitator in a game flow that rewarded ball movement.
06/2543–34 ·7 void56%+3.00u3 games
LAS @ TOR19–24−8.33u
- Marina Mabrey Under 7.5 RA8 vs 7.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanation
- Rae Burrell Under 21.5 PRA23 vs 21.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
- Dearica Hamby Under 27.5 PRA30 vs 27.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
- Julie Allemand Under 8.5 PR19 vs 8.5paid over the fair number
- Julie Allemand Under 14.5 PRA33 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
- Julie Allemand Under 11.5 PA27 vs 11.5no clean explanation
DAL @ LVA9–8−0.25u
- Jackie Young Under 28.5 PRA35 vs 28.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
- Jackie Young Under 23.5 PA26 vs 23.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair number
- Jackie Young Under 16.5 PTS20 vs 16.5paid over the fair number
- A'ja Wilson Under 38.5 PRA41 vs 38.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
- A'ja Wilson Under 35.5 PR41 vs 35.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
- Jackie Young Under 21.5 PR29 vs 21.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
NYL @ SEA15–2 ·7 void+11.57u
- Flau'jae Johnson Under 1.5 3PM4 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
- Sabrina Ionescu Under 4.5 AST5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
06/2412–15 ·3 void44%−5.43u3 games
ATL @ GSV8–12−5.42u
- Kayla Thornton Under 13.5 PR22 vs 13.5paid over the fair number
- Angel Reese Under 2.5 AST4 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
- Cecilia Zandalasini Under 1.5 3PM4 vs 1.5no clean explanation
- Jordin Canada Over 9.5 RA6 vs 9.5paid over the fair number
- Jordin Canada Over 6.5 AST2 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
- Kayla Thornton Under 1.5 3PM5 vs 1.5paid over the fair number
POR @ CHI4–3−0.01u
- Sarah Ashlee Barker Under 11.5 PTS13 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held up
- Bridget Carleton Over 2.5 3PM0 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held up
- Emily Engstler Under 8.5 PTS10 vs 8.5paid over the fair number
PHO @ IND0–0 ·3 void0.00u
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.