← all formulas · WNBA
scout_ml
1160–936 over 2096 priced bets · +16.4u · ROI +0.8% -3.2% to +4.7% · CLV +1.12¢ +1.0% to +1.3%
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
Latest 30 graded days from the same CORE benchmark shown in the headline, charts and sheet: scout_ml.
361–223 · 62% · +68.72u across the last 30 days · 10 voided, zero benchmark units
10/1913–1546%−4.63u1 game
ATL @ GSV13–15−4.63u
- Cecilia Zandalasini Over 1.5 AST1 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upZandalasini's assist total collapsed due to a combination of limited offensive efficiency (1-8 FG, 28% TS) and minimal floor time (17 minutes), leaving her with just 1 dime despite 32% usage—the poor shooting forced ball movement away from her hands rather than through them.
- Jordin Canada Under 0.5 3PM2 vs 0.5no clean explanationCanada made 2 three-pointers on 6 attempts (33%), well above her season norm, and played a team-high 36 minutes with high offensive usage (25%), creating more three-point opportunities than the betting market anticipated.
- Jordin Canada Under 10.5 PTS13 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCanada reached double figures despite shooting just 21% from the field (3-14) by capitalizing on free-throw opportunities (5-6) and logging heavy minutes (36), which inflated her scoring on low volume. Her 25% usage rate and poor field-goal efficiency typically align with a sub-10 performance, but the free throws proved the difference in a close game.
- Jordin Canada Under 3.5 REB7 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCanada nearly doubled the projected total with 7 rebounds across 36 minutes of heavy usage, benefiting from extended playing time and her team's offensive rebounding opportunities in what appears to have been a competitive game. Despite poor shooting efficiency (3-14 FG), her elevated minutes and floor time created multiple rebounding chances that exceeded the betting expectation.
- Allisha Gray Under 18.5 PR23 vs 18.5no clean explanationGray exceeded the under on efficient free-throw shooting (7-8 FT) and high volume from deep (3-6 3PT), combining for 13 points outside of her 4-11 field-goal line to reach 23 points despite modest overall shooting. Her 34 minutes and +20 rating indicated she stayed on the court in a game flow that featured her in rhythm from the stripe.
- Allisha Gray Under 17.5 PA19 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationGray's 7-of-8 free-throw shooting (87.5%) inflated her point total despite modest field-goal efficiency (4-11 FG), as she drew enough fouls to accumulate 8 free-throw attempts in 34 minutes of heavy usage.
10/1723–874%+11.83u1 game
ATL @ GSV23–8+11.83u
- Allisha Gray Under 1.5 AST2 vs 1.5no clean explanationGray posted exactly 2 assists in 33 minutes with 33% usage, just enough to clear the 1.5 line despite a rough 5-19 shooting night that kept her from taking over the playmaking duties entirely.
- Rhyne Howard Under 3.5 AST4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upHoward scraped across the 3.5 threshold with 4 assists despite shooting just 3-14 from the field, as her 38 minutes and high usage rate (23%) kept her heavily involved in playmaking duties even when her scoring touch deserted her.
- Allisha Gray Under 4.5 RA8 vs 4.5no clean explanationGray fouled out of the game zero times and played all 33 minutes, accumulating 6 rebounds plus 2 assists to reach 8 total ra despite shooting just 5-19 from the field—her volume and opportunity were there even if her efficiency wasn't.
- Allisha Gray Under 21.5 PRA27 vs 21.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's 8-for-8 night from the free-throw line—rare accuracy that inflated her scoring despite poor 5-for-19 field-goal shooting—pushed her to 27 PRA, combined with 6 rebounds that came in a full 33-minute workload.
- Veronica Burton Over 9.5 PTS5 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurton's cold shooting—just 2-for-7 from the field (29% FG) despite playing 30 minutes—combined with low usage (14%) kept her well short of the 9.5-point line. She couldn't generate scoring opportunities and converted only 34% of her shot attempts, finishing with just 5 points.
- Angel Reese Under 25.5 PR26 vs 25.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upReese cleared the line by just one point despite modest scoring (14 pts on 50% TS) because her 12 rebounds—a high-volume defensive effort in 35 minutes—provided the bulk of her fantasy production in a low-scoring outing. The under missed on rebounding volume rather than offensive efficiency, as she accumulated 12 boards to reach 26 points plus rebounds despite shooting just 5-11 from the field.
10/0922–1954%−1.41u2 games
ATL @ NYL4–5−2.50u
- Naz Hillmon Over 13.5 PRA7 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon's scoreless night (0-7 FG, 0-3 3PT) was the killer—she played 32 minutes but couldn't convert any shot attempts, leaving her 6.5 points short despite chipping in 4 rebounds and 3 assists. The shooting drought turned what should've been a playable volume into an outlier performance that cratered her PRA total.
- Sabrina Ionescu Over 15.5 PTS12 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu's poor shooting (4-12 FG, 4-11 3PT) combined with zero free throw attempts left her well short at 12 points despite playing 36 minutes, as her 50% TS% couldn't overcome the volume needed to clear 15.5.
- Pauline Astier Over 3.5 RA0 vs 3.5game script — blowout or foul troubleAstier saw minimal court time (8 min) with just 12% usage, providing no opportunity to accumulate assists when the bet required 4+. She recorded no offensive contributions and finished with a team-worst -9 rating, likely limiting her role for the remainder of the game.
- Leonie Fiebich Over 10.5 PR10 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upFiebich finished just shy at 10 points despite heavy minutes (37) and high usage (12%), undone by poor shooting efficiency (2-7 FG, 1-5 3PT) that left her one point short of the over. The 48% true shooting and low free-throw volume (3 attempts) meant she couldn't generate enough scoring volume to eclipse 10.5 despite opportunity.
- Pauline Astier Over 1.5 AST0 vs 1.5game script — blowout or foul troubleAstier's minimal 8-minute run and 12% usage rate left no opportunity to accumulate assists, and she recorded zero total contributions across points and boards, making playmaking chances unlikely in such limited action.
GSV @ LVA18–14+1.09u
- Kiah Stokes Under 0.5 3PM1 vs 0.5paid over the fair numberStokes hit her only three-point attempt in 38 minutes of extended run, converting 1-of-1 from deep on a rare long-range look that wasn't part of her typical usage pattern (8% overall). The under missed because she stepped outside even once in a game where she stayed primarily around the basket.
- Chelsea Gray Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5no clean explanationGray shot 2-for-3 from three on a season-high 43 minutes, hitting both of her makes in the first half to exceed the 1.5 line despite modest usage; the extended playing time in what appears to have been a close game kept her on the floor longer than typical, providing the extra opportunity needed to clear the mark.
- Chelsea Gray Under 17.5 PA22 vs 17.5paid over the fair numberGray exceeded the under on a hot shooting night, converting 6-of-12 from the field (50%) and 2-of-3 from three while playing all 43 minutes, allowing her to generate 22 points on just 22% usage—a significantly efficient output that pushed her past 17.5 despite moderate volume.
- Chelsea Gray Under 3.5 REB5 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's 43 minutes of court time—well above her season average—inflated her rebound opportunity despite modest usage, landing her at 5 boards to beat the 3.5 line.
- Chelsea Gray Under 14.5 PR22 vs 14.5no clean explanationGray torched a 64% TS% on 22% usage, converting 6-of-12 from the field and going a perfect 3-for-3 from three, far exceeding her typical efficiency and volume needed to clear 14.5 points. Her elite shooting night—particularly from deep—was the decisive factor in her 22-point output crushing the under.
- Chelsea Gray Under 20.5 PRA27 vs 20.5no clean explanationGray's efficient 64% TS and high volume (43 minutes, 22% usage) drove her to 27 PRA despite modest shot attempts, as her 6-12 FG and perfect 3-3 FT shooting made up for limited rebounds and assists.
10/0711–1937%−9.18u2 games
LVA @ GSV7–12−5.45u
- A'ja Wilson Over 0.5 3PM0 vs 0.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilson went 0-for-1 from three and relied almost entirely on two-point buckets, finishing 9-for-16 from the field with all makes coming inside the arc in a game where she didn't need the deep ball to score 24 points efficiently.
- Chelsea Gray Under 17.5 PA25 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's 25 assists blew past the 17.5 line on the strength of elite playmaking efficiency—she logged 6 dimes on just 4 turnovers while playing all 39 available minutes, forcing her into a ball-handling role that far outpaced her typical usage rate.
- Chelsea Gray Under 20.5 PRA28 vs 20.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's efficient 60% TS and heavy 39-minute workload carried her to 28 PRA well above the 20.5 line, as she converted 7-of-15 from the field while adding 6 assists and 2 steals in extended run without foul trouble.
- Gabby Williams Under 22.5 PR25 vs 22.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationWilliams exceeded the under on a efficient scoring night, shooting 7-17 from the field with a 53% true shooting percentage while playing all 30 available minutes and commanding 33% usage rate. Her 20 points plus 5 rebounds pushed her past 22.5 points responsible, as she stayed out of foul trouble (2 PF) and remained on the court to accumulate scoring opportunities.
- Stephanie Talbot Under 10.5 PRA14 vs 10.5shots didn't fall — the read held upTalbot's efficient 10 points on just 4 field-goal attempts (75% FG, 100% 3PT) combined with 4 rebounds to exceed the 10.5 line, benefiting from high-volume three-point attempts despite limited overall usage in 21 minutes.
- Stephanie Talbot Under 5.5 PTS10 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upTalbot was efficient from beyond the arc (2-2 from three) and didn't miss a free throw attempt (2-2), converting 75% of her shots overall to easily surpass the 5.5-point line despite playing only 21 minutes.
NYL @ ATL4–7−3.74u
- Sabrina Ionescu Over 23.5 PRA21 vs 23.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu fell just short at 21 PRA despite playing all 38 minutes, hamstrung by poor shooting efficiency (3-8 FG, 2-6 FT) and low usage (16%) that limited her scoring upside even with strong playmaking (7 assists).
- Jonquel Jones Over 12.5 RA8 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJones shot efficiently (8-11 FG, 82% TS) but was limited to 0 assists and 8 rebounds despite 38 minutes, falling 4.5 short of the over due to a lack of involvement in playmaking and board work relative to her scoring volume.
- Pauline Astier Over 7.5 PTS5 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAstier's 2-for-6 shooting (33% FG) and limited 14 minutes left her well short, as inefficient play and reduced floor time combined to keep her at just 5 points despite 25% usage.
- Angel Reese Under 0.5 3PM1 vs 0.5shots didn't fall — the read held upReese connected on 1-of-2 three-pointers, exceeding the under 0.5 line despite taking just two attempts from deep; she stayed efficient overall (8-16 FG, 62% TS) and played heavy minutes (39), making her occasional three-point look enough to beat the prop.
- Sabrina Ionescu Over 19.5 PR14 vs 19.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu's inefficient 3-8 shooting night (37.5% FG) limited her to just 10 points, and despite 38 minutes played, her 16% usage rate—well below her season average—meant too few scoring opportunities to reach 19.5.
- Sabrina Ionescu Over 15.5 PTS10 vs 15.5shots didn't fall — the read held upIonescu's cold shooting—just 3-8 FG (37.5%) and 2-6 from the line—combined with her lowest usage rate of the season at 16% left her well short of 15.5 despite playing heavy minutes. She couldn't generate enough scoring volume or efficiency to hit the over.
10/0415–383%+9.28u1 game
LVA @ GSV15–3+9.28u
- Chelsea Gray Under 14.5 PR20 vs 14.5paid over the fair numberGray's efficient 5-14 shooting night (35.7% FG) was buoyed by perfect free-throw shooting (3-4) and solid three-point volume (3-6), allowing her to reach 16 points in 36 minutes of heavy usage despite modest field-goal accuracy. The under missed because she converted her limited attempts at an above-baseline rate and got to the line consistently, turning a below-average shooting night into above-line scoring output.
- Chelsea Gray Under 1.5 3PM3 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray shot 3-for-6 from three on 36 minutes of play, doubling her under line by hitting on half her three-point attempts—a significantly higher volume than her season baseline would suggest in a game where she maintained healthy usage without foul trouble.
- Cecilia Zandalasini Under 3.5 RA6 vs 3.5no clean explanationZandalasini's 6 rebounds easily cleared the 3.5 line despite modest 18 minutes and 18% usage, as she crashed the offensive glass hard and benefited from Italy's pace-and-space attack generating extra possessions. Her 5 total boards came on just 6 field-goal attempts, indicating high rebounding rate per opportunity rather than volume-based overflow.
10/0222–873%+11.05u1 game
DAL @ GSV22–8+11.05u
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 1.5 3PM3 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale's elite 64% true shooting and high-volume role (44% usage, 21 FG attempts) carried her to 30 points, and she connected on 3-of-6 from three despite the under bet; the combination of aggressive shot selection and hot efficiency pushed her over the 1.5 threes line.
- Paige Bueckers Under 4.5 AST6 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBueckers playmaking outpaced her scoring despite poor shot efficiency (3-14 FG), as she orchestrated offense from the perimeter for 38 minutes and hit all 10 free throws to reach 6 assists and exceed the 4.5 line.
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 18.5 PR35 vs 18.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale torched the under on an elite offensive night, shooting 11-21 from the field (52%) with a 64% true shooting rate while logging 34 minutes and commanding 44% usage—far more volume and efficiency than needed to clear 18.5 points. She scored 30 points on just 21 shot attempts, demonstrating the kind of elite scoring touch that makes any under vulnerable when a player gets heavy usage in a winning effort.
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 6.5 RA7 vs 6.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale's elite 64% true shooting and 44% usage rate fueled a 30-point night that kept her heavily involved in Dallas's offense, and despite logging 34 minutes she accumulated 7 rebounds—one more than the 6.5 line—by crashing the glass on 21 shot attempts.
- Cecilia Zandalasini Under 1.5 AST2 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upZandalasini hit the over by a single assist despite shooting just 1-5 from the field and playing only 16 minutes, as her playmaking still generated 2 dimes in limited run. The under needed her to record 0 or 1 assist, but she reached exactly 2 to flip the outcome.
- Jessica Shepard Under 10.5 REB12 vs 10.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upShepard dominated the glass with 12 rebounds across 40 full minutes of play, staying out of foul trouble with just 2 PF to maintain her rebounding presence throughout the game. The over-reliance on her in the frontcourt and extended floor time pushed her well past the 10.5 line despite modest scoring output.
10/0111–379%+6.75u1 game
IND @ LVA11–3+6.75u
- Raven Johnson Under 2.5 REB4 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJohnson grabbed 4 rebounds in 19 minutes despite shooting just 1-for-5, exceeding the 2.5 line on volume alone—she was tasked with clearing the glass even as her offensive touch deserted her.
- Jewell Loyd Over 1.5 AST1 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upLoyd's assist total was bottlenecked by a heavy scoring load—she took 10 shots in 35 minutes with 17% usage but generated just 1 assist, suggesting the offense ran through her as a scorer rather than a facilitator. Her 2 turnovers further limited playmaking opportunities in a game where Seattle's ball movement didn't flow through her.
- A'ja Wilson Under 28.5 PTS36 vs 28.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilson torched the under with elite efficiency across the board: 61% from the field (11-18), 80% from three (2-3), and 80% from the stripe (12-15) while playing 37 minutes and maintaining a dominant 31% usage rate. Her 73% true shooting percentage and near-perfect free-throw execution (12-15) were the primary drivers that pushed her 7.5 points past the line.
09/3019–1950%−4.02u2 games
GSV @ DAL13–12−2.27u
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 13.5 PTS45 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upArike shot an elite 73% TS on 41% usage with 42 minutes played, going 16-18 from the free-throw line to rack up 45 points—nearly 3.3× the over/under. She was virtually unstoppable from the field (12-23 FG, 5-8 3PT) and stayed out of foul trouble with only 5 PF, allowing her to play heavy minutes in what was likely a competitive game.
- Gabby Williams Under 6.5 RA13 vs 6.5paid over the fair numberWilliams combined 6 rebounds and 7 assists to reach 13 ra, fueled by 37 minutes of run and a 36% usage rate that kept her heavily involved in both scoring (12-23 FG) and playmaking. The high volume and extended minutes were the key drivers—she needed just one more assist or rebound than the under anticipated to push past 6.5.
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 6.5 RA11 vs 6.5paid over the fair numberOgunbowale's elite shooting night—12-for-23 FG and a perfect 16-for-18 from the line for 45 points—drove sky-high usage (41%) and kept her on the floor for all 42 minutes, generating 11 RA well above the 6.5 line despite modest rebound and assist totals.
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 17.5 PA49 vs 17.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale erupted for 45 points on elite efficiency (73% TS, 12-23 FG, 5-8 3PT, 16-18 FT) while logging 42 minutes and posting a 41% usage rate, far exceeding the point-assist assumptions baked into a 17.5 pa line. Her scoring volume and accuracy were simply too high to stay under, with free throws (16 attempts) and three-pointers accounting for 21 of her 45 points.
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 1.5 3PM5 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale erupted for a season-high 45 points on elite 73% true shooting, connecting on 5-of-8 from three as the primary offensive engine in a tight contest that kept her on the floor for 42 minutes at 41% usage. The under collapsed on her red-hot shooting night and extended minutes in a game that never developed into a blowout.
- Arike Ogunbowale Under 20.5 PRA56 vs 20.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgunbowale went nuclear from the field and free-throw line, shooting 12-23 FG (52%) and a perfect 16-18 FT (89%), combining for 45 points alone while staying on the court all 42 minutes without fouling out, turning a 20.5 PRA line into a 56-PRA blowout. Her elite 73% true shooting and 41% usage rate left no margin for the under to hit.
ATL @ WAS6–7−1.75u
- DeWanna Bonner Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBonner hit 2-of-4 from three in just 14 minutes, converting at 50% from deep despite limited run, and her elite 72% true shooting ensured efficiency on the few looks she got. The under needed her to stay cold or see reduced volume, but she made half her threes in minimal playing time.
- Angel Reese Over 27.5 PR22 vs 27.5shots didn't fall — the read held upReese fell 5.5 points short despite solid efficiency (65% TS), undone by limited shot volume—her 21% usage rate and 12 total shot attempts (4-8 FG, 0-4 3PT) weren't enough to push past 27.5 in a blowout win where she saw just 28 minutes.
- Georgia Amoore Over 9.5 PR7 vs 9.5paid over the fair numberAmoore's 1-5 shooting (20% TS%) and 0-4 from three left her with just 2 points despite 28 minutes played, and her 5 rebounds fell short of the 9.5 line even with solid court time. The offensive inefficiency—she attempted only 5 shots across 28 minutes—was the primary culprit in missing the over.
- Shakira Austin Over 28.5 PR12 vs 28.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAustin shot just 3-9 from the field (33%) and posted a 19% usage rate in 32 minutes, combining for only 12 points—well short of the 28.5 projection—as she struggled with efficiency and offensive opportunities.
- Michaela Onyenwere Over 1.5 AST0 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberOnyenwere's heavy usage (30%) went entirely into scoring rather than playmaking—she took 8 shots but recorded zero assists despite 18 minutes, indicating a self-reliant offensive approach with two turnovers that further limited her ball distribution.
- Allisha Gray Over 3.5 REB1 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's aggressive offensive role (27% usage, 22 points on 35 minutes) didn't translate to rebounding activity—she managed just 1 board despite heavy involvement, suggesting limited exposure on the glass or a team that controlled the rebounding battle regardless of her scoring contributions.
09/2915–1354%−0.79u2 games
LVA @ IND9–12−4.42u
- Jackie Young Under 32.5 PRA40 vs 32.5shots didn't fall — the read held upYoung's elite free-throw volume (13-13 FT) compensated for modest field-goal efficiency (7-19 FG), and her 36 minutes of heavy usage (33%) generated the scoring punch needed to clear 32.5 combined with 5 assists. The perfect free-throw shooting alone added 13 points that turned what would've been a borderline performance into a comfortable 7.5-point overage.
- Kelsey Mitchell Under 25.5 PTS26 vs 25.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationMitchell's efficient 9-11 free-throw shooting (82%) and 3-4 three-point accuracy pushed her over the line despite a modest 7-16 from the field, as she capitalized on 34 minutes of playing time and 26% usage to narrowly exceed the 25.5-point threshold.
- Caitlin Clark Under 36.5 PRA49 vs 36.5shots didn't fall — the read held upClark's elite efficiency (68% TS on 32% usage) and game-high 15 assists pushed her well over the 36.5 line, as she orchestrated the offense while maintaining her scoring touch on 9-18 shooting. The combination of high volume and accuracy—particularly 5-11 from three—made the under untenable despite her 33 minutes.
- Caitlin Clark Under 4.5 REB7 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upClark exceeded the 4.5 rebound line by grabbing 7 boards in 33 minutes of high-usage play (32% usage), as she remained active on the glass despite her role as primary ball-handler and scorer. The under missed because she stayed on the floor and contributed across all stat categories in a blowout win (+15), avoiding foul trouble (6 PF) that might have limited her rebounding opportunities.
- Caitlin Clark Under 13.5 RA22 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upClark's 15 assists (tied to her 32% usage rate) drove the over, as she orchestrated the offense efficiently; her 68% true shooting and 33 minutes of floor time ensured she stayed on the court to rack up playmaking volume throughout.
- Caitlin Clark Under 31.5 PA42 vs 31.5paid over the fair numberClark's 32% usage rate and 33 minutes drove her to 42 PA, well above the 31.5 line, as she shouldered a heavy offensive load in a game where Indiana controlled pace and she remained free of foul trouble until the final frame.
MIN @ NYL6–1+3.63u
- Breanna Stewart Over 8.5 REB5 vs 8.5paid over the fair numberStewart's rebounding was unexpectedly low despite 40 minutes and strong overall efficiency, finishing with just 5 boards—3.5 short of the line—likely due to the game's pace and her offensive usage (26%) limiting second-chance opportunities.
09/2729–1173%+11.52u3 games
IND @ LVA4–1+2.25u
- A'ja Wilson Under 40.5 PRA56 vs 40.5paid over the fair numberWilson's elite 86% true shooting on 32% usage—fueled by a scorching 15-19 from the field—generated 38 points that easily cleared the scoring portion of the over, and her 16 rebounds pushed the combined PRA well past 40.5. The combination of high-volume efficiency and rebounding dominance made the under an underdog from the start.
WAS @ ATL7–3+2.33u
- Rhyne Howard Under 22.5 PR27 vs 22.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward's perfect 10-10 free throw shooting—combined with 39 minutes of heavy usage (24%)—pushed her over the total despite an inefficient 7-18 from the field, as she compensated for poor shot selection with aggressive attacking that drew fouls in a blowout win (+19).
- Georgia Amoore Over 3.5 AST3 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberAmoore fell one assist short despite 24 minutes of play, as a 20% usage rate and 4 turnovers limited her ability to run the offense and create scoring opportunities. She was a pass away from hitting the over, but the low offensive volume simply didn't generate enough playmaking chances.
- Jordin Canada Over 0.5 3PM0 vs 0.5paid over the fair numberCanada went 0-for-3 from three despite heavy usage (36 min, 11 ast), staying aggressive as a playmaker but unable to convert from deep; her 42% TS% and four total makes on 11 attempts indicates she leaned heavily on two-pointers and free throws instead.
DAL @ GSV18–7+6.94u
- Gabby Williams Under 19.5 PR23 vs 19.5paid over the fair numberWilliams exceeded the 19.5 projection by scoring 20 points on efficient 50% shooting (8-16 FG) while logging 27 minutes and commanding 30% usage—her hot hand and high volume proved too much for the under. The +27 rating also reflects she was a net-positive force in a blowout, limiting her foul trouble (2 PF) and keeping her on the floor for full run.
- Paige Bueckers Under 27.5 PRA29 vs 27.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upBueckers' elite 90% FG and 100% 3PT shooting (9-10 from field, 2-2 from three) on 23% usage generated 21 points in just 25 minutes, and combined with 6 rebounds and 2 assists she cleared the 27.5 line at 29 PRA despite limited court time. The under-25-minute projection couldn't overcome her historic shooting efficiency.
- Maddy Siegrist Under 11.5 PR14 vs 11.5no clean explanationSiegrist's 14 points exceeded the 11.5 line despite modest volume, as she converted 2-of-3 free throws and hit a three-pointer in limited 21-minute action, with her 53% true shooting keeping her efficient enough to push over despite a -18 rating in a blowout loss.
- Maddy Siegrist Under 11.5 PRA14 vs 11.5no clean explanationSiegrist exceeded the 11.5 PRA line with 14 (11 pts + 3 reb) despite modest shooting efficiency, as she stayed out of foul trouble and logged 21 minutes with steady 25% usage in a game where Villanova needed her production. The under missed because she hit her scoring floor while grabbing multiple rebounds in limited but efficient minutes.
- Kaila Charles Under 3.5 REB5 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCharles exceeded the 3.5 rebound line with 5 boards despite playing just 19 minutes and posting only 10% usage, suggesting strong rebounding activity relative to her limited offensive role. Her +16 rating and two fouls indicates she stayed available and active on the glass without foul trouble limiting her playing time.
- Kayla Thornton Under 14.5 PRA16 vs 14.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationThornton's efficient 83% true shooting—including 4-6 from the field and 2-4 from three—combined with 5 rebounds in 19 minutes to generate 16 PRA and exceed the 14.5 line. Her high-volume scoring output on strong shooting percentages overcame limited minutes and usage to push through the over.
09/243–443%−2.12u3 games
GSV @ LAS2–3−1.76u
- Nneka Ogwumike Under 9.5 REB15 vs 9.5no clean explanationOgwumike dominated the glass with 15 rebounds in 35 minutes, nearly doubling the 9.5 line, as she secured both ends of the floor with aggressive rebounding activity despite moderate scoring efficiency. The high-volume rebound night—fueled by heavy minutes and a team that likely struggled to control the glass—proved too much for the under to hold.
- Nneka Ogwumike Under 31.5 PRA37 vs 31.5no clean explanationOgwumike's 15 rebounds—well above her typical output—pushed her over the line despite modest scoring; she logged 35 minutes with high usage and crashed the glass relentlessly to rack up 5.5 extra possessions worth of production beyond points and assists.
- Nneka Ogwumike Under 3.5 AST5 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOgwumike's 5 assists came from elevated playmaking activity in a game where she logged 35 minutes and maintained high usage (26%), allowing her to facilitate above her typical rate despite modest shooting efficiency. The under missed because she operated as a primary offensive option with the ball in her hands frequently, generating extra passing opportunities that pushed her one assist past the 3.5 threshold.
CHI @ WAS0–1−1.00u
- Sydney Taylor Under 2.5 AST4 vs 2.5no clean explanationTaylor exceeded the under despite poor shot efficiency (5-18 FG, 0-7 3PT) because she maintained high usage at 42% and ran the offense for 24 minutes, naturally accumulating 4 assists. Her volume as a primary ball-handler was enough to clear the 2.5 line even as her scoring efficiency collapsed.
LVA @ PHO1–0+0.64u
09/239–282%+5.05u2 games
DAL @ SEA4–1+1.45u
- Flau'jae Johnson Over 1.5 3PM0 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJohnson went 0-for-5 from three despite heavy volume (35 min, 32% usage), relying instead on 13 points in the paint and 5 free throws to reach 21 total points. The over missed because she simply couldn't connect from deep, finishing ice-cold from range despite getting opportunities.
ATL @ NYL5–1+3.60u
- Naz Hillmon Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon connected on 2-of-8 from three while playing 33 minutes with elevated usage (19%), keeping her above the 1.5 line despite a modest 25% three-point percentage on the night.
09/2216–13 ·1 void55%−0.24u5 games
MIN @ IND0–3 ·1 void−3.00u
- Napheesa Collier Over 2.5 AST0 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCollier played only 13 minutes with a -20 +/-, suggesting she was benched early in a blowout, and recorded zero assists despite touching the ball on 23% of possessions, indicating she operated primarily as a scorer rather than a facilitator in limited run.
- Makayla Timpson Under 13.5 PR15 vs 13.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upTimpson's 4-for-4 free-throw shooting converted her modest 2-for-5 field-goal night into 8 points, but she reached 15 pr through 7 rebounds in 24 minutes, as the rebounding volume proved enough to overcome a quiet offensive performance and push past the 13.5 line.
- Caitlin Clark Under 24.5 PR34 vs 24.5paid over the fair numberClark's 65% true shooting and 36% usage rate—both elite marks—powered her well past 24.5 points; she was especially efficient from the free-throw line (6-6) and converted key three-pointers despite a modest overall three-point percentage, finishing with 34 points in 33 minutes of heavy offensive load.
TOR @ CHI0–2−2.00u
- Laura Juskaite Under 1.5 3PM3 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJuskaite went 3-for-4 from three on 28 minutes, hitting at an elite 75% clip from deep—well above her season norms—to easily clear the 1.5 three-point total. Her efficient shooting night, powered by a hot hand from distance, was the primary reason the under failed to cash.
- Laura Juskaite Under 2.5 AST4 vs 2.5no clean explanationJuskaite exceeded the assist line by recording 4 dimes in 28 minutes despite modest usage (26%), likely benefiting from efficient ball movement in a game where she shot 6-10 and played steady minutes without foul trouble (3 PF).
CON @ WAS6–6−1.15u
- Leila Lacan Over 4.5 AST3 vs 4.5no clean explanationLacan fell one assist short despite 30 minutes of run, finishing with just 3 dimes while turning the ball over 6 times and posting a woeful 28% usage rate that limited her playmaking opportunities. The 4-13 shooting night (31% FG) forced her into a rhythm-disrupting role rather than facilitating, keeping her assist total well below the mark.
- Leila Lacan Over 14.5 PA14 vs 14.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upLacan fell one point shy despite 30 minutes of run, held back by a brutal 4-13 shooting night (31% FG) that limited her to just 11 points and forced her to rely on assists to approach the line. Her 3 assists and 2 rebounds came up one point short of clearing 14.5 as inefficient shot selection and poor conversion rates cost the over.
- Leila Lacan Over 16.5 PRA16 vs 16.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upLacan fell one point short despite playing 30 minutes, held back by poor shooting efficiency (4-13 FG, 1-5 3PT) and six turnovers that limited her scoring opportunities on 28% usage.
- Aaliyah Edwards Over 12.5 PA9 vs 12.5no clean explanationEdwards shot just 4-14 (29% TS) and turned the ball over 4 times in 27 minutes, combining poor efficiency with careless play to fall short of the over. Her 28% usage rate left her with limited offensive opportunities, and she recorded only 1 assist despite touching the ball frequently enough to generate more scoring chances.
- Shakira Austin Under 20.5 PA26 vs 20.5no clean explanationAustin's 26 points came on an efficient 11-15 from the free-throw line, where she attempted nearly as many FTs as field goals despite shooting just 50% from the floor, and her 35 minutes and 28% usage rate gave her ample opportunity to accumulate scoring in the Mystics' victory.
- Aaliyah Edwards Over 9.5 PTS8 vs 9.5no clean explanationEdwards' historically poor shooting night—just 4-for-14 (29% TS)—kept her a point short despite healthy 27 minutes and 13 rebounds; she couldn't convert enough looks to reach double figures.
LAS @ LVA3–0+2.62u
GSV @ POR7–2+3.30u
- Megan DiLeo Under 17.5 PR22 vs 17.5no clean explanationDiLeo exceeded the under on points+rebounds (22 vs. 17.5) despite modest scoring (14 pts on 60% FG) by grabbing 8 boards in 34 minutes, capitalizing on extended floor time and high rebounding opportunity in a game where she logged significant minutes.
- Gabby Williams Under 2.5 AST4 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilliams doubled her assist total in 41 minutes of heavy usage, recording 4 assists despite shooting just 6-19 from the field—her playmaking compensated for an inefficient scoring night and kept her involved in the offense.
09/216–555%−0.05u2 games
DAL @ PHO0–1−1.00u
- Alyssa Thomas Under 30.5 PRA38 vs 30.5no clean explanationThomas dominated the glass and orchestrated the offense with 11 rebounds and 12 assists on 32 minutes, combining for 23 of her 38 PRA and far exceeding typical production levels. Her elite 58% true shooting kept her efficient enough to stay on the floor despite moderate usage, allowing her to accumulate value across multiple stat categories.
ATL @ NYL6–4+0.95u
- Allisha Gray Over 5.5 RA4 vs 5.5paid over the fair numberGray came up one rebound short despite 32 minutes and solid 72% TS, as she prioritized scoring (14 pts on efficient 5-8 FG) over crashing the glass in a blowout where Atlanta didn't need her rebounding load.
- Naz Hillmon Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon connected on 2-of-5 three-point attempts (40%) despite modest usage, hitting at well above her season efficiency to clear the 1.5 three-point line in limited 17-minute action.
- Jonquel Jones Under 2.5 AST4 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJones exceeded the assist line by distributing the ball from the post in 35 minutes of heavy usage (22%), recording 4 dimes while dominating the glass with 12 rebounds. Her elevated role as a facilitator—typical for a big handling the ball in the mid-post—pushed her playmaking volume just beyond the low 2.5 threshold.
- Isobel Borlase Over 3.5 PTS0 vs 3.5game script — blowout or foul troubleBorlase played only 8 minutes and took just one shot (missing both her field goal and three-point attempt), leaving her well short of the 3.5-point line with zero points on 6% usage.
09/2019–676%+8.33u4 games
POR @ LAS1–0+0.70u
SEA @ LVA4–2+1.33u
- A'ja Wilson Over 0.5 3PM0 vs 0.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilson went 0-for-1 from three despite a dominant 30-point performance, relying entirely on her 7-13 two-point shooting and a perfect 16-18 free-throw line to reach her scoring total. The single three-point attempt—her only shot from distance in 30 minutes—fell short, leaving the over stranded.
- A'ja Wilson Under 39.5 PRA42 vs 39.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upWilson's elite efficiency—72% TS on 34% usage with a perfect 16-18 from the line—pushed her over the total despite playing just 30 minutes, as the Las Vegas blowout (+24) allowed her to pile up points and rebounds without extended floor time.
WAS @ IND7–3+2.04u
- Michaela Onyenwere Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOnyenwere hit 2-of-4 from three despite modest overall efficiency (2-6 FG), converting exactly at the rate needed to clear the 1.5 line in her 22 minutes of action. The under missed on volume: she took four three-point attempts, tied for high on her season, giving her multiple opportunities to surpass the threshold despite limited total shot volume.
- Makayla Timpson Under 13.5 PR20 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upTimpson's elite 98% true shooting—converting 4-of-4 from the field and 5-of-6 from the line—turned a modest 12% usage rate into 13 points, and she added 7 rebounds in 24 minutes to reach 20 points responsible, well above the 13.5 line. Her perfect 4-4 FG night was the outlier that punched through despite limited offensive opportunities.
- Makayla Timpson Under 7.5 PTS13 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upTimpson's perfect 4-for-4 shooting from the field and 5-for-6 from the line (98% TS%) turned a modest 24 minutes and 12% usage into efficient scoring that doubled the under threshold. Her elite finishing, particularly at the free-throw line where she drew fouls, masked the volume constraint that typically would've kept her under the 7.5 line.
NYL @ TOR7–1+4.26u
- Kiki Rice Under 4.5 AST5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upRice's playmaking elevated in a competitive game, reaching 5 assists on 30 minutes played with 29% usage—enough touches to facilitate one more than the under required. Though she turned the ball over 3 times, her 9-for-16 shooting efficiency kept the offense moving and created more opportunities to thread passes to teammates.
09/1920–1263%+5.76u2 games
CHI @ ATL1–1−0.20u
- Naz Hillmon Over 11.5 PR6 vs 11.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHillmon's 6 points fell well short of 11.5 due to inefficient shooting (0-5 FG, 17% TS) and limited offensive involvement in just 19 minutes with 13% usage. Her inability to convert from the field—despite going 2-2 from the stripe—left her stranded at less than half the betting line.
SEA @ GSV19–11+5.96u
- Awa Fam Under 16.5 PRA19 vs 16.5no clean explanationFam's 9 rebounds and 2 assists pushed her to 19 PRA despite poor shooting (3-8 FG), as the game script gave her elevated board opportunities in 29 minutes of extended run.
- Awa Fam Under 1.5 AST2 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberFam narrowly cleared the 1.5-assist line with 2 dimes despite shooting just 3-8 and turning it over 5 times, benefiting from 29 minutes of playing time that gave her enough ball-handling opportunities to hit the over by a single assist.
- Flau'jae Johnson Under 13.5 PTS17 vs 13.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJohnson's efficient perimeter shooting—3-of-6 from three on 34 minutes of heavy usage—propelled her past the 13.5 threshold despite a modest 33% overall FG rate, as her 45% true shooting was enough to generate 17 points. The under missed because volume and three-point accuracy compensated for inconsistent field-goal shooting from inside the arc.
- Awa Fam Under 15.5 PR17 vs 15.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upFam's 17 points came entirely from her 9 rebounds, as she shot just 3-8 from the field for 8 points—the under missed because the prop graded on total points, not field goals made, and her offensive rebounding activity (9 boards in 29 minutes) padded the scoring total despite poor shooting efficiency.
- Awa Fam Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upFam hit 2-of-6 from three despite a rough overall night (3-8 FG, 45% TS), getting enough volume from deep to clear the 1.5 line in 29 minutes of heavy usage despite foul trouble limiting her efficiency.
- Flau'jae Johnson Under 18.5 PR22 vs 18.5no clean explanationJohnson exceeded the under despite shooting just 33% from the field (6-18 FG) because she logged 34 minutes of high usage (34%) and stayed out of foul trouble with only 4 PF, allowing her to accumulate 22 points through volume alone. Her 2-2 free-throw shooting and 3-6 three-point night provided enough supplementary scoring to push past 18.5 despite inefficient overall performance.
09/1813–13 ·3 void50%−3.11u3 games
IND @ TOR7–10 ·3 void−5.05u
- Laura Juskaite Under 14.5 PA24 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJuskaite's 24 PA crushed the under as she logged a season-high 30 minutes with 28% usage, converting 8-of-15 FG (53%) to generate nearly 11 more shot attempts than the betting line anticipated. Her elite 64% true shooting efficiency meant she punished the volume, finishing with 22 points on a hot night that turned a conservative under projection into a decisive miss.
- Makayla Timpson Over 17.5 PRA9 vs 17.5no clean explanationTimpson's minutes were slashed to just 14, cutting her usage to 14%, which severely limited opportunities to reach 17.5 combined points, rebounds, and assists. She managed only 9 PRA despite solid efficiency (67% TS), simply lacking the volume needed to cash the over.
- Makayla Timpson Over 8.5 PTS4 vs 8.5shots didn't fall — the read held upTimpson's playing time was severely limited to just 14 minutes, cutting her offensive opportunities in half and preventing her from reaching the scoring threshold despite efficient 67% true shooting. Her low 14% usage rate—indicative of a reduced role—meant she simply didn't have enough shot volume or touches to generate the scoring needed to clear 8.5 points.
- Laura Juskaite Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberJuskaite hit 2-of-6 from three, exceeding the 1.5 line despite a modest 33% three-point clip, as her elevated 30-minute role and 28% usage ensured enough volume to clear the threshold.
- Aliyah Boston Under 0.5 3PM2 vs 0.5no clean explanationBoston connected on 2-of-2 from three in 28 minutes of play, well above the 0.5 threshold, as she stayed efficient from deep despite her modest 16% usage rate.
- Laura Juskaite Under 12.5 PTS22 vs 12.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJuskaite nearly doubled the 12.5 projection by shooting an efficient 8-15 from the field (53%) with strong free-throw conversion (4-5), combining volume and accuracy to reach 22 points in 30 minutes of heavy usage (28%).
NYL @ MIN1–3−2.07u
- Pauline Astier Under 6.5 PTS14 vs 6.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAstier was remarkably efficient from the field, shooting 6-8 (75%) with a perfect 2-2 from three, and stayed on the court for 27 minutes without fouling out, allowing her to accumulate 14 points despite modest 14% usage.
- Napheesa Collier Under 2.5 AST4 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCollier exceeded the assist line by dishing 4 assists in 32 minutes while posting a season-high 21% usage rate, generating extra playmaking opportunities despite her heavy scoring load. The turnover-heavy game (6 TOs) and aggressive offensive approach created more ball-handling situations that naturally pushed her over the 2.5-assist threshold.
- Jonquel Jones Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5paid over the fair numberJones went 1-for-3 from three and leaned heavily on mid-range and paint scoring (8-17 FG overall), relying on her strong inside game rather than volume from deep despite the 30-minute run.
POR @ GSV5–0+4.02u
09/1727–13 ·1 void68%+9.72u5 games
CON @ ATL2–3−1.52u
- DeWanna Bonner Under 5.5 RA6 vs 5.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationBonner grabbed 5 rebounds in just 11 minutes of play, hitting the over despite minimal offensive involvement (1-3 FG, 2 pts), as her rebounding activity proved sufficient to clear the 5.5 line. The limited minutes kept her well below her typical usage rate, but her 45% rebound rate (5 boards in 11 min) was enough to narrowly bust the under.
- Angel Reese Under 0.5 3PM1 vs 0.5no clean explanationReese's elite overall efficiency (11-14 FG, 84% TS%) and high usage (34%) on a blowout night (+31) created opportunities from everywhere on the floor, and she capitalized on her only three-point attempt to go 1-1 from deep. The under missed because even a player with a modest three-point volume is likely to hit at least one look when shooting at such a high clip in a game where the team dominated.
- Rhyne Howard Over 21.5 PR16 vs 21.5paid over the fair numberHoward's shot selection and efficiency collapsed, going 3-14 from the field (21%) with a league-worst 32% true shooting despite playing 28 minutes and maintaining high usage at 27%. The combination of poor shooting splits and limited free-throw volume (4 attempts) left her well short of the 21.5-point line.
LAS @ DAL7–4+1.44u
- Ariel Atkins Over 9.5 PA5 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upAtkins' assist total was crippled by her 9% usage rate and minimal offensive involvement—she attempted just 3 shots in 23 minutes—leaving her well short of the 9.5 assists needed despite solid efficiency when she did touch the ball.
- Maddy Siegrist Under 12.5 PR14 vs 12.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upSiegrist shot 5-of-10 from the field (50%) in 23 minutes, outpacing her season efficiency to finish with 12 points and narrowly clear the 12.5 line despite modest usage at 17%.
- Jessica Shepard Under 16.5 RA23 vs 16.5shots didn't fall — the read held upShepard's 12 assists were the outlier—well above her typical playmaking volume—and combined with 11 rebounds, she easily cleared 16.5 total rebounds+assists despite modest scoring of 13 points on 28 minutes.
- Jessica Shepard Under 20.5 PA25 vs 20.5shots didn't fall — the read held upShepard's 12 assists—nearly double her typical output—drove the miss; she was heavily involved in ball movement (22% usage rate) and finished with 25 total plays (13 pts + 12 ast) despite modest shooting volume (11 FGA).
PHO @ POR3–0 ·1 void+2.52u
LVA @ SEA5–1+3.53u
- Chelsea Gray Under 9.5 RA15 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray exceeded the 9.5 rebound line with 9 boards despite inefficient scoring (2-8 FG), leaning heavily on her rebounding role in 26 minutes of play. The under missed because she grabbed all 9 rebounds on volume alone—her team was shooting just 31% TS%, generating extra miss opportunities that fell into her lap on the glass.
WAS @ CHI10–5+3.75u
- Georgia Amoore Over 1.5 REB1 vs 1.5no clean explanationAmoore finished with just 1 rebound in 23 minutes despite efficient scoring (4-of-8 FG), as her role was primarily as a facilitator (5 ast) rather than a rebounder. She fouled out with 4 personal fouls, which may have limited her ability to crash the boards late.
- Shakira Austin Over 11.5 RA10 vs 11.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationAustin fell one rebound short despite efficient scoring (8-15 FG), held back by limited minutes (28) and available playing time in a blowout win (+30). Her 7 boards plus 3 assists came up just short of the 11.5 rebound assist line, as the game script didn't require extended minutes.
- Michaela Onyenwere Under 1.5 3PM2 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOnyenwere hit 2-of-7 from three despite modest usage (24%), riding hot efficiency (55% TS%) and extended floor time (21 min) that created enough three-point attempts to clear the 1.5 threshold. The under missed by one make on a night where she stayed aggressive from deep despite shooting just 40% from distance.
- Sydney Taylor Over 12.5 PTS12 vs 12.5 — missed by a hairpaid over the fair numberTaylor fell one point short despite solid minutes (20) and usage (33%), undone by poor shooting efficiency—she made just 4 of 12 from the field (33% FG) and missed 5 of 7 three-pointers in what became a low-volume scoring night.
- Shakira Austin Over 27.5 PR27 vs 27.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upAustin fell one point shy of 27.5, finishing with 27 points on solid 54% true shooting but limited offensive opportunities with just 29% usage over 28 minutes. The under caught a break as her efficient night wasn't quite enough volume to push past the line.
08/3021–1460%+5.02u4 games
LAS @ SEA3–7−4.42u
- Dominique Malonga Under 9.5 REB15 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMalonga crashed the glass relentlessly, hauling in 15 rebounds across 34 minutes with zero fouls to constrain her activity, far exceeding the 9.5 line despite shooting just 38% from the field. Her 25% usage rate and limited scoring role made her a pure rebounder, and she dominated that end of the floor to deliver a 5+ board beat.
- Rae Burrell Under 2.5 REB4 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurrell secured 4 rebounds in 28 minutes with 39% usage, one more than the 2.5 line required, as she stayed out of foul trouble (1 PF) and remained on the floor for high-volume scoring opportunities. The under missed by a narrow margin despite her shooting struggles (7-18 FG, 0-6 3PT), as her elevated minutes and role were enough to generate an extra board.
- Flau'jae Johnson Over 4.5 REB3 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upJohnson fell one rebound short despite solid volume (29 min, 33% usage), hampered by five personal fouls that limited her ability to crash the boards and stay on the court for crucial possessions.
- Flau'jae Johnson Over 7.5 RA5 vs 7.5no clean explanationJohnson's playmaking dried up despite heavy usage (33%), finishing with just 2 assists and 5 turnovers in 29 minutes as LSU's offense struggled in a blowout loss. The combination of shot-heavy offensive role and poor ball security left her well short of the 7.5 assist line.
- Dominique Malonga Over 0.5 3PM0 vs 0.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMalonga went 0-for-4 from three despite heavy volume (34 minutes, 25% usage), staying true to her interior-oriented role and never finding rhythm from distance. The bet needed just one make from deep, but she remained a non-factor beyond the arc while dominating inside with 15 rebounds.
- Dominique Malonga Under 11.5 RA18 vs 11.5paid over the fair numberMalonga crushed the board with 15 rebounds in 34 minutes, nearly doubling her projection as the team's primary rebounder in a high-volume role (25% usage). The aggressive offensive rebounding—she had multiple put-back attempts despite shooting just 38% from the field—pushed her well past 11.5 total rebounds.
CON @ DAL4–1+2.52u
- Paige Bueckers Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBueckers went 1-for-3 from three despite solid overall efficiency (54% TS), failing to generate enough volume or makes from deep in 25 minutes of play. She leaned heavily on mid-range and paint scoring (5-10 FG inside the arc) rather than launching threes, leaving the over just short.
MIN @ ATL3–0+2.87u
GSV @ POR11–6+4.05u
- Veronica Burton Over 1.5 3PM1 vs 1.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurton went 1-for-5 from three despite solid overall efficiency, missing the extra three-pointer needed to clear the line due to low volume in a blowout win where she prioritized playmaking (6 assists) over shooting. Her 18% usage rate left limited opportunities to accumulate the second three needed to cash the over.
- Emily Engstler Over 9.5 RA5 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upEngstler played just 23 minutes and recorded only 5 rebounds despite efficient scoring (4-6 FG), falling well short of the 9.5 ra line due to limited court time and opportunities on the glass. Her modest usage rate (22%) and low rebound total suggest reduced involvement in a game where she may have been in foul trouble or saw reduced playing time in her team's flow.
- Emily Engstler Over 14.5 PA13 vs 14.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upEngstler fell one assist short despite efficient scoring (87% TS), held back by limited floor time at 23 minutes and low usage (22%), which constrained her playmaking opportunities in a blowout game.
- Megan DiLeo Over 18.5 PR15 vs 18.5paid over the fair numberDiLeo's 15 points fell short of the 18.5 line despite solid efficiency (6-10 FG, 57% TS) because she logged just 24 minutes and a 23% usage rate, limiting her volume on a night when she was playing efficient but didn't get enough shot attempts to reach the scoring threshold.
- Megan DiLeo Over 14.5 PTS12 vs 14.5shots didn't fall — the read held upDiLeo fell just short despite efficient shooting (6-10 FG, 57% TS) because limited minutes (24) and modest usage (23%) capped her volume—she needed just one more made field goal to clear 14.5, but couldn't generate enough shot attempts in a game where her role was reduced.
- Megan DiLeo Over 4.5 REB3 vs 4.5shots didn't fall — the read held upDiLeo fell one rebound short despite efficient scoring (6-10 FG in 24 minutes), as limited usage (23%) and low volume opportunities in a blowout loss restricted her glass touches to just 3 boards.
08/2913–2 ·2 void87%+7.99u1 game
TOR @ PHO13–2 ·2 void+7.99u
- Kiki Rice Under 4.5 AST5 vs 4.5 — missed by a hairno clean explanationRice's high usage rate (32%) and full 28 minutes of floor time drove her playmaking volume just over the line, as she recorded 5 assists despite 8 turnovers in what was an inefficient offensive night for her team.
- Alyssa Thomas Under 8.5 AST12 vs 8.5no clean explanationThomas facilitated at an elite rate despite low scoring volume, dishing 12 assists on just 14% usage to lead the offense in a blowout (+38 rating), easily clearing the 8.5 assist line through pure playmaking rather than volume scoring.
08/2820–19 ·2 void51%−2.55u4 games
POR @ ATL2–4−2.21u
- Rhyne Howard Under 26.5 PRA33 vs 26.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHoward's 26 points and 6 rebounds combined to 33 PRA, exceeding the 26.5 line despite modest efficiency (8-21 FG) because she logged all 38 available minutes with 27% usage, the volume alone driving her over the threshold. Her 6 three-pointers made also inflated her scoring total beyond what the under accounted for.
- Angel Reese Under 3.5 AST6 vs 3.5shots didn't fall — the read held upReese's playmaking load increased significantly despite moderate usage, as she logged 38 minutes and orchestrated ball movement from the post with 6 assists against an opponent defense that allowed her to operate in space. The high-volume rebounding (16 boards) positioned her as a primary facilitator on a team that needed her to generate offense, pushing her well past the 3.5 threshold.
- Jordin Canada Over 14.5 PR12 vs 14.5paid over the fair numberCanada's 12 points fell short despite efficient shooting (72% TS%) because she logged only 32 minutes and 16% usage—well below her typical offensive load—limiting her scoring opportunities even at high efficiency. The five turnovers and five personal fouls also constrained her floor time and ball-handling, preventing her from reaching the 14.5-point threshold.
- Rhyne Howard Under 22.5 PR32 vs 22.5no clean explanationHoward's 32 projected rating exceeded the 22.5 line because she logged a game-high 38 minutes with elite efficiency—57% true shooting on 27% usage—converting 6-of-13 from three while avoiding foul trouble (just 2 PF), allowing her to sustain high volume without the usual minute restrictions.
TOR @ LVA4–5 ·1 void−1.83u
- Jackie Young Under 2.5 3PM4 vs 2.5paid over the fair numberYoung shot 4-for-9 from three (44.4%), well above her season norm, and her 28% usage rate meant she got enough volume to hit multiple attempts despite limited minutes in the 26 she played. The efficient shooting night—particularly from deep—simply exceeded the expected output for an under 2.5 threes bet.
- Chelsea Gray Over 20.5 PRA18 vs 20.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upGray fell just short at 18 PRA despite solid efficiency (53% TS, 4 steals), hampered by limited shot volume—her 17% usage rate and 4-9 FG attempts couldn't generate enough scoring to push over 20.5 even with her assist and steal contributions.
- Chelsea Gray Over 9.5 RA7 vs 9.5shots didn't fall — the read held upGray's 7 rebounds fell short of the 9.5 line despite 28 minutes of run, as she recorded just 3 boards on the night—a low total that reflected limited offensive rebounding opportunities in a blowout win (+18 margin) where the team controlled the glass.
- Chelsea Gray Over 17.5 PA15 vs 17.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upGray finished 2 assists shy of the over despite 28 minutes of action, hampered by low usage (17%) and inefficiency (4-9 FG, 0-3 3PT) that limited her offensive opportunities and playmaking impact.
- A'ja Wilson Over 0.5 3PM0 vs 0.5shots didn't fall — the read held upWilson scored efficiently from the field (10-17 FG) and the line (7-8 FT) but took only 2 three-point attempts and missed both, staying well within her volume comfort zone of attacking the paint and mid-range.
CON @ IND7–5 ·1 void+0.40u
- Caitlin Clark Under 13.5 RA17 vs 13.5no clean explanationClark's elite 79% true shooting and 34% usage rate fueled 34 points on just 19 FG attempts, generating 17 rebounds+assists well above the 13.5 line as she dominated a blowout (+32 rating) without foul trouble to limit her availability.
- Charlisse Leger-Walker Under 3.5 REB4 vs 3.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upLeger-Walker grabbed one more board than the line allowed despite modest volume, finishing with 4 rebounds in 24 minutes of a game where she was more facilitator (5 ast) than rebounder. The narrow miss came down to simple variance—she needed just one extra board to bust the under, which proved achievable even in a limited role.
- Charlisse Leger-Walker Under 7.5 RA9 vs 7.5shots didn't fall — the read held upLeger-Walker's 5 assists exceeded typical output and pushed her past 7.5 combined rebounds-assists; she operated as a secondary playmaker in 24 minutes despite modest scoring (8 pts on 3-6 FG), delivering enough offensive creation to clear the line.
- Saniya Rivers Under 6.5 RA7 vs 6.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upRivers exceeded the 6.5 rebounds line by just one rebound (7 total) despite shooting inefficiently (4-11 FG) and playing in negative game flow (-30 +/-), likely benefiting from extended 31-minute run in what appeared to be a competitive game that kept her on the floor for rebounding opportunities.
- Kelsey Mitchell Under 2.5 REB3 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upMitchell's scoring aggression (34 points on 73% TS) kept her on the floor for 31 minutes, and she naturally accumulated a few extra boards on her way to 3 rebounds—just one more than the line predicted.
WAS @ LAS7–5+1.09u
- Michaela Onyenwere Over 2.5 REB0 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upOnyenwere drew 22 minutes but failed to box out or crash the glass, finishing with a goose egg on the boards despite shooting 6-of-6 from the line—a rare occurrence where volume and efficiency couldn't overcome zero rebounding activity. At just 16% usage, she was relegated to a catch-and-shoot role that kept her away from the rim, making the 2.5 rebound bar impossible to clear.
- Rae Burrell Under 2.5 REB3 vs 2.5shots didn't fall — the read held upBurrell grabbed exactly 3 rebounds in 29 minutes—just one board above the line—playing within her normal role despite solid 15-point, 58% TS efficiency that kept her engaged on the glass.
- Nneka Ogwumike Under 0.5 3PM2 vs 0.5paid over the fair numberOgwumike's efficient 11-16 shooting night included an unexpected 2-3 from three-point range, doubling the under's threshold despite her season-long perimeter role being secondary to her interior dominance. The high volume and hot shooting—particularly her 73% true shooting—meant she found opportunities beyond the arc that the under pricing didn't anticipate.
- Nneka Ogwumike Over 9.5 RA9 vs 9.5 — missed by a hairshots didn't fall — the read held upOgwumike fell one rebound short despite a dominant scoring night (24 pts on 11-16 FG), as her rebounding opportunities were limited by the team's offensive efficiency and pace in the 30-minute stint. Her 31% usage rate and role as a primary scorer left fewer possessions available for glass work compared to typical games.
- Dearica Hamby Over 5.5 REB4 vs 5.5shots didn't fall — the read held upHamby came up one rebound short despite efficient scoring (4-6 FG), held back by just 24 minutes of action and low usage (16%) in a game that didn't require heavy offensive load. Her three personal fouls may have also limited her floor time and rebounding opportunities.
08/252–0100%+1.04u2 games
08/242–167%−0.12u1 game
ATL @ LAS2–1−0.12u
- Jordin Canada Over 0.5 3PM0 vs 0.5shots didn't fall — the read held upCanada went 0-for-3 from three despite logging 35 minutes, signaling a lack of three-point volume rather than opportunity—she took just 3 three-pointers all game and misfired on all of them.
08/231–0100%+0.44u1 game
SEA @ DAL1–0+0.44u
08/221–0100%+0.53u1 game
ATL @ PHO1–0+0.53u
08/204–0100%+1.73u3 games
08/163–0100%+1.48u1 game
CHI @ SEA3–0+1.48u
08/131–0100%+0.42u1 game
WAS @ LVA1–0+0.42u
08/120–0 ·1 void—0.00u1 game
TOR @ DAL0–0 ·1 void0.00u
08/100–10%−1.00u1 game
CHI @ SEA0–1−1.00u
- Azura Stevens Over 0.5 3PM0 vs 0.5shots didn't fall — the read held upStevens went 0-for-3 from three despite solid overall volume (4-9 FG, 24 min), unable to convert from deep in a game where she stayed aggressive inside the arc but couldn't find range. The miss came down to poor three-point shot selection or execution rather than opportunity scarcity.
Each eligible priced formula signal is normalized to a flat 1-unit outcome at its recorded price. Voids are excluded from the record, hit rate, and units. Open a day for the per-game split and loss review.