Are the signals earning trust?

Performance

Daily results →
Cohort
Period
Market
All
⚾ Batter
Direction
Filtered to CohortOther qualifyingMarketPoints
Signal check
Trend

Overall hit rate is 87.5%, +39.6 pts over baseline.

Performance summary

Hit rate
87.5%
14–2 record
vs baseline
+39.6 pts
vs 48% base
Graded
16
3 slates
Last 7 days · Other qualifying · previous 7 days: 78.6% (+33.4 pts over base) +8.9 pts · avg score 98

Too few graded predictions in this selection to say whether the model is showing signal. Widen the period or clear a filter.

All qualifying18–675.0%n=24
Featured4–450.0%n=8
Other qualifying14–287.5%n=16

What's working

Every market ranked by the edge it holds over the rate its own event happens without us — not by how often it converts. The tables further down read served predictions only, so the “all” figure beside each edge is the check that a market which never clears the floor is not mistaken for one that does not work.

Marketranked by edgeEdge vs baseserved · all predictionsHit rateservedNservedShare servedcleared 70+
Points+35.3 ptsall +29.4 pts · n=3175.0% base 40%24Small
Edge is the served props’ hit rate minus the rate that event happens on its own; “all” is the same figure over everything the market predicted, floor or not. “Starved” means the market beats its base rate by 5+ points across everything it predicted, yet under a tenth of those ever clear the floor — the scale cannot reach, so the edge is never offered. Judged on the engine running today: a superseded scorer’s serving share is not a fact about the current one.

Trust board

The page’s verdict, from edge over baseline, sample size and recent trend together — never from hit rate alone. A tier with nothing in it is not shown.

Too early to say
Too few graded predictions to judge. Not a verdict.
  • Points+35.3 pts n=24
The evidence

Score calibration

The scoring system is worth having only if a higher score means a better outcome. Each band is measured against the base rate of the props it actually holds — the top band is almost purely 1+ hit, so a raw-rate reading of this table would credit it for carrying a common event.

Not enough graded predictions yet to judge whether higher scores perform better.

The 80–84, 90–94 and 99–100 bands remain too small to read.

80–84100.0%n=1
90–94100.0%n=2
99–10084.6%n=13
Observed hit rateBase rate for that band’s props — the gap is the edge
Score bandRecordHit rateSampleVoidsvs base
80–84Small sample1–0100.0%n=10+37.5 pts base 62%
90–94Small sample2–0100.0%n=20+37.5 pts base 62%
99–100Small sample11–284.6%n=130+40.1 pts base 44%

Where the model has edge

Segments by market, ranked by lift over their own base rate. Anything under the minimum sample is separated and labelled rather than ranked alongside — a high percentage on twenty predictions is not a discovered edge.

Segmentvs baseHit rateNRecordvs prior period
Small-sample signalsunder 30 graded — not yet a measured edge
PointsSmall sample+39.6 pts base 48%87.5%n=1614–2no prior period

Over vs Under

Only Over predictions were served in this selection (+39.6 pts over base, n=16), so the two sides cannot be compared.

Over14–287.5%+39.6 pts vs basen=16
Under0–0Not gradedn=0
MarketOverrate · pts vs baseUnderrate · pts vs base
Points87.5% +39.6n=16—
Deeper diagnostics

Consistency

Performance has been stable around 66%–68% across every window with a real sample.

Last 7
87.5%
14–2 n=16
+19.1 pts vs Last 30
Last 30
68.4%
108–50 n=158
+0.9 pts vs Prev 30
Prev 30
67.4%
120–58 n=178
—
Season
66.3%
276–140 n=416
—
All time
66.3%
276–140 n=416
—

Market pulse

Each market’s recent slates against its own period average. The trend column is the row’s answer; the grid behind it fades with age.

MarketPeriodTrendOct9Oct7Oct4
Points88%n=16building sample86%n=786%n=7100%n=2
Above own averageNear own averageBelow own averageOlder slates fade; faded cells also have fewer than 5 decisions

By month

Lift over base, 2026-08 → 2026-10
MonthRecordHit ratevs base
2026-08168–9065.1% n=258+21.7 pts base 43%
2026-0989–4865.0% n=137+19.3 pts base 46%
2026-1019–290.5% n=21+42.5 pts base 48%

Model version performance

0 of 1 current model versions are outperforming the versions they replaced; WNBA Points is behind.

VersionActiveRecordHit ratevs basevs previous version
WNBA Points
wnba-pra-v42026-08-21→2026-10-09180–9465.7% n=274+20.9 pts base 45%-12.1 pts behind wnba-pra-v3
4 earlier versions2026-08-03→2026-08-2196–4667.6% n=142+23.8 pts base 44%

Methodology

Edge over baseline, never a raw hit rate
Every “vs base” figure is the observed hit rate minus how often that exact prop’s event happens on its own, for the population that could plausibly have been offered it. A batter getting 1+ hit happens ~61% of the time unprompted; a starter striking out 8+ happens ~13% of the time. Against one shared average the rare-event markets look bad no matter how well they are picked.
Opportunity Score is a ranking signal, not a probability
70 is the publication floor. A 93 is not “93% likely” — it is an estimate of edge over the market’s own base rate. Observed hit rates on this page are outcomes, not forecasts.
Sample size is a headline, not a footnote
Under 30 graded predictions a segment is separated and marked rather than ranked. Predictions inside one slate are correlated, so a run of good days is less independent evidence than its count suggests.
Cohorts
All qualifying is every published prediction scoring 70+. Featured is the eight carried on Today. Other qualifying is the remainder — the split exists to check that ranking, not just scoring, is doing something.
Calibration reads the current engine only
A superseded scorer’s calibration is not a fact about the one running today. Pooling engines once made the top band look anti-predictive when it was not. Per-version records stay in the model table above.
What is not here
No odds are consumed anywhere on this page. Total bases and batter walks are excluded — both were retired for being unservable rather than for being wrong. Voids and pending predictions are excluded from every hit rate.