WNBA Betting Tip: Fade Recency Bias in Over/Unders

WNBA Betting Tip: Fade Recency Bias in Over/Unders article feature image

Photo credit: Brad Mills-USA TODAY Sports. Pictured: Kristi Toliver

  • Like in all betting markets, savvy bettors can often find an advantage by fading lines inflated by recency bias.
  • Below I show a profitable WNBA over/under trend that does just that -- and there are matches for both of Wednesday's games.

The betting public is often susceptible to recency bias, which is when people — bettors in this instance — overweight the thing they most recently saw.

That seems to be the case in the WNBA betting market, too. According to our Bet Labs data, it has been profitable to target certain situations, especially with over/unders, in which recency bias creeps into the lines.

How to Fade Recency Bias in WNBA Over/Unders

Let me be more specific: Historically in the WNBA, when both teams went over their total in their previous game, it’s been profitable to go the other way and take the under:

Those unders have historically hit at a 56.4% rate, good for a 10.1% Return on Investment (ROI). A bettor wagering on all instances since 2005 would currently be up $8,366. Unders in this spot are 3-2 so far this season, and they went 27-20-1 last year for a 11.3% ROI.

Interestingly enough, both games Wednesday match this over/under trend:

  • Washington Mystics at Chicago Sky, 12 p.m. ET
  • Connecticut Sun at Dallas Wings, 8 p.m. ET

Lines have yet to be released as of writing Tuesday evening, but if there’s sharp money on the under — defined as more money on the under than bets — take note. In that situation, unders have gone 34-20-1, good for a 22.4% ROI.

Because the WNBA is a smaller market, it’s often much less efficient than larger ones like the NFL or NBA. That also means bettors can get a nice leg up by fading the public in certain spots or capitalizing on recency bias. Make sure to research other trends in Bet Labs to find more situations with an edge for WNBA!

How would you rate this article?