How to Make Winning NBA Over/Under Picks This Season

Alright, let's talk about something that, on the surface, seems to have nothing to do with winding alleys or spectral realms: making winning NBA over/under picks. I’ve been analyzing lines and building models for years, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that navigating a full 82-game season is less like reading a clear map and more like wandering through a place that actively resists being understood. It reminds me of a description I once read about a fictional town, where the pathways cut through "like neural pathways—twisting, turning, connecting, and coming to abrupt ends." That’s the NBA season for you. It’s a landscape designed to disorient as much as it dazzles, full of gorgeous breakout performances and grotesque, injury-riddled collapses happening in equal measure. The key to beating the totals market isn't about finding a single, perfect formula; it's about learning to move through this contradictory space without getting lost.

You see, every season presents us with a sacred-profane dichotomy. We have these sacred, almost untouchable assumptions—like a top-tier defense maintaining its efficiency, or a veteran star playing 70-plus games. And then, by November, we watch something utterly profane happen that shatters those assumptions. Last season, who truly predicted the Sacramento Kings would morph into an offensive juggernaut and smash their win total of 44.5 by a whopping 8 games? Or that the Dallas Mavericks, with Luka Dončić, would stumble so badly they’d miss their line by nearly 10 wins? These aren't just data points; they’re collisions between our projected reality and the chaotic, lush, natural unpredictability of human performance. My approach has always been to lean into the confusion, not fight it. I start by looking for the teams that the market, in my view, has fundamentally misread, the ones where the consensus narrative feels too clean, too linear.

For instance, take a team like the Oklahoma City Thunder this upcoming season. Their win total is set around 44.5, which prices in steady, linear improvement. But I’m watching them with a different eye. With Chet Holmgren returning, they could either click into a terrifying two-way unit that wins 50 games or struggle with fit and youth and plateau at 40. The world of over/unders revels in this kind of contradiction. The line represents a single, static number, but the path to it is never straight. It’s about identifying the teams whose range of possible outcomes is widest, where the variance between their floor and ceiling isn’t properly captured by that one number. I spend hours not just on roster changes, but on schedule quirks—a brutal 8-game road trip in February, or a soft December home stand can swing 2-3 wins easily. I remember a few seasons back, the Toronto Raptors had a famously difficult first-half schedule. Their record looked mediocre, but the underlying numbers were solid. I pounded their season win over in the second half, and it hit comfortably. That’s the twisting alley you need to find.

Data is my compass, but it’s not infallible. I’ll look at things like last season’s Pythagorean win expectation, which can show if a team got lucky or unlucky in close games. A team that won 48 games but had a Pythagorean expectation of 44 is a prime candidate for regression, in my book. But here’s where I add a personal, almost subjective layer: coaching philosophy. A new coach like Ime Udoka in Houston immediately signals a focus on defense that might grind games to a halt, favoring unders. Meanwhile, a team like Indiana, committed to a breakneck pace under Rick Carlisle, turns every game into a track meet, often pushing scores over. You have to watch for these philosophical shifts; they’re the "abrupt ends" and new connections in the neural pathway of a season. It’s not just "they added Player X." It’s "they added Player X, and the coach is going to use him in this specific way that will warp their style."

In the end, making consistent over/under picks is an exercise in comfortable uncertainty. You’ll never have it all figured out—much like the spirit realm of that town, this world is not meant to be entirely understood. The market is efficient, but it’s not omniscient. It often underestimates the shock of a major trade deadline move or the cumulative fatigue of a deep playoff run from the prior year. My personal preference is to be selective and aggressive. I might only have 4-5 strong convictions in a season, but I’ll back them with more confidence. I’d rather dive deep on the paradox of the Cleveland Cavaliers—a stellar regular-season team built for the grind—than spread my attention too thin. This season, I’m already circling a few of those contradictory narratives. The lesson, after all these years, is simple: embrace the twists and turns, look for the places where the gorgeous and the grotesque meet, and don’t be afraid when the path doesn’t go where you expected. That’s usually where the value is hiding.