| Outcome | Probability | Yes Bid | Yes Ask | 24h Change | Volume | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luguentz Dort: 3+ | 0% | 0¢ | 14¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Luguentz Dort: 1+ | 0% | 0¢ | 63¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Luguentz Dort: 2+ | 0% | 0¢ | 36¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
This market concerns which of three outcomes will describe the total number of steals recorded in the Oklahoma City at Chicago game; it matters because steals are a short-term indicator of defensive activity and can influence game spacing and possession swings.
Oklahoma City and Chicago bring different defensive profiles and pace tendencies that shape steal opportunities: personnel matchups, coaching emphasis on on-ball pressure, and recent rotations all matter. Historical head-to-heads, travel, and roster availability on game day further change how many loose-ball or reach-turnover opportunities occur.
Market prices aggregate trader expectations about the steal total across the three outcomes and will move as new information (starting lineups, injuries, late scratches, officiating notes) arrives; treat prices as dynamic signals rather than fixed predictions.
The market resolves after the game's official final box score is posted by the league or designated official scorer; the total is whatever the official game statistics record for steals, including any overtime periods.
Yes — steals recorded in overtime are included because resolution uses the official final box score, which aggregates regulation and overtime statistics.
Late scratches and confirmed absences often change expected steal totals materially because they alter matchups and minutes; monitor official injury reports and announced starting lineups—markets typically adjust once that information is public.
Focus on players who log heavy minutes as primary ball-handlers or perimeter defenders—guarding ball screens, gambling for deflections, or playing passing lanes typically produces most steals; bench guards with high activity rates can also swing totals if they draw significant minutes.
Stricter foul enforcement or a crew that calls reach-in fouls more tightly tends to reduce aggressive stealing attempts and can lower steal counts, while lenient calling allows more contests and gamble attempts; monitor referee assignments and recent crew tendencies ahead of tip-off.