The future of US Fencing is at stake!

For transparency, fairness, and athlete support, VOTE NOW for:
(1) Maria Panyi, (2) Andrey Geva, (3) Igor Chirashnya, and (4) Sue Moheb.

Take Action

Junior Olympic Championships

Junior Women's Foil

Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:00 PM

Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

Explore the pool victory probability density for each fencer, with their actual victories highlighted in a box. Learn more.

# Name Number of victories
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 APELIAN Katherine - - - 2% 16% 44% 39%
2 TAN Kaitlyn N. - - 3% 16% 38% 35% 7%
3 QIAN Crystal - - - 3% 20% 46% 31%
3 CHEN Jia P. - - 1% 12% 38% 37% 11%
5 LOCKE Savannah - - 4% 18% 38% 32% 8%
6 LESLIE Ryanne T. - - - 2% 20% 46% 32%
7 KONG Chin-Yi - - - 2% 14% 41% 42%
8 CHUSID Mikayla - - - 3% 18% 42% 35%
9 STAMOS Maria - - - 3% 18% 43% 36%
10 ZHENG Ivy - - - 3% 16% 42% 39%
11 WANG Ellen - - - 3% 18% 43% 35%
12 YAROSHENKO Karina - - 1% 7% 26% 45% 22%
13 HORSLEY Asherah - - - 4% 21% 45% 30%
14 JING Emily - - - 1% 8% 35% 56%
15 ZHANG Alina C. - - 1% 8% 29% 43% 19%
16 SENIC Adeline - - 4% 34% 46% 17%
17 LI Phoebe J. - - - 4% 22% 44% 28%
18 BREKER Anika - - 1% 7% 27% 42% 23%
19 CHO Sabrina N. - - - - 2% 21% 77%
19 KOENIG Charlotte R. - - 1% 8% 30% 42% 20%
21 SOOD Ishani S. - - 1% 8% 36% 42% 14%
22 KIM Rachael - - - 2% 16% 43% 38%
23 LIU Jaelyn A. - - 2% 15% 37% 35% 10%
24 FREEDMAN Miranda W. - - 2% 14% 35% 36% 12%
25 JO Mia C. - - 1% 9% 32% 41% 17%
26 HE Elizabeth W. - - - 1% 6% 33% 60%
27 CHO Rebecca H. - - 5% 21% 41% 28% 6%
28 SHEN Lydia - 1% 7% 28% 44% 21%
29 LEE Brianna J. - - - 4% 19% 43% 33%
30 CASTANEDA Erika L. - - 4% 21% 45% 30%
31 GRIFFIN Emma G. - - 4% 19% 42% 35%
32 SEO IRENE Y. 1% 14% 41% 32% 10% 1% -
33 PEVZNER Victoria - - 2% 11% 34% 39% 14%
34 GEBALA Gabrielle Grace A. - - - 4% 28% 68%
35 KNIGHT Skylar - - 2% 24% 48% 26%
36 PENG Amber L. 4% 23% 39% 26% 8% 1%
37 CAO Arianna L. - - - 5% 23% 44% 27%
38 TAN Helen - - - - 3% 24% 73%
38 LUNG Katerina - - - 2% 13% 40% 45%
38 HO Brianna W. - - 2% 14% 35% 36% 13%
41 GALAVOTTI Claire Teresa - - 2% 12% 36% 38% 12%
42 LEE Alina - - - 2% 14% 46% 39%
43 SHAW Kayla M. - - 4% 21% 40% 29% 7%
44 JANG Kimberley - - 2% 11% 33% 39% 15%
45 OUYANG Bridgette Z. - - 4% 19% 38% 31% 8%
46 MILLER Naomi E. - - 7% 28% 41% 21% 4%
47 KHOO Lauren A. - 1% 9% 29% 40% 20% 2%
48 DAVIA Daniella V. - - 4% 20% 39% 31% 6%
49 MOLHO Sofia - - 1% 10% 35% 41% 13%
50 LI Rachel Y. - - 4% 19% 42% 31% 3%
51 YU Seneca - - 6% 24% 41% 24% 4%
52 EYER Hailey M. - - 2% 25% 48% 25%
53 REN Olivia Y. - - 1% 7% 32% 43% 17%
54 KOROL Neta - 1% 6% 24% 40% 26% 4%
55 CONWAY Josephina (JoJo) J. - - - 3% 18% 43% 36%
56 WU Julianna Y. - 4% 28% 40% 22% 5% -
57 RANDOLPH Piper - 1% 6% 24% 40% 25% 4%
58 ZHAO Sophie L. - 1% 9% 30% 38% 19% 3%
59 YU Lauren C. - 5% 26% 39% 24% 5% -
60 WANDJI Anais - 3% 15% 36% 35% 11% 1%
61 MI Aileen - 4% 30% 46% 17% 2% -
62 OH Erin H. - 4% 18% 37% 32% 9%
63 CHO Cameron S. - 1% 10% 30% 38% 19% 3%
64 CHOI Lenna K. - - 1% 8% 34% 42% 15%
65 HE Fenghuan - 1% 11% 44% 36% 8%
66 DUAN Konnie 1% 9% 28% 37% 20% 4% -
67 KIM Katherine - - 2% 16% 41% 34% 8%
68 ROY Layla 1% 9% 31% 40% 17% 3% -
69 LI Grace Q. - - 1% 8% 31% 42% 18%
70 YHIP Mikaela M. - 1% 10% 31% 38% 18% 3%
71 HOOSHI Erica S. - - 2% 20% 48% 30%
72 KOO Rachel A. - - 1% 7% 28% 44% 20%
73 SUN Ruoxi - 2% 11% 31% 36% 18% 3%
74 DRAGNE Alexis D. 1% 11% 34% 36% 15% 3% -
75 DEBACK Greta I. - 1% 7% 25% 38% 24% 5%
76 SEAL Grace (Gracie) C. - - 4% 19% 40% 30% 7%
77 ORVANANOS Anice - 9% 41% 38% 11% 1% -
78 LIAO Lu Jia (Lucy) - 3% 16% 35% 32% 12% 1%
79 SHIH Diane - 3% 17% 36% 32% 11% 1%
80 SARTORI Taylor M. - 1% 11% 34% 36% 15% 2%
81 FERNANDES Thea - 17% 44% 30% 8% 1% -
82 KOSTELNY Alexis - 2% 14% 34% 35% 14% 2%
83 TAKAGI Hikaru G. - 1% 8% 30% 39% 19% 3%
84 KONG Olivia - 6% 24% 37% 25% 7% 1%
85 SHITAMOTO Audrey F. - 6% 24% 40% 23% 5% -
86 MORADI Raiyan N. 2% 14% 37% 36% 10% 1%
87 LEE Allison (Allie) - - 2% 21% 48% 29%
88 GOOR Viviene E. 1% 10% 34% 38% 15% 2%
89 PANT Anisha 1% 10% 33% 39% 16% 2%
90 MICHAELSEN Emily 2% 16% 36% 32% 12% 1%
91 KETTELLE Molly 11% 38% 36% 13% 2% -
92 PARK Rowan M. - - 2% 12% 33% 39% 14%
93 LEE Ariana 1% 14% 36% 34% 13% 2% -
94 CHENG Lydia A. - 5% 19% 34% 29% 11% 1%
95 LUO Sandra J. 3% 20% 39% 28% 9% 1% -
95 PAHLAVI Dahlia - 5% 21% 37% 28% 9% 1%
97 MEI Sarah 2% 14% 34% 34% 13% 2% -
98 DING Abigail - 2% 19% 45% 28% 6% -
99 WELBORN Calissa 7% 34% 39% 17% 3% - -
99 LAMBERT Mahala 1% 13% 34% 34% 16% 3% -
101 SHEN Sophia H. - - - 3% 19% 44% 34%
102 TOBIN Brean 6% 53% 33% 7% 1% - -
103 XUE Alanna L. - 1% 9% 28% 38% 20% 3%
104 MASSICK Laine - - 2% 13% 36% 37% 12%
105 HUANG NATALIE - 4% 19% 37% 29% 9% 1%
106 BATRA Chaahat - 1% 8% 28% 41% 21% 2%
106 MI Anning 1% 10% 31% 38% 17% 3% -
108 WU Kyra - 6% 27% 40% 22% 5% -
109 KLINE Melissa C. - - 3% 17% 40% 32% 8%
110 NEWHARD Zelia "Zizi" - 1% 10% 31% 39% 18% 1%
111 LUU Shanon K. - 1% 13% 34% 35% 14% 2%
112 LIU Angel(Daying) 1% 8% 29% 39% 20% 3% -
113 TALWALKAR Apoorva - 16% 56% 24% 4% -
114 OLIVEIRA Lavinia M. 2% 22% 60% 15% 1% -
115 DE LA CRUZ Eden - 1% 10% 35% 44% 9%
116 GU EMILY - 14% 39% 34% 12% 2% -
117 FUNG Emma - 10% 47% 34% 8% 1% -
118 COSTELLO Angeline S. - 4% 21% 39% 28% 8% -
119 CHO Gracie L. - 2% 17% 39% 32% 9% 1%
120 CHEN Allison V. - 2% 11% 31% 38% 16% 2%
121 YEH Marissa E. 1% 6% 27% 42% 20% 4% -
122 WONG Sophia M. - 6% 26% 41% 22% 5% -
123 CHEN Chloe I. - 5% 24% 39% 25% 6% -
124 KOROL Dana 1% 18% 38% 31% 11% 2% -
125 ASCHETTINO Aurora 4% 23% 41% 27% 6% -
126 COOPER Piper W. 2% 16% 38% 33% 11% 1% -
126 STRUGAR Steliana 10% 32% 37% 17% 3% - -
128 CASTANEDA Keira 3% 45% 40% 11% 1% - -
129 WEBB Ella 2% 17% 39% 32% 9% 1% -
130 XIANG Emma 2% 16% 40% 31% 9% 1% -
131 DONDERIS Hannah E. 2% 14% 37% 33% 12% 2% -
132 HAN Crystal 9% 40% 37% 13% 2% - -
133 SLACK Mary-Stuart F. 19% 47% 28% 6% 1% -
134 TRAN Ava D. - 2% 16% 37% 33% 12% 1%
135 HAYES Alyssa R. 10% 39% 36% 12% 2% - -
136 LIPKOVITZ Rivka 12% 34% 36% 16% 3% - -
137 SCARLETT Skye 53% 37% 9% 1% - - -
138 RASO Olivia 8% 34% 39% 16% 2% - -
139 YU Jaime L. 1% 12% 44% 34% 7% 1% -
140 MARKOVSKY Nina 11% 37% 37% 13% 2% - -
141 PAVE Claire 8% 41% 37% 13% 2% - -
141 PARK Leah 46% 40% 12% 1% - - -
143 PENG Serena 9% 48% 33% 9% 1% - -
144 SUN Chien-Yu - 6% 30% 39% 20% 4% -
145 ZHANG Selena 20% 57% 20% 2% - - -
146 GUERRA Sofia E. 1% 13% 33% 35% 15% 2%
147 QUINN Anna 38% 43% 16% 2% - -
148 CHARALEL Jessica 6% 66% 26% 2% - -
149 SHAH Suhani 45% 47% 8% - - -
150 BEAVER Hannah 13% 38% 35% 12% 2% - -
151 FUNG Vera 1% 34% 43% 19% 3% - -
152 LEE Fiona E. 14% 50% 29% 6% 1% - -
153 YIN Helen 2% 15% 37% 32% 12% 2% -
154 JIANG Yangying (Amanda) 2% 19% 40% 30% 8% 1% -
155 PATTERSON Natalia 18% 59% 20% 3% - - -
156 ROLOFF Katarina M. 15% 45% 31% 8% 1% - -
157 PRIETO Sofia M. - 4% 30% 45% 18% 3% -
158 BHAN Zala 11% 35% 37% 14% 2% - -
159 HSIUNG Samantha 17% 40% 31% 10% 1% - -
160 ZAMELIS Madelyn 41% 48% 11% 1% - - -
161 SCHMIDT Victoria 23% 45% 26% 5% - - -
162 FURST Chloe 15% 45% 31% 8% 1% - -
163 SHUM Maya 26% 44% 25% 5% - - -
164 NORTH Zoe M. 25% 59% 15% 1% - - -
164 FERGUSON Aliya 12% 35% 35% 15% 3% - -
166 LURIX Elise 44% 41% 13% 2% - - -
167 ZULUETA Catherine 53% 36% 9% 1% - -
168 CHOI Kailyn 45% 42% 12% 1% - -
169 ABDULLAHI Salma 27% 45% 23% 5% 1% - -
170 NEWMAN Ariel 36% 53% 11% - - -
171 BROCE Lilianna 90% 10% - - - -
172 NICKOLOV Nora 36% 51% 13% 1% - - -
173 DENYSIUK Sumajja 63% 33% 4% - - - -
174 MURDOCH ROY Grace 61% 36% 3% - - - -
174 BURTON Sequoia 57% 35% 7% 1% - - -
174 CABALU Alaina 49% 40% 10% 1% - - -
177 KO Claire 52% 38% 9% 1% - - -
178 NIRGUDE Siddhi 85% 14% - - - - -
179 SHUM Elizabeth 12% 43% 34% 10% 1% - -
179 KUNDU TRISHA 69% 28% 3% - - - -
181 HAMMER anya 73% 25% 2% - - - -
181 BEAVER Kaitlyn 17% 39% 31% 10% 1% - -
181 LAYE Isabella 41% 41% 15% 3% - - -
184 MARTIN Adriana 82% 16% 1% - - - -
184 LAY Apollonia 1% 11% 28% 33% 19% 6% 1%
186 BANNISTER Amelia 27% 44% 24% 5% - - -
186 KAPOOR Saanvi 63% 33% 3% - - - -
188 RAYLE Ava 94% 6% - - - - -
189 PAULSEN Amy 15% 38% 33% 12% 2% - -
189 OWINGS Anna 89% 10% - - - - -
189 SHANGGUAN Xiaotian 66% 31% 3% - - - -

Explanation

The heatmap in this table provides a visual representation of the victory probability distribution for each fencer in their respective pools:

This heatmap visualization offers an immediate understanding of each fencer's expected performance compared to their actual results.