Anaheim , CA - Anaheim, CA, USA
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 | SKARBONKIEWICZ Magda | - | - | - | 4% | 17% | 40% | 38% |
| 2 | SULLIVAN Siobhan R. | - | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 41% | 35% |
| 3 | TIMOFEYEV Nicole | - | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 40% | 21% |
| 3 | CASHMAN Natalie | - | 4% | 18% | 34% | 31% | 12% | 1% |
| 5 | REDDY Shreya | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 6% |
| 6 | BEALE Zoe M. | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 3% |
| 7 | CHIN Erika J. | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 37% | 28% | 7% |
| 8 | KATZ Anat | 2% | 16% | 36% | 33% | 12% | 1% | |
| 9 | LIN Audrey J. | - | 4% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
| 10 | OXENSTIERNA Carolina | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 11 | LACSON Sarah | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 8% |
| 12 | GREENBAUM Ella K. | - | - | 5% | 22% | 37% | 28% | 7% |
| 13 | CHING Sapphira S. | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 7% |
| 14 | CAO Stephanie X. | - | - | - | 4% | 18% | 41% | 36% |
| 15 | ANDRES Katherine A. | 1% | 10% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 16 | FANG Victoria W. | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 34% | 16% | 2% |
| 17 | FREEDMAN Janna N. | - | - | 4% | 20% | 44% | 31% | |
| 18 | CANNON Sophia E. | - | 3% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
| 19 | OISHI Megumi | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 39% | 47% |
| 20 | SATHE Mehek S. | 3% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 21 | CHANG Josephine S. | - | 1% | 11% | 33% | 40% | 15% | |
| 22 | ZIELINSKI Isabella G. | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 36% | 19% | 4% |
| 23 | WIGGERS Susan Q. | - | 3% | 12% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 3% |
| 24 | KONG Isabel | 1% | 12% | 33% | 36% | 15% | 2% | |
| 25 | BALMASEDA Sabrina F. | 3% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 26 | CHAN Audrey | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 29% | 10% |
| 27 | MOZHAEVA MARIA | - | 1% | 5% | 21% | 37% | 29% | 8% |
| 28 | SHIN Andrea Y. | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
| 29 | JULIEN Michelle | - | 1% | 10% | 29% | 37% | 19% | 3% |
| 30 | SHEARER Natalie E. | 4% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 31 | GORMAN Victoria M. | 1% | 5% | 18% | 32% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
| 32 | PATEL Riya | 3% | 17% | 38% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 33 | MARSEE Samantha | 1% | 10% | 26% | 33% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 34 | CHEEMA Sophia | - | 2% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 19% | 4% |
| 35 | KALRA Himani V. | - | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 33% | 12% |
| 36 | ERIKSON Kira R. | - | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 12% | 2% |
| 37 | DHAR Aamina | 21% | 43% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 38 | KOO Samantha | - | 3% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
| 39 | YERRAMILLI Kavya | 22% | 40% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 40 | WANG Elsabella Y. | - | 5% | 27% | 39% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
| 41 | FEARNS Zara A. | - | 10% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
| 42 | LIN Zhiyin | 12% | 42% | 33% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 43 | BUHAY Rachel T. | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 6% |
| 43 | ROGERS Pauline E. | 16% | 38% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 45 | YANG Ashley M. | - | - | 6% | 25% | 38% | 25% | 6% |
| 46 | ANDRES Charmaine G. | 3% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 47 | TANG Catherine H. | 1% | 5% | 18% | 32% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
| 47 | XU Ellen | - | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 16% | 3% |
| 49 | VESTEL Mira B. | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 50 | ULIBARRI Nevaeh L. | 17% | 58% | 22% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 51 | YAP Madeline | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 5% |
| 52 | PANIGRAHI Emersen | 28% | 46% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 53 | CALLAHAN Chase J. | 8% | 33% | 38% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 54 | CODY Alexandra C. | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 3% |
| 55 | WU Lanting | 25% | 44% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 56 | HURST Kennedy | 48% | 39% | 11% | 1% | - | - | |
| 57 | GUTMAN Valeria | 19% | 40% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 57 | PANIGRAHI Sophia | 19% | 37% | 29% | 12% | 3% | - | - |
| 59 | TREACY Aisling | 56% | 36% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 60 | KOLL-BRAVMANN Ryder S. | 66% | 30% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
| 61 | FREY Sarah E. | 32% | 41% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 62 | GIRI Naina | 91% | 8% | - | - | - | - | - |
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.