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.

October NAC

Cadet Women's Épée

Saturday, October 19, 2019 at 8:00 AM

Kansas City, MO - Kansas City, MO, 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 HUSISIAN Hadley N. - - - 1% 7% 34% 58%
2 JOYCE Michaela - - - - 3% 26% 70%
3 LIN Jessica Y. - - - - 3% 24% 73%
3 PARK Faith K. - - - - 4% 27% 69%
5 WANG Elizabeth - - 1% 8% 27% 41% 23%
6 KHROL Jaclyn - - - 4% 18% 42% 37%
7 KHAMIS Yasmine A. - - - 2% 13% 39% 45%
8 LEUNG Natalie - 5% 21% 38% 28% 7%
9 BOYS Nishta B. - - 5% 20% 36% 30% 9%
10 OXENREIDER Tierna A. - - 3% 17% 43% 37%
11 KETKAR Ketki - - 2% 11% 30% 39% 19%
12 NGUYEN Kaylin A. - 2% 12% 29% 34% 19% 4%
13 XU Grace (XinYi) - 1% 10% 31% 38% 18% 2%
14 GANDHI Sedna S. - 1% 6% 24% 42% 28%
15 BELSLEY Devon K. 4% 22% 38% 27% 8% 1%
16 WANG anne - 1% 9% 29% 38% 20% 2%
17 WEISS Talia L. - 2% 11% 28% 35% 19% 4%
18 ZAFFT Tatiana M. - - 1% 9% 27% 40% 23%
19 MCLANE Lauren - - 1% 8% 26% 40% 24%
20 TYLER Syd - - 2% 10% 28% 40% 21%
21 WATRALL Christina - - 2% 10% 29% 39% 20%
22 EBRAHIM Ameera H. 20% 40% 29% 10% 1% -
23 DESAMOURS Sabine I. - - 4% 18% 37% 32% 9%
24 GRESHAM Rebekah L. - 5% 20% 34% 28% 11% 1%
25 TSANG JAFFE Avi 4% 21% 36% 27% 10% 2% -
26 FALLON Kyle R. 2% 12% 27% 32% 20% 6% 1%
27 SEMIKIN Julia - 2% 13% 30% 34% 18% 3%
28 LIN Katie Y. - - 4% 19% 37% 31% 8%
29 ZHANG Tina - 4% 21% 36% 28% 10% 1%
30 LEE Michelle J. - 1% 8% 26% 36% 23% 5%
31 SAAL Anna 2% 11% 30% 36% 18% 3% -
32 REID Anousheh - 5% 21% 35% 27% 10% 1%
33 WHITTEMORE Lucy K. - 4% 19% 37% 31% 9%
34 O'DONNELL Amanda A. - 1% 6% 24% 42% 27%
35 LEE Sumin - 1% 8% 22% 34% 27% 8%
36 WOLF Isabella A. 1% 9% 26% 35% 22% 7% 1%
37 NING Emma - 1% 6% 22% 37% 27% 6%
38 BARNES Olivia R. - 6% 25% 38% 25% 6% -
39 KUNDU Anisha 1% 8% 24% 35% 24% 7% -
40 GU Sarah 2% 14% 31% 33% 16% 3%
41 DROVETSKY Alexandra M. - 5% 20% 37% 30% 8%
42 ZHU Chenxi (Heidi) - 1% 11% 30% 36% 19% 4%
43 CHEN Zhengnan(Janet) - - 1% 10% 29% 40% 20%
44 MALDONADO Pilar I. - 2% 13% 34% 39% 13%
45 WU Amelia - 3% 14% 32% 35% 15%
46 MILEWSKI Nicole 3% 21% 38% 28% 9% 1%
47 BEI Karen - 1% 10% 29% 36% 20% 4%
47 KOWALSKY Rachel A. 1% 7% 23% 35% 26% 8% -
49 MILLETTE Marie Frederique - 1% 10% 27% 35% 21% 5%
50 BALAKRISHNAN Monica S. - 1% 8% 27% 38% 22% 4%
51 CHAN Cheri K. - 1% 9% 29% 39% 20% 2%
52 MACHULSKY Leehi - - 1% 8% 26% 41% 23%
53 DESAI Meera P. 3% 18% 35% 29% 12% 2% -
54 PAPADAKIS Lily 11% 32% 34% 17% 4% - -
54 CHIN Isabella - 1% 8% 24% 36% 24% 6%
56 COBERT Helen G. 1% 10% 26% 34% 22% 7% 1%
57 LONG Cindy - 1% 7% 25% 38% 24% 5%
58 MAO Amy 4% 19% 34% 28% 12% 2% -
59 PATURU Meghana - 1% 8% 27% 41% 22%
60 POIRIER Ariane 14% 36% 33% 14% 3% -
61 DOUGLAS Julia F. 2% 15% 34% 33% 14% 2%
62 YANG Miranda (Yinuo) - 4% 20% 37% 30% 9%
63 WANG Nora - 5% 19% 35% 29% 10% 1%
64 MEHROTRA Anya - 3% 13% 30% 33% 17% 3%
65 KIM Diane E. - 3% 17% 34% 31% 13% 2%
66 WANG Karen - - 3% 15% 34% 35% 13%
67 SHEN Stephanie - 5% 25% 38% 24% 6% 1%
68 KUZNETSOV Victoria - 1% 6% 22% 40% 28% 4%
69 WADE-CURRIE Ava S. - 1% 8% 24% 36% 25% 6%
70 KETKAR Mallika - 3% 13% 27% 32% 20% 5%
71 SMUK Daria A. 6% 28% 38% 21% 5% -
71 GRESHAM Sarah L. 2% 14% 33% 34% 15% 2%
73 LEE kyungmin 1% 8% 25% 36% 24% 6%
74 REID Sobia 2% 13% 34% 35% 14% 2%
75 LAVERY Chloe K. 9% 29% 35% 21% 6% 1%
76 CHANG Ella 2% 30% 41% 21% 5% - -
77 LEE Olive 1% 11% 34% 36% 16% 3% -
78 ZHENG Ava - 1% 6% 21% 36% 28% 8%
79 LEANG Priscilla Y. 1% 9% 26% 35% 22% 7% 1%
80 DE JAGER Celine 5% 21% 34% 27% 11% 2% -
81 LABBE Kathryn M. - 1% 6% 23% 40% 27% 4%
82 HUNTER Madison 14% 33% 32% 16% 4% 1% -
83 BENATER Lauren 2% 13% 28% 31% 19% 6% 1%
84 JOYAL Anne-Sophie 46% 41% 12% 1% - - -
85 JANOWSKI Madeline (Madeline Janowski) A. 1% 9% 27% 35% 22% 6% -
86 QURESHI Aafreen 1% 9% 27% 35% 21% 6% 1%
86 CORDERO Allison 22% 39% 28% 10% 2% - -
88 AHUJA Arianna 1% 9% 26% 35% 22% 6% 1%
89 ZAKHAROV Anne E. 15% 44% 31% 9% 1% - -
90 JIN Jasmine - 7% 27% 38% 23% 5% -
91 HU Grace 3% 14% 31% 33% 16% 3%
92 SMITH Grace L. 5% 23% 38% 26% 8% 1%
93 MCCUTCHEN Lauren (Lulu) 1% 6% 21% 35% 28% 9% 1%
94 MUCSI Angela Lilla - 1% 5% 19% 35% 30% 10%
95 ZHOU Lei 34% 44% 18% 4% - - -
96 FENG Kelly L. 4% 19% 34% 28% 12% 2% -
96 LIN Waiyuk 1% 7% 21% 32% 26% 11% 2%
98 BURN Lauren M. 5% 21% 34% 27% 11% 2% -
98 SHUM Jessica 17% 38% 32% 12% 2% - -
100 RUNIONS Emersyn - 3% 15% 32% 33% 15% 3%
101 KIM Elizabeth Y. 1% 9% 29% 36% 20% 5% -
102 SLACKMAN Valerie - 7% 28% 38% 21% 5% -
103 KIM Erika S. 4% 33% 39% 19% 4% - -
104 REITINGER Emilie B. 1% 14% 36% 33% 13% 2% -
104 KWON Athina 1% 5% 19% 34% 30% 11% 1%
106 SON Katherine (Injee) 4% 21% 35% 27% 10% 2% -
107 VANDERLINDEN Mira 7% 27% 36% 22% 7% 1% -
108 LIU Christina A. - 2% 13% 33% 35% 15% 1%
109 MYERS Jeanelle Christina A. 10% 32% 36% 18% 4% - -
110 CHIRASHNYA Noya 10% 32% 36% 18% 4% - -
111 ZUHARS Renee A. - 4% 19% 36% 31% 9%
111 CAPELLUA Mariasole 15% 38% 33% 12% 2% -
113 DARANOUVONG Logan 12% 36% 35% 14% 2% -
114 ZHANG mickey 26% 42% 25% 6% 1% -
115 SHAH Chloe 26% 45% 23% 5% 1% - -
115 KOKES Ava 10% 32% 35% 18% 4% - -
117 SHERTZ Kira E. 31% 45% 20% 4% - - -
118 ANDERSON Nora E. 5% 24% 37% 25% 8% 1% -
118 HENRY Asha S. - 4% 19% 36% 29% 11% 1%
120 GAURIAT Jade S. 29% 41% 23% 6% 1% - -
121 HUANG Hannah T. 6% 42% 37% 13% 2% - -
121 YU Bailey 16% 42% 31% 9% 1% - -
123 ZENG Katrina 31% 42% 21% 5% 1% - -
124 BOLES Savvianna 45% 40% 13% 2% - -
125 TONG Sarah Shen 22% 41% 27% 8% 1% -
126 TAYLOR Kiera S. 13% 34% 33% 16% 4% -
127 HAMILTON Nina M. 18% 42% 29% 9% 1% - -
128 CHAN Elizabeth 1% 9% 23% 32% 24% 9% 1%
129 HONG Elaine 30% 42% 22% 5% 1% - -
130 LONGSTREET Olivia 84% 15% 1% - - - -
131 RAUSCH Juliana 6% 24% 34% 25% 9% 1% -
132 SINGH Aayushi 73% 24% 3% - - - -
133 LI Michelle 32% 42% 21% 5% 1% - -
134 CARBO laura 77% 21% 2% - - - -
135 CARLSON Ava 29% 44% 22% 4% - - -

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.