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.

USA Fencing National Championships & July Challenge

Div I-A Women's Épée

Saturday, June 29, 2019 at 8:00 AM

Columbus, OH - Columbus, OH, 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 GANDHI Sedna S. - - 4% 15% 33% 34% 13%
2 MONTOYA Kimberlee C. - - 3% 14% 32% 35% 15%
3 SHAMSIAN Shaya 1% 6% 20% 32% 27% 12% 2%
3 BEITTEL Chloe F. - - 1% 8% 25% 40% 25%
5 TONCHEVA Victoria M. - - 4% 15% 32% 34% 14%
6 CHOY LeeAnn 1% 7% 21% 33% 27% 11% 2%
7 YEE-WADSWORTH Sofia L. - 1% 6% 20% 35% 30% 10%
8 CHIN Isabella - 4% 17% 31% 30% 15% 3%
9 LEUNG Natalie - 1% 7% 21% 35% 28% 8%
10 MARCHANT Sandra M. - - 3% 15% 32% 35% 15%
11 WHITTEMORE Lucy K. 2% 11% 27% 32% 20% 7% 1%
12 ADAMS KIM Madeline - 3% 13% 28% 32% 19% 4%
13 SZPAK Lara K. 5% 20% 33% 27% 12% 3% -
14 QUINLAN Nicole P. - 1% 5% 18% 33% 31% 12%
15 GRESHAM Rebekah L. - 2% 10% 26% 35% 23% 6%
16 RABEL Brenna V. 6% 22% 34% 26% 11% 2% -
17 WADE-CURRIE Ava S. - 3% 12% 27% 33% 21% 5%
18 KWOK Tianna W. - 4% 15% 30% 32% 17% 3%
18 TOMASELLO Olivia E. 4% 18% 32% 29% 13% 3% -
20 LIM Clarice 1% 5% 17% 32% 30% 13% 2%
21 CHAN Elizabeth - 2% 10% 25% 34% 23% 6%
22 ISERT Sarah - 3% 14% 29% 32% 17% 4%
23 KULKARNI Diya 1% 6% 21% 33% 27% 10% 1%
24 MCFADDEN Christa M. 1% 6% 20% 31% 27% 12% 2%
25 GREGORY Elizabeth - - 3% 12% 30% 37% 17%
26 RATZLAFF Jocelyn T. - 2% 9% 25% 35% 24% 6%
27 CHU Audrey - 3% 13% 28% 32% 19% 4%
28 BINDAS Blodwen S. 1% 7% 23% 34% 25% 9% 1%
29 LEE Olive 3% 16% 31% 31% 15% 4% -
30 SMUK Daria A. 6% 22% 33% 26% 11% 2% -
30 MCNEILL Claire A. 3% 14% 30% 31% 17% 4% -
32 PROVANCE Allison N. 7% 25% 34% 23% 9% 2% -
33 LEE Michelle - 2% 10% 26% 34% 22% 6%
34 KIMURA Kimberley H. - 3% 14% 28% 32% 18% 4%
35 PROVENZA Hannah G. - - 1% 5% 20% 41% 34%
36 WOLSTENHOLME-BRITT Samantha (Sam) G. 2% 12% 27% 32% 20% 7% 1%
37 GIFFORD Emily R. - - 1% 6% 23% 41% 29%
38 HENRY Asha S. - 5% 16% 30% 30% 15% 3%
39 BEI Karen - 5% 17% 31% 30% 15% 3%
40 LEIGHTON Eleanor T. 1% 9% 24% 32% 23% 8% 1%
41 GEBALA Natalie Brooke A. - 1% 4% 16% 32% 33% 13%
42 KOWALSKY Rachel A. - 3% 13% 29% 32% 18% 4%
43 LIN Anna F. 5% 20% 34% 28% 11% 2% -
44 ROSS Naomi O. - - 3% 14% 31% 35% 16%
45 JOHNSON Ryleigh E. 3% 17% 36% 31% 12% 2% -
46 PYO Yunice - 2% 11% 28% 34% 20% 4%
46 LANZMAN Anna B. 1% 8% 23% 33% 24% 9% 1%
48 PATURU Meghana - - 3% 13% 30% 36% 18%
48 NI Emma - 3% 13% 30% 33% 18% 4%
50 FENG Kelly L. 5% 23% 35% 25% 9% 2% -
51 MOTON Mckenzie R. 5% 20% 33% 28% 12% 3% -
52 LAWSON Marie A. - 2% 11% 27% 34% 21% 5%
53 KANG Dahyun - 5% 17% 32% 30% 14% 2%
54 LIU Jennifer L. 1% 5% 17% 31% 30% 14% 3%
55 DOUGLAS Mary K. 4% 18% 32% 29% 13% 3% -
56 KAUR Simarpreet 13% 33% 32% 16% 4% 1% -
57 BAFFA Arianna M. - 2% 10% 26% 34% 22% 6%
57 MEHROTRA Anya 1% 10% 25% 32% 23% 8% 1%
59 SOIN Anika A. 10% 30% 34% 19% 6% 1% -
60 BELSLEY Devon K. 4% 20% 33% 28% 12% 2% -
61 GORDET Cristina G. 2% 13% 29% 31% 18% 5% 1%
62 LEWIS Sophia 3% 17% 32% 30% 15% 4% -
62 MYERS Jeanelle Christina A. 14% 36% 33% 14% 3% - -
64 KIM Elizabeth Y. 1% 9% 24% 33% 23% 8% 1%
65 KUNDU Anisha - 3% 13% 28% 32% 19% 4%
66 TAO Olivia A. - 2% 10% 26% 35% 22% 5%
67 BALAKRISHNAN Monica S. 1% 5% 18% 31% 29% 14% 3%
67 RUNIONS Emersyn - 4% 17% 32% 30% 14% 2%
69 JANOWSKI Madeline (Madeline Janowski) A. 1% 9% 24% 32% 23% 8% 1%
70 HABERKERN Kundry E. - 2% 12% 27% 33% 20% 5%
71 BRILL Sophie - 2% 11% 27% 34% 21% 5%
72 DROVETSKY Alexandra M. - 1% 8% 23% 34% 26% 8%
73 CHAN Paree A. 1% 8% 22% 33% 25% 10% 1%
74 SAFKO Liubov V. 1% 5% 18% 32% 29% 13% 2%
75 MONTOYA Amy C. 6% 24% 34% 25% 9% 2% -
76 ZHANG Maya - 3% 12% 27% 33% 20% 5%
77 GRESHAM Sarah L. - 3% 11% 26% 33% 21% 6%
78 BOURDEAU Emily B. 3% 14% 30% 31% 17% 5% 1%
79 BROOKS Tean R. - 2% 9% 25% 34% 24% 6%
80 ZUHARS Renee A. - 1% 8% 23% 34% 26% 8%
81 SHOATES Jacqueline A. 2% 12% 28% 33% 19% 5% -
82 QURESHI Aafreen 2% 14% 30% 31% 17% 5% 1%
83 SMIK Leonie A. 2% 12% 28% 32% 19% 5% 1%
84 LONG Cindy - 2% 9% 25% 35% 23% 6%
85 VANDERLINDEN Mira 8% 27% 34% 22% 7% 1% -
86 DOUGLAS Julia F. 2% 10% 25% 32% 22% 8% 1%
87 YAO Jillian 4% 17% 32% 30% 14% 3% -
88 GLOVER Cynthia E. 6% 24% 34% 25% 9% 2% -
89 FILIPPOV Nika D. 4% 18% 32% 29% 14% 3% -
90 MARTUS Cosima O. - - 3% 14% 31% 35% 17%
91 LEANG Andrea K. 1% 9% 25% 33% 23% 7% 1%
92 SAUL Nicole 11% 31% 34% 18% 5% 1% -
93 GANSER Yuliya 1% 7% 21% 32% 26% 11% 2%
94 MOHABIR Ariane 1% 5% 17% 30% 29% 15% 3%
95 BROWN Amanda 23% 41% 27% 9% 1% - -
96 JI Catherine 8% 27% 34% 22% 7% 1% -
97 COBERT Helen G. 1% 5% 19% 32% 29% 13% 2%
98 REITINGER Emilie B. 2% 11% 27% 32% 20% 7% 1%
99 YOON Julia J. - 3% 14% 29% 33% 18% 3%
100 UYANIK Nerine - - 4% 16% 33% 33% 13%
101 PROVANCE Amanda R. 6% 22% 34% 26% 10% 2% -
102 SHAO Ariel 20% 38% 29% 11% 2% - -
103 MYERS Helen Sophia A. 5% 21% 33% 26% 11% 2% -
104 HAUK Zsofia F. 7% 24% 34% 24% 9% 2% -
105 BLOOMER Suzanne 2% 10% 25% 32% 23% 8% 1%
106 KIM Caroline 17% 36% 30% 13% 3% - -
107 TIMMONS Sarah J. 7% 25% 34% 23% 9% 2% -
108 TOTEMEIER Ann M. - < 1% 4% 17% 34% 33% 12%
109 SIBLEY Elisabeth J. 20% 39% 29% 11% 2% - -
109 SLACKMAN Valerie 3% 14% 30% 31% 17% 5% -
111 BOTNER Olivia 5% 22% 34% 26% 10% 2% -
112 CAPELLUA Mariasole 5% 22% 34% 26% 10% 2% -
113 SCHMID Carola K. 7% 27% 36% 22% 7% 1% -
113 NANTON SHYAMALA M. 10% 28% 34% 20% 7% 1% -
115 SCHMUGAR Brooke 18% 37% 30% 12% 3% - -
116 SEMIKIN Julia - 2% 11% 27% 34% 21% 4%
117 SAAL Anna 15% 34% 32% 15% 4% 1% -
118 ALLEN Susan B. 11% 30% 34% 19% 5% 1% -
119 PROKOP Jeannine A. 14% 34% 32% 16% 4% - -
119 SCHAFF Marlene M. 9% 27% 34% 21% 7% 1% -
119 DIDONATO Gianina L. 10% 31% 35% 19% 5% 1% -
122 BARR Abigail D. 6% 24% 35% 25% 9% 2% -
123 KORNGUTH Lindsay 9% 27% 34% 22% 7% 1% -
124 TONG Sarah Shen 11% 33% 34% 17% 4% 1% -
125 SIDDIQUI Ammna K. 10% 28% 34% 20% 7% 1% -
126 THORNTON Paula R. 18% 37% 30% 12% 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.