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.

April NAC

Div I Women's Saber

Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 8:15 AM

Fort Worth, TX - Fort Worth, TX, 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 CHAMBERLAIN Maia C. - - - 4% 20% 42% 34%
2 STONE Anne-Elizabeth - - - 4% 18% 41% 37%
3 THOMPSON Kamali A. - - 1% 8% 25% 40% 26%
3 FOX-GITOMER Chloe N. - - 1% 9% 36% 55%
5 JOHNSON Honor B. - - - 1% 6% 32% 61%
6 WOZNIAK Dagmara I. - - 3% 14% 34% 36% 13%
7 JENKINS Ryan J. - - 2% 10% 29% 40% 19%
8 RUSSO Francesca - - 1% 8% 37% 54%
9 SHELTON Aleksandra - - - 5% 22% 43% 30%
10 BURKE Nora S. - - - 3% 15% 40% 41%
11 LINDER Kara E. - - 1% 10% 31% 43% 15%
12 WITEK Sophie B. 1% 9% 27% 35% 21% 5% -
13 GUTHIKONDA Nithya 1% 7% 29% 44% 19%
14 NAZLYMOV Tatiana F. - 4% 21% 37% 27% 9% 1%
15 GREENBAUM Atara R. - 3% 13% 28% 34% 19% 3%
16 BROWN Emma 2% 17% 35% 31% 13% 2% -
17 HARRILL Gillian N. - 5% 20% 37% 29% 8%
18 SINGLETON-COMFORT Leanne - - - 2% 15% 42% 41%
19 THEODORE Maria A. - 1% 7% 22% 37% 27% 7%
20 TARTAKOVSKY Elizabeth - - 2% 13% 32% 37% 15%
21 POSSICK Lola P. - 3% 15% 31% 32% 15% 3%
22 ANGLADE Alexis C. - 1% 8% 27% 41% 23%
23 WILLIAMS Chloe C. - 3% 15% 31% 32% 16% 3%
24 AVAKIAN Mikaela - - 2% 11% 29% 39% 19%
25 KOVACS Sophia 1% 6% 21% 34% 27% 10% 1%
26 ZEGERS Anneke E. - 3% 16% 33% 32% 14% 2%
27 DUNGEY Amelia S. 5% 22% 36% 27% 9% 1%
28 DELSOIN Chelsea C. 5% 23% 39% 27% 6% -
29 CHANG Josephine S. 3% 18% 36% 29% 11% 2% -
30 TONG Kunling 1% 8% 28% 37% 21% 5% -
31 LEE Alexandra B. - 3% 15% 31% 33% 16% 2%
32 FREEDMAN Janna N. 1% 8% 26% 36% 23% 6% 1%
33 MARSEE Samantha 13% 38% 35% 12% 1%
34 CAO Stephanie X. 4% 17% 32% 30% 14% 3% -
35 ADYNSKI Gillian I. - 1% 7% 24% 37% 25% 6%
36 LACSON Sarah 3% 16% 34% 32% 13% 2% -
37 LU Vivian Y. - 2% 12% 30% 36% 18% 2%
38 OISHI Megumi - 3% 14% 31% 33% 16% 2%
39 SHOMAN Jenna - 4% 15% 31% 32% 15% 3%
40 DOHERTY Maverick L. 1% 6% 21% 35% 27% 9% 1%
41 ENGELMAN Madeline A. 3% 16% 34% 31% 14% 3% -
42 CHIN Erika J. - 2% 12% 30% 36% 17% 2%
43 KIM Zoe - 1% 6% 23% 38% 26% 6%
44 WILLIAMS Jadeyn E. - 5% 21% 39% 29% 5%
45 PAK Kaitlyn 1% 8% 27% 39% 21% 3%
46 JULIEN Michelle 16% 40% 33% 10% 1%
47 GORMAN Victoria M. 8% 31% 37% 19% 5% 1% -
48 KALRA Himani V. 6% 28% 37% 22% 6% 1% -
49 BLUM Leah I. 1% 9% 25% 33% 23% 7% 1%
50 GOUHIN Chloe - 1% 8% 30% 47% 15%
51 OLSEN Natalie J. 8% 29% 38% 20% 4% -
52 GREENBAUM Ella K. 9% 31% 38% 19% 4% -
53 STAPLETON Lindsay K. 22% 41% 28% 8% 1% -
54 CARVALHO Isabela A. 12% 33% 35% 17% 4% -
54 HILD Nisha 17% 39% 32% 11% 1% -
56 ATLURI Sara V. 13% 36% 35% 14% 2% -
57 ANDRES Charmaine G. 28% 41% 23% 6% 1% - -
58 WEINBERG Alexandra L. - 3% 15% 34% 34% 13% 1%
59 BOIS Adele 2% 14% 31% 32% 17% 4% -
60 WALTER Zsofia R. 4% 19% 33% 28% 12% 3% -
61 LIN Audrey J. 6% 25% 36% 24% 8% 1% -
62 LU Amy 35% 41% 19% 4% 1% - -
63 YODER Bridget H. 23% 41% 26% 8% 1% - -
64 KONG Vera - 4% 20% 44% 32%
65 WIGGERS Susan Q. 5% 20% 33% 28% 12% 2% -
66 ANDRES Katherine A. 4% 21% 36% 28% 9% 1% -
67 MIKA Veronica 18% 41% 31% 9% 1%
68 SATHYANATH Kailing 17% 38% 31% 12% 2% -
69 SULLIVAN Siobhan R. - 2% 13% 31% 34% 17% 3%
70 YUN Maya 6% 22% 34% 26% 10% 2% -
71 TURNER Zoe Y. 2% 11% 28% 33% 20% 6% 1%
72 LI Victoria J. 5% 23% 36% 26% 9% 2% -
73 HARRISON Imogen N. - 2% 10% 28% 36% 20% 4%
73 FOUR-GARCIA Madison - 3% 15% 33% 33% 14% 2%
75 TURNOF Kayla M. 27% 46% 22% 5% - - -
75 KATZ Anat 8% 30% 36% 20% 6% 1% -
77 PRIEUR Lauren 13% 36% 33% 14% 3% - -
77 ZIELINSKI Isabella G. 25% 41% 25% 7% 1% - -
79 SINHA Anika 28% 42% 23% 6% 1% - -
80 ALCEBAR Kayla 7% 28% 37% 22% 6% 1% -
81 STRZALKOWSKI Aleksandra (Ola) M. 1% 9% 27% 36% 22% 5%
82 SZETO Chloe 11% 34% 36% 16% 3% -
83 STONE Hava S. 4% 20% 36% 28% 10% 2% -
84 CALVERT Sarah-Jane E. 43% 40% 14% 2% - - -
85 LARIMER Katherine E. 38% 42% 17% 3% - - -
85 NEIBART Fiona 31% 46% 19% 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.