Charlotte, NC, 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 | SCRUGGS Lauren S. | - | - | - | 1% | 6% | 31% | 63% |
2 | RHODES Zander | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 38% | 50% |
3 | TIEU May L. | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 38% | 48% |
3 | QIAN Crystal | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 30% | 9% | |
5 | PARTRIDGE Morgan K. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 32% | 43% | 15% |
6 | FERRARI Christina M. | - | 2% | 11% | 31% | 40% | 16% | |
7 | WANG Ellen | - | 2% | 13% | 31% | 35% | 17% | 2% |
8 | CHENG Evelyn | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 42% | 22% | |
9 | TAFFEL sara | - | - | - | 4% | 20% | 42% | 34% |
10 | KIM Rachael | - | 1% | 7% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 8% |
11 | BREKER Anika | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 34% | 31% | 11% |
12 | KIM Katherine | 3% | 17% | 33% | 30% | 14% | 3% | - |
13 | ZHANG Alina C. | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% |
14 | CASTANEDA Erika L. | 1% | 6% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
15 | APELIAN Katherine | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 3% |
16 | LIU Jaelyn A. | 1% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 5% | - |
17 | DESCHNER Stefani K. | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 39% | 49% |
18 | ZHENG Ivy | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 23% | 5% |
19 | BINDER Sylvie A. | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 36% | 54% |
20 | KONG Chin-Yi | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 8% |
21 | LUNG Katerina | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 25% |
22 | PEVZNER Victoria | 1% | 8% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
23 | XUE Alanna L. | 7% | 27% | 36% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
24 | KOENIG Charlotte R. | 3% | 16% | 35% | 32% | 12% | 2% | |
25 | LEE Brianna J. | 1% | 5% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 10% | |
26 | ZHENG Vivian | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 32% | 11% | |
27 | CHO Sabrina N. | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 41% | 29% | |
28 | FREEDMAN Miranda W. | 4% | 20% | 38% | 28% | 9% | 1% | |
29 | HO Brianna W. | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 6% |
30 | TAN Kaitlyn N. | 2% | 13% | 34% | 34% | 14% | 2% | - |
31 | CAO Arianna L. | 1% | 6% | 22% | 36% | 28% | 8% | |
32 | OH Erin H. | 3% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - |
33 | NOTT Adrienne (Adi) M. | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 42% | 22% | |
34 | BLOW Iman (Mani) A. | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 42% | 41% |
35 | NEWHARD Zelia "Zizi" | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - |
36 | STAMOS Maria | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 5% |
37 | HORSLEY Asherah | - | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 32% | 7% |
38 | MILLER Naomi E. | 7% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 7% | 1% | |
39 | SARTORI Taylor M. | 11% | 32% | 34% | 17% | 4% | - | |
40 | HE Elizabeth W. | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 43% | 30% | |
41 | CHUSID Mikayla | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 34% | 15% | 1% |
42 | LEE Annora Y. | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 4% |
43 | LEE Alina | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 38% | 17% | 2% |
44 | KNIGHT Skylar | - | 2% | 14% | 36% | 34% | 12% | 1% |
45 | LEE Allison (Allie) | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 39% | 20% | 3% |
46 | GRIFFIN Emma G. | 1% | 5% | 20% | 36% | 30% | 9% | |
47 | SHEN Sophia H. | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% | |
48 | DE LA CRUZ Eden | 35% | 41% | 19% | 4% | - | - | |
49 | KOO Rachel A. | 1% | 10% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 5% | |
50 | REN Olivia Y. | 2% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% | |
51 | PENG Amber L. | 22% | 40% | 28% | 9% | 2% | - | |
52 | CHO Cameron S. | 3% | 18% | 33% | 29% | 13% | 3% | - |
53 | SENIC Adeline | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 4% | - |
54 | JING Emily | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 38% | 25% | 4% |
55 | EYER Hailey M. | - | 5% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
56 | GEBALA Gabrielle Grace A. | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 5% |
57 | JO Mia C. | 7% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 7% | 1% | |
58 | GONG Christina S. | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% | |
59 | SOOD Ishani S. | 4% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% | |
60 | LOCKE Savannah | 9% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 6% | 1% | |
61 | LESLIE Ryanne T. | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 32% | 11% | |
62 | CHEN Allison V. | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 7% | 1% | |
63 | JING Alexandra | - | - | 4% | 19% | 39% | 31% | 7% |
64 | LI Grace Q. | 1% | 7% | 23% | 34% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
65 | SUN Ruoxi | 5% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
66 | HOOSHI Erica S. | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% | |
67 | KOROL Neta | 13% | 35% | 34% | 14% | 3% | - | |
68 | CHO Rebecca H. | 14% | 36% | 34% | 14% | 2% | - | |
69 | PARK Rowan M. | 2% | 13% | 33% | 35% | 15% | 2% | |
70 | JANG Kimberley | 5% | 22% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | |
71 | DEBACK Greta I. | 15% | 35% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | |
72 | OUYANG Bridgette Z. | 7% | 29% | 38% | 21% | 5% | - | |
73 | SEO IRENE Y. | 13% | 36% | 34% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
74 | LI Phoebe J. | 1% | 10% | 31% | 37% | 17% | 3% | - |
75 | WU Julianna Y. | 9% | 31% | 37% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
76 | SHEN Lydia | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 2% |
77 | SEAL Julie T. | 3% | 19% | 36% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
78 | ORVANANOS Anice | 31% | 42% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
79 | KONG Olivia | 7% | 29% | 40% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
80 | SHENG Chuxi | 28% | 45% | 23% | 4% | - | - | - |
81 | RANDOLPH Piper | 15% | 35% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
82 | CHO Gracie L. | 9% | 30% | 36% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
83 | ZHAO Aileen Y. | 18% | 40% | 30% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
84 | CHEN Jia P. | 6% | 27% | 37% | 23% | 7% | 1% | |
85 | CONWAY Josephina (JoJo) J. | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 33% | 12% | |
86 | WEBB Ella | 29% | 41% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
87 | KHOO Lauren A. | 6% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 1% | - |
88 | SHAW Kayla M. | 3% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
89 | SEAL Grace (Gracie) C. | 4% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
90 | PAHLAVI Dahlia | 9% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
91 | CHEN Chloe I. | 18% | 42% | 30% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
92 | TALWALKAR Apoorva | 28% | 42% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
93 | ROY Layla | 37% | 43% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
94 | GU EMILY | 48% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
95 | GALAVOTTI Claire Teresa | 3% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
96 | LI Rachel Y. | 9% | 31% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | |
97 | YU Lauren C. | 31% | 42% | 21% | 5% | - | - | |
98 | WALKER Mayah J. | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
99 | BATRA Chaahat | 15% | 41% | 32% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
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.