Durkan Fencing Academy - Garfield, NJ, 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 | GAJJALA Sharika R. | - | 1% | 5% | 16% | 32% | 33% | 14% |
| 2 | CHEN Lefu | - | - | 2% | 10% | 30% | 39% | 19% |
| 3 | NGUYEN Kira | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 38% | 20% |
| 3 | SPRINGER Sierra | 2% | 13% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 5% | - |
| 5 | KUDIEROVA Anastasiia | - | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 41% | 20% |
| 6 | COBERT Helen G. | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 7% |
| 7 | GUJJA Misha | 1% | 8% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
| 8 | PAPADAKIS Lily | - | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 34% | 12% |
| 9 | DAMRATOSKI Anna Z. | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 35% | 18% | 3% |
| 10 | BUECHEL Holly M. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 45% | 21% |
| 11 | RAKHOVSKI Alexandra | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 5% |
| 12 | WITTE Vera | - | 2% | 14% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% |
| 13 | LIN Elaine | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
| 14 | LUO Ashley | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 38% | 27% | 5% |
| 15 | WONG Alexandra R. | 1% | 6% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 1% |
| 16 | FENG Ge | - | 2% | 12% | 28% | 34% | 19% | 4% |
| 17 | ZIGALO Elizabeth | - | - | 5% | 24% | 43% | 27% | |
| 18 | LI Alisha | 1% | 9% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 19 | GUMAGAY Erika L. | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 7% |
| 20 | PINNAMANENI Drithi | 2% | 12% | 28% | 33% | 19% | 5% | 1% |
| 21 | ISERT Sarah | - | - | 2% | 9% | 27% | 40% | 23% |
| 22 | MAO Amy | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 38% | 19% |
| 23 | YU Nicole J. | - | 2% | 12% | 29% | 35% | 18% | 3% |
| 24 | GAO Judy | - | 5% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
| 25 | WITTER Catherine A. | - | 5% | 27% | 41% | 23% | 4% | |
| 26 | SMUK Daria A. | 4% | 17% | 31% | 29% | 15% | 4% | - |
| 27 | LONADIER Keira | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 5% |
| 28 | PROKOP Jeannine A. | 1% | 9% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 29 | MARCHANT Sandra M. | - | 1% | 12% | 34% | 38% | 14% | |
| 30 | MING Cynthia | 3% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 31 | ZENG Katrina | 4% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 32 | KRUMHOLZ Nicole | 13% | 34% | 33% | 15% | 4% | - | - |
| 33 | KORFONTA Jolie | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 26% |
| 34 | BLIN Margaux J. | 1% | 7% | 21% | 32% | 26% | 11% | 2% |
| 35 | XUE Alanna L. | 1% | 6% | 19% | 31% | 28% | 13% | 2% |
| 36 | YANG Charlotte | 60% | 34% | 6% | < 1% | - | - | |
| 37 | HAFEEZ Hania | - | 5% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 38 | FURMAN Maria | 7% | 24% | 33% | 24% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 39 | LU Junyao | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 38% | 28% | 6% |
| 40 | GANSER Yuliya | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
| 41 | HICKS Grace | 5% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 42 | SCHMIDT Lori M. | - | - | 3% | 13% | 33% | 37% | 14% |
| 42 | BOWIE Charlotta | 2% | 17% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 42 | SHU Youshan | 3% | 19% | 37% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 45 | YOU Emily | 3% | 18% | 36% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 46 | SAAL Anna | 1% | 10% | 25% | 33% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
| 47 | SMOTRITSKY Mia | 1% | 6% | 19% | 31% | 28% | 13% | 2% |
| 48 | SEUK Irene | 14% | 34% | 33% | 15% | 4% | - | - |
| 49 | LI Suri | 2% | 24% | 40% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 50 | MUELLER Emma M. | - | 7% | 30% | 39% | 20% | 3% | |
| 51 | HOSANAGAR Inchara | 13% | 47% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 52 | JOHN Venus | 41% | 41% | 15% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 53 | PRIHODKO Nina | 1% | 16% | 37% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 54 | MINOR Lindsey | 1% | 6% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
| 55 | BYBEE Lucy J. | 13% | 34% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 56 | SIBLEY Elisabeth J. | 4% | 18% | 32% | 28% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 57 | BYRON Karen J. | 21% | 39% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 58 | HANIN Katherine | 9% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 59 | MURPHY Megan | 81% | 18% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 60 | DANNHAUSER Carol A. | 44% | 39% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 61 | XU Priscilla | 22% | 47% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 62 | ELLIS Marwa | 19% | 38% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
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.