Salt Lake City, UT - Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Explore the probability of achieving at least a certain number of victories in the pool 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 | BUHAY Rachel T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 16% |
| 2 | DESAI Maya D. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 66% | 21% | |
| 3 | TURNOF Kayla M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 29% | 6% |
| 3 | KOO Samantha | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 25% | |
| 5 | JULIEN Michelle | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 42% | |
| 6 | RHIE Lena | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 46% | 10% | |
| 7 | ANDRES Katherine A. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 41% | 9% | |
| 8 | ATLURI Sara V. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 17% |
| 9 | EDGINGTON Grace | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 74% | 29% | |
| 10 | ROBINSON Stella | 100% | 94% | 68% | 29% | 6% | - | |
| 11 | BENOIT Adelaide L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 13% |
| 12 | NOBREGA Carolina S. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 57% | 16% | |
| 12 | DAVIS Jayna M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 25% | |
| 14 | CHEN Chloe Y. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 72% | 31% | 5% | |
| 15 | PETE Gillian C. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 45% | 16% | 2% |
| 16 | GAJOWSKYJ Sophie K. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 32% | 8% | 1% | |
| 17 | PATEL Riya | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 43% | 9% | |
| 18 | GARIBIAN Emma E. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 60% | 24% | 4% |
| 19 | ABOUDAHER Janna A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 66% | 31% | 7% |
| 20 | DANIELS Erica | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 47% | 16% | 2% |
| 21 | WHEELER Kira | 100% | 85% | 47% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 22 | NOVICK Mia J. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 25% | 4% | |
| 23 | ZHANG Lynn Y. | 100% | 96% | 75% | 34% | 7% | 1% | |
| 24 | KIM Sujin | 100% | 87% | 53% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 25 | PLONKA Kaley V. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 26 | SAKPAL Raghavi | 100% | 75% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 27 | GRAJALES Emily K. | 100% | 93% | 66% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 28 | KITTLE Lauren | 100% | 80% | 37% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 29 | ROGERS Pauline E. | 100% | 91% | 63% | 27% | 6% | 1% | |
| 30 | HAYES Grace Y. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 16% | 2% | |
| 31 | KSHIRSAGAR Prachi | 100% | 84% | 46% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 32 | FAN Jiayi | 100% | 88% | 45% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 33 | DREYER Nadia S. | 100% | 73% | 27% | 4% | - | - | |
| 34 | WALTER Joanne | 100% | 72% | 25% | 4% | - | - | |
| 35 | STARR Cynthia (Cindy) H. | 100% | 70% | 24% | 3% | - | - | |
| 36 | PANIGRAHI Sophia | 100% | 96% | 72% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 37 | LUM Karen | 100% | 90% | 56% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 38 | GORDON Sharon | 100% | 61% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
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.