Salt Lake City, UT - Salt Lake City, UT, 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 | SATHYANATH Kailing | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 36% | 24% | 6% |
| 2 | KOBOZEVA Tamara V. | 1% | 8% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 6% | |
| 3 | CHERNOMORSKY Alexandra E. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 36% | 14% |
| 3 | SHOMAN Miriam | - | - | 2% | 13% | 33% | 37% | 15% |
| 5 | FREEDMAN Janna N. | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 35% | 55% |
| 6 | TANG Catherine H. | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 23% | 6% |
| 7 | BHATTACHARJEE Rhea | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 12% | 1% |
| 8 | EDGINGTON Grace | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 6% |
| 9 | OXENSTIERNA Carolina | 2% | 12% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 6% | 1% |
| 10 | ZINNI Kaylyn M. | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 39% | 26% | 6% |
| 11 | BUHAY Rachel T. | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 9% |
| 12 | LIN Audrey J. | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 32% | 11% | |
| 13 | MARSEE Samantha | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 14 | ZUO Xiaofan | 1% | 9% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 15 | PATEL Riya | 5% | 19% | 32% | 28% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 16 | HAYES Grace Y. | 3% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 17 | PLONKA Kaley V. | 2% | 13% | 34% | 33% | 15% | 3% | < 1% |
| 18 | KOBERSTEIN Maggie | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 40% | 17% | |
| 19 | BENOIT Adelaide L. | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 6% |
| 20 | YODER Bridget H. | - | - | 4% | 15% | 32% | 35% | 15% |
| 21 | TURNOF Kayla M. | - | 3% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 3% |
| 22 | MANUBAG Amanda R. | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 23 | KOO Samantha | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 34% | 14% | |
| 24 | ATLURI Sara V. | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 42% | 21% | |
| 25 | DESAI Maya D. | - | 4% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 4% |
| 26 | CHEN Chloe Y. | 3% | 17% | 33% | 30% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 27 | SPORN Melanie | 8% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | |
| 28 | KITTLE Lauren | 37% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 29 | ZIELINSKI Isabella G. | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 37% | 21% | 3% |
| 30 | DAVIS Jayna M. | 1% | 8% | 24% | 33% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
| 31 | ROBINSON Stella | 7% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 32 | ENDO Miyuki N. | 7% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 33 | JULIEN Michelle | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 9% |
| 34 | LAMBERT Jasmine M. | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 40% | 44% |
| 35 | DEMING Clare L. | 1% | 5% | 17% | 30% | 30% | 15% | 3% |
| 36 | YURT Leyla | 1% | 5% | 19% | 33% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
| 37 | WONG ERIKA G. | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 29% | 10% |
| 38 | SHINN-CUNNINGHAM Barbara | 1% | 7% | 24% | 35% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 39 | GLUCK Myriam | 1% | 9% | 33% | 38% | 17% | 3% | |
| 40 | RHIE Lena | - | 2% | 14% | 33% | 33% | 15% | 2% |
| 41 | ABOUDAHER Janna A. | - | 4% | 15% | 30% | 31% | 16% | 3% |
| 42 | LIM Isabel K. | 1% | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 1% |
| 43 | BERMAN Frauke | - | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 12% |
| 44 | PANIGRAHI Sophia | 22% | 40% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 45 | GARIBIAN Emma E. | - | 6% | 25% | 40% | 25% | 5% | |
| 46 | NOBREGA Carolina S. | 6% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% | |
| 47 | ROGERS Pauline E. | 7% | 32% | 37% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 48 | SHAY-TANNAS Zoe | - | 2% | 13% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 4% |
| 49 | ZHANG Lynn Y. | 5% | 21% | 34% | 26% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 50 | LAPP Laurie E. | 19% | 39% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 51 | SAKPAL Raghavi | 20% | 47% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 52 | WHEELER Kira | 42% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | - | |
| 53 | VANCE Beth S. | 6% | 22% | 33% | 26% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 54 | KIM Sujin | 15% | 39% | 33% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 55 | DANIELS Erica | 3% | 15% | 30% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 56 | FAN Jiayi | 34% | 41% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 57 | KSHIRSAGAR Prachi | 23% | 45% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 58 | KIM Nam Heui | 12% | 31% | 33% | 18% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 59 | PETE Gillian C. | 9% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 60 | GAJOWSKYJ Sophie K. | 17% | 38% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 61 | WALTER Joanne | 33% | 45% | 18% | 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.