Richmond, VA, 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 | LAWSON Marie A. | - | - | - | 3% | 20% | 44% | 33% |
| 2 | CANO-DIOSA Rosa M. | - | - | - | - | 5% | 31% | 63% |
| 3 | ASHER Valerie | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 35% | |
| 3 | SCHMID Carola K. | - | 1% | 6% | 26% | 43% | 24% | |
| 5 | POLANICHKA Nicole P. | - | - | - | 3% | 15% | 40% | 43% |
| 6 | MILLIGAN Lauren M. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 38% | 36% | 10% |
| 7 | EXUM Monica M. | - | - | 2% | 12% | 38% | 48% | |
| 8 | WOLF Lisa A. | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 32% | 9% | |
| 9 | LORENTSON Dawn M. | - | 1% | 5% | 21% | 38% | 29% | 6% |
| 10 | GANSER Yuliya | - | 2% | 12% | 35% | 38% | 13% | |
| 11 | KOCAB Elizabeth (Liz) R. | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 39% | 48% |
| 12 | MARCHANT Sandra M. | - | - | - | 5% | 21% | 43% | 31% |
| 13 | GLOVER Cynthia E. | - | 2% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
| 14 | TADLOCK Christine M. | 1% | 10% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 3% | |
| 15 | BRISK Angelica A. | - | - | 4% | 16% | 33% | 34% | 13% |
| 16 | GIFFORD Sally | 6% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 17 | HUZEL Lisa | - | - | 2% | 9% | 28% | 40% | 21% |
| 18 | MONTOYA Amy C. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 36% | 35% | 11% |
| 19 | MORET Brighid E. | - | 3% | 19% | 37% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
| 20 | CAREY Michele S. | 3% | 18% | 35% | 31% | 11% | 1% | |
| 21 | BLOOMER Suzanne | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 38% | 31% | 5% |
| 22 | GORDET Cristina G. | - | - | 1% | 11% | 36% | 39% | 12% |
| 23 | SANCHEZ-EMDEN Marta | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 24 | HOFMAN Haejung | - | 4% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 9% | 1% |
| 25 | CHOY Ida | 1% | 6% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
| 26 | AHER Bonnie | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 3% |
| 27 | WOUNDY Melissa A. | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 28 | SAFKO Liubov V. | - | 2% | 12% | 36% | 38% | 13% | |
| 29 | RUNYON Cynthia J. | - | 4% | 16% | 33% | 32% | 13% | 2% |
| 29 | FINNEGAN Ellen M. | - | 5% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
| 31 | PROKOP Jeannine A. | 2% | 13% | 32% | 35% | 17% | 2% | |
| 32 | BOWIE Charlotta | 10% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 33 | WUNDERLICH Cara J. | 1% | 6% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
| 34 | ROWLAND May | 1% | 7% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 1% |
| 35 | LOVE Georgina | 2% | 11% | 30% | 36% | 18% | 3% | |
| 36 | COMES Rita | 7% | 31% | 40% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 37 | FRANZ Lisa L. | 30% | 42% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - | |
| 38 | SIMON Sally R. | 4% | 32% | 42% | 19% | 3% | - | - |
| 39 | GROENING Joanne | - | 6% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
| 40 | FREY Alison | 3% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 41 | SWENSON Alexandra | 3% | 21% | 41% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 42 | CUTLER Karen | 8% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 43 | REAM Jann L. | 17% | 37% | 31% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
| 44 | RICH Caroline B. | 1% | 8% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 45 | KELLEY Cathy A. | 33% | 43% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 46 | JENSEN MJ | 29% | 42% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 47 | WILKENS Patricia A. | 11% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 48 | KELLY Diane A. | 36% | 44% | 18% | 3% | - | - | |
| 49 | WIESSLER-HUGHES Linda | 19% | 39% | 30% | 10% | 2% | - | |
| 49 | DANNHAUSER Carol A. | 13% | 40% | 35% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 49 | BELAOUSSOFF Vera | 3% | 18% | 36% | 30% | 11% | 1% | |
| 52 | MAUL Judy L. | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% | 1% |
| 53 | BYRON Karen J. | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 54 | JEANDHEUR Carole A. | 10% | 37% | 36% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 55 | PIERCE Marcia M. | - | 9% | 34% | 40% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 56 | OSTERBAUER Nancy K. | 67% | 28% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 57 | JULIEN Erica | 11% | 44% | 33% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 58 | THOMAS Catherine A. | 15% | 40% | 32% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 59 | WALTER Joanne | 49% | 39% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 60 | GROCE Linda J. | 65% | 31% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
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.