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 | CASTANEDA Erika L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 35% | |
| 2 | REID Sobia | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 17% |
| 3 | GLASSNER Sophia Rose S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 35% | 7% |
| 3 | RUSSELL Renata | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 45% | 9% | |
| 5 | MCCUTCHEN Lauren (Lulu) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 31% | |
| 6 | SLAGLE Mariah | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 70% | 32% | 6% |
| 7 | DARANOUVONG Logan | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 42% | 10% | |
| 8 | TOMASELLO Olivia E. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 47% | 17% | 3% |
| 9 | PALMER Amelia C. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 47% | 13% | |
| 10 | WEBER Nora | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 44% | 14% | 2% |
| 11 | RASMUSSEN Ashelee | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 22% | 3% |
| 12 | GERARDIN Marie | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 15% | |
| 13 | FENG Kelly L. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 29% | 6% |
| 14 | MAO Amy | 100% | 100% | 90% | 62% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
| 15 | DING Sandra | 100% | 100% | 94% | 72% | 35% | 7% | |
| 16 | SON Katherine (Injee) | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 36% | 8% |
| 17 | ZHANG Rachel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 16% |
| 18 | EBRAHIM Ameera H. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 40% | 9% | |
| 19 | LI AnnieSiliang | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 17% | 3% |
| 20 | GUMAGAY Erika L. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 64% | 29% | 6% |
| 21 | RYAN Minhuey | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 16% |
| 22 | BYRON Karen J. | 100% | 90% | 57% | 20% | 4% | - | |
| 23 | BELSLEY Devon K. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 54% | 14% | |
| 24 | CAMERON Maya | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 18% | 3% | |
| 25 | MASTRONARDI Laura | 100% | 90% | 56% | 20% | 3% | - | |
| 26 | HUANG audrey | 100% | 95% | 73% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 27 | MOK Chloe R. | 100% | 78% | 34% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 27 | PARTE Isabella B. | 100% | 99% | 87% | 55% | 19% | 3% | |
| 29 | OGANESIAN Alice N. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 18% | 3% | |
| 30 | CHEN Jephanie Y. | 100% | 87% | 53% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 31 | SCHLIEP Anna J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 86% | 56% | 19% |
| 32 | SCHMUGAR Brooke | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 43% | 10% | |
| 33 | CHRISTIAN Lyn T. | 100% | 99% | 78% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 34 | GREGSTON Lailia B. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 50% | 15% | 1% | |
| 35 | SHAH Chloe | 100% | 81% | 40% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 36 | DU Yiyun (Doreen) | 100% | 95% | 72% | 35% | 8% | 1% | |
| 37 | DEVLIN Wilhelmina | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 20% | |
| 38 | CAREY Michele S. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 20% | 3% |
| 39 | DRONAMRAJU Navya | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 24% | 4% |
| 40 | DU Angela | 100% | 96% | 77% | 44% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 41 | JI Catherine | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 10% | |
| 42 | LI Tiffany | 100% | 87% | 48% | 12% | 1% | - | |
| 43 | YOUNG Kaitlin | 100% | 98% | 77% | 40% | 11% | 1% | |
| 44 | MOHEBI Sue | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 34% | 9% | 1% |
| 45 | DUAN Jenny S. | 100% | 100% | 92% | 61% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 46 | ROWLAND May | 100% | 69% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 47 | DANIEL Olivia | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 20% | |
| 48 | ESTRADA Anna G. | 100% | 81% | 39% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 49 | NOLLNER Jennifer R. | 100% | 79% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 50 | NICOU Nicole | 100% | 91% | 61% | 24% | 4% | - | |
| 51 | WATTS Reganne M. | 100% | 74% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 52 | INAMDAR Nina S. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 53% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 53 | MCGARY Amy | 100% | 83% | 42% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 54 | WILKENS Patricia A. | 100% | 94% | 66% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 55 | IVANOVA Olga | 100% | 88% | 40% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 56 | RHEA Heather | 100% | 34% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 57 | GROCE Linda J. | 100% | 32% | 4% | - | - | - | |
| 58 | SIMARD Sherrol A. | 100% | 25% | 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.