Pasadena Convention Center - Pasadena, CA, 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 | ANDRES Katherine A. | - | - | - | - | 3% | 24% | 72% |
| 2 | BELTRAN REYES Alejandra | - | - | - | - | - | 15% | 84% |
| 3 | KER Grace | - | - | - | - | 5% | 30% | 64% |
| 3 | MOZHAEVA MARIA | - | - | - | 2% | 23% | 74% | |
| 5 | ENDO Miyuki N. | - | - | 1% | 11% | 40% | 48% | |
| 6 | ANDRES Charmaine G. | - | - | - | - | 2% | 20% | 78% |
| 7 | XIONG Haojiao | - | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 32% | 10% |
| 8 | NGUYEN Siena | - | 2% | 16% | 40% | 34% | 8% | |
| 9 | TAN Adelyn | 8% | 29% | 38% | 21% | 4% | - | |
| 10 | MULAGARI Sadhika | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% | |
| 11 | WIGGINS Yaanathia | - | 4% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% |
| 12 | YU Zhiang | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 41% | 26% | 3% |
| 13 | CALLAHAN Chase J. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 26% |
| 14 | ZHANG Victoria | 3% | 16% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% | |
| 15 | YANG Lea | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 9% | |
| 16 | GOLOVITSER Maya | 4% | 22% | 41% | 28% | 5% | - | - |
| 17 | TSE Angelina | - | - | 3% | 18% | 44% | 35% | |
| 18 | YAM Danika | - | - | 5% | 22% | 41% | 28% | 4% |
| 19 | KRASTEV Minna | - | - | - | 2% | 24% | 65% | 9% |
| 20 | WANG Zidan | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 40% | 23% | 2% |
| 21 | GAUTAM Sahana | - | 3% | 19% | 38% | 31% | 9% | |
| 22 | DAVIS Jayna M. | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 39% | 25% | 3% |
| 23 | LIU Sydney | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 32% | 12% | 1% |
| 24 | HUAI Delilah | - | 1% | 6% | 29% | 51% | 13% | - |
| 25 | LUKER Sophia | - | 2% | 13% | 37% | 41% | 6% | |
| 26 | RAMIREZ Mirka A. | - | 4% | 27% | 42% | 23% | 3% | |
| 26 | BARNOVITZ Maya | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 44% | 18% | |
| 28 | FENG Alicia G. | 6% | 30% | 38% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 29 | LO Chloe | 1% | 9% | 29% | 37% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 30 | TONG Jessie | - | 1% | 11% | 32% | 39% | 17% | |
| 31 | CHIN Elise | 3% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% | |
| 32 | PANIGRAHI Kingsley | - | 5% | 25% | 41% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 33 | HUANG MADELINE | - | 4% | 24% | 40% | 26% | 6% | |
| 34 | TUNG Renee | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 34% | 12% | 1% |
| 35 | CHANG Audrey | - | 2% | 15% | 36% | 35% | 12% | |
| 36 | PANIGRAHI Sophia | 8% | 29% | 38% | 20% | 4% | - | |
| 37 | CHO Michelle | - | 5% | 22% | 38% | 28% | 8% | - |
| 38 | DANG Kelia | 1% | 6% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
| 39 | HITOMI Nadya | 4% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 9% | 1% | |
| 40 | JEFFORDS Sophia | 22% | 50% | 23% | 4% | - | - | |
| 41 | STONE Coral | 9% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 42 | MANN Sophia J. | - | 5% | 30% | 42% | 20% | 3% | |
| 43 | CHAVEZ Frine | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 16% | 3% | |
| 44 | YAO Rainie | 9% | 30% | 38% | 20% | 4% | - | |
| 45 | BROCK Sydney | 1% | 7% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 46 | SOWERS Lia | 4% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 47 | PETERSEN Alani | 40% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 48 | DIECK Miranda P. | 7% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 49 | PANIGRAHI Emersen | 4% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 50 | KIM Elyssa | 18% | 43% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 51 | IYER Arushi | 8% | 32% | 39% | 18% | 2% | - | - |
| 52 | SCHOEW Margot | 14% | 34% | 33% | 15% | 4% | - | |
| 53 | JIANG Mu Jia | 12% | 35% | 36% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 54 | HUSS Miriam | 10% | 54% | 30% | 6% | - | - | |
| 55 | YANG JIAQI KIKI | 33% | 44% | 19% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 56 | LIN Yeeann | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 57 | GOURNEAU Sophie L. | 34% | 43% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 58 | DUDNICK Morgan | 6% | 28% | 41% | 22% | 3% | - | - |
| 59 | WANG Jingming | 19% | 40% | 30% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 60 | REGANTI Sitara | 2% | 16% | 38% | 32% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 61 | SAWANT Asmi | 22% | 45% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 62 | CHEN Elaine | 10% | 33% | 37% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 62 | WANG Jasmine | 79% | 20% | 1% | - | - | - | |
| 64 | VANKIRK Avery | 51% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 65 | LIU Hannah | 50% | 41% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
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.