December NAC

Div I Women's Saber

Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 2:00 PM

Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 KIM Zoe 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 89% 51%
2 ANGLADE Alexis C. 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 57%
3 WILLIAMS Jadeyn E. 100% 100% 100% 95% 71% 27%
3 SHOMAN Jenna 100% 100% 100% 95% 71% 27%
5 CODY Alexandra C. 100% 100% 98% 85% 52% 14%
6 SHI Cathleen 100% 99% 89% 62% 28% 7% 1%
7 VADASZ Ibla P. 100% 100% 95% 74% 37% 8%
8 GOUHIN Chloe 100% 100% 100% 98% 84% 44%
9 POSSICK Lola P. 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 89% 52%
10 ERIKSON Kira R. 100% 99% 88% 60% 24% 4% < 1%
11 BOIS Adele 100% 97% 81% 44% 10%
12 LINDER Kara E. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 68%
13 HILD Nisha 100% 100% 99% 92% 71% 35% 7%
14 SINGLETON-COMFORT Leanne 100% 100% 100% 95% 72% 29%
15 LI Amanda C. 100% 100% 98% 84% 50% 13%
16 YANG Ashley M. 100% 100% 97% 83% 52% 18% 2%
17 SAYLES Nina R. 100% 100% 92% 66% 27% 4%
17 ENGELMAN-SANZ Madeline A. 100% 100% 95% 74% 34% 6%
19 FOUR-GARCIA Madison 100% 100% 100% 99% 95% 75% 33%
20 MARSEE Samantha 100% 100% 96% 79% 47% 15% 2%
21 KONG Vera 100% 100% 100% 95% 71% 27%
22 LI Anna M. 100% 100% 98% 85% 51% 14%
22 GEYER Carolina M. 100% 99% 86% 51% 16% 2%
24 TURNER Zoe Y. 100% 100% 97% 83% 51% 16%
25 BEVACQUA Aria F. 100% 100% 95% 77% 45% 15% 2%
26 LEE Alexandra B. 100% 100% 100% 99% 93% 72% 31%
27 STRZALKOWSKI Aleksandra (Ola) M. 100% 100% 100% 94% 68% 23%
28 KER Grace 100% 100% 96% 78% 43% 10%
29 SZETO Chloe 100% 100% 99% 94% 73% 34% 4%
30 LIN Audrey J. 100% 97% 82% 50% 18% 3%
31 CHIN Erika J. 100% 100% 99% 93% 72% 35% 6%
32 WILLIAMS Chloe C. 100% 99% 93% 67% 25%
33 DUCKETT Madison 100% 100% 99% 93% 71% 33% 5%
34 LUKER Sophia 100% 88% 56% 22% 5% < 1% -
35 KAKHIANI-MECKLING Teodora 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 84% 45%
36 CALLAHAN Chase J. 100% 100% 97% 85% 56% 21% 3%
37 GREENBAUM Atara R. 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 89% 52%
38 DELSOIN Chelsea C. 100% 100% 100% 98% 86% 57% 19%
39 LU Elaine 100% 95% 74% 39% 12% 1%
40 DUNGEY Amelia S. 100% 100% 99% 85% 49% 12%
41 LIU Sophie 100% 99% 88% 57% 20% 3%
42 BLUM Leah I. 100% 100% 95% 69% 28% 5%
42 ANDRES Katherine A. 100% 100% 94% 70% 29% 5%
44 NATH Trisha 100% 99% 93% 72% 38% 10% 1%
45 DRAGON Rainer 100% 100% 96% 81% 50% 18% 2%
46 JOHNSON Dagny L. 100% 98% 86% 55% 21% 4% -
47 GHAYALOD reya 100% 100% 97% 84% 53% 18% 2%
48 JUNG Irene 100% 100% 95% 79% 47% 16% 2%
49 MCKEE Brynnley 100% 97% 82% 51% 19% 4% -
50 LU Amy 100% 99% 89% 62% 28% 7% 1%
51 ANDRES Charmaine G. 100% 100% 97% 82% 50% 15%
52 XI Shining 100% 98% 82% 46% 13% 2%
53 ZEGERS Anneke E. 100% 100% 98% 87% 53% 14%
54 WU Helen 100% 82% 36% 8% 1% -
55 HARRISON Imogen N. 100% 100% 98% 87% 53% 14%
56 MOZHAEVA MARIA 100% 100% 98% 86% 54% 16%
57 SATHYANATH Kailing 100% 99% 91% 67% 31% 7%
58 LIAO Siwen 100% 76% 31% 6% 1% -
59 CHEN Xiaohan 100% 100% 98% 87% 60% 25% 4%
60 GHOSH Priyanka 100% 100% 96% 80% 47% 16% 2%
61 VESTEL Mira B. 100% 94% 67% 28% 5%
62 HUAI Delilah 100% 94% 71% 37% 11% 2% -
63 ALFARACHE Gabriella C. 100% 90% 52% 17% 3% -
64 XIAO julie 100% 97% 80% 47% 16% 2% -
65 OLSEN Natalie J. 100% 99% 93% 71% 35% 8%
66 GORMAN Victoria M. 100% 100% 96% 80% 46% 14% 1%
67 SINHA Anika 100% 97% 81% 47% 16% 3% -
68 NGUYEN Siena 100% 90% 60% 25% 6% 1% -
69 HASSAN Aziza R. 100% 95% 74% 39% 11% 1%
70 BUHAY Rachel T. 100% 96% 76% 42% 13% 2%
71 SECK Chejsa-Kaili F. 100% 100% 96% 75% 35% 7%
72 JOHNSON Lauren 100% 100% 98% 87% 55% 17%
73 SOURIMTO Valeria 100% 99% 88% 60% 27% 6% 1%
74 CHANG Audrey 100% 88% 55% 21% 5% 1% -
75 SCHIMINOVICH Sophia I. 100% 96% 77% 43% 15% 2% -
76 YODER Bridget H. 100% 88% 54% 18% 2%
77 TONG Jessie 100% 81% 42% 12% 2% - -
78 MULAGARI Sadhika 100% 75% 34% 9% 1% - -
79 WEBER Juliana I. 100% 98% 84% 54% 22% 4% -
80 CHIANG Emily 100% 94% 69% 34% 10% 1% -
81 MIKA Veronica 100% 100% 96% 72% 31% 5%
81 ATLURI Sara V. 100% 96% 76% 40% 11% 1%
83 LEE Hannah 100% 97% 74% 34% 8% 1%
84 HE Charlotte 100% 99% 88% 55% 19% 2%
85 STONE Hava S. 100% 90% 60% 25% 6% 1%
86 FREEDMAN Janna N. 100% 100% 98% 85% 51% 14%
87 HWANG Gabriela M. 100% 97% 76% 34% 7% 1%
88 FERREIRA Alejandra E. 100% 85% 43% 10% 1% -
88 MUND Ruth 100% 88% 53% 19% 3% -
90 WEI Vivian W. 100% 95% 73% 37% 11% 1% -
91 PAUL Lila 100% 100% 96% 79% 44% 12% 1%
92 KIM Marley I. 100% 99% 94% 76% 43% 13% 1%
93 CHANG Emily 100% 99% 92% 70% 36% 10% 1%
94 GUTHIKONDA Nithya 100% 100% 99% 93% 72% 37% 9%
95 SO Catelyn 100% 96% 75% 38% 11% 1% -
96 YANG Lea 100% 89% 57% 22% 5% - -
97 MANSPERGER Leena 100% 95% 73% 39% 12% 2% -
97 ELSHAKANKIRI Janna 100% 98% 84% 54% 23% 5% -
99 ZHOU Jacquelyn K. 100% 94% 69% 32% 8% 1% -
100 LUKASHENKO Angelina 100% 79% 38% 9% 1%
101 STAPLETON Lindsay K. 100% 98% 84% 46% 13% 1%
102 SADOVA Olga 100% 75% 33% 8% 1% -
103 YUAN Greta 100% 96% 69% 30% 6% -
104 YAO Rainie 100% 48% 10% 1% - -
105 HUANG MADELINE 100% 54% 14% 2% - -
106 LIGH Erenei J. 100% 90% 52% 15% 2% -
107 ULIBARRI Nevaeh L. 100% 86% 52% 19% 4% -
108 BOYNTON Ainsley 100% 32% 3% - - -
109 ENDO Miyuki N. 100% 97% 81% 49% 17% 3%
110 JEONG Katie 100% 92% 66% 31% 9% 1% -
111 CHIN Sophia J. 100% 100% 96% 80% 48% 16% 2%
112 LEMUS-IAKOVIDOU ALEXANDRA 100% 85% 49% 17% 3% - -
113 SADIK HANA 100% 98% 87% 58% 25% 6% 1%
114 WEI JoyAnn 100% 78% 38% 11% 2% - -
115 CHEN Ashley 100% 97% 81% 46% 15% 2% -
116 KHAN Alissa 100% 80% 42% 13% 2% - -
117 MARYASH Samantha 100% 92% 65% 29% 8% 1% -
118 WANG Zidan 100% 43% 9% 1% - -
119 WIGGERS Susan Q. 100% 92% 65% 30% 8% 1%
119 SLOBODSKY Sasha L. 100% 56% 14% 2% - -
121 SCALAMONI-GOLDSTEIN Charlotte S. 100% 100% 96% 76% 38% 8%
121 GRAFF Sophie 100% 72% 27% 5% - -
123 SCOTT Eve 100% 63% 21% 4% - - -
124 COLTER Aurora 100% 58% 15% 2% - -
125 LEE Sophia 100% 79% 41% 12% 2% - -
126 LIU Zhi Jun 100% 86% 33% 6% 1% -
127 KALISOVA Kristyna 100% 93% 69% 34% 10% 1% -
127 YU Zhiang 100% 91% 62% 25% 5% - -

Explanation

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.