Louisville, KY, 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 | FOX-GITOMER Chloe N. | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 40% | 48% |
| 2 | KIM Zoe | - | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 42% | 14% |
| 3 | SULLIVAN Siobhan R. | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 40% | 45% |
| 3 | SHOMAN Jenna | - | - | 3% | 18% | 43% | 36% | |
| 5 | STRZALKOWSKI Aleksandra (Ola) M. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 34% | 36% | 12% |
| 6 | CHAMBERLAIN Maia C. | - | - | - | 4% | 28% | 68% | |
| 7 | KOVACS Sophia | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 19% |
| 8 | MORALES Jessica Y. | - | - | 4% | 20% | 41% | 30% | 5% |
| 9 | SKARBONKIEWICZ Magda | - | - | - | - | 3% | 24% | 73% |
| 10 | NAZLYMOV Tatiana F. | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 43% | 42% |
| 11 | PAK Kaitlyn | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 20% |
| 12 | WILLIAMS Jadeyn E. | - | - | 2% | 9% | 27% | 39% | 23% |
| 13 | SHEALY Maggie | - | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 42% | 23% |
| 14 | TOLEDO AMES Julieta Isabel | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 41% | 44% |
| 15 | CHIN Erika J. | - | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 9% |
| 16 | LU Elaine | 3% | 17% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 17 | JOHNSON Honor | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 38% | 52% |
| 18 | HILD Nisha | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 34% | 13% | 1% |
| 19 | LINDER Kara E. | - | - | - | - | 3% | 22% | 75% |
| 20 | TARTAKOVSKY Elizabeth | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 39% | 45% |
| 21 | MIKA Veronica | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 36% | 30% | 7% |
| 22 | SZETO Chloe | - | 5% | 23% | 43% | 26% | 3% | |
| 23 | FOUR-GARCIA Madison | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 45% | 19% | |
| 24 | HWANG Gabriela M. | 11% | 35% | 36% | 15% | 2% | ||
| 25 | OLSEN Natalie J. | - | 3% | 13% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 4% |
| 26 | FREEDMAN Janna N. | - | 2% | 9% | 27% | 37% | 21% | 4% |
| 27 | OISHI Megumi | - | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 35% | 13% |
| 28 | CHAN Casey | - | - | 2% | 12% | 34% | 40% | 12% |
| 29 | THURGOOD Madison C. | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 30 | HE Charlotte | 1% | 5% | 19% | 34% | 30% | 11% | 1% |
| 31 | MARSEE Samantha | - | 5% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 7% | - |
| 32 | LIU Rachel | 4% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 9% | 1% | |
| 33 | LU Vivian Y. | - | - | 2% | 15% | 44% | 39% | |
| 34 | VADASZ Ibla P. | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 5% | |
| 35 | CARVALHO Isabela A. | 1% | 7% | 27% | 42% | 23% | ||
| 36 | GREENBAUM Atara R. | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 35% |
| 37 | HARRISON Imogen N. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 37% | 13% |
| 38 | CHANG Josephine S. | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 4% |
| 39 | PONICH Marissa | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 7% |
| 40 | CALLAHAN Chase J. | 1% | 6% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
| 41 | MARYASH Samantha | 24% | 41% | 26% | 8% | 1% | < 1% | - |
| 42 | MILLER Sky | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 42% | 29% | |
| 43 | DELSOIN Chelsea C. | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 34% | 12% | 1% |
| 44 | POSSICK Lola P. | - | - | 3% | 13% | 33% | 36% | 15% |
| 45 | JENKINS Ryan J. | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 36% | 55% |
| 45 | GOUHIN Chloe | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 41% | 40% |
| 47 | GORMAN Victoria M. | - | 2% | 13% | 32% | 36% | 15% | 2% |
| 48 | LEE Alexandra B. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 25% |
| 49 | LIN Audrey J. | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
| 50 | TAO Hannah J. | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 33% | 15% | 2% |
| 51 | TZOU Alexandra | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 35% | 11% | |
| 52 | DUCKETT Madison | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 37% | 17% | |
| 53 | ANDRES Charmaine G. | 1% | 6% | 25% | 39% | 25% | 5% | |
| 54 | SATHYANATH Kailing | 1% | 11% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 5% | 1% |
| 55 | SHI Cathleen | 1% | 7% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 7% | - |
| 55 | PAUL Lila | 2% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 57 | WILLIAMS Chloe C. | - | - | 4% | 17% | 37% | 34% | 7% |
| 58 | BLUM Leah I. | 1% | 5% | 18% | 32% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
| 59 | YANG Lea | 27% | 44% | 23% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 60 | SINGLETON-COMFORT Leanne | - | - | 3% | 17% | 40% | 33% | 7% |
| 61 | BUHAY Rachel T. | 3% | 16% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 62 | CHIN Sophia J. | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 1% |
| 63 | XIKES Katherine E. | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 64 | PINCUS Emma Y. | 4% | 19% | 32% | 29% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 65 | LEE Hannah | - | 5% | 19% | 34% | 30% | 11% | 1% |
| 65 | BOIS Adele | - | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 32% | 9% |
| 67 | ZEGERS Anneke E. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 35% | 13% |
| 68 | ERIKSON Kira R. | 5% | 25% | 37% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 68 | KER Grace | 1% | 10% | 30% | 39% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 70 | HUANG MADELINE | 13% | 36% | 33% | 14% | 3% | < 1% | - |
| 71 | JUNG Irene | 3% | 18% | 38% | 30% | 10% | 1% | |
| 72 | KIM Marley I. | 4% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | |
| 73 | BROWN Emma | 2% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 2% | |
| 74 | YANG Ashley M. | 1% | 7% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 8% | - |
| 75 | SAYLES Nina R. | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 35% | 17% | 3% |
| 76 | ANGLADE Alexis C. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 42% | 28% |
| 77 | SECK Chejsa-Kaili F. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 36% | 10% |
| 78 | STONE Hava S. | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 79 | GHAYALOD reya | - | 5% | 19% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
| 80 | ANDRES Katherine A. | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
| 81 | SPRINGER Ella | 6% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 82 | MCKEE Brynnley | 6% | 29% | 41% | 21% | 4% | - | |
| 83 | WU Helen | 12% | 37% | 35% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 84 | LIU Sophie | - | 5% | 18% | 34% | 31% | 12% | 1% |
| 85 | XIAO julie | 4% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 86 | ENGELMAN-SANZ Madeline A. | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 37% | 28% | 7% |
| 87 | HONE Katarina G. | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 5% | 1% |
| 88 | ATLURI Sara V. | 12% | 31% | 33% | 18% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 89 | DAVIS Jayna M. | 16% | 37% | 31% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
| 89 | BALAKUMARAN Maya | 2% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 91 | CHEN Xiaohan | - | 5% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 8% | 1% |
| 92 | TURNER Zoe Y. | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% |
| 93 | SCALAMONI-GOLDSTEIN Charlotte S. | - | 3% | 17% | 36% | 31% | 11% | 1% |
| 94 | CAO Stephanie X. | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 4% |
| 95 | WIGGERS Susan Q. | 12% | 35% | 36% | 15% | 2% | ||
| 96 | CHAN Leanne | 4% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 97 | BILILIES Sophia | 6% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 98 | BEVACQUA Aria F. | 4% | 21% | 37% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 98 | LIGH Erenei J. | 3% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 100 | ULIBARRI Nevaeh L. | 4% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 101 | NGUYEN Siena | 12% | 33% | 34% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 102 | WEINBERG Alexandra L. | - | 4% | 18% | 38% | 32% | 8% | |
| 103 | STAPLETON Lindsay K. | 2% | 13% | 35% | 36% | 13% | 1% | |
| 104 | LACSON Sarah | 2% | 13% | 32% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 105 | TONG Jessie | 14% | 35% | 34% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 106 | TONG Kunling | - | - | 2% | 10% | 31% | 42% | 15% |
| 107 | GHOSH Priyanka | - | 6% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
| 107 | LIU Zhi Jun | 10% | 32% | 36% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 109 | YODER Bridget H. | 3% | 15% | 30% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 110 | SOURIMTO Valeria | 5% | 22% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 111 | HOLMES Emma | 13% | 33% | 34% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 112 | ALFARACHE Gabriella C. | 8% | 31% | 38% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 112 | NI Sharon | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 112 | JEONG Katie | 9% | 33% | 38% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 115 | BARNOVITZ Maya | 7% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 116 | SO Catelyn | 11% | 34% | 37% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 116 | COLTER Aurora | 45% | 39% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 118 | HASSAN Aziza R. | 1% | 11% | 32% | 35% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 119 | FEARNS Zara A. | 3% | 14% | 29% | 31% | 18% | 5% | 1% |
| 120 | SHEARER Natalie E. | 1% | 9% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 121 | MOZHAEVA MARIA | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
| 121 | CHANG Audrey | 22% | 41% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 123 | CHRISTOTHOULOU Olympia C. | 12% | 32% | 34% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 124 | HUNG Anna | 10% | 30% | 35% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 125 | JOHNSON Dagny L. | 17% | 39% | 32% | 11% | 1% | ||
| 126 | GORMLEY Arwen E. | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 6% | |
| 127 | SCHIMINOVICH Sophia I. | 3% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | |
| 128 | LEE Sophia | 34% | 43% | 19% | 3% | - | - | |
| 129 | WEI Vivian W. | 9% | 36% | 38% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 130 | YANG Angelina LeLe | 18% | 39% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 131 | CHANG Emily | 5% | 25% | 40% | 24% | 5% | - | |
| 132 | ALTMAN Leigh | 30% | 41% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 133 | TUNG Renee | 44% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - | - | |
| 133 | NATH Trisha | 12% | 35% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | |
| 135 | MATAIEV Natalie S. | 13% | 39% | 34% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 136 | HULSEBURG Kaitlyn | - | 3% | 19% | 42% | 31% | 4% | |
| 137 | CHEN Ashley | 5% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 138 | DUNLAP Allison N. | 27% | 42% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 139 | MAKLIN Sofia | 23% | 44% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 140 | FESTA Carina | 13% | 35% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 141 | NATHANSON Sammy E. | 9% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 142 | WU Erica L. | 2% | 13% | 32% | 33% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 142 | DHAR Aamina | 15% | 38% | 33% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 142 | SCOTT Eve | 49% | 38% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 145 | MUND Ruth | 24% | 42% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 146 | SADOVA Olga | 40% | 41% | 16% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 146 | SINHA Anika | 9% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 148 | DEPEW Charlotte R. | 10% | 34% | 37% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 149 | GLUCK Myriam | 37% | 41% | 18% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 150 | ELSHAKANKIRI Janna | 20% | 39% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 151 | DRAGON Rainer | < 1% | 5% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 11% | 1% |
| 152 | KHAN Alissa | 30% | 43% | 22% | 4% | - | - | |
| 153 | LI Amanda C. | 1% | 11% | 33% | 39% | 15% | ||
| 154 | LU Amy | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 154 | CHEN Jessica | 35% | 43% | 18% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 156 | ENDO Miyuki N. | 1% | 8% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 7% | - |
| 157 | KATZ Anat | 3% | 18% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 158 | PALEO Gabriella | 6% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 159 | CHIANG Emily | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 159 | SENOGLU Irmak | 10% | 31% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 161 | YU Zhiang | 15% | 38% | 33% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
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.