Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center - Miami, FL, 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 | GUO Jessica Zi Jia | - | - | - | 3% | 17% | 43% | 38% |
| 2 | KOO Rachel A. | - | - | 1% | 11% | 41% | 47% | |
| 3 | KIM Rachael | - | 9% | 30% | 37% | 20% | 4% | |
| 3 | MAK Tinney | - | 3% | 18% | 38% | 32% | 9% | |
| 5 | LAM Justina | - | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 34% | 13% |
| 6 | TALAVERA Daena | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 25% |
| 7 | MASSICK Laine | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 4% | |
| 8 | TUCKER ALARCON Ariadna C. | - | 1% | 11% | 32% | 40% | 16% | |
| 9 | HORSLEY Asherah | - | 1% | 6% | 19% | 34% | 30% | 10% |
| 10 | JING Alexandra | - | 2% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% |
| 11 | SLOWINSKI Maia A. | 4% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 7% | 1% | |
| 12 | APELIAN Katherine | - | 2% | 14% | 35% | 36% | 13% | |
| 13 | ZHENG Ivy | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 41% | 30% | |
| 14 | JING Emily | - | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 32% | 9% |
| 15 | BOODELL Ella | - | - | 5% | 19% | 35% | 31% | 10% |
| 16 | LEE Allison (Allie) | 2% | 14% | 35% | 34% | 13% | 2% | |
| 17 | BAROCHIA Meera | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 8% | |
| 18 | RASO Sofia G. | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 39% | 18% | |
| 19 | SERBAN Samantha M. | 1% | 10% | 27% | 33% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
| 20 | FERRETTI Anna Rebecca | - | 5% | 18% | 35% | 32% | 11% | |
| 21 | SCHATZ Kristina J. | 1% | 7% | 27% | 39% | 22% | 4% | |
| 22 | YE Eileen | - | 4% | 20% | 39% | 29% | 6% | |
| 23 | MCKEE Alexandra K. | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | |
| 24 | ZHENG Vivian | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 25 | KAGANOVICH Katerina S. | - | 4% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
| 26 | PAPADAKIS Lily | - | 4% | 21% | 38% | 28% | 8% | 1% |
| 27 | CONWAY Josephina (JoJo) J. | - | - | 3% | 22% | 54% | 20% | |
| 28 | SHEN Annabel | 1% | 11% | 30% | 35% | 19% | 4% | |
| 29 | HALL Velma | - | 2% | 12% | 28% | 35% | 19% | 4% |
| 30 | VONA Elena M. | - | 2% | 16% | 35% | 33% | 13% | 2% |
| 31 | LUNG Katerina | - | - | 6% | 26% | 44% | 22% | 2% |
| 32 | PO Edith | 2% | 20% | 38% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 33 | CHUNG Rachel J. | 1% | 10% | 31% | 38% | 19% | 2% | |
| 34 | LEE Montana | 2% | 22% | 43% | 27% | 5% | - | |
| 35 | DAVIA Daniella V. | 1% | 6% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
| 36 | LESLIE Ryanne T. | - | - | 9% | 30% | 38% | 19% | 3% |
| 37 | PALMER Meredith K. | - | 2% | 11% | 33% | 37% | 15% | 2% |
| 38 | CHO Lorin Y. | 4% | 21% | 39% | 28% | 8% | 1% | |
| 39 | CAPLIN Harriet R. | 11% | 35% | 37% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 39 | HOLLE Aviella S. | 7% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 1% | |
| 41 | HAN Jaewon(Leah) | 3% | 19% | 37% | 30% | 10% | 1% | |
| 42 | HU Allison C. | 9% | 30% | 36% | 19% | 5% | - | |
| 43 | D'ORAZIO Sofia V. | 2% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 14% | 2% | |
| 44 | CHEN Kelly | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 8% |
| 45 | BAKER-ROSENBERG Raynor S. | 10% | 35% | 38% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 46 | LAM Victoria M. | 18% | 39% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 47 | SHAW Kayla M. | - | 5% | 20% | 37% | 30% | 8% | |
| 48 | XU Christine | 7% | 30% | 39% | 20% | 4% | - | |
| 49 | LING Michelle | 4% | 25% | 40% | 24% | 6% | - | |
| 50 | APELIAN Gabriella G. | 22% | 44% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 51 | LONG Madeline M. | 7% | 29% | 40% | 21% | 3% | - | |
| 52 | RASO Olivia | 16% | 36% | 32% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
| 53 | ABD-ELMONIEM Nusayba K. | 56% | 38% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
| 54 | KOROTCOVA Anastasia | 4% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 57 | RENTON Samantha | 25% | 45% | 25% | 5% | - | - | |
| 57 | KOENIG Charlotte R. | 4% | 24% | 44% | 23% | 5% | - | |
| 57 | LIN Emma | 31% | 43% | 21% | 4% | - | - | |
| 60 | LA VALLEY Paloma | 13% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 61 | CHO Claire E. | 25% | 43% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 62 | HECKMANN Emma | 2% | 16% | 36% | 33% | 11% | 1% | |
| 63 | SHEN Sophia | 16% | 47% | 31% | 6% | - | - | - |
| 64 | WERBACH Esther | 21% | 41% | 28% | 9% | 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.