San Jose, CA - San Jose, 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 | GEBALA Gabrielle Grace A. | - | - | - | - | 1% | 13% | 86% |
| 2 | CUI Amy | - | - | - | 3% | 17% | 41% | 38% |
| 3 | WANG Zoie Z. | - | - | 2% | 9% | 28% | 40% | 21% |
| 3 | WANG Chloe | - | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 36% | 14% |
| 5 | CASTANEDA Keira | - | - | - | 2% | 16% | 42% | 40% |
| 6 | FUNG Emma | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 2% |
| 7 | SUN Ruoxi | - | - | - | 3% | 15% | 40% | 42% |
| 8 | HAN Crystal | - | - | 3% | 21% | 46% | 29% | |
| 9 | WANDJI Anais | - | - | - | - | 5% | 30% | 64% |
| 10 | GOOR Viviene E. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 35% | 15% |
| 11 | CHANG Elizabeth | - | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 39% | 18% |
| 12 | DO Leila | - | 5% | 23% | 40% | 25% | 6% | 1% |
| 13 | RAO Sonia D. | - | - | 4% | 20% | 40% | 29% | 6% |
| 13 | VO Bao-Vy | - | - | 3% | 17% | 38% | 33% | 8% |
| 15 | ZHANG Eunice | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 36% | 31% | 8% |
| 16 | AYUPOVA AMELIYA | - | 1% | 5% | 18% | 34% | 31% | 11% |
| 17 | NAIR Supriya | - | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
| 18 | MANIKTALA Prisha | - | 2% | 17% | 43% | 31% | 7% | |
| 19 | PENG Charlotte | - | 3% | 18% | 37% | 32% | 10% | - |
| 20 | ZHUANG Christina | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 3% |
| 21 | LUO Sandra J. | - | - | 4% | 25% | 47% | 24% | |
| 22 | LEE Allison | 1% | 10% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 23 | GAMRADT Taylor | 2% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 19% | 5% | - |
| 24 | CHIRASHNYA Mika | 1% | 7% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
| 25 | STRUGAR Steliana | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 26 | PENG Serena | 1% | 9% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 6% | - |
| 27 | WANG Celine S. | 1% | 7% | 25% | 36% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
| 28 | HOBSON Ava | 1% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 29 | TSANG Catherine | 1% | 7% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 30 | OLSHANSKY Eliora S. | 2% | 12% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 31 | DAYAL Saahira | 4% | 27% | 39% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 32 | BOLES Amanda X. | 1% | 9% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 33 | SEAL Cameron I. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 38% | 18% |
| 34 | HAN Ashley | 1% | 7% | 23% | 34% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
| 35 | KIM Rachel | - | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
| 36 | HOVAGHIMIAN Fira | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 37 | ZHENG Zoe | 2% | 14% | 33% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 38 | LIPKOVITZ Rivka | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 37% | 18% | 1% |
| 39 | THOMAS Saejel | 20% | 47% | 27% | 5% | - | - | |
| 40 | FUNG Vera | 2% | 16% | 34% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 41 | KOZLOWSKI Maya M. | - | 5% | 21% | 39% | 28% | 6% | - |
| 42 | MANN Sophia J. | 2% | 14% | 32% | 33% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 43 | SANTOS Emilia | 4% | 25% | 40% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 44 | SINGH Ashni | 11% | 31% | 34% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 45 | LIU Emma | 3% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 46 | HSU Kaylin | 8% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 47 | ZHANG Selena | 2% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 5% | - |
| 48 | ZHONG Aleena | 42% | 44% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
| 49 | CHEN Chloe I. | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 5% |
| 50 | HO Kristen | 48% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 51 | MAENG Victoria | 26% | 42% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 52 | ENRILE Erica | 57% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 53 | MU Allison | 31% | 41% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 54 | OH Ceana | 6% | 33% | 41% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 55 | DESAI Esha | 14% | 37% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 56 | DAVIS Cate | 2% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 57 | LUH Mia P. | 5% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 58 | XU Audrey J. | 4% | 26% | 46% | 21% | 3% | - | |
| 59 | LENK Sophie | 4% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 60 | LIU Jessica | 42% | 40% | 15% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 61 | YANG Chloee | 58% | 35% | 7% | - | - | - | - |
| 61 | RAY Lucy | 11% | 34% | 35% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
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.