Madison, NJ - Madison, NJ, 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 | TIEU May L. | - | - | - | - | 4% | 27% | 68% |
| 2 | PEVZNER Victoria | - | - | 2% | 10% | 30% | 39% | 19% |
| 3 | ZHENG Ivy | - | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 18% |
| 3 | WANG Ellen | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 39% | 25% | 3% |
| 5 | BREKER Anika | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 42% | 44% |
| 6 | KIM Rachael | - | - | 2% | 9% | 27% | 40% | 23% |
| 7 | LESLIE Ryanne T. | - | 1% | 5% | 21% | 42% | 32% | |
| 8 | CHEN Kelly | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 5% |
| 9 | KOKES Gabrielle | - | - | - | 5% | 21% | 43% | 31% |
| 10 | COSTELLO Angeline S. | 2% | 13% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 2% | |
| 11 | YUGOV Elizabeth (Liz Yugov) | - | - | 3% | 14% | 35% | 37% | 11% |
| 12 | SADAN Jordan E. | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 41% | 28% | |
| 13 | SHEN Sophia H. | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 6% |
| 14 | MOLHO Sofia | - | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 35% | 15% |
| 15 | LEE Bethany W. | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 1% | |
| 16 | TOLBERT Zoe | 2% | 11% | 27% | 32% | 20% | 7% | 1% |
| 17 | CHEN Jia P. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 31% | 43% | 17% |
| 18 | KOENIG Charlotte R. | - | 3% | 14% | 34% | 36% | 12% | |
| 19 | ZHAO Aileen Y. | 2% | 15% | 34% | 34% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 20 | GALAVOTTI Claire Teresa | - | 3% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
| 21 | LEE Allison (Allie) | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 43% | 40% |
| 22 | WU Irene M. | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 3% |
| 23 | ZHANG Alina C. | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 3% |
| 24 | HUANG Natalie | 1% | 6% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 6% | - |
| 25 | RENTON Samantha | 1% | 6% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 10% | 1% |
| 26 | BOODELL Ella | - | 2% | 12% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 4% |
| 27 | XUE Alanna | 3% | 20% | 38% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 28 | XU Madison | 1% | 8% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
| 29 | BECKER Elena | 6% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 30 | YU Jaime L. | 2% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 31 | NARANG Maya | 3% | 18% | 37% | 30% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 32 | SEGAL Lydia G. | 13% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 33 | MILLER Naomi E. | 1% | 9% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 34 | BHAN Zala | 24% | 42% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 35 | XU Christine | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 32% | 9% | |
| 36 | FERRETTI Anna Rebecca | - | 2% | 10% | 30% | 38% | 18% | 2% |
| 37 | LOW Sharon J. | - | - | 4% | 16% | 35% | 34% | 11% |
| 38 | PAGES Melanie | 12% | 35% | 35% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 39 | SU Michelle | 3% | 18% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 40 | LI Rachel Y. | 10% | 31% | 36% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 41 | MCSHINE Katelyn H. | 12% | 34% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 42 | DU Hannah | 2% | 13% | 33% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 43 | MOY Kayla A. | 11% | 32% | 34% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 44 | MAESTRADO Ashley R. | 14% | 37% | 33% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
| 45 | LIU Sophia | 19% | 41% | 29% | 9% | 2% | - | - |
| 46 | SHAW Kayla M. | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 37% | 16% | 1% |
| 47 | KHROL Galyna | 16% | 38% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 48 | WU Julianna Y. | 9% | 31% | 37% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 49 | VEERKAMP Molly | 3% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 13% | 2% | |
| 50 | SOLSKY Brooke A. | 10% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 51 | RUSK Lauren G. | 21% | 40% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 52 | ADAMS KIM Natalie | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 39% | 16% | 2% |
| 53 | PO Edith | 2% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 54 | LI Meilin | - | 2% | 9% | 27% | 37% | 21% | 4% |
| 55 | TANG Ai Jia | 5% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 56 | FU Qihan | 8% | 34% | 38% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 57 | OLIVEIRA Lavinia M. | 35% | 41% | 19% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 58 | MCKEE Alexandra K. | 26% | 42% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 59 | JULIUS Sonia | 15% | 41% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 60 | CHEN Yichun | 27% | 43% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 61 | LAM Victoria M. | 42% | 41% | 14% | 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.