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 | GALAVOTTI Claire Teresa | - | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 41% | 23% |
2 | XUE Alanna | - | 1% | 11% | 33% | 40% | 15% | |
3 | HUANG Natalie | - | 4% | 18% | 39% | 33% | 5% | |
3 | ACHILOVA Feyza | - | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 39% | 14% |
5 | SOLSKY Brooke A. | 1% | 6% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
6 | MCSHINE Katelyn H. | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 8% |
7 | MILLER Naomi E. | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 34% |
8 | WANG Ellen | - | - | - | 5% | 20% | 42% | 33% |
9 | HECKMANN Emma | - | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 42% | 30% |
10 | FU Qihan | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 43% | 20% | |
11 | LI Rachel Y. | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 8% |
12 | WU Julianna Y. | - | 4% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% |
13 | SEGAL Lydia G. | - | 2% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 6% |
14 | SHAW Kayla M. | - | - | 1% | 12% | 41% | 46% | |
15 | PAHLAVI Dahlia | - | 2% | 17% | 37% | 31% | 11% | 1% |
16 | NARANG Maya | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 33% | 15% | 2% |
17 | MCKEE Alexandra K. | - | 2% | 19% | 43% | 30% | 6% | |
18 | MOY Kayla A. | - | - | 2% | 15% | 40% | 35% | 7% |
19 | HOLLE Aviella S. | - | 1% | 10% | 34% | 42% | 13% | |
20 | WEINTRAUB Io H. | - | 3% | 13% | 28% | 33% | 19% | 4% |
21 | ZHAO Aileen Y. | - | - | 4% | 19% | 38% | 31% | 9% |
22 | PAGES Melanie | - | 5% | 20% | 39% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
23 | CHEN Georgia M. | 9% | 33% | 36% | 17% | 4% | < 1% | - |
24 | VEERKAMP Molly | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 43% | 26% | |
25 | SLASKI Caroline O. | 2% | 13% | 30% | 32% | 18% | 4% | - |
26 | SU Michelle | - | - | 5% | 24% | 44% | 26% | |
27 | YU Jaime L. | - | 5% | 24% | 40% | 26% | 6% | |
28 | BOODELL Ella | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 37% | 30% | 8% |
29 | BASSON Bayley D. | 1% | 9% | 33% | 40% | 16% | 2% | |
30 | TANG Ai Jia | 2% | 14% | 33% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
31 | OLIVEIRA Lavinia M. | 5% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - |
32 | JENKINS Hannah G. | 1% | 7% | 30% | 37% | 20% | 5% | - |
33 | BHAN Zala | 6% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 6% | - | |
34 | BECKER Elena | - | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 30% | 9% |
35 | BECCHINA Claire E. | 1% | 6% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
36 | MUELLER Tatum J. | - | 1% | 9% | 25% | 36% | 23% | 5% |
37 | WERBACH Esther | 3% | 17% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
38 | KANIUK Rachel | 1% | 12% | 37% | 36% | 12% | 1% | |
39 | LIU Sophia | 3% | 25% | 41% | 25% | 6% | 1% | |
40 | MAESTRADO Ashley R. | 4% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 8% | 1% | |
41 | LAM Victoria M. | 5% | 25% | 39% | 25% | 6% | - | |
42 | DRANOVSKY Dasha | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 6% |
43 | HEISER Anna M. | 3% | 16% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
44 | GINDE Maithili | 11% | 35% | 37% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
45 | JULIUS Sonia | 4% | 35% | 40% | 18% | 3% | - | |
46 | GUTKOVSKAYA Nora | - | - | < 1% | 6% | 31% | 63% | |
47 | DRESSEL Pamela (Pam) A. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 40% | 22% |
48 | HUNT Abigail S. | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% | - |
49 | ROHRING Anna L. | 51% | 40% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
50 | THIRUVENGADAM Harini | 65% | 30% | 5% | - | - | - | |
51 | LAPPER Whitney P. | 79% | 20% | 1% | - | - | - | |
52 | CHARALEL Jessica | 8% | 43% | 37% | 11% | 1% | - | |
53 | SCHLOTTERBECK Abigail | 8% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
54 | ZGOMBIC Emily | 14% | 39% | 33% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
55 | CHEUNG Kaitlin | 32% | 49% | 17% | 2% | - | - | - |
56 | NICOU Melina | 7% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
57 | MUTAKABBIR Assata | 5% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 11% | 2% | - |
58 | GARDINER Sophia A. | 26% | 42% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | |
59 | CHEN Jasmine | 35% | 42% | 19% | 4% | - | - | - |
60 | CHEN Yichun | 10% | 31% | 35% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
61 | FERRIS Nayah | 9% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
62 | FURST Chloe | 1% | 22% | 42% | 28% | 7% | 1% | |
63 | GUZIK Stella | 6% | 31% | 45% | 16% | 2% | - | |
64 | SILVER Anna | 41% | 48% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
65 | JONES Jenna | 34% | 42% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
66 | SIEB Sydney | 12% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
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.