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 | PROVENZA Hannah G. | - | - | - | 5% | 21% | 43% | 31% |
| 2 | LIN Katie Y. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 36% | 15% |
| 3 | DESAMOURS Sabine I. | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 39% | 23% | 4% |
| 3 | LONG Cindy | - | 1% | 9% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 6% |
| 5 | LEE Kyungmin | - | - | 4% | 18% | 36% | 33% | 9% |
| 6 | DROVETSKY Alexandra M. | - | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 34% | 10% |
| 7 | MEHROTRA Anya | - | 1% | 12% | 39% | 43% | 6% | |
| 8 | SAAL Anna | 1% | 7% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
| 9 | PAN Michelle | 1% | 7% | 24% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 10 | SCHMIDT Lori M. | - | - | - | 3% | 26% | 70% | |
| 11 | ZHANG Tina | - | - | 3% | 14% | 34% | 36% | 13% |
| 12 | QUINLAN Nicole P. | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 11% |
| 13 | KULKARNI Diya | - | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 41% | 21% |
| 14 | KIM Diane E. | - | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 37% | 16% |
| 15 | DICKINSON Alexandra P. | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 10% |
| 16 | GU Sarah | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 5% |
| 17 | LAWSON Marie A. | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 4% |
| 18 | WANG Yumin | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 40% | 24% |
| 19 | KUZNETSOV Victoria | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 20% |
| 20 | WU Fan | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 13% | 2% |
| 21 | CHOI Lyla | - | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 39% | 19% |
| 22 | BROWN Amanda | - | 4% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 23 | SMUK Daria A. | - | 5% | 21% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
| 24 | MARCHANT Sandra M. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 41% | 26% |
| 25 | BIGGS Amelia F. | 2% | 23% | 39% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 26 | CHAN Elizabeth | - | - | 5% | 21% | 38% | 28% | 7% |
| 27 | COBERT Helen G. | - | 2% | 12% | 29% | 35% | 19% | 4% |
| 28 | LEE Olive | - | 8% | 31% | 41% | 17% | 2% | |
| 29 | KIM Elizabeth Y. | 1% | 11% | 28% | 33% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
| 30 | MAO Amy | 2% | 12% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 5% | - |
| 31 | MIDGLEY Janice M. | 7% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 32 | KOKES Ava | < 1% | 10% | 31% | 35% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 33 | NI Emma | - | - | 4% | 18% | 36% | 32% | 10% |
| 34 | SAM Kayli | 3% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 35 | MCGEE Sophia | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 36 | ALVIDREZ Francesca A. | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 14% | 2% |
| 37 | YOON Julia J. | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 7% |
| 38 | LU Junyao | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 35% | 31% | 10% |
| 39 | SIBLEY Elisabeth J. | 2% | 23% | 43% | 26% | 5% | - | |
| 40 | PROKOP Jeannine A. | 1% | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
| 41 | BOWIE Charlotta | 10% | 31% | 36% | 18% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 42 | CORDERO Allison | 10% | 34% | 35% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 43 | DE JAGER Celine | 1% | 11% | 38% | 35% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 44 | REITINGER Emilie B. | 2% | 12% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 5% | - |
| 45 | JOHNSON Ryleigh E. | 1% | 11% | 31% | 35% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 46 | TOMASELLO Olivia E. | 1% | 9% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 47 | MCCARTHY Grace E. | 19% | 38% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 48 | SAFKO Liubov V. | - | 2% | 15% | 35% | 33% | 13% | 2% |
| 49 | HUH Anna | 1% | 9% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 50 | CHANG Ella | 5% | 34% | 41% | 17% | 2% | - | |
| 51 | SINGH Aayushi | 67% | 29% | 4% | - | - | - | |
| 52 | GANGEMI Julia | 37% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 53 | ZENG Katrina | 7% | 47% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 54 | RIST Rebecca (Beck) J. | 8% | 35% | 38% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 55 | LIU Alice | 80% | 19% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 56 | WALSH Katherine | 72% | 25% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
| 57 | RIOS Donna B. | 20% | 45% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 58 | XU Jessica | 28% | 42% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 59 | NICOU Nicole | 15% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 60 | SAFI Rebecca | 31% | 43% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 60 | HELLER Erin | 20% | 45% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 62 | ROWLAND May | 39% | 41% | 17% | 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.