UWM Sports Complex - Pontiac, MI, 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 | BROWN Lola | - | - | 1% | 5% | 23% | 44% | 28% |
| 2 | DAVIS Logan | - | - | - | - | 5% | 31% | 63% |
| 3 | LICHTENSTEIGER Megan | - | - | 3% | 17% | 41% | 39% | |
| 3 | LI Han (Helina) | - | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 42% | 27% |
| 5 | OROPEZA tamara | - | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 39% | 16% |
| 6 | POEI Lauren | - | 2% | 13% | 38% | 39% | 8% | |
| 7 | DENG Melissa | - | - | 2% | 12% | 40% | 46% | |
| 8 | HAN Gian | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 36% | 13% | |
| 9 | MARISI Gianna | - | - | - | 3% | 26% | 71% | |
| 10 | LIU Enjia sherry | - | - | - | - | 4% | 28% | 68% |
| 11 | WANG CAROL | - | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 42% | 30% |
| 12 | LI Joy | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 33% | 11% | 1% |
| 13 | XU Sunia (Tai Yang) | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 16% | 3% |
| 14 | CHOI Sophie | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 38% | 17% | 2% |
| 15 | WU Maggie Lei | - | 5% | 22% | 41% | 28% | 4% | |
| 16 | LIU Jingyi (Eva) | 1% | 10% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 17 | CULLIVAN Sienna | - | - | - | 6% | 33% | 60% | |
| 18 | MUMMANENI Samyuta | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 41% | 23% | |
| 19 | DESERANNO Seren | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 14% | 2% |
| 20 | MARTIN Sloan | - | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 12% |
| 21 | CASHMAN Hailey | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
| 22 | DONG Iris | - | - | 3% | 16% | 38% | 36% | 7% |
| 23 | LIN Kenzie | 1% | 12% | 32% | 35% | 16% | 2% | |
| 24 | BLAKEY Heaven | - | 4% | 21% | 40% | 30% | 6% | |
| 25 | JIANG Chloe | 2% | 13% | 35% | 35% | 13% | 1% | |
| 26 | KOSCIK-AQUINO Emily | 1% | 12% | 33% | 37% | 15% | 1% | |
| 27 | SHAOOLIAN Maya | 2% | 20% | 46% | 27% | 5% | - | |
| 28 | LIN Yunong | 1% | 7% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 29 | ADLER Zoe | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 36% | 30% | 8% |
| 30 | ZEE Savannah | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 31 | TAN Dorathy | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 4% | |
| 32 | FRASER Morgan | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 33 | LI Alice | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 40% | 28% | 4% |
| 34 | HOROWITZ Shuli | 8% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 35 | PAN Yiran | 4% | 19% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% | |
| 36 | BOIKE Lucille | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 37 | ZOLDAN Nolabelle | 4% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 38 | RIVERA Leahy | 8% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 39 | PUTHOFF Olivia | 1% | 7% | 27% | 40% | 22% | 4% | |
| 40 | HUANG Natalie | 4% | 21% | 39% | 28% | 8% | - | |
| 41 | WANG DINA C. | 2% | 13% | 32% | 35% | 16% | 3% | |
| 42 | WASHINGTON KAILYNN ROSE | 1% | 13% | 33% | 35% | 16% | 2% | |
| 43 | FU Pui Lam (Paisley) | 2% | 16% | 35% | 32% | 12% | 2% | |
| 44 | LIN Athena | 27% | 48% | 21% | 3% | - | - | |
| 45 | CHUNG Stella | 4% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 46 | CHOI Suha | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 47 | KNAPP Isabella | 1% | 8% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 48 | GE Lena Lan | 29% | 44% | 22% | 4% | - | - | |
| 49 | RICHARDSON Meredith | 34% | 46% | 17% | 3% | - | - | |
| 50 | LEE Zoe | 11% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | |
| 51 | JEANBAPTISTE Lauren | 30% | 44% | 22% | 4% | - | - | |
| 51 | KENSICKI Phoebe | 22% | 45% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 53 | THURSTON Gemma | 48% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - | - | |
| 54 | LEIBERMAN Naomi | 23% | 41% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 55 | SAMALA Reese | 17% | 37% | 31% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
| 56 | MARTIN Avery | 10% | 31% | 35% | 19% | 5% | - | - |
| 57 | LYNCH Kathryn | 5% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 58 | FEDOROFF Elizabeth | 18% | 44% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 59 | HUFFMAN Yunia | 19% | 38% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 60 | ESMONDE-WHITE Daphne | 7% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 61 | WEBB London | 12% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 62 | ZHOU Jolena | < 1% | 2% | 18% | 53% | 25% | 2% | |
| 63 | PARANJAPE Ojasvi | 27% | 42% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 64 | BRUNDIN Olivia | 41% | 43% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 65 | MILLER Simone | 12% | 35% | 35% | 16% | 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.