Phoenix Convention Center - Phoenix, AZ, USA
Explore the probability of achieving at least a certain number of victories in the pool 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 | SKARBONKIEWICZ Magda | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 71% |
| 2 | BURKE Nora S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 62% | |
| 3 | POSSICK Lola P. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 28% | 5% |
| 3 | LU Vivian Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 73% | 27% |
| 5 | CHAMBERLAIN Maia C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 78% |
| 6 | NAZLYMOV Tatiana F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 67% | 23% |
| 7 | GREENBAUM Atara R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 38% |
| 8 | WILLIAMS Jadeyn E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 32% |
| 9 | KIM Zoe | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 44% |
| 10 | SHOMAN Jenna | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 19% |
| 11 | ERIKSON Kira R. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 12 | MILLER Sky | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 16% |
| 13 | ANDRES Katherine A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 35% | 7% |
| 14 | PAUL Lila | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 39% | 11% | 1% |
| 15 | OISHI Megumi | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 35% | 7% |
| 16 | LIU Sophie | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 15% | 2% |
| 17 | FOX-GITOMER Chloe N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 59% |
| 18 | DRAGON Rainer | 100% | 95% | 72% | 35% | 8% | 1% | |
| 19 | HILD Nisha | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 31% | 3% |
| 20 | LIN Audrey J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 34% | 6% |
| 21 | DELSOIN Chelsea C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 33% | 4% |
| 22 | GOUHIN Chloe | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 37% |
| 23 | LINDER Kara E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 68% |
| 24 | GHAYALOD reya | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 50% | 18% | 2% |
| 25 | HARRISON Imogen N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 44% | 10% |
| 26 | SHEALY Maggie | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 19% |
| 27 | TARTAKOVSKY Elizabeth | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 39% |
| 28 | CHEN Ashley | 100% | 94% | 70% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 28 | MELNYCHUK Yelyzaveta | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 36% | 8% |
| 30 | WEI Vivian W. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 31 | BOIS Adele | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 60% | 26% | 5% |
| 32 | CHIN Sophia J. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 22% | 2% |
| 33 | PAK Kaitlyn | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 46% |
| 34 | JOHNSON Lydia | 100% | 94% | 69% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 35 | JUNG Irene | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 36 | BEVACQUA Aria F. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 18% | 2% |
| 37 | DUCKETT Madison | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 64% | 28% | 5% |
| 38 | SADIK HANA | 100% | 95% | 72% | 36% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 39 | GEYER Carolina M. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 40 | STRZALKOWSKI Aleksandra (Ola) M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 55% | 18% |
| 40 | LU Elaine | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 41% | 12% | 1% |
| 42 | YANG Angelina LeLe | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 35% | 9% | 1% |
| 43 | BLUM Leah I. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 44 | HWANG Gabriela M. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 43% | 14% | 2% |
| 45 | VESTEL Mira B. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 35% | 10% | 1% |
| 46 | MIKA Veronica | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 16% | 1% | |
| 47 | XIAO julie | 100% | 96% | 79% | 47% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 48 | FREEDMAN Janna N. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 44% | 14% | 2% |
| 49 | LEE Alexandra B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 58% | 17% |
| 50 | KER Grace | 100% | 96% | 75% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 51 | CHEN Xiaohan | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 41% | 13% | 2% |
| 52 | SHEARER Natalie E. | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 53 | LEE Sophia | 100% | 93% | 67% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 53 | SOURIMTO Valeria | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 55 | SAYLES Nina R. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 56% | 21% | 3% |
| 56 | HUANG MADELINE | 100% | 72% | 29% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 57 | KAKHIANI-MECKLING Teodora | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 14% |
| 58 | YANG Ashley M. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 37% | 10% | 1% |
| 59 | ANTHONY Alexia B. | 100% | 97% | 80% | 47% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 60 | TZOU Alexandra | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 56% | 22% | 4% |
| 61 | SCHIMINOVICH Sophia I. | 100% | 83% | 46% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 62 | SATHYANATH Kailing | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 32% | 7% | 1% |
| 63 | SINGLETON-COMFORT Leanne | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 37% | 6% |
| 64 | VADASZ Ibla P. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 44% | 13% | 1% |
| 65 | FOUR-GARCIA Madison | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 65% | 30% | 6% |
| 66 | D-SALLOWS Keira | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 16% | 2% |
| 67 | SO Catelyn | 100% | 96% | 78% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 68 | ANDRES Charmaine G. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 28% | 7% | 1% |
| 69 | LU Amy | 100% | 86% | 51% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 70 | GUTHIKONDA Nithya | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 36% | 10% | 1% |
| 71 | KIM Marley I. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 50% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 72 | SHI Cathleen | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 35% | 10% | 1% |
| 72 | CALLAHAN Chase J. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 39% | 11% | 1% |
| 74 | GORMAN Victoria M. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 75 | MAKLIN Sofia | 100% | 83% | 44% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 75 | LIM Jaslene | 100% | 94% | 70% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 77 | LI Amanda C. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 56% | 22% | 4% |
| 78 | HONE Katarina G. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 74% | 40% | 12% | 1% |
| 79 | ATTIA Jasmine | 100% | 63% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 80 | FESTA Carina | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 81 | XIKES Katherine E. | 100% | 94% | 71% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 82 | MULAGARI Sadhika | 100% | 88% | 52% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 83 | ANGLADE Alexis C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 27% |
| 84 | ENGELMAN-SANZ Madeline A. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 84 | MENDIOLA RITCHIE Ingrid | 100% | 98% | 83% | 49% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 86 | SINHA Anika | 100% | 89% | 57% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 87 | ALCEBAR Kayla | 100% | 98% | 82% | 45% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 88 | YAO Rainie | 100% | 65% | 21% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 89 | LEE Hannah | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 26% | 6% | - |
| 90 | CHRISTOTHOULOU Olympia C. | 100% | 95% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 91 | MCKEE Brynnley | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 92 | LIGH Erenei J. | 100% | 82% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 93 | NATH Trisha | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 30% | 6% | - |
| 94 | DHAR Aamina | 100% | 81% | 42% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 95 | CHIANG Emily | 100% | 92% | 65% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 96 | BALAKUMARAN Maya | 100% | 93% | 65% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 97 | LI Victoria J. | 100% | 95% | 72% | 35% | 9% | 1% | |
| 98 | BILILIES Sophia | 100% | 88% | 54% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 99 | JEONG Katie | 100% | 93% | 67% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 100 | LIU Yifei | 100% | 80% | 41% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 101 | NI Sharon | 100% | 95% | 74% | 38% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 102 | WU Helen | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 19% | 3% | - |
| 103 | WEI JoyAnn | 100% | 74% | 32% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 104 | ZOU Yelin | 100% | 97% | 82% | 51% | 19% | 3% | - |
| 105 | GRAFF Sophie | 100% | 84% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 106 | LIN Nicole | 100% | 80% | 41% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 107 | HUAI Delilah | 100% | 86% | 48% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 108 | ENDO Miyuki N. | 100% | 82% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 109 | MUND Ruth | 100% | 63% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 110 | HE Charlotte | 100% | 99% | 93% | 74% | 40% | 12% | 1% |
| 110 | NGUYEN Siena | 100% | 93% | 67% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 112 | BROWN Emma | 100% | 96% | 78% | 42% | 12% | 1% | |
| 113 | SCOTT Eve | 100% | 87% | 50% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 113 | MARYASH Samantha | 100% | 90% | 59% | 23% | 5% | - | - |
| 115 | MARTURANO Bridget H. | 100% | 91% | 62% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 116 | YANG Lea | 100% | 85% | 43% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 117 | DAVIS Jayna M. | 100% | 70% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 118 | LIAO Siwen | 100% | 68% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
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.