The future of US Fencing is at stake!

For transparency, fairness, and athlete support, VOTE NOW for:
(1) Maria Panyi, (2) Andrey Geva, (3) Igor Chirashnya, and (4) Sue Moheb.

National Championships & July Challenge (Summer Nationals)

Div II Women's Saber

Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 8:00 AM

Phoenix Convention Center - Phoenix, AZ, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 TABANGAY Heartlyn - - - 5% 22% 44% 28%
2 RAMIREZ Mirka A. - 2% 10% 25% 33% 23% 7%
3 HAMMERSTROM Aria 1% 13% 32% 33% 16% 4% -
3 XIONG Haojiao - - 1% 10% 37% 52%
5 LIM Jaslene - - 1% 5% 21% 42% 32%
6 DAI Olivia - 1% 6% 21% 35% 28% 8%
7 CHIANG Melissa - 2% 12% 28% 33% 19% 5%
8 XU Emily T. - 3% 13% 30% 33% 18% 3%
9 GRULICH Rayaana 1% 13% 34% 34% 15% 3%
10 CANSECO Carly 1% 6% 19% 32% 28% 13% 2%
11 ZENG Sarah - 5% 22% 37% 28% 8%
12 CHIN Elise - - 1% 7% 27% 44% 21%
13 MERCHANT Aishwarya 1% 10% 27% 33% 21% 7% 1%
14 CHIANG Emily - 1% 5% 20% 42% 33%
15 ISBERG Natalie - 2% 14% 32% 33% 16% 3%
16 GRAJALES Hannah E. - 2% 14% 34% 35% 14%
17 SIDDIQUI Reem - 2% 11% 27% 33% 21% 5%
18 HUA Catherine W. - - 1% 8% 27% 41% 22%
18 ARNECKE Lauren A. - - 2% 11% 30% 39% 18%
18 CHO Michelle - 3% 14% 31% 33% 17% 3%
21 TREACY Aisling - 3% 14% 30% 32% 17% 4%
22 DUDNICK Morgan - 4% 17% 33% 30% 13% 2%
23 LIN Nicole - 2% 14% 33% 36% 14%
24 DANTULURI Shalini - - 4% 17% 34% 32% 12%
24 GOLOVITSER Maya 1% 5% 17% 30% 29% 15% 3%
24 MANKOVA Varvara - 3% 12% 28% 33% 20% 5%
27 MYAT Chloe - 4% 18% 35% 31% 11% 2%
28 TUNG Renee - 4% 19% 34% 29% 12% 2%
29 TODD Phoebe - 3% 15% 30% 32% 16% 3%
30 TAN Adelyn 1% 8% 22% 32% 25% 10% 2%
31 HAMBAZAZA Liisa - - 4% 17% 34% 32% 12%
32 WILSON Eva - 3% 14% 30% 32% 17% 4%
33 LIAO Siwen - - - 3% 17% 45% 36%
34 LITTLE Avery - 4% 19% 34% 29% 11% 2%
35 LISSO Ria A. - - - 1% 8% 35% 57%
35 BUHAY Kirsten M. - 1% 6% 20% 35% 29% 9%
35 ZHANG Sophie - - 2% 10% 31% 40% 18%
38 FREY Sarah E. 4% 22% 38% 27% 8% 1%
39 KINKADE Ellie - 1% 6% 21% 35% 28% 9%
40 SHINCHUK Ellisha - - 6% 28% 42% 21% 3%
41 FENG Alicia G. - 5% 19% 33% 28% 12% 2%
41 LI Alexis 1% 7% 23% 35% 25% 9% 1%
43 YOUNG Audrey 1% 5% 19% 33% 28% 12% 2%
44 YAM Danika - 1% 7% 22% 34% 27% 9%
45 REN Xinling - 2% 11% 27% 34% 21% 5%
46 PRAXL Alexa R. - - 2% 9% 27% 40% 23%
47 MONTORIO Lily M. - 4% 17% 31% 30% 15% 3%
47 SCHICK Veronica - 1% 10% 30% 38% 18% 3%
49 ADAMS Morrigan B. - 2% 13% 32% 37% 15%
50 ZOLLER Noelle 3% 18% 35% 31% 12% 2%
51 LIU Yifei - - 1% 7% 27% 44% 22%
52 CHAN Kayla 1% 12% 30% 34% 19% 5% -
53 BROWNER June 3% 18% 34% 29% 13% 3% -
54 LEE Lauren 2% 11% 27% 33% 20% 6% 1%
55 NAYAK Anika 2% 11% 29% 34% 19% 5% -
56 HUANG MADELINE - - 3% 15% 33% 35% 14%
57 JIANG Mu Jia (Michelle) - 5% 19% 33% 29% 12% 2%
58 REGANTI Sitara 5% 21% 35% 27% 10% 2% -
59 DENG Brooke - - 4% 16% 34% 34% 13%
60 SPEARS Mya B 1% 7% 25% 37% 24% 6%
61 MALEK Zolie - 1% 4% 17% 34% 32% 12%
62 MANN Sophia J. - - 4% 16% 34% 34% 13%
63 STONE Coral - 2% 9% 25% 35% 23% 5%
64 ELLIS-FURLONG Ava 13% 38% 34% 13% 2% - -
65 SCHAIBLE Sofia L. 2% 14% 32% 34% 16% 3%
66 GOMERMAN Sophia - - 4% 16% 33% 33% 14%
67 COLTER Aurora - - 2% 12% 30% 38% 19%
68 TESTROET Aubrey - 2% 10% 27% 35% 21% 5%
69 CHI Claire 1% 9% 28% 36% 21% 5% -
70 BAINS Nandini 18% 37% 30% 12% 3% - -
71 SCHOEW Margot 3% 19% 37% 30% 10% 1%
72 DIECK Miranda P. 4% 21% 36% 28% 10% 1%
73 BAWA Anahat - 1% 7% 31% 41% 19% 2%
74 ZHENG Valentina - 1% 8% 26% 38% 22% 5%
75 FAN Grace - - 3% 20% 42% 31% 5%
76 MCNALLY Teagan 3% 15% 33% 32% 14% 3% -
77 ZHAN Sophie - 3% 14% 30% 33% 17% 3%
78 CAO Sophie 1% 9% 29% 36% 20% 5% -
79 DEHON Inès - 6% 23% 39% 25% 6% 1%
80 DONDERIS Katherine 3% 15% 30% 30% 16% 4% -
81 CHAVAN Arya - 3% 14% 30% 33% 16% 3%
81 HOLMES Sabrina 3% 19% 36% 30% 11% 2% -
83 NEUMAN Ella 1% 8% 26% 35% 23% 7% 1%
84 BANGALORE Shriya 19% 48% 28% 5% - - -
85 GARRETT Madrid 1% 9% 29% 38% 20% 3%
86 CARLUCCI Laura A. - 9% 28% 37% 21% 5%
87 PABIAN Emilia - 9% 29% 37% 21% 4%
88 NGUYEN Madeleine 24% 42% 25% 7% 1% -
89 ASHTIANI Shaya 15% 36% 32% 14% 3% - -
90 DANG Kelia - - 1% 9% 29% 41% 20%
91 LOO Kaitlyn - 2% 11% 28% 34% 20% 4%
92 HUANG Neila 1% 8% 25% 35% 23% 8% 1%
93 LUKER Hannah 4% 21% 39% 27% 8% 1% -
94 CHOU Zoe - 5% 20% 33% 28% 11% 2%
95 DUCKETT Leighton 20% 38% 28% 11% 2% - -
96 CROOKS Riley 1% 9% 26% 35% 22% 7% 1%
96 SADANI Jyotika 3% 17% 34% 30% 13% 2% -
98 LEUNG Ashlyn K. - 5% 19% 33% 29% 12% 2%
99 RANJAN Diya 3% 18% 36% 30% 11% 2% -
100 DEBERTIN Beth 1% 6% 22% 33% 26% 10% 2%
101 CHOW Caitlyn 24% 44% 25% 6% 1% - -
102 LIU Hannah 23% 43% 26% 7% 1% - -
103 VERWEST Melissa 41% 40% 15% 3% - - -
104 CHEN Kevy 2% 14% 34% 33% 15% 2%
105 JEAN Emmanuelle C. 1% 10% 30% 37% 19% 3%
106 BUCKHOUSE Talia 17% 39% 31% 11% 2% -
107 WHITESIDES Abigail E. 1% 11% 29% 36% 20% 4%
108 SHEARER Alena 2% 12% 29% 32% 18% 5% 1%
109 NICHOLAS Eva 3% 15% 32% 31% 15% 3% -
110 NAYAK Esha - 2% 11% 27% 33% 21% 5%
111 KORINTH Jacqueline 6% 28% 37% 22% 7% 1% -
112 SUHALIM Maree 9% 30% 36% 19% 5% 1% -
113 VANKIRK Avery 29% 42% 23% 6% 1% - -
114 COLBY Mercer 2% 12% 29% 32% 19% 6% 1%
115 BRAMMER-GONZALES Xiomara 5% 30% 46% 16% 2% - -
116 KIM Caitlin 7% 26% 35% 23% 7% 1% -
117 IYER Arushi 7% 26% 35% 23% 8% 1% -
118 MORGAN Lily 43% 44% 12% 1% - - -
119 HOAGLAND Simone 4% 21% 37% 27% 9% 1% -
119 ZHOU Ziling 20% 41% 28% 9% 1% - -
121 HERMAN Sabrina 47% 38% 13% 2% - - -
122 GOSAVI Aabolee 11% 46% 32% 9% 1% - -
123 ROOPRAI Amarjot 28% 41% 24% 7% 1% -
124 FORD-BURRIS Zooey 46% 39% 12% 2% - -
125 DUCKETT Retta 4% 18% 33% 30% 13% 3% -
126 CHO Kaeli M. 79% 19% 2% - - -
127 ABDULLAHI Saara 4% 25% 39% 24% 6% 1% -
127 RIESTERER Katherine 47% 38% 12% 2% - - -
127 CHOI Sophie Grace 10% 32% 35% 18% 5% 1% -
130 PREIMESBERGER Elaine 26% 42% 25% 7% 1% - -
131 MARTIN Audrey 41% 43% 14% 2% - - -
131 SIMS Addy 66% 29% 5% - - - -
133 SEELIG Samantha 5% 23% 34% 25% 10% 2% -
134 LAZO Emily 43% 40% 14% 3% - - -
134 TERP Lucy 25% 43% 25% 7% 1% - -
136 VILD Grace 9% 32% 36% 18% 5% 1% -

Explanation

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.