Meadowlands Expo Center - Secaucus, 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 | GUGALA Hanna | - | - | 2% | 9% | 28% | 40% | 21% |
| 2 | GOMERMAN Sophia | - | - | - | 4% | 20% | 43% | 33% |
| 3 | DHAR Layla | - | 2% | 13% | 32% | 37% | 16% | |
| 3 | WANG yining | - | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 38% | 21% |
| 5 | LUKER Sophia | - | - | - | - | 7% | 36% | 57% |
| 6 | CHIARELLI Valentina | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 39% | 50% |
| 7 | SHEN Emily | 3% | 16% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 8 | DAMBAL Sasha | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 35% | 14% | |
| 9 | SHINCHUK Ellisha | - | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 33% | 10% |
| 10 | HU Anna | - | - | - | 6% | 28% | 49% | 16% |
| 11 | LEE Alyson | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
| 12 | LATYSHAVA Stephanie | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 33% | 15% | 2% |
| 13 | MANKOVA Varvara | - | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 41% | 22% |
| 14 | HUANG Rachael | - | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 41% | 34% |
| 15 | PROBASCO Leila | 1% | 5% | 18% | 32% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
| 16 | LI Sonia | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
| 17 | SCHAIBLE Sofia L. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 36% | 15% |
| 18 | ZHAN Sophie | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 42% | 22% | |
| 19 | HAMMERSTROM Aria | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 5% |
| 20 | CHI Claire | 4% | 19% | 32% | 28% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 21 | ZHANG Sophie | - | - | - | 4% | 17% | 41% | 38% |
| 22 | DONG Angel | - | - | 3% | 13% | 32% | 36% | 16% |
| 23 | NEUMAN Ella | 2% | 14% | 32% | 33% | 16% | 3% | |
| 24 | KANDADAI Lara | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 38% | 23% | 5% |
| 25 | MERCHANT Aishwarya | - | - | 3% | 17% | 38% | 34% | 8% |
| 26 | LOURENCO Alexandra | 1% | 8% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
| 27 | TA-ZHOU Emma | 2% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 2% | |
| 28 | BERRIOS Catalina | 6% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 8% | 1% | |
| 29 | MONTORIO Lily M. | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 40% | 24% | 4% |
| 30 | NAYAK Antara | 3% | 18% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 31 | NAYAK Esha | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 17% | 3% |
| 32 | CHANG Norah | 8% | 29% | 37% | 20% | 5% | - | - |
| 33 | LI Alexis | - | 2% | 9% | 26% | 36% | 22% | 4% |
| 34 | LOO Kaitlyn | - | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 35% | 11% |
| 34 | VINOKUR Anita | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 36% | 28% | 7% |
| 36 | BERMAN Greta | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 41% | 23% |
| 37 | AWAD Royce | 2% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 2% | |
| 38 | LEOU Korina | - | 4% | 17% | 36% | 33% | 10% | |
| 39 | MUND Ruth | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 42% | 39% |
| 40 | BUSH Bethany | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 7% |
| 41 | RANDALL-COLLINS Shea M. | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 42 | BROWN Aria | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 43 | CHAVAN Arya | - | 4% | 16% | 31% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
| 44 | ZHENG Valentina | - | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 38% | 17% |
| 45 | SEVASTOPULO Sahra | 22% | 39% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 46 | SHMULER Fiona | 7% | 27% | 37% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 47 | MALEK Zolie | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 41% | 25% | |
| 48 | MARGULIAN Maria | - | 3% | 18% | 38% | 32% | 9% | |
| 49 | LIM Alexa J. | 3% | 26% | 40% | 24% | 6% | 1% | |
| 50 | PRESANTH Nandana | - | 2% | 12% | 35% | 38% | 12% | 1% |
| 51 | BAIK Sarah | 2% | 13% | 32% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 52 | CAO Sophie | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 3% |
| 53 | KHOST Maeve | - | 5% | 23% | 41% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 54 | STADNIK Emilia | 2% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 55 | FABRICANT Kioka R. | 2% | 22% | 40% | 27% | 8% | 1% | |
| 56 | DUTA Lyra | 8% | 28% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% | |
| 57 | MANI Francesca B. | 1% | 8% | 23% | 33% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
| 57 | WONG Charlene | 9% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 57 | MAO anna | 8% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 60 | CHOI Charlotte | 5% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 60 | MAK Kaitlin | 1% | 8% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
| 62 | LEE Kaitlin | 10% | 35% | 37% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 63 | BORGUETA Madison | 8% | 26% | 34% | 23% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 64 | SPEARS Mya B | - | < 1% | 2% | 10% | 29% | 41% | 18% |
| 65 | BAIREDDY Maya | 1% | 8% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
| 66 | SRINATH Lyra A. | 13% | 34% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 67 | KIM Audrey | 6% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 68 | ZHANG Ashley | 3% | 17% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 69 | BAINS Nandini | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
| 70 | MERMEGAS Olivia | 3% | 15% | 31% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 71 | BIBLER Anna | 5% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 72 | WANG JiaQi | 1% | 6% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 11% | 1% |
| 73 | PASUPULETI Laya | 30% | 44% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 74 | PROZUMENT Elizabeth | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 75 | MYAT Chloe | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 37% | 18% | 3% |
| 76 | MACKAY Katherine | 3% | 20% | 37% | 28% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 77 | XU Elaine | 13% | 34% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 78 | XU Demi | 11% | 35% | 37% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 79 | KWON Ava | - | 2% | 15% | 36% | 35% | 11% | |
| 80 | ILAGAN Ava | 15% | 37% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 81 | ROHATGI Saanvi | 65% | 30% | 5% | - | - | - | |
| 82 | GUHA Surabhi | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 83 | VATS Ishita | 7% | 32% | 40% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 84 | KALISHMAN Anna | 23% | 40% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 85 | MAO Elsa | 12% | 38% | 36% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 86 | VISWANATHAN Nishka | 13% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 87 | SHELLEY Scarlett | 17% | 38% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 88 | HUANG Zoe | 38% | 43% | 16% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 89 | RANJAN Diya | 14% | 35% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | |
| 90 | TSANG Therese | 24% | 40% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 91 | CHAN Madeleine V. | 19% | 40% | 30% | 10% | 2% | - | |
| 92 | GENTILE Vittoria | 9% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 93 | RIFKIN Lielle | 18% | 38% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 94 | LEIGH Adalene | 28% | 41% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 95 | VITUG Greta | 5% | 33% | 39% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
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.