Rockland Community College (Eugene Levy Fieldhouse) - None
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 | GONZALEZ Veronika | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 40% | 44% |
| 2 | GONG Joy | - | - | 2% | 13% | 40% | 45% | |
| 3 | WANG JiaQi | - | - | - | 4% | 18% | 41% | 37% |
| 3 | KWON Ava | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 40% | 48% |
| 5 | CASTELO Soleil | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 43% | 26% | |
| 5 | FUNG Iris | - | - | 4% | 18% | 42% | 36% | |
| 7 | XU Elaine | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 5% | |
| 8 | TA-ZHOU Sophia | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 13% | 2% |
| 9 | ZHAO Selena | 8% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 10 | FOSS Persephone | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 44% | 25% | |
| 11 | MEYERSON Michelle | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 44% | 25% | |
| 12 | NIU Jessica | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 42% | 33% | |
| 13 | GOEL Lineysha | 1% | 10% | 31% | 38% | 18% | 3% | |
| 14 | CHOI Charlotte | - | - | 4% | 19% | 36% | 31% | 9% |
| 15 | PARK Haylie | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 4% |
| 16 | HUANG Pierra | 3% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 17 | ZHANG Ashley | - | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 41% | 21% |
| 17 | OSMINKINA-JONES Kai | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 3% |
| 19 | NANDA Maanika | - | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 35% | 9% |
| 20 | LEE Grace | - | - | 3% | 17% | 36% | 33% | 11% |
| 21 | YOUNG Sienna | 6% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 7% | 1% | |
| 22 | MAK Jayden | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 36% | 16% | 2% |
| 23 | WEI Madison | - | 1% | 5% | 23% | 38% | 27% | 6% |
| 24 | GOLEN Grace | 3% | 25% | 40% | 25% | 6% | 1% | |
| 25 | LIANG Claire | - | 5% | 20% | 38% | 30% | 7% | |
| 26 | NEMORIN Rei | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 41% | 24% |
| 27 | KIM Grace | 1% | 6% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
| 28 | ZONG Eliane | 4% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% | |
| 29 | REN Katherine | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 43% | 20% | |
| 29 | ZHANG Audrey | 4% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 9% | 1% | |
| 31 | ZHENG Winona | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 33% | 15% | 2% |
| 32 | PIENKOWSKI Olivia | 11% | 33% | 36% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 33 | HILD Anya | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 38% | 20% | 4% |
| 34 | BANDHU Saahiti | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
| 35 | LEE Kaitlin | 1% | 10% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 4% | |
| 36 | HARRIS Maya Hué | 3% | 17% | 36% | 32% | 11% | 1% | |
| 37 | MAGITSKY Giadora | 15% | 36% | 32% | 13% | 3% | - | |
| 38 | GALLAGHER Isabella | 5% | 24% | 39% | 26% | 6% | 1% | |
| 39 | MOFFITT Charlotte | 3% | 16% | 35% | 33% | 12% | 1% | |
| 40 | WANG Keira | 2% | 14% | 33% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 41 | JOHN Sophia | 3% | 17% | 35% | 32% | 12% | 1% | |
| 42 | MUNSHI Ridhima | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 36% | 21% | 4% |
| 43 | PEREIRA Izumi | 6% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 44 | GU Allison | 2% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 45 | CHU Anna | 22% | 41% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 46 | MOTOVA Masha | 17% | 38% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 47 | NEGROIU Mara | 8% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 48 | SAGER Bianca | 11% | 35% | 36% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 49 | FONG Zoe | 25% | 42% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 50 | CHEN Chloe | 9% | 31% | 36% | 19% | 5% | - | |
| 51 | DANIELS Jordanna | 1% | 10% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 4% | |
| 52 | STOLCKE Saskia | 11% | 34% | 36% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 53 | YAP Anna | 7% | 29% | 39% | 21% | 4% | - | |
| 54 | DIBADJ Ava | 62% | 32% | 6% | - | - | - | |
| 55 | WU Harper | 17% | 41% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 56 | ZHANG Nikki | - | 3% | 16% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
| 57 | BAO Amelia | 3% | 16% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 58 | LEE Elise | 3% | 22% | 40% | 27% | 7% | 1% | |
| 59 | CONVERSO-PARSONS Maia | 21% | 40% | 28% | 9% | 2% | - | - |
| 60 | PASSMAN Caroline | 34% | 43% | 19% | 4% | - | - | |
| 61 | PATEL Maia | 3% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 15% | 2% | |
| 62 | KWAN Kelly | 17% | 39% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 63 | KARAVAS Lucy | 25% | 41% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 64 | JUN Sofia | 24% | 45% | 26% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 65 | PARAISO Isabella | 45% | 39% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
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.