Rockland Community College, Eugene Levy Field House - Suffern, NY, 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 | CHIARELLI Valentina | - | - | 4% | 19% | 43% | 33% | |
2 | GUGALA Hanna | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 41% | 19% | |
3 | LEOU Korina | - | 2% | 14% | 35% | 37% | 12% | |
3 | SHI Julia | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 26% |
5 | LIU Zhi Jun | - | - | 2% | 13% | 35% | 38% | 11% |
6 | ATTIA Jasmine | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 19% | |
7 | MONTORIO Lily M. | - | 6% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 6% | |
8 | MANKOVA Varvara | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 41% | 17% | |
9 | TENG EMMA | 1% | 8% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 5% | |
10 | SCOTT Eve | - | - | 1% | 7% | 30% | 44% | 18% |
11 | JEONG Katie | - | - | - | 3% | 18% | 45% | 35% |
12 | MACKAY Katherine | - | 6% | 37% | 40% | 14% | 2% | - |
13 | UEMOTO Lynn | 4% | 21% | 39% | 28% | 8% | 1% | |
14 | BUSH Bethany | 1% | 7% | 26% | 39% | 23% | 5% | |
15 | BERMAN greta | - | 1% | 6% | 26% | 44% | 23% | |
16 | LOO Kaitlyn | 1% | 6% | 20% | 31% | 27% | 12% | 2% |
17 | LI Alexis | - | 2% | 12% | 28% | 34% | 19% | 4% |
18 | BAINS Nandini | 8% | 33% | 38% | 17% | 4% | < 1% | - |
19 | BEVACQUA Aria F. | - | - | - | 1% | 12% | 41% | 47% |
20 | KIM Audrey | 7% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
21 | KANDADAI Lara | 3% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 13% | 2% | |
22 | CHI Claire | 5% | 22% | 37% | 28% | 8% | 1% | |
23 | LI Sonia | 1% | 10% | 32% | 38% | 17% | 2% | |
24 | GUVEN Coco | - | - | 3% | 20% | 43% | 29% | 6% |
25 | LAURI Keira | - | 1% | 5% | 17% | 32% | 32% | 13% |
26 | KWON Ava | 4% | 17% | 31% | 29% | 15% | 4% | - |
27 | STRIZHEVSKY Ariel | 16% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | |
28 | BAEZ Sophia | 3% | 18% | 36% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - |
29 | CONNOLLY Vida | 7% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
30 | SHMULER Fiona | 4% | 21% | 36% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
31 | NAYAK Antara | 28% | 42% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | |
32 | PRESANTH Nandana | 3% | 19% | 37% | 30% | 10% | 1% | - |
33 | VINOKUR Anita | 1% | 8% | 22% | 32% | 25% | 10% | 2% |
34 | ZHANG Sophie | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 44% | 26% | |
35 | GENTILE Vittoria | 7% | 30% | 38% | 20% | 4% | - | |
36 | MCGRAW Sadie | 1% | 14% | 37% | 34% | 12% | 2% | |
37 | MERCHANT Aishwarya | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 7% |
38 | MALEK Zolie | - | 1% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 19% | 3% |
39 | DONG Angel | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 6% |
40 | TESTROET Aubrey | 2% | 11% | 26% | 32% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
41 | NAYAK Esha | 1% | 7% | 25% | 37% | 25% | 6% | |
42 | QIU Katherine | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 4% |
43 | MARYASH Samantha | - | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 41% | 30% |
44 | HALPERIN Elizabeth H. | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
44 | MAK Kaitlin | - | 3% | 27% | 44% | 22% | 4% | - |
46 | CROOKS Riley | 3% | 15% | 31% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
47 | BERRIOS Catalina | 4% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 7% | 1% | |
48 | BUTMAN Chloe Alexandra | 17% | 41% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - | |
49 | KHOST Maeve | 10% | 39% | 36% | 13% | 2% | - | |
50 | MERMEGAS Olivia | 9% | 30% | 36% | 20% | 5% | - | |
51 | ZHANG Ruijia Alexa | 4% | 17% | 31% | 29% | 15% | 4% | - |
52 | BIRNSTILL Reese | 3% | 15% | 29% | 30% | 17% | 5% | 1% |
53 | HUANG Rachael | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 43% | 27% | |
54 | FAVO Isabella | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 41% | 26% | |
55 | BOLT - TURNER Carmen | 12% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | |
56 | SHELLEY Scarlett | 28% | 42% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
56 | REKHTMAN Alice | 22% | 39% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
58 | VISWANATHAN Nishka | 24% | 43% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
59 | HARRISON Allie | 28% | 56% | 14% | 1% | - | - | - |
60 | FLATT Sophia | 1% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
61 | KALISHMAN Anna | 27% | 44% | 24% | 5% | 1% | - | |
62 | MYAT Chloe | 5% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 7% | 1% | |
63 | BEN SHAHAR-PYKE Lola Rae | 55% | 40% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
64 | HO Sophia | 41% | 41% | 15% | 2% | - | - | |
65 | BARNES Sarah | 50% | 39% | 10% | 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.