New Jersey City University - John Moore Athletic Center - Jersey City, 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 | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 38% | 53% |
| 2 | LI Sonia | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 42% | 21% | |
| 3 | LEOU Korina | - | - | - | 1% | 12% | 43% | 44% |
| 3 | KWON Ava | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 39% | 18% | |
| 5 | CHOI Charlotte | 1% | 7% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 8% | |
| 5 | SHMULER Fiona | - | 2% | 15% | 36% | 35% | 12% | |
| 7 | IANNUZZI Lucy | 1% | 7% | 27% | 38% | 23% | 5% | |
| 8 | NEMORIN Rei | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 9% | |
| 9 | LOO Kaitlyn | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 19% |
| 10 | FUNG Iris | - | - | 1% | 6% | 28% | 47% | 18% |
| 11 | ZHANG Ashley | - | 4% | 21% | 38% | 29% | 8% | |
| 12 | LI Tiffany | - | 4% | 22% | 40% | 28% | 6% | - |
| 13 | MACKAY Katherine | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 3% | |
| 14 | NIU Jessica | - | 3% | 19% | 38% | 31% | 9% | |
| 15 | PARK Haylie | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% | |
| 16 | LAFFY Lily | 14% | 34% | 33% | 15% | 4% | - | |
| 17 | BAIK Sarah | - | 2% | 11% | 32% | 39% | 17% | |
| 18 | BORGUETA Madison | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 5% |
| 19 | MERMEGAS Olivia | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 43% | 28% | |
| 20 | YANNOPOULOS Pompie | - | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 38% | 15% |
| 21 | GONG Joy | - | - | 1% | 7% | 30% | 47% | 15% |
| 22 | OSMINKINA-JONES Kai | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 35% | 9% | |
| 23 | DAMBAL Sasha | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 35% |
| 24 | VISWANATHAN Nishka | 1% | 11% | 31% | 34% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 25 | WANG JiaQi | - | - | 3% | 15% | 42% | 40% | |
| 26 | VATS Ishita | 5% | 25% | 39% | 25% | 6% | - | |
| 27 | REN Katherine | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 12% | |
| 28 | HUANG Pierra | 9% | 35% | 37% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 29 | YOUNG Sienna | 1% | 10% | 34% | 37% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 30 | CHEN Victoria | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 23% | 5% |
| 31 | LEE Grace | 5% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% | |
| 32 | WONG Charlene | - | 3% | 18% | 38% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 33 | XU Elaine | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 42% | 18% | 2% |
| 34 | LIANG Claire | 1% | 12% | 33% | 35% | 15% | 2% | |
| 35 | BERRIOS Catalina | - | 2% | 14% | 36% | 36% | 12% | |
| 36 | CHOWDHERY Myra | 2% | 14% | 37% | 34% | 12% | 2% | |
| 37 | NG Sophia | 17% | 43% | 30% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 38 | GALLAGHER Isabella | 5% | 23% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% | |
| 39 | REDA Sophie | 1% | 11% | 31% | 37% | 17% | 3% | |
| 40 | GENTILE Vittoria | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 4% |
| 41 | LEE Janice | 1% | 7% | 27% | 40% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 42 | WANG Keira | 12% | 33% | 34% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 43 | JOHN Sophia | 7% | 27% | 37% | 23% | 6% | 1% | |
| 43 | ZHAO Selena | 6% | 27% | 39% | 22% | 5% | - | |
| 45 | NANDA Maanika | 1% | 7% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 5% | |
| 46 | STADNIK Emilia | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 38% | 16% | |
| 47 | CONVERSO-PARSONS Maia | 25% | 44% | 25% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 48 | HAGN Luna | 4% | 22% | 41% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 49 | SHI Chuqing | 13% | 34% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 50 | PITRUN Viktorie | 5% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 51 | MULLER Inara | 1% | 11% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 52 | LEIGH Adalene | 2% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 2% | |
| 53 | BHARDWAJ Riya | 42% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | - | |
| 54 | WANG Chloe | 29% | 42% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 55 | MCCARTHY Nora Louisa Abrous | 17% | 47% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 56 | GONZALEZ Alexis | 44% | 42% | 13% | 2% | - | - | |
| 57 | KWON Ava | 2% | 13% | 31% | 33% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 58 | BUCCINO Sloane | 34% | 46% | 18% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 59 | JONES Nima | 3% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 60 | LIAO Amber | 40% | 42% | 16% | 3% | - | - | |
| 61 | DEMRY Kylee | 47% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - | - | |
| 62 | KAKAR Sahana | 57% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 63 | ELLIS Saffa | 23% | 45% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 64 | MADDISON Erica | 28% | 48% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
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.