Brandeis University - Boston, MA, 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 | CAFASSO Natalya | - | - | 4% | 23% | 54% | 19% | |
2 | SMUK Daria A. | - | - | - | 4% | 23% | 56% | 16% |
3 | FENG Ge | - | 4% | 21% | 38% | 29% | 8% | |
3 | WANG Zoe | - | - | 6% | 33% | 48% | 13% | |
5 | YU Nicole J. | - | - | - | 3% | 18% | 46% | 34% |
6 | SPRINGER Sierra | - | - | - | - | 3% | 30% | 66% |
7 | RICHARDSON Meredith | 3% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 2% | |
8 | XUE Alanna L. | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 39% | 19% | |
9 | SEREGIN Katya | - | 2% | 13% | 38% | 38% | 9% | |
10 | ZHOU Zhixiao | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 39% | 18% | |
11 | LI Fei | - | 1% | 10% | 33% | 41% | 15% | |
12 | HOAGLAND Sally | 26% | 44% | 25% | 5% | < 1% | ||
13 | CHISHOLM Phoebe C. | - | - | 3% | 19% | 44% | 34% | |
14 | HAFEEZ Hania | - | - | 1% | 11% | 40% | 48% | |
15 | DAVIS Jessica L. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 40% | 49% | |
16 | LONADIER Keira | - | 1% | 13% | 46% | 34% | 6% | |
17 | LUO Ashley | - | - | - | 5% | 35% | 59% | |
18 | WANG Trinity | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 40% | 23% | 4% |
19 | CALDWELL Phoebe | - | - | 1% | 8% | 38% | 53% | |
20 | AZMEH nour | - | 1% | 8% | 32% | 44% | 15% | |
21 | CAMPBELL Anahit M. | - | 15% | 36% | 33% | 13% | 2% | |
22 | SMUK Alexandra S. | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 42% | 41% |
23 | XIAO Nancy | - | - | 5% | 23% | 42% | 25% | 5% |
24 | HAFEEZ Hiba | - | 4% | 19% | 36% | 31% | 10% | |
25 | WANG Sophie Y. | 4% | 26% | 43% | 23% | 4% | - | |
26 | MUELLER Emma M. | - | 11% | 35% | 36% | 15% | 2% | |
27 | GIELEGHEM Klaire | 5% | 26% | 40% | 23% | 5% | - | |
28 | NGUYEN Celena | 17% | 41% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - | |
29 | MONOVA Lilyana | 1% | 9% | 32% | 42% | 15% | ||
30 | BI Michelle | 7% | 40% | 37% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
31 | YU Eva | 9% | 40% | 41% | 10% | 1% | - | |
32 | PARSONS Mischa | 2% | 17% | 40% | 33% | 7% | - | |
33 | CHATIKHINE Anastasia | - | 5% | 23% | 40% | 25% | 6% | - |
34 | PRIHODKO Nina | - | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 33% | 9% |
35 | ZOU You yang (Yoyo) | 11% | 38% | 37% | 13% | 1% | - | |
36 | LI Yixin Catherine | 16% | 44% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - | |
37 | BANNERMAN Courtney | 3% | 23% | 42% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
38 | WANG Sabrina | 10% | 35% | 38% | 15% | 2% | ||
39 | BYK Laura | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 32% | 11% | 1% |
40 | MARCHANT Morgan | 9% | 39% | 38% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
41 | GLOVER Cynthia E. | - | 3% | 19% | 42% | 30% | 6% | |
42 | LI Alice | 7% | 31% | 39% | 19% | 4% | - | |
43 | PAN Angela | 21% | 40% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | |
44 | BALSKUS Sophia | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 18% | 3% | |
45 | MASTRONARDI Laura | 12% | 43% | 37% | 7% | 1% | - | |
46 | JONES Brenda L. | - | 4% | 24% | 42% | 25% | 5% | |
47 | CONNOLLY Natasha | 5% | 36% | 40% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
48 | BYRON Karen J. | 1% | 8% | 30% | 39% | 20% | 2% | - |
49 | WILLIAMSON Beatrix | - | 4% | 25% | 42% | 24% | 4% | - |
50 | BENNETT Olivia | 1% | 12% | 33% | 36% | 16% | 2% | - |
51 | SAAL Anna | - | 3% | 17% | 43% | 37% | ||
52 | ZUCKER Emily A. | 14% | 39% | 35% | 11% | 1% | ||
53 | SIZER Courtney | 48% | 41% | 10% | 1% | - | - | |
54 | KAUR Manroop | 4% | 25% | 43% | 25% | 4% | - | |
55 | JENSEN MJ | 11% | 36% | 37% | 14% | 2% | - | |
56 | CHOY Ida | 1% | 7% | 27% | 40% | 21% | 4% | |
56 | REISNER Gabriella | 42% | 43% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
58 | STAVISKY Natalia | - | < 1% | 1% | 10% | 32% | 40% | 16% |
59 | GARLOCK Lilianne | 2% | 18% | 48% | 27% | 6% | - | - |
60 | SONG Charlotte | 50% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
61 | STOCKTON Catherine | 62% | 32% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
62 | BOWIE Charlotta | < 1% | 5% | 24% | 44% | 23% | 3% | |
63 | MILLER Cassandra | 96% | 4% | - | - | - | - | |
64 | DAGLI Sai | 47% | 40% | 12% | 1% | - | - | |
64 | FOMINA Polina | 42% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - | - | |
66 | ROWLAND May | 10% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | |
67 | LIU Ilana | 64% | 31% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
68 | DANNHAUSER Carol A. | 24% | 44% | 26% | 6% | - | - |
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.