Anaheim , CA - Anaheim, CA, 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 | BULAVKO Sonia | - | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 34% | 13% |
2 | KETKAR Ketki | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 41% | 25% |
3 | SHAMSIAN Shaya | - | 5% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 7% | |
3 | GAO Aretha R. | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% | |
5 | YEU Irene | - | - | - | 2% | 17% | 45% | 36% |
6 | CHU Audrey | 1% | 6% | 20% | 32% | 27% | 11% | 2% |
7 | ZAFFT Tatiana M. | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 34% | |
8 | KETKAR Mallika | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 6% |
9 | WOLF Isabella A. | - | 5% | 19% | 33% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
10 | CHAN Cheri K. | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 33% | 11% | |
11 | LEE Sumin | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 7% |
12 | PROCTOR Sara J. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 38% | 19% |
13 | LEE Michelle | 1% | 7% | 25% | 37% | 25% | 6% | |
14 | LEUNG Natalie | - | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 38% | 17% |
15 | CHAN Elizabeth | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 6% |
16 | WU Amelia | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 40% | 22% | |
17 | MACHULSKY Leehi | - | - | - | 5% | 25% | 47% | 23% |
18 | RUNIONS Emersyn | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 4% |
19 | BALAKRISHNAN Monica S. | - | 3% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 12% | |
20 | GEBALA Natalie Brooke A. | - | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 33% | 12% |
21 | GERARDIN Marie | 2% | 13% | 31% | 33% | 17% | 4% | - |
22 | ZUHARS Renee A. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 37% | 19% |
23 | KWON Athina | - | 3% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 11% | |
24 | MEHROTRA Anya | 1% | 11% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 3% | |
25 | WANG Nora | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 35% | 25% | 7% |
26 | LEANG Andrea K. | - | 3% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
27 | TAYLOR Audrey Y. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 20% |
28 | BECCHINA Olivia | 1% | 12% | 31% | 33% | 18% | 5% | - |
29 | STOJANOVIC Mina | 12% | 36% | 34% | 14% | 2% | - | |
30 | KIMURA Kimberley H. | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 8% | |
31 | KIM Diane E. | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 27% | 8% | |
32 | LEANG Priscilla Y. | 1% | 11% | 32% | 36% | 17% | 3% | |
33 | YOUNG Ashley | 1% | 11% | 31% | 36% | 17% | 3% | |
34 | KANG Dahyun | 1% | 9% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 5% | 1% |
35 | ZHANG Tina | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 39% | 18% | |
36 | TONCHEVA Victoria M. | - | 6% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 7% | |
37 | LIU Jennifer L. | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 4% | |
37 | BROOKS Tean R. | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 8% | |
39 | CHAN Paree A. | - | 5% | 24% | 41% | 25% | 5% | - |
40 | MYERS A Helen Sophia | 1% | 12% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 5% | - |
41 | BARNES Olivia R. | 3% | 17% | 36% | 31% | 12% | 2% | |
42 | BRILL Sophie | - | 3% | 17% | 36% | 33% | 11% | |
43 | LIU Christina A. | - | 4% | 18% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
44 | KOWALSKY Rachel A. | - | 1% | 12% | 34% | 37% | 14% | 2% |
45 | MARTUS Cosima O. | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 9% |
46 | RUSSELL Renata | 2% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 19% | 5% | 1% |
47 | ERTAS Eileen | 3% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
48 | LAVERY Chloe K. | 1% | 9% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
49 | YAMAGUCHI Kate M. | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 5% |
50 | GU Sarah | - | 4% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% |
51 | TYAGI Octavia I. | 1% | 9% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 6% | - |
51 | SINHA Zara | 49% | 38% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
53 | CAO Catherine H. | 1% | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
54 | JIN Jasmine | 2% | 16% | 35% | 32% | 13% | 2% | |
55 | GOLDBERG Sophie C. | 31% | 44% | 21% | 4% | - | - | |
56 | SON Katherine (Injee) | 12% | 33% | 34% | 17% | 4% | - | |
57 | LIEBER Josephine A. | 8% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
58 | LEE Olive | 1% | 8% | 25% | 34% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
59 | NGUYEN Kaylin A. | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 5% |
60 | MORGAN Lexiss M. | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 35% | 17% | 3% |
61 | JI Catherine | 1% | 10% | 35% | 37% | 15% | 2% | - |
62 | MYERS Jeanelle Christina A. | 39% | 41% | 16% | 3% | - | - | |
63 | JIANG Corina | 7% | 30% | 37% | 20% | 5% | - | |
64 | QURESHI Aafreen | 1% | 8% | 26% | 34% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
65 | DU Angela | 27% | 45% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
66 | CHOI Eunice | 6% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
67 | BONDAR Nika | 22% | 49% | 24% | 4% | - | - | - |
68 | SMIK Leonie A. | 9% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% | |
69 | UPPALAPATI Sriya | 19% | 41% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - | |
70 | TSANG JAFFE Avi | 22% | 42% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - | |
71 | DING Sandra | 8% | 34% | 37% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
72 | YU Bailey | 18% | 42% | 30% | 9% | 1% | - | |
73 | JIANG Claire | 28% | 42% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | |
74 | HUANG audrey | 24% | 44% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
75 | STRATTON Alexia | 63% | 31% | 6% | 1% | - | - | - |
76 | SHERTZ Kira E. | 22% | 40% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
77 | FUNG Carina W. | 30% | 42% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
78 | DHILLON Ria | 45% | 43% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
79 | BRYANT Michelle | 55% | 35% | 9% | 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.