2019 USA Fencing Anaheim SJCC Tournament

Junior Women's Épée

Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 8:30 AM

Anaheim , CA - Anaheim, CA, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

Explore the probability of achieving at least a certain number of victories in the pool 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 100% 100% 100% 96% 81% 47% 13%
2 KETKAR Ketki 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 66% 25%
3 SHAMSIAN Shaya 100% 100% 94% 72% 34% 7%
3 GAO Aretha R. 100% 98% 87% 59% 25% 5%
5 YEU Irene 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 81% 36%
6 CHU Audrey 100% 99% 93% 73% 40% 13% 2%
7 ZAFFT Tatiana M. 100% 100% 100% 96% 76% 34%
8 KETKAR Mallika 100% 100% 99% 90% 66% 30% 6%
9 WOLF Isabella A. 100% 100% 95% 76% 43% 14% 2%
10 CHAN Cheri K. 100% 100% 97% 80% 44% 11%
11 LEE Sumin 100% 100% 99% 91% 68% 33% 7%
12 PROCTOR Sara J. 100% 100% 100% 98% 87% 57% 19%
13 LEE Michelle 100% 99% 92% 68% 31% 6%
14 LEUNG Natalie 100% 100% 100% 98% 86% 55% 17%
15 CHAN Elizabeth 100% 100% 99% 90% 65% 30% 6%
16 WU Amelia 100% 100% 99% 90% 62% 22%
17 MACHULSKY Leehi 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 69% 23%
18 RUNIONS Emersyn 100% 100% 98% 87% 59% 24% 4%
19 BALAKRISHNAN Monica S. 100% 100% 96% 80% 45% 12%
20 GEBALA Natalie Brooke A. 100% 100% 100% 95% 78% 45% 12%
21 GERARDIN Marie 100% 98% 85% 54% 21% 5% -
22 ZUHARS Renee A. 100% 100% 100% 97% 86% 57% 19%
23 KWON Athina 100% 100% 96% 80% 45% 11%
24 MEHROTRA Anya 100% 99% 87% 57% 22% 3%
25 WANG Nora 100% 100% 99% 91% 68% 32% 7%
26 LEANG Andrea K. 100% 100% 97% 82% 51% 19% 3%
27 TAYLOR Audrey Y. 100% 100% 100% 98% 88% 59% 20%
28 BECCHINA Olivia 100% 99% 86% 56% 23% 5% -
29 STOJANOVIC Mina 100% 88% 51% 17% 3% -
30 KIMURA Kimberley H. 100% 100% 96% 77% 40% 8%
31 KIM Diane E. 100% 99% 92% 70% 34% 8%
32 LEANG Priscilla Y. 100% 99% 88% 56% 20% 3%
33 YOUNG Ashley 100% 99% 87% 56% 20% 3%
34 KANG Dahyun 100% 99% 90% 62% 26% 6% 1%
35 ZHANG Tina 100% 100% 98% 88% 57% 18%
36 TONCHEVA Victoria M. 100% 100% 94% 72% 34% 7%
37 LIU Jennifer L. 100% 98% 85% 55% 21% 4%
37 BROOKS Tean R. 100% 99% 92% 69% 34% 8%
39 CHAN Paree A. 100% 100% 95% 71% 30% 5% -
40 MYERS A Helen Sophia 100% 99% 88% 57% 24% 5% -
41 BARNES Olivia R. 100% 97% 80% 45% 14% 2%
42 BRILL Sophie 100% 100% 96% 79% 43% 11%
43 LIU Christina A. 100% 100% 96% 77% 44% 14% 2%
44 KOWALSKY Rachel A. 100% 100% 99% 87% 53% 16% 2%
45 MARTUS Cosima O. 100% 100% 99% 95% 75% 39% 9%
46 RUSSELL Renata 100% 98% 87% 58% 25% 6% 1%
47 ERTAS Eileen 100% 97% 75% 39% 12% 2% -
48 LAVERY Chloe K. 100% 99% 91% 63% 27% 6% 1%
49 YAMAGUCHI Kate M. 100% 100% 98% 89% 64% 28% 5%
50 GU Sarah 100% 100% 96% 78% 43% 13% 2%
51 TYAGI Octavia I. 100% 99% 90% 64% 29% 7% -
51 SINHA Zara 100% 51% 13% 2% - - -
53 CAO Catherine H. 100% 99% 91% 65% 29% 7% 1%
54 JIN Jasmine 100% 98% 82% 47% 14% 2%
55 GOLDBERG Sophie C. 100% 69% 25% 5% - -
56 SON Katherine (Injee) 100% 88% 55% 21% 4% -
57 LIEBER Josephine A. 100% 92% 64% 28% 7% 1% -
58 LEE Olive 100% 99% 91% 67% 33% 9% 1%
59 NGUYEN Kaylin A. 100% 100% 99% 90% 65% 28% 5%
60 MORGAN Lexiss M. 100% 100% 98% 86% 55% 20% 3%
61 JI Catherine 100% 99% 90% 55% 18% 2% -
62 MYERS Jeanelle Christina A. 100% 61% 20% 3% - -
63 JIANG Corina 100% 93% 62% 25% 5% -
64 QURESHI Aafreen 100% 99% 91% 65% 31% 8% 1%
65 DU Angela 100% 73% 28% 6% 1% - -
66 CHOI Eunice 100% 94% 69% 33% 9% 1% -
67 BONDAR Nika 100% 78% 28% 5% - - -
68 SMIK Leonie A. 100% 91% 63% 28% 7% 1%
69 UPPALAPATI Sriya 100% 81% 40% 11% 1% -
70 TSANG JAFFE Avi 100% 78% 36% 9% 1% -
71 DING Sandra 100% 92% 59% 22% 4% - -
72 YU Bailey 100% 82% 40% 11% 1% -
73 JIANG Claire 100% 72% 30% 7% 1% -
74 HUANG audrey 100% 76% 33% 7% 1% - -
75 STRATTON Alexia 100% 37% 6% 1% - - -
76 SHERTZ Kira E. 100% 78% 37% 10% 2% - -
77 FUNG Carina W. 100% 70% 28% 6% 1% - -
78 DHILLON Ria 100% 55% 12% 1% - - -
79 BRYANT Michelle 100% 45% 10% 1% - - -

Explanation

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.