Chelsea Piers Athletic Club - Stamford, CT, 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 | WANG YiXi | - | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 41% | 21% |
| 2 | YANG Emma | - | - | - | 4% | 20% | 43% | 33% |
| 3 | YANG Iris | - | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 42% | 27% |
| 3 | YURKOVA Mariia | - | - | 2% | 13% | 35% | 38% | 12% |
| 5 | SHA Yi Ling | - | - | 3% | 18% | 38% | 33% | 7% |
| 6 | CHOW Annabelle | - | - | - | 4% | 20% | 44% | 32% |
| 7 | MI Aileen | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 37% | 53% |
| 8 | DAI Zizhuo (Zizi) | - | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 34% | 11% |
| 9 | PEVZNER Nicole | - | - | 6% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 6% |
| 10 | WANG Joanna | - | - | 6% | 25% | 39% | 25% | 5% |
| 11 | DOROSHKEVICH Taisiia | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 25% |
| 12 | SHENG Chuxi | - | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 41% | 18% |
| 13 | CHEN Renee | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 42% | 41% |
| 14 | WANG Jasmine | - | - | 6% | 27% | 40% | 23% | 4% |
| 15 | BABIAC Julia | - | 2% | 17% | 37% | 31% | 11% | 1% |
| 16 | LI Han (Helina) | - | 4% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
| 17 | ROZPEDOWSKI Claire | - | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 39% | 19% |
| 18 | WANG CAROL | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 39% | 20% | 3% |
| 19 | JOO Natalie | - | 2% | 15% | 36% | 32% | 13% | 2% |
| 20 | FENG Grace | - | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 38% | 13% |
| 21 | SHENG Katherine | - | 5% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
| 22 | CHO Emily (Euran) | - | - | - | 4% | 20% | 43% | 32% |
| 23 | LI Eleanor | - | - | 6% | 22% | 37% | 28% | 7% |
| 24 | FIELD Elizabeth | 1% | 10% | 30% | 36% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 25 | MARKOVSKY Nina | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 39% | 23% | 5% |
| 26 | FENG Audrey | - | 1% | 11% | 31% | 35% | 18% | 3% |
| 27 | CASCONE Emily | - | - | 4% | 20% | 39% | 30% | 7% |
| 28 | BERGEL Daphne | 2% | 16% | 38% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 29 | FIELD Julianna | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 5% |
| 30 | SHIM Grace J. | - | - | 7% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 5% |
| 31 | ZHENG Julie | - | - | 4% | 20% | 39% | 30% | 8% |
| 32 | LI Katerina | 1% | 11% | 42% | 34% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 33 | HARRIS Julia | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 39% | 20% | 3% |
| 34 | ROBERTS Anastasia | 7% | 40% | 37% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 35 | WHELAN Amelia | - | 4% | 29% | 40% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 36 | LIU Yinuo | 6% | 61% | 28% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 37 | MCSHERRY Ava | - | - | 5% | 22% | 38% | 28% | 7% |
| 38 | WANG Amabel | - | 1% | 11% | 34% | 37% | 15% | 2% |
| 39 | DIMATULAC Elise Ann | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 33% | 12% | 1% |
| 40 | YU Jane | - | 4% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
| 41 | WANG Sabrina | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 33% | 12% | 1% |
| 42 | PAULUS Isabella | - | 4% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
| 43 | ZELDIN Nadia | - | 1% | 14% | 36% | 34% | 13% | 2% |
| 44 | PUOPOLO Mia | 1% | 21% | 41% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 45 | ORBE-AUSTIN Nia | 3% | 31% | 44% | 19% | 3% | - | - |
| 46 | KO Darby | 18% | 56% | 23% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 47 | JIANG Chloe | 1% | 22% | 42% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 48 | KIM Claire | 1% | 11% | 35% | 36% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 49 | HAO Danica | - | 2% | 17% | 36% | 31% | 12% | 2% |
| 50 | LIN Yunong | 3% | 32% | 44% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 51 | WAN Celine | 51% | 43% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
| 52 | HUANG Sophie | 4% | 30% | 39% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 53 | GREENLEAF Ella | 5% | 52% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 54 | LI Savannah | 11% | 42% | 35% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 55 | NICUDEMUS Bryella | 56% | 36% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 56 | ZHANG Jaffani | 86% | 14% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 57 | GUPTA-NWANZE Nisa | 93% | 7% | - | - | - | - | - |
| 58 | PRINZ-STRATEMAN Matilda | 79% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 59 | ZHOU Angela | 69% | 27% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 60 | SHANG Arianna | 69% | 27% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 61 | MCDERMOTT Catherine | 31% | 55% | 13% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 61 | MAIA ZUCKERMAN Julia | 65% | 32% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
| 63 | LAVINE Samantha | 89% | 11% | - | - | - | - | - |
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.