Cleveland, OH - Cleveland, OH, 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 | KHAMIS Yasmine A. | - | - | - | - | 1% | 13% | 87% |
2 | NELSON-LOVE Lily B. | - | - | - | 2% | 21% | 77% | |
3 | MEHROTRA Anya | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 41% | 43% |
3 | XIAO Ruien | - | 2% | 17% | 38% | 33% | 10% | |
5 | LEACH Meka A. | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 18% | |
6 | CALDERA Lexi I. | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 42% | 21% | |
7 | XUAN Nicole J. | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 38% | 28% | 6% |
8 | YU Nicole J. | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 40% | 23% | 1% |
9 | YIN Julia | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 37% | 14% | |
10 | MACHULSKY Leehi | - | - | - | - | - | 10% | 89% |
11 | DOROSHKEVICH Victoriia | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 42% | 39% |
12 | ZHANG Tina | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 42% | 39% |
13 | GAJJALA Sharika R. | 1% | 6% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 6% | |
14 | LUO Ashley | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 33% | 10% | |
15 | CHERNYSHOVA Victoria | - | - | 5% | 22% | 44% | 29% | |
16 | HSU Adele Y. | - | 9% | 31% | 36% | 19% | 4% | - |
17 | REMEZA Alissa | - | - | 5% | 20% | 37% | 30% | 7% |
18 | CHERNIS Zoe C. | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 41% | 42% |
19 | GU Sarah | - | - | - | 4% | 21% | 43% | 32% |
20 | RUNIONS Emersyn | - | - | - | 4% | 20% | 43% | 33% |
21 | MUELLER Emma M. | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 33% | 13% | 2% |
22 | ALEXANDROV Katherine S. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 36% | 12% |
24 | TAYLOR Kiera S. | - | 6% | 24% | 37% | 26% | 7% | |
26 | ZIGALO Elizabeth | 1% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 16% | 3% | |
27 | FALLON Kyle R. | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 33% | 29% | 10% |
27 | YAO KATHARINE | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 41% | 22% | 4% |
29 | NGUYEN Tallulah | - | 7% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 6% | - |
30 | MALLAVARPU Aarthi C. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 33% | 37% | 15% |
31 | BOHRER Shira | 1% | 9% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - |
32 | KIM Zoe L. | - | - | 5% | 23% | 46% | 26% | |
33 | LEE Yedda | - | - | 3% | 14% | 34% | 37% | 11% |
34 | SWENSON Nikita G. | 2% | 11% | 27% | 33% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
35 | PEHLIVANI Zara | - | 5% | 25% | 43% | 25% | 2% | |
36 | REID Anousheh | - | 1% | 8% | 31% | 42% | 18% | |
37 | LAN Alice S. | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 40% | 19% | |
38 | SMOTRITSKY Mia | 1% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 5% | - |
39 | CHIRASHNYA Noya | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 32% | 12% | 1% |
40 | KAUSHISH Sara | - | 3% | 19% | 41% | 28% | 7% | 1% |
41 | PADHYE Tanishka | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 5% |
43 | GORNOVSKY Abigail | 1% | 8% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 5% | 1% |
44 | ZHANG Victoria R. | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 39% | 22% | 1% |
45 | DENG Annie | - | 4% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% |
46 | KIM Jayna | 9% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
47 | SKOURLETOS Angelina | 1% | 12% | 31% | 35% | 18% | 3% | |
48 | LI Suri | - | 7% | 29% | 42% | 21% | 2% | |
49 | QU ZHUOYING | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 11% |
50 | HU Chelsea | 14% | 35% | 32% | 15% | 4% | - | - |
50 | LEE Rachel | - | 1% | 11% | 31% | 36% | 17% | 3% |
52 | LEE Natasha | - | 5% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
52 | DONG Ava | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 4% |
54 | AI Amy | - | - | 1% | 8% | 31% | 47% | 13% |
55 | WITTER Catherine A. | - | 8% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - |
56 | ANDERSON Claire | 1% | 10% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 4% | - |
57 | LI Bingqi | - | 4% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 10% | |
58 | HESS Heidi J. | - | 5% | 22% | 37% | 28% | 8% | |
59 | ELSTON Sophia | 3% | 18% | 39% | 30% | 9% | 1% | |
60 | HAFEEZ Hiba | 1% | 14% | 38% | 35% | 11% | - | |
61 | SHARMA Sanvi | - | 1% | 6% | 19% | 34% | 30% | 10% |
62 | CHAWLA Aanya | 9% | 37% | 36% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
64 | MENDOZA zoie | 2% | 17% | 35% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - |
65 | HAFEEZ Hania | 1% | 10% | 33% | 37% | 17% | 2% | |
66 | ODOM Megan A. | 9% | 36% | 38% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
67 | GREGORY Aleksandra | 2% | 11% | 27% | 32% | 20% | 7% | 1% |
68 | ZHENG Linden | 7% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - |
69 | PRIHODKO Nina | 2% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 3% | - |
70 | MACEY Hadley | 9% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 5% | - | - |
71 | FURMAN Maria | 8% | 37% | 37% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
72 | NGUYEN Jolie T. | - | - | 4% | 17% | 36% | 34% | 10% |
73 | STERR Isabella M. | 5% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 7% | 1% | |
74 | CHISHOLM Phoebe C. | - | 3% | 20% | 39% | 30% | 7% | |
75 | RANDLEMAN Teresa | - | 5% | 21% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
76 | LAM Amelia Paige | 1% | 25% | 41% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
77 | CAFASSO Natalya | 1% | 10% | 32% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - |
78 | HUANG Lanlan | 34% | 47% | 17% | 2% | - | - | |
79 | QIU Emily | 30% | 45% | 21% | 4% | - | - | |
80 | LEE Olivia | 11% | 38% | 37% | 13% | 2% | - | |
81 | SUN Hanya | 14% | 37% | 34% | 13% | 2% | - | |
82 | WANG Angelina | 37% | 44% | 17% | 3% | - | - | |
83 | BARCLAY Khyri | 7% | 27% | 37% | 23% | 6% | - | |
84 | MIRZA Annoshae | 9% | 39% | 37% | 13% | 2% | - | |
85 | PAN Iris | 52% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
86 | YOU Isabel B. | 14% | 35% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
87 | SU Evelyn | - | 6% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 6% | - |
88 | ZHU Serene M. | 4% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% | - |
89 | XIA Amy | 1% | 6% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
90 | HU Yutong | 9% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
91 | PULLEN Ayah | 11% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
92 | UMANSKIY Ilana E. | 44% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
93 | TASIKAS Irena | 10% | 35% | 36% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
94 | SPRINGER Sierra | 7% | 33% | 41% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
95 | LIU Nicole | 52% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
96 | PATELLI Anna Alice | 40% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
97 | SHORI Samantha | 18% | 44% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - | |
98 | SON Erica | 29% | 47% | 20% | 3% | - | - | |
99 | BECKMAN Ana | 21% | 46% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
100 | NELSON Grace E. | 62% | 31% | 6% | 1% | - | - | |
101 | SOIN Kaira | 56% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
102 | ANDERSON Melody | 22% | 40% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
103 | JARONIK Izzie | 59% | 34% | 6% | - | - | - | |
104 | SMUK Alexandra S. | 26% | 43% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | |
105 | YUMIACO Nylah | 7% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
106 | HSIU Elizabeth | 85% | 14% | 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.