Kansas City Convention Center - Kansas City, MO, 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 | HANSEN Kira | - | - | - | 5% | 24% | 45% | 26% |
2 | MARCHANT Sandra M. | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 38% | 50% |
3 | MARSH Janet L. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 39% | 35% | 10% |
3 | GLOVER Cynthia E. | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 5% |
5 | WOLF Lisa A. | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 39% | 19% | 3% |
6 | SUCHOSKI Annika | - | 3% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
7 | KANESHIGE Christina Y. | - | - | 4% | 15% | 33% | 34% | 14% |
8 | ASHER Valerie | - | - | 1% | 7% | 31% | 43% | 18% |
9 | POLANICHKA Nicole | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 39% | 48% |
10 | MONTOYA Amy C. | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 5% |
11 | FOELLMER Kristin | - | - | - | 1% | 6% | 33% | 60% |
12 | DUNSEATH Lauren M. | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% |
13 | CHANG Heidi | - | - | 2% | 14% | 36% | 38% | 10% |
14 | BYRON Karen J. | 15% | 34% | 32% | 15% | 4% | < 1% | - |
15 | ROVATI Caterina | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 40% | 45% |
16 | TOLLEY Toby | - | - | 5% | 21% | 41% | 28% | 5% |
17 | LAWSON Marie A. | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 8% |
18 | HOFMAN Haejung | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 5% |
19 | SCHMID Carola K. | - | - | 3% | 18% | 39% | 33% | 7% |
20 | CHRISTIAN Lyn T. | - | 4% | 22% | 43% | 25% | 5% | - |
21 | JEANDHEUR Carole A. | - | 3% | 20% | 39% | 29% | 8% | 1% |
22 | LORENTSON Dawn M. | - | - | 5% | 22% | 39% | 28% | 5% |
23 | MORET Brighid E. | 2% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 19% | 5% | 1% |
24 | ZOLINSKI Sarah E. | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 40% | 44% |
25 | BÉLANGER Marie-Claire | - | 4% | 15% | 30% | 31% | 16% | 3% |
26 | UST Daisy | 1% | 11% | 32% | 36% | 16% | 3% | - |
27 | MCCOY Lauren | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 4% |
28 | HUZEL Lisa | - | - | 5% | 22% | 41% | 27% | 4% |
29 | FELSENHELD Donna B. | 19% | 45% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
30 | HABERKERN Kundry E. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 36% | 16% |
31 | RICH Caroline B. | 1% | 10% | 31% | 37% | 18% | 4% | - |
32 | SANCHEZ-EMDEN Marta | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 4% |
33 | GORDET Cristina G. | - | 4% | 21% | 38% | 28% | 8% | 1% |
34 | REVAK Kelly | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 40% | 22% | 3% |
35 | BRODEUR Andrea | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
36 | FINNEGAN Ellen M. | - | 2% | 14% | 32% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
37 | WANG Xiangling (Christina) | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
38 | ROWLAND May | - | 8% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 6% | - |
39 | PAINE Cheryl A. | 1% | 8% | 23% | 33% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
40 | BELAOUSSOFF Vera | - | 5% | 19% | 33% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
41 | BOWIE Charlotta | - | 3% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
42 | GRIFFIN Martha A. | 2% | 21% | 38% | 28% | 10% | 1% | - |
42 | SWENSON Alexandra | 1% | 11% | 34% | 36% | 15% | 2% | - |
44 | JENSEN MJ | 4% | 26% | 44% | 22% | 4% | - | - |
45 | TELLES Anna | 1% | 8% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
46 | AMIRAULT Amy | 28% | 45% | 22% | 5% | - | - | - |
47 | COMES Rita | 1% | 10% | 31% | 37% | 17% | 3% | - |
48 | SCHLIEP Anna J. | 1% | 15% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - |
49 | TASKER Monisha B. | 1% | 12% | 37% | 35% | 13% | 2% | - |
50 | SMITH Dorothy | - | 10% | 30% | 36% | 19% | 4% | - |
51 | WIESSLER-HUGHES Linda | 3% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 14% | 3% | - |
52 | LUGGREN Eva | 47% | 41% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
53 | REED Juliya | 64% | 31% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
54 | JORGENSEN Rebekah | 37% | 41% | 18% | 4% | - | - | - |
55 | COLEMAN Kristen | 79% | 19% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
56 | DANNHAUSER Carol A. | 28% | 47% | 21% | 3% | - | - | - |
56 | SETO Karen | 27% | 42% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
58 | ONTIVEROS Sara D. | 34% | 44% | 18% | 3% | - | - | - |
59 | NOLLNER Jennifer R. | 7% | 37% | 38% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
60 | BLASKO Judit | 29% | 47% | 21% | 3% | - | - | - |
61 | REAM Jann L. | 13% | 37% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
62 | BROWN Trish M. | 25% | 45% | 24% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
63 | OSTERBAUER Nancy K. | 20% | 50% | 25% | 5% | - | - | - |
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.