Salt Lake City, UT - Salt Lake City, UT, 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 | DEMING Clare L. | - | - | 2% | 12% | 34% | 39% | 13% |
2 | FOLEY Eileen | - | - | 1% | 5% | 21% | 42% | 31% |
3 | ENOCHS Liz | - | - | 2% | 15% | 36% | 35% | 12% |
3 | ALTMAN Leigh | - | 4% | 21% | 42% | 27% | 6% | |
5 | JOHNSON Laura S. | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 42% | 42% |
6 | BERMAN Frauke | - | - | 3% | 14% | 34% | 37% | 12% |
7 | WILSON Dawn J. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 41% | 19% |
8 | VANCE Beth S. | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 39% | 19% | 3% |
9 | ZHANG Lynn Y. | 1% | 6% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
10 | SMITH Chaz V. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 34% | 41% | 16% |
11 | SHINN-CUNNINGHAM Barbara | - | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 42% | 28% |
12 | RANDALL Cathleen Coyle | - | 3% | 18% | 35% | 31% | 12% | 2% |
13 | SIERRA Kate | - | 2% | 12% | 33% | 39% | 14% | |
14 | KIM Nam Heui | 10% | 33% | 37% | 17% | 3% | - | |
15 | GRAJALES Emily K. | - | 5% | 24% | 40% | 25% | 6% | 1% |
16 | LAPP Laurie E. | 5% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% | |
17 | OBLONSKY Natalia | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 4% |
18 | DUNN Linda J. J. | - | - | 5% | 22% | 43% | 30% | |
18 | FREYRE Rebecca R. | 10% | 39% | 38% | 11% | 1% | - | |
20 | KING Robin E. | - | - | 5% | 20% | 37% | 30% | 8% |
21 | MARENTES Blanca E. | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
22 | YANG Jenny J. | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 1% |
23 | WILLEMSE Jamie | 9% | 31% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
24 | GORDON Sharon | 2% | 19% | 41% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - |
25 | LORANG Kim L. | 1% | 8% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
26 | GLUCK Myriam | - | - | 5% | 25% | 45% | 25% | |
27 | GOMES Gisela | 29% | 44% | 22% | 5% | - | - | |
28 | HANAMOTO Claire M. | - | 11% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - |
29 | STARR Cynthia (Cindy) H. | 27% | 42% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | |
30 | LUM Karen | 6% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - |
31 | HAYWARD Tammy | 85% | 14% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
32 | DEGEN Anita L. | 30% | 44% | 21% | 5% | - | - | - |
33 | DENNER Jasmina | - | - | 4% | 22% | 46% | 28% | |
34 | WU Yik Chun | 2% | 13% | 33% | 35% | 15% | 2% | |
35 | JEAN Emmanuelle C. | 14% | 40% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - | |
36 | WALTER Joanne | 16% | 37% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
37 | MAUL Judy L. | 3% | 33% | 41% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
38 | DUDLEY Gayle | 49% | 40% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
39 | WEBB Maud | 14% | 43% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
40 | DAHL Naomi V. | 18% | 41% | 30% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
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.