Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center - National Harbor, MD, 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 | ENRIQUEZ Bianca Perla | - | - | 3% | 19% | 49% | 29% | |
| 2 | ZHENG Annalyn | - | - | 2% | 15% | 46% | 37% | |
| 3 | LUO lucy | - | - | 1% | 13% | 42% | 44% | |
| 3 | YANG Olivia | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 43% | 25% | |
| 5 | CHENG Audrey | - | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 39% | 21% |
| 6 | XING Melly | - | - | - | 3% | 17% | 42% | 38% |
| 7 | MA Sophia | - | 1% | 10% | 28% | 37% | 20% | 4% |
| 8 | ZHANG Selina | - | - | 4% | 23% | 48% | 25% | |
| 9 | SHEN Gloria | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 41% | 43% |
| 10 | CHAN Jolene | - | - | 2% | 13% | 46% | 39% | |
| 11 | KHETPAL Aalia | - | 2% | 14% | 40% | 36% | 9% | |
| 12 | KASHUBA Mila | 1% | 10% | 31% | 38% | 18% | 3% | |
| 13 | LIU Anya | - | 1% | 5% | 21% | 38% | 29% | 7% |
| 14 | MCCLAIN Madison | 2% | 12% | 31% | 35% | 17% | 3% | |
| 15 | WANG Joann | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 41% | 31% | |
| 16 | SAVIOZ Naomi | 1% | 9% | 28% | 36% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 17 | JU Victoria | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 37% | 20% | 3% |
| 18 | WANG Christina | - | - | 3% | 15% | 36% | 36% | 10% |
| 19 | ZHU Alivia | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 42% | 20% | |
| 20 | KIM Lael | 16% | 36% | 32% | 13% | 3% | < 1% | |
| 21 | HUANG Emma | - | 4% | 20% | 38% | 29% | 8% | - |
| 22 | BYK Karalina | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 36% | 54% |
| 23 | HUANG Jiayu | 3% | 18% | 38% | 31% | 9% | 1% | |
| 24 | LIU Sophia | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 29% | 8% | |
| 25 | CHANG Eleanor | - | 7% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
| 26 | CLOUD Chrystie | 3% | 17% | 35% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 27 | WU Gloria | 3% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 13% | 2% | |
| 28 | ZHANG Ziru | 4% | 24% | 42% | 25% | 5% | - | |
| 29 | LIU Bella | 11% | 32% | 35% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 30 | FENG Christy | 17% | 41% | 30% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 31 | JAZWINSKI Ivy | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 42% | 29% | |
| 32 | LI Beatrice | 1% | 10% | 33% | 40% | 14% | 2% | |
| 33 | DONG Audrey | 13% | 34% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | |
| 34 | ELLISON Ingrid | - | 2% | 13% | 39% | 37% | 9% | |
| 35 | ELNAGGAR lea | 3% | 21% | 41% | 28% | 6% | - | |
| 36 | KIM Rylie | 1% | 6% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
| 36 | MCCLAIN Grayce | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
| 38 | CHEN Arianna | - | - | 1% | 10% | 34% | 41% | 14% |
| 39 | MA Laurie | 19% | 49% | 28% | 4% | - | - | |
| 40 | GONG Maggie | 3% | 23% | 44% | 25% | 5% | - | |
| 41 | WANG Sally | 3% | 20% | 38% | 29% | 9% | 1% | |
| 42 | CULLIVAN Elise | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
| 43 | YAO Emma | - | 5% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
| 44 | MILLER Sydney | 14% | 36% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 44 | SHI Cathy | 6% | 29% | 37% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 46 | HOO Bethia | 21% | 44% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 47 | WANG Manny | 4% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 2% | |
| 48 | TELEB Amina | 40% | 43% | 15% | 2% | - | - | |
| 49 | TANG Clementine | 36% | 42% | 18% | 3% | - | - | |
| 50 | CLOUD Cailynn | 25% | 45% | 24% | 5% | - | - | |
| 51 | WEST Mira | 28% | 46% | 22% | 4% | - | - | |
| 52 | LI Jiacheng | - | 11% | 39% | 39% | 9% | 1% | |
| 53 | PAK Emmalyn | 1% | 9% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 54 | HALLEY Jacqueline | 2% | 12% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 5% | - |
| 55 | LI Catherine | 25% | 42% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 56 | ZHAO Sophia | - | 4% | 18% | 34% | 31% | 12% | 1% |
| 57 | LI YE Ruhan | 10% | 36% | 37% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 58 | XU Olivia | 1% | 11% | 37% | 37% | 13% | 1% | |
| 59 | WANG Kelly | 7% | 26% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% | |
| 60 | JIANG Arwen | 28% | 44% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 61 | CAMELLINI Emily | 29% | 44% | 23% | 4% | - | - | |
| 62 | MAYES-POURNARAS Zara | 21% | 50% | 25% | 4% | - | - | |
| 63 | NAUTIYAL Asha | 31% | 44% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 64 | KERSON Emma | 48% | 39% | 12% | 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.