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 | TSIMIKLIS Aphrodite | - | - | 2% | 12% | 33% | 38% | 15% |
2 | KAPRAN Anastasia | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 45% | 40% |
3 | FENG Audrey | - | 4% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 12% | |
3 | WANG Joanna | - | - | 1% | 11% | 40% | 48% | |
5 | PARK Lina | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 34% | 57% |
6 | SUN Emily | - | - | - | - | 3% | 24% | 73% |
7 | ZAMLYNNY Maya | - | - | 3% | 20% | 39% | 30% | 7% |
8 | BING Charlotte | - | - | 2% | 17% | 39% | 34% | 8% |
9 | DIMATULAC Elise Ann | - | - | - | 3% | 18% | 43% | 35% |
10 | WANG Amabel | - | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 42% | 24% |
11 | MUMMANENI Samyuta | - | 2% | 17% | 40% | 34% | 7% | |
12 | MAGALLANES GABRIELA | 8% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | |
13 | HAFEZ Tahiyah | - | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 44% | 29% |
14 | FIELD Elizabeth | - | - | 2% | 14% | 41% | 43% | |
15 | EYER Brooke | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 39% | 19% | 2% |
16 | WATSON Evelyn | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 12% | 2% |
17 | DENG Melissa | - | - | - | 1% | 12% | 41% | 46% |
18 | PUTHOFF Olivia | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 39% | 22% | 3% |
19 | HOROWITZ Shuli | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 34% | 9% | |
20 | HSIAO Ariya | 1% | 12% | 33% | 36% | 16% | 2% | < 1% |
21 | CAO Kayla | - | 2% | 12% | 33% | 36% | 15% | 1% |
22 | WANG Dina C. | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 38% | 17% | 2% |
23 | BROWN Lola | - | - | - | 3% | 17% | 42% | 38% |
24 | HUANG Natalie | 1% | 9% | 29% | 38% | 20% | 3% | |
25 | LI Alice | - | 1% | 11% | 35% | 42% | 11% | |
26 | MCFARLANE Asha | - | - | - | 3% | 22% | 52% | 22% |
27 | WANG Carol | - | - | - | - | 3% | 26% | 71% |
28 | PARK Zena | - | 3% | 18% | 41% | 32% | 7% | |
29 | DONG Emily | - | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 34% | 10% |
30 | LIU Yinuo | - | 2% | 15% | 35% | 34% | 13% | 1% |
31 | CULLIVAN Sienna | - | - | 4% | 18% | 39% | 31% | 8% |
32 | CHOI Cara | 16% | 42% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
33 | LI Eleanor | - | - | - | - | 7% | 40% | 52% |
34 | LAI Miranda | 2% | 15% | 38% | 34% | 10% | 1% | |
35 | XIE Lillian | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 40% | 46% |
36 | LI Joy | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 39% | 20% | 3% |
37 | LEO Jenna | - | 4% | 30% | 44% | 19% | 2% | - |
38 | PAN Yiran | 3% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - |
39 | SINGH Evangelina | 1% | 9% | 29% | 38% | 19% | 4% | - |
40 | KRAHE Annika | - | - | 4% | 20% | 38% | 30% | 7% |
41 | HARRIS Julia | - | - | - | 4% | 21% | 49% | 27% |
42 | TELEB Farida | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - |
43 | YU Sophie | 2% | 12% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - |
43 | DONG Iris | - | 2% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 13% | 2% |
45 | LI Savannah | - | 1% | 10% | 29% | 38% | 19% | 2% |
46 | BERGEL Daphne | - | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 42% | 19% |
47 | JIANG Chloe | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 38% | 19% | 3% |
48 | LEE Jeemin | 19% | 39% | 30% | 10% | 2% | - | |
49 | LICHTENSTEIGER Megan | 2% | 15% | 37% | 34% | 10% | 1% | |
50 | YIN Chloe | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 33% | 9% | 1% |
51 | OLAWOYE Jadesola | 1% | 24% | 46% | 24% | 5% | - | - |
52 | ORBE-AUSTIN Nia | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 36% | 16% | 1% |
53 | MOORE Addisyn | - | 9% | 31% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - |
54 | YUAN Aiting | 1% | 9% | 28% | 36% | 20% | 4% | - |
55 | CHUNG Stella | 8% | 33% | 38% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
56 | LIN Yunong | 2% | 18% | 42% | 30% | 8% | 1% | |
57 | KATS Ekaterina | 2% | 15% | 37% | 33% | 12% | 1% | - |
57 | VIJAYAKUMAR Diya | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 4% |
59 | SHIN Elizabeth | 1% | 7% | 25% | 37% | 23% | 6% | - |
60 | LI Junhan | - | 1% | 12% | 35% | 36% | 14% | 2% |
61 | RAFFAELE Nancy | 31% | 43% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
62 | DONG Angela | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 27% | 7% | |
63 | ORRINGER Lottie | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 40% | 21% | 3% |
64 | NWODO Naila | 2% | 13% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - |
65 | BO Iris | - | - | 7% | 31% | 45% | 15% | 1% |
66 | YACOBUCCI Nadia | - | - | 5% | 26% | 42% | 24% | 4% |
67 | ZHU Ella | 1% | 15% | 42% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - |
68 | FIELD Julianna | - | - | 1% | 8% | 37% | 55% | |
69 | BRAVO ORTEGA Astrid | 7% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 7% | 1% | |
70 | HUSSIAN Annabelle | 8% | 43% | 37% | 11% | 1% | - | |
71 | ORBÉ-AUSTIN Maya | - | 2% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
72 | YANG Hanli | 4% | 28% | 40% | 22% | 5% | - | - |
73 | BERTOLINI Mia | 2% | 20% | 39% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - |
74 | BAULIN Zoya | 2% | 39% | 43% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
75 | GUSTAFSSON Anna | 63% | 34% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
76 | KUTATELADZE Anna | 10% | 33% | 37% | 17% | 3% | - | |
77 | KIM Sophia | 16% | 41% | 32% | 10% | 1% | - | |
78 | JANSSEN Juliane | 6% | 26% | 39% | 23% | 6% | - | |
79 | PHAN Logan | 30% | 43% | 22% | 5% | - | - | |
81 | MEITZEN Havah | 14% | 37% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
81 | VENZON Makena Jane | 7% | 41% | 37% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
81 | CHAN Kaitlyn | 45% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
81 | MUNOZ Isabella | 21% | 59% | 18% | 2% | - | - | - |
85 | HAILU Raena | 7% | 29% | 41% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
86 | TAN Isabella | 4% | 23% | 40% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - |
86 | PARANJAPE Ojasvi | 22% | 51% | 23% | 4% | - | - | - |
88 | XU-FERGUSON Victoria | 5% | 29% | 40% | 22% | 5% | - | - |
89 | COLEMAN Samantha | 16% | 39% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
90 | BRADSHAW Tamira | 24% | 42% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
91 | ZHU Shien | 17% | 42% | 30% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
92 | BERGMANN Beatrix | 33% | 44% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
93 | BALIN Julia | < 1% | 7% | 37% | 41% | 13% | 1% | - |
94 | HE Chenxi | < 1% | 3% | 16% | 35% | 34% | 12% | |
95 | PIERSIG Eleanor | 72% | 25% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
96 | JAIN Dia | 58% | 34% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
97 | BLANKS Campbell | 35% | 44% | 18% | 3% | - | - | |
98 | JOSEPH Rachel | 50% | 41% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
98 | LU Zoe | 27% | 43% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
98 | SHARAIEVSKA Mariia | 65% | 30% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
101 | SIMANJUNTAK Jocelyn | 66% | 29% | 4% | - | - | - | |
102 | CHEN Mikayla | 90% | 9% | - | - | - | - | - |
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.