National Harbor, MD - 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 | JOYCE Michaela | - | - | - | - | 3% | 24% | 73% |
| 2 | WATRALL Christina | - | - | - | - | 5% | 31% | 64% |
| 3 | TYLER Syd | - | - | 1% | 5% | 23% | 44% | 27% |
| 3 | PARK Faith K. | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 47% | 40% |
| 5 | ZHU Heidi | - | - | 1% | 7% | 29% | 43% | 20% |
| 6 | MUCSI Angela Lilla | - | - | 4% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 12% |
| 7 | LEE Michelle | - | 6% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 11% | 2% |
| 8 | DING Jiahe (Heidi) | - | - | - | - | 3% | 24% | 73% |
| 9 | CHEN Zhengnan(Janet) | - | - | - | - | 7% | 39% | 54% |
| 10 | ZAFFT Tatiana M. | - | 1% | 7% | 29% | 41% | 20% | 3% |
| 11 | KUZNETSOV Victoria | - | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 42% | 27% |
| 12 | PATURU Meghana | - | - | 1% | 5% | 21% | 42% | 31% |
| 13 | SUN XiaoQi (Angelica) | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 29% | 10% |
| 14 | KIM Erika S. | - | 4% | 26% | 43% | 23% | 4% | - |
| 15 | CHIN Isabella | - | - | 1% | 7% | 30% | 43% | 19% |
| 16 | XIAO Ruien | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 17 | LEUNG Natalie | - | - | - | 2% | 18% | 46% | 33% |
| 18 | LU Junyao | - | - | 3% | 17% | 36% | 32% | 11% |
| 19 | ZUHARS Renee A. | - | - | - | 5% | 23% | 45% | 27% |
| 20 | TOLBA Salma | - | - | 4% | 23% | 44% | 25% | 4% |
| 21 | GABERKORN Nadia | - | - | 4% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 12% |
| 22 | KIM Diane E. | - | - | - | 4% | 23% | 51% | 22% |
| 23 | RUNIONS Emersyn | - | - | - | 5% | 26% | 45% | 23% |
| 24 | YERMOLENKO Liza | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 2% |
| 25 | LOWENSTEIN Penelope J. | - | - | 2% | 15% | 37% | 35% | 11% |
| 26 | REID Anousheh | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
| 27 | REID Sobia | - | 3% | 17% | 38% | 32% | 9% | 1% |
| 28 | LI Bingqi | - | 2% | 17% | 42% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
| 29 | MEHROTRA Anya | - | - | 2% | 13% | 32% | 37% | 15% |
| 30 | LUO Ashley | 1% | 5% | 19% | 33% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
| 31 | PADHYE Tanishka | 1% | 7% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 1% |
| 32 | GAJJALA Sharika R. | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 33 | CHAN Elizabeth | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 29% | 8% |
| 34 | ZHANG Tina | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 8% |
| 34 | NING Emma | - | - | 4% | 20% | 43% | 28% | 6% |
| 36 | WILLIAMS Mckenzie | - | - | 4% | 18% | 39% | 35% | 5% |
| 37 | GU Sarah | - | - | 2% | 14% | 39% | 38% | 7% |
| 38 | SMITH Grace L. | - | 1% | 5% | 24% | 45% | 23% | 2% |
| 39 | DROVETSKY Alexandra M. | - | - | - | 5% | 24% | 46% | 24% |
| 40 | CHERNYSHOVA Victoria | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 5% |
| 41 | PALMER Amelia C. | 3% | 18% | 35% | 31% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 42 | WU Fan | 1% | 8% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
| 43 | ELLENT Isabella S. | 5% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 44 | JAKEL Sophia N. | - | - | - | 5% | 27% | 49% | 19% |
| 45 | SEBASTIAN Felicity A. | - | - | - | 5% | 22% | 43% | 29% |
| 46 | YANG Miranda (Yinuo) | - | 2% | 17% | 38% | 31% | 10% | 1% |
| 47 | GUMAGAY Erika L. | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 48 | XUAN Nicole J. | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 41% | 22% | 3% |
| 49 | KIM Elizabeth Y. | 1% | 8% | 26% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
| 50 | GAO Judy | 1% | 11% | 31% | 37% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 51 | CHENG Ava | - | 4% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 14% | 3% |
| 51 | KIM Angelina | 4% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 53 | XU Jessica | 36% | 43% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 54 | MAO Amy | 3% | 17% | 34% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 55 | ALEXANDROV Katherine S. | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 57 | YU Bailey | 1% | 12% | 33% | 37% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 58 | ZHENG Linden | 21% | 47% | 27% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 59 | DREFKE Sigrid | 1% | 15% | 42% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 60 | TAYLOR Kiera S. | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 4% |
| 61 | SHEN Stephanie | 7% | 28% | 37% | 22% | 5% | - | - |
| 62 | ZENG Katrina | 14% | 41% | 33% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 63 | MUELLER Emma M. | 4% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 64 | RICHARDSON Lauren C. | 25% | 44% | 25% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 65 | PALANSKI Cate | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 66 | LEE Yedda | 2% | 15% | 42% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 67 | KIM Zoe L. | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 34% | 13% | 1% |
| 68 | OSTROVSKY Emily I. | 3% | 21% | 40% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 70 | GOSHKO Audrey | 1% | 8% | 24% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
| 71 | DESAI Meera P. | 1% | 8% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
| 72 | NAYAK Mira | 13% | 37% | 35% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 73 | BLIN Margaux J. | 3% | 19% | 37% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 74 | MING Cynthia | 28% | 51% | 18% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 75 | KONG Carina | 14% | 34% | 32% | 16% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 76 | JEAN Olympe G. | 10% | 33% | 36% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 77 | NIEMAN Anjolie | 10% | 37% | 41% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
| 78 | MCLAREN Rachel | 8% | 28% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 79 | KOKES Ava | 15% | 40% | 32% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 80 | REMEZA Alissa | 10% | 32% | 37% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 83 | HU Chelsea | 6% | 31% | 43% | 17% | 2% | - | - |
| 83 | FLO Sena | 23% | 43% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 85 | GLICK Nina | 17% | 38% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 86 | KEE Bea Isabelle | 6% | 26% | 39% | 23% | 5% | - | - |
| 87 | YIN Julia | 1% | 9% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
| 88 | PAYNE Elizabeth | 12% | 35% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 89 | LU Samantha R. | 18% | 38% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 90 | BEEM Marin | 17% | 40% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 90 | JOYAL Anne-Sophie | 15% | 51% | 28% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 92 | KRUMHOLZ Nicole | 39% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 93 | LIU Nicole | 38% | 43% | 16% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 94 | MACEY Hadley | 17% | 37% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 95 | LEE Anna | 33% | 45% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 96 | RAI Ananya | 57% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 97 | WU ALLYSON | 5% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 98 | MACEDON Gianna | 60% | 35% | 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.