Capitol Clash SYC & RCC with Non-Regional Veteran and Y8

Y-14 Women's Foil

Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 1:30 PM

National Harbor, MD - National Harbor, MD, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 ZHENG Ivy - - - - 7% 35% 57%
2 TUCKER ALARCON Ariadna C. - - - 3% 19% 45% 33%
3 KOENIG Charlotte R. - - 3% 13% 31% 37% 17%
3 GAYDOS Sofia C. - - - 4% 21% 44% 31%
5 DAVIA Daniella V. - - - 2% 14% 41% 42%
5 FERRETTI Anna Rebecca - - 3% 16% 38% 35% 8%
7 LESLIE Ryanne T. - - - 2% 12% 38% 49%
8 PAPADAKIS Lily - - 3% 15% 35% 36% 11%
9 MASSICK Laine - - - 1% 15% 45% 38%
10 LUNG Katerina - - - 4% 25% 48% 23%
11 CHUSID Mikayla - 5% 21% 36% 28% 9% 1%
12 CHEN Kelly - - 3% 25% 44% 24% 4%
13 PALMER Meredith K. - - 1% 7% 30% 46% 16%
14 SERBAN Samantha M. - - - 1% 8% 37% 54%
15 VIANNA Gabriella - - 1% 8% 32% 43% 16%
16 XU Christine - 2% 11% 33% 41% 13%
17 MICHAELSEN Emily - 1% 8% 24% 35% 25% 6%
18 KIM Rachael - - - 1% 14% 45% 40%
19 ZHAO Aileen Y. - 7% 26% 36% 24% 7% 1%
20 WONG Sophia M. - - 3% 18% 43% 31% 5%
21 ACHILOVA Feyza 4% 28% 41% 22% 5% < 1% -
22 SADAN Jordan E. - - - 1% 12% 42% 45%
23 CHEN Allison V. - 1% 9% 25% 35% 24% 6%
24 YE Eileen - - 1% 6% 26% 43% 24%
25 HALL Velma - - 3% 16% 42% 39%
26 ADAMS KIM Natalie - 1% 9% 28% 40% 20% 2%
27 UPTON Elizabeth - - 3% 16% 41% 32% 8%
28 CHEN Lefu - 6% 24% 35% 25% 9% 1%
29 JING Emily - - - 4% 19% 43% 34%
30 SHAW Kayla M. - - 1% 6% 30% 46% 17%
31 WEBB Ella 3% 18% 36% 32% 10% 1%
32 SENIC Adeline - - 4% 22% 40% 28% 5%
33 CONWAY Josephina (JoJo) J. - - - 2% 15% 42% 41%
34 TAN Kaitlyn N. - - 1% 11% 37% 40% 12%
35 WANDJI Anais - 1% 8% 27% 39% 22% 4%
36 ZHANG Alina C. - - 2% 13% 34% 37% 13%
37 XU Madison - 1% 8% 28% 40% 20% 3%
38 SIMONOV Dasha - 8% 27% 37% 22% 6% -
38 MI Anning 1% 8% 29% 42% 18% 2% -
40 ZHAO Sophie L. - - 2% 17% 40% 33% 9%
41 MAESTRADO Ashley R. 13% 38% 35% 13% 2% -
42 SULTANA-HOLE Olivia B. 5% 26% 39% 23% 6% 1% -
43 LIN Emma 1% 10% 34% 39% 14% 2% -
44 YU Lauren C. 2% 16% 42% 35% 5% - -
45 SHEN Lydia - 1% 6% 25% 42% 22% 3%
46 WILLIS Fletcher L. - 4% 24% 42% 24% 5% -
48 RASO Olivia 3% 16% 32% 31% 15% 3% -
49 COOPER Piper W. 2% 20% 44% 28% 5% - -
50 SOLDATOVA Maria 4% 22% 38% 27% 9% 1% -
51 BASSIK Eva 3% 17% 35% 30% 12% 2% -
52 YU Jaime L. - 3% 14% 32% 34% 15% 2%
53 FELLUS Talia E. 8% 26% 35% 23% 8% 1% -
54 WANG Chloe 1% 9% 33% 39% 16% 2% -
55 CHO Rebecca H. - 4% 19% 35% 30% 11% 1%
56 NORTH Zoe M. 5% 26% 39% 23% 6% 1% -
57 HAYES Alyssa R. - 1% 7% 23% 37% 26% 6%
58 XUE Alanna 4% 24% 41% 26% 6% -
59 LIU Sophia 2% 14% 39% 34% 10% 1% -
60 LIU Angel(Daying) - 1% 9% 26% 37% 23% 3%
61 FU Qihan 3% 24% 38% 26% 9% 1% -
62 SU Michelle 1% 5% 19% 34% 29% 11% 1%
63 LEE Fiona E. 19% 38% 30% 11% 2% -
64 DAVIES Ellie 44% 40% 14% 2% - - -
66 LABELLE Audreanne 14% 46% 32% 8% 1% - -
67 SEO IRENE Y. - - 2% 14% 37% 36% 11%
70 SHELDON Lucy A. 1% 11% 31% 36% 18% 3% -
71 NIKOLIC Alexandra - 3% 16% 32% 31% 14% 2%
72 LI Sophia M. - 3% 15% 32% 32% 16% 3%
73 STAIKOS Eleni 80% 19% 2% - - - -
74 WEI Vika 5% 22% 35% 26% 9% 1% -
75 PAHLAVI Dahlia 4% 24% 40% 25% 6% 1% -
76 ROY Layla 2% 18% 36% 30% 12% 2% -
77 LIN Victoria T. 2% 18% 38% 31% 10% 1% -
77 WANG Cynthia 2% 15% 36% 33% 12% 2% -
79 LEE Lavender 1% 8% 28% 37% 21% 5% -
80 DATLA Meha 18% 43% 31% 8% - - -
81 LANIER Isabelle R. 19% 39% 29% 11% 2% - -
82 DATLA Medha 41% 42% 15% 2% - - -
83 SMITH Emilee E. 65% 30% 5% - - - -
84 ZULUETA Catherine 1% 10% 31% 37% 18% 3% -
85 ALEXANDER Amelia 22% 42% 28% 8% 1% - -
86 KOGAN Stella 37% 44% 16% 2% - - -
87 PISHARODI smriti 75% 22% 3% - - - -
88 TRACZ Calleigh D. 17% 40% 31% 10% 2% - -
89 DEGENHOLTZ Annabel G. 9% 35% 36% 16% 3% - -
89 QIAN Zhiyan 68% 28% 4% - - - -
91 FURST Chloe 8% 26% 35% 23% 7% 1% -
92 SCHMIDT Victoria 23% 48% 24% 4% - - -
93 KOGAN Alexis 41% 42% 15% 2% - - -
94 RICHMAN Sofia 5% 26% 38% 24% 7% 1% -
95 MULLENS Erin 5% 63% 28% 3% - - -
96 LEVY Avery 49% 39% 11% 1% - - -
96 MAHNKEN Rachel 39% 46% 14% 1% - - -

Explanation

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.