Parsippany, NJ - Parsippany, NJ, 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 | JANG Kimberley | - | - | 4% | 21% | 43% | 30% | |
2 | KOENIG Charlotte R. | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 39% | 49% |
3 | TALAVERA Daena | - | - | - | - | 1% | 13% | 87% |
3 | CHEN Allison V. | - | - | 3% | 19% | 45% | 33% | |
5 | SHEN Lydia | - | - | 8% | 34% | 42% | 15% | |
6 | SHAW Kayla M. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 36% | 16% |
7 | SHEN Sophia | - | 4% | 36% | 42% | 16% | 2% | |
8 | LI Meilin | - | - | 11% | 39% | 39% | 11% | |
9 | WU Irene M. | - | - | 6% | 30% | 45% | 19% | |
9 | MCGILLION-MOORE Katie | - | - | - | 5% | 29% | 66% | |
9 | ZHANG Alina C. | - | - | 1% | 12% | 42% | 44% | |
12 | LEE Bethany W. | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 6% |
13 | HUANG Natalie | - | - | 4% | 21% | 42% | 31% | 2% |
14 | CHUSID Mikayla | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 38% | 18% | |
15 | SHEN Annabel | 3% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 12% | 1% | |
16 | WU Julianna Y. | 8% | 29% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - | |
17 | SADAN Jordan E. | - | - | - | 2% | 18% | 45% | 35% |
18 | XU Madison | - | - | 2% | 13% | 39% | 36% | 10% |
19 | YU Jaime L. | - | 1% | 7% | 29% | 41% | 20% | 3% |
20 | FERRETTI Anna Rebecca | - | - | 3% | 19% | 45% | 33% | |
21 | EYER Hailey M. | - | 5% | 22% | 40% | 27% | 6% | |
22 | PAHLAVI Dahlia | 6% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% | |
23 | DU Hannah | - | - | 2% | 14% | 37% | 37% | 9% |
24 | TAN Kaitlyn N. | - | - | 6% | 26% | 48% | 20% | |
25 | ZHAO Aileen Y. | - | 2% | 15% | 36% | 36% | 11% | |
26 | MAESTRADO Ashley R. | 4% | 28% | 41% | 22% | 5% | - | |
27 | XIE zoey | 2% | 14% | 31% | 31% | 17% | 4% | - |
28 | LIN Victoria T. | - | 3% | 19% | 40% | 30% | 7% | - |
29 | HOU Wendong | - | 6% | 29% | 40% | 21% | 4% | - |
30 | YU Nicole J. | 7% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
31 | BHAN Zala | 8% | 29% | 36% | 21% | 5% | 1% | |
32 | CHO Rebecca H. | - | 3% | 13% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 4% |
33 | LIU Sophia | 1% | 19% | 42% | 30% | 7% | - | |
34 | SU Michelle | - | - | 1% | 10% | 34% | 41% | 14% |
35 | ORVANANOS Anice | 1% | 6% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 2% |
36 | FELLUS Talia E. | - | 2% | 16% | 38% | 34% | 10% | - |
37 | TOBIN Brean | 7% | 29% | 40% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
38 | WANG Chloe | - | 1% | 21% | 44% | 28% | 6% | |
39 | GU EMILY | 1% | 11% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 4% | |
40 | ROY Layla | - | 7% | 45% | 37% | 10% | 1% | |
41 | ZHANG Rongrui | 1% | 16% | 40% | 33% | 9% | 1% | |
42 | KOKES Gwendolen | 13% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | |
43 | LEE Lavender | 1% | 7% | 25% | 39% | 25% | 3% | |
44 | KULKARNI Sohah A. | 11% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 3% | - | |
45 | PAVE Claire | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | |
46 | YU Lauren C. | 2% | 13% | 34% | 37% | 13% | 2% | - |
47 | SOLDATOVA Maria | - | 1% | 10% | 35% | 38% | 14% | 1% |
48 | PARK Caitlyn | 13% | 41% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
49 | CHEN Jasmine | 13% | 39% | 35% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
50 | LI Rachel Y. | 1% | 5% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 9% | |
51 | OLIVEIRA Lavinia M. | 3% | 23% | 40% | 26% | 7% | 1% | |
52 | LENZ Zoe N. | 2% | 24% | 43% | 26% | 5% | - | |
53 | PARK Jacqueline | 24% | 62% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
54 | STAIKOS Eleni | 43% | 49% | 7% | - | - | - | |
55 | YU Esther J. | 33% | 49% | 16% | 2% | - | - | - |
56 | KOGAN Stella | 14% | 39% | 34% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
58 | ZHU Elise | 27% | 43% | 24% | 5% | - | - | - |
59 | WILTSE Kaiya M. | 44% | 51% | 5% | - | - | - | |
60 | KOGAN Alexis | 61% | 32% | 6% | - | - | - | |
60 | LEE Kaitlyn | 66% | 32% | 2% | - | - | - | |
62 | JONES Jenna | 23% | 40% | 27% | 9% | 2% | - | - |
63 | LAPPER Whitney P. | 80% | 18% | 1% | - | - | - | |
64 | ENG Alexy P. | 38% | 47% | 13% | 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.