Kansas City, MO - Kansas City, MO, 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 | ZAGUNIS Mariel L. | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 38% | 49% |
| 2 | BURKE Nora S. | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 34% |
| 3 | STRZALKOWSKI Aleksandra (Ola) M. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 12% |
| 3 | JOHNSON Honor B. | - | - | - | 1% | 12% | 40% | 47% |
| 5 | TARTAKOVSKY Elizabeth | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 42% | 24% |
| 6 | LU Vivian Y. | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 21% | 4% |
| 7 | MOSS Zara J. | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 5% |
| 8 | MILLER Sky | - | - | - | 6% | 26% | 44% | 24% |
| 9 | FOX-GITOMER Chloe N. | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 37% | 54% |
| 10 | THOMPSON Kamali A. | - | - | 1% | 5% | 23% | 43% | 28% |
| 11 | SKARBONKIEWICZ Magda | - | - | 1% | 9% | 33% | 41% | 16% |
| 12 | SINGLETON-COMFORT Leanne | - | - | - | - | 5% | 30% | 65% |
| 13 | MERZA Celina | - | - | 1% | 5% | 23% | 45% | 26% |
| 14 | CHAMBERLAIN Maia C. | - | - | 1% | 11% | 34% | 42% | 12% |
| 15 | WILLIAMS Jadeyn E. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 37% | 39% | 10% |
| 16 | LIANG Megan | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 37% | 22% | 4% |
| 17 | FREEDMAN Janna N. | 1% | 5% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 11% | 1% |
| 18 | RUSSO Francesca | - | - | 3% | 12% | 30% | 37% | 18% |
| 19 | THEODORE Maria A. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 36% | 14% |
| 20 | MORALES Jessica Y. | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 36% | 20% | 4% |
| 21 | LI Anna M. | 1% | 5% | 19% | 33% | 29% | 11% | 2% |
| 22 | SHELTON Aleksandra | - | - | 2% | 17% | 51% | 30% | |
| 23 | DI PERNA Chiara I. | - | - | 1% | 12% | 45% | 41% | |
| 24 | AVAKIAN Mikaela | - | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 44% | 28% |
| 25 | TIMOFEYEV Daniella | - | - | 1% | 10% | 36% | 39% | 13% |
| 26 | WILLIAMS Chloe C. | - | 5% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
| 27 | FOUR-GARCIA Madison | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 36% | 14% | 2% |
| 28 | STONE Anne-Elizabeth | - | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 37% | 18% |
| 29 | GREENBAUM Atara R. | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 42% | 25% | 4% |
| 30 | HOOGENDOORN Levi | 7% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 31 | KOVACS Sophia | 1% | 10% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 32 | WOZNIAK Kelli | - | 3% | 13% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 4% |
| 33 | ANGLADE Alexis C. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 24% |
| 34 | BLUM Leah I. | 3% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 35 | JOHNSON Edith (Tori) V. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 39% | 20% |
| 36 | YUN Joy | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 38% | 31% | 5% |
| 36 | MOYA Keona L. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 31% | 40% | 17% |
| 38 | HARRISON Imogen N. | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 3% |
| 39 | LINDER Kara E. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 43% | 22% |
| 40 | ZEGERS Anneke E. | - | - | 3% | 13% | 32% | 37% | 15% |
| 41 | GREENBAUM Ella K. | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 42 | KIM Zoe | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 4% |
| 43 | MICHEL Violet N. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 44% | 26% |
| 44 | AKSAMIT Monica | - | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 43% | 27% |
| 45 | MERZA Sarah | - | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 36% | 16% |
| 46 | JENKINS Ryan J. | - | - | - | 4% | 18% | 41% | 37% |
| 47 | MILLER Tiffany D. | - | 4% | 18% | 36% | 30% | 11% | 1% |
| 48 | POSSICK Lola P. | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 3% |
| 48 | CHIN Erika J. | - | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 50 | KATZ Anat | 4% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 51 | TANG Annie L. | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 52 | LACSON Sarah | 3% | 19% | 36% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 53 | DELSOIN Chelsea C. | 3% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 54 | BERMAN Stella | 4% | 19% | 34% | 28% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 55 | ROH Rachel E. | 2% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 19% | 5% | - |
| 56 | KONG Vera | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 5% |
| 57 | TZOU Alexandra | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
| 58 | MENTZER Katherine | 1% | 7% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
| 59 | MARSEE Samantha | 17% | 39% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 60 | HASSAN Aziza R. | 5% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 61 | STONE Hava S. | 6% | 29% | 41% | 20% | 3% | - | |
| 62 | HILL Julia W. | 2% | 12% | 28% | 33% | 19% | 6% | 1% |
| 63 | AKARD Micah M. | 21% | 44% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 64 | TAO Hannah J. | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 65 | SECK Chejsa-Kaili F. | - | 4% | 16% | 34% | 33% | 12% | 2% |
| 66 | GUTHIKONDA Nithya | - | 5% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 11% | 1% |
| 66 | TARTELL Abby | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 2% |
| 68 | SULLIVAN Siobhan R. | - | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 2% |
| 69 | NAZLYMOV Tatiana F. | 3% | 19% | 40% | 31% | 6% | - | |
| 70 | WALTER Zsofia R. | 11% | 32% | 34% | 18% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 70 | OISHI Megumi | - | 3% | 15% | 31% | 33% | 15% | 2% |
| 72 | GOUHIN Chloe | - | - | 3% | 13% | 32% | 37% | 15% |
| 73 | SONG Robyn | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 74 | CHEEMA Sophia | 1% | 12% | 33% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 75 | YAP Madeline | 10% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 75 | PAK Kaitlyn | 1% | 8% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
| 77 | DUNGEY Amelia S. | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
| 78 | TIMOFEYEV Nicole | 2% | 12% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 5% | 1% |
| 79 | BUHAY Rachel T. | 6% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 80 | CHEN Xinyan | 40% | 41% | 16% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 81 | SATHYANATH Kailing | 8% | 33% | 39% | 17% | 2% | - | |
| 82 | WIGGERS Susan Q. | - | 4% | 19% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
| 83 | COIMBRA Miya Y. | 8% | 29% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 84 | BEALE Zoe M. | 5% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 85 | BUCHMANN Vivien | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
| 86 | CHANG Josephine S. | 1% | 8% | 29% | 40% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 87 | HAN Jeanette X. | 11% | 32% | 35% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 88 | REDDY Shreya | 5% | 25% | 37% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 89 | CHAN Audrey | 9% | 30% | 36% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 90 | KUDRIAVTSEVA Daria | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 30% | 9% |
| 91 | WU Erica L. | 5% | 25% | 41% | 23% | 5% | - | - |
| 92 | WHANG Rebecca | 1% | 6% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 11% | 2% |
| 93 | SHEALY Maggie | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 9% | 1% |
| 94 | FLOREZ Melissa | 7% | 30% | 37% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 95 | TANG Catherine H. | 8% | 29% | 38% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 96 | SHEA Erin | 1% | 12% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 96 | KIM Catherine | 1% | 8% | 26% | 36% | 22% | 6% | - |
| 98 | SCALAMONI-GOLDSTEIN Charlotte S. | 5% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 99 | DRAGON Rainer | 5% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 100 | HOOGENDOORN Sterre | 7% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 101 | MATAIEV Natalie S. | 18% | 40% | 30% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 102 | STAPLETON Lindsay K. | 4% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 103 | PRIESTLEY Catherine (Cate) C. | 1% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 6% | - |
| 104 | SHEN Sarah | 32% | 43% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 105 | DOHERTY Maverick L. | 1% | 7% | 24% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
| 106 | ZHUANG Zhesi (Jessica) | 29% | 46% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 107 | LU Yi Lin | 20% | 39% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 108 | GORMAN Victoria M. | 22% | 41% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 109 | FEARNS Zara A. | 26% | 40% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 110 | KOBOZEVA Tamara V. | 4% | 29% | 40% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 111 | KYNETT Kathryn G. | 3% | 16% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 112 | LIM Isabel K. | 14% | 36% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 113 | GHOSH Priyanka | 14% | 38% | 34% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 114 | NEIBART Fiona | 24% | 42% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 115 | KALRA Himani V. | 10% | 30% | 34% | 19% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 116 | MIN Isabella K. | 49% | 38% | 11% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 116 | HE Charlotte | 4% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 118 | YODER Bridget H. | 37% | 43% | 17% | 3% | - | - | |
| 119 | ZIELINSKI Isabella G. | 6% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 119 | CALVERT Sarah-Jane E. | 48% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 121 | SHIN Andrea Y. | 33% | 44% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 122 | LI Victoria J. | 15% | 35% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 123 | SIERRA Kate | 24% | 40% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 123 | KALRA Siya L. | 22% | 40% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 123 | MARQUES Hannah | 71% | 26% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
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.