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 | BEI Karen | - | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 34% | 14% |
| 2 | MCCUTCHEN Lauren (Lulu) | - | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 39% | 19% |
| 3 | YANG Miranda (Yinuo) | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 6% |
| 3 | NAHAPETYAN Datev | - | - | - | - | 1% | 15% | 84% |
| 5 | MACHULSKY Leehi | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 37% | 53% |
| 6 | MILEWSKI Nicole | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 4% |
| 7 | DESAI Meera P. | - | 3% | 14% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 3% |
| 8 | SLACKMAN Valerie | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 5% |
| 9 | JANOWSKI Madeline (Madeline Janowski) A. | - | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 33% | 9% |
| 10 | LEANG Andrea K. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 38% | 20% |
| 11 | POIRIER Ariane | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 6% |
| 12 | TIMMONS Sarah J. | - | 3% | 13% | 28% | 33% | 19% | 4% |
| 13 | MAYER Ingrid V. | - | 5% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 11% | 2% |
| 13 | XIA Chelsea W. | - | 3% | 15% | 30% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
| 15 | SMUK Daria A. | - | 3% | 17% | 35% | 32% | 11% | 1% |
| 16 | KIM Elizabeth Y. | - | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
| 17 | SHEN Stephanie | - | 1% | 4% | 17% | 34% | 32% | 12% |
| 18 | STOJANOVIC Mina | 1% | 8% | 23% | 33% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
| 19 | MAO Amy | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 20 | DARANOUVONG Logan | - | 2% | 12% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 4% |
| 21 | HUANG Hannah T. | 7% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 22 | ADVINCULA Anabella E. | - | 3% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 2% |
| 23 | LIN Julia L. | 1% | 7% | 22% | 33% | 25% | 10% | 1% |
| 24 | MYERS Helen Sophia A. | - | 1% | 6% | 19% | 34% | 30% | 10% |
| 24 | LAVERY Chloe K. | - | 1% | 5% | 18% | 33% | 31% | 11% |
| 26 | TSANG JAFFE Avi | - | 1% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 5% |
| 27 | BELSLEY Devon K. | - | 1% | 7% | 21% | 34% | 28% | 9% |
| 28 | NING Emma | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 35% |
| 29 | EBRAHIM Ameera H. | 1% | 9% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 30 | BUCKINGHAM Emma N. | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 40% | 41% |
| 30 | ZAKHAROV Anne E. | 4% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 30 | GU Sarah | - | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 40% | 28% |
| 33 | DE JAGER Celine | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 38% | 20% | 3% |
| 34 | SIBLEY Elisabeth J. | - | 2% | 14% | 34% | 34% | 14% | 2% |
| 35 | SCHAFF Marlene M. | - | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 3% |
| 36 | ROBERTSON Lily | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
| 37 | FENG Kelly L. | - | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
| 38 | TAYLOR Kiera S. | 1% | 7% | 25% | 36% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
| 38 | LIN Waiyuk | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% |
| 40 | SCHLIEP Anna J. | - | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
| 41 | SAAL Anna | 1% | 5% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 10% | - |
| 42 | PAPADAKIS Lily | - | 3% | 12% | 27% | 33% | 20% | 5% |
| 43 | SOIN Anika A. | 3% | 15% | 30% | 30% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 44 | ACHTERBERG Samantha (Sammy) K. | - | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 33% | 7% |
| 45 | BALAKRISHNAN Monica S. | - | 1% | 4% | 16% | 32% | 33% | 14% |
| 46 | KIM Erika S. | 1% | 11% | 32% | 35% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 47 | KOWALSKY Rachel A. | - | - | 2% | 9% | 27% | 39% | 23% |
| 48 | O'REILLY Aeryn E. | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 8% |
| 49 | DANIEL Olivia | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 38% | 20% | 1% |
| 50 | BANKS Lauren M. | 9% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 51 | PARDO Sarah | 4% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 52 | MYERS Jeanelle Christina A. | 2% | 13% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 53 | ZHOU Lei | 4% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 54 | PRIMES Amanda M. | - | 4% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% |
| 55 | GOLDBERG Sophie C. | 2% | 11% | 26% | 32% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
| 56 | JI Catherine | 1% | 6% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 11% | 1% |
| 57 | CHIRASHNYA Noya | 3% | 16% | 30% | 30% | 16% | 5% | 1% |
| 58 | WEISS Olivia | 2% | 11% | 27% | 33% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
| 59 | CAVNAR Peyton | 4% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 60 | SINGH Aayushi | 34% | 44% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 61 | GLASSNER Sophia Rose S. | 2% | 10% | 25% | 33% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 62 | SON Katherine (Injee) | 1% | 7% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
| 63 | BOWIE Charlotta | 6% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 64 | ROWLAND May | 31% | 41% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 65 | BARNES Olivia R. | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 8% |
| 66 | HONG Elaine | 7% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 67 | CORDERO Allison | 4% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 68 | JAMES Josephine | - | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
| 69 | MOK Chloe R. | 18% | 39% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 70 | PARKER Emilie Rose (Rosie) | 2% | 14% | 33% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 71 | HEINRICH Eva | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 5% |
| 72 | KERAMANE Halah Z. | 13% | 37% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 73 | SHUM Jessica | 2% | 18% | 37% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 74 | MILEWSKI Samantha | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
| 75 | SCHMULTS Sophie W. | 25% | 40% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 76 | PARKER Sheridan | 6% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 77 | LUONG Shirley | 1% | 11% | 30% | 34% | 19% | 5% | 1% |
| 78 | DU Yiyun (Doreen) | 11% | 30% | 33% | 19% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 79 | SHERTZ Kira E. | 1% | 15% | 34% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 79 | LI Tiffany | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 81 | RHEA Heather | 27% | 41% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 82 | LONGSTREET Olivia | 68% | 27% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 82 | RAUSCH Juliana | 1% | 6% | 23% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
| 84 | JANNEY Erynn "Renn" | 14% | 39% | 33% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 85 | OSBORN Sabrina | 54% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 86 | O'HAGAN Eleanor G. | 8% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 87 | GAURIAT Jade S. | 11% | 30% | 34% | 19% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 88 | BOLES Savvianna | 5% | 26% | 41% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 89 | CARBO laura | 77% | 21% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 90 | CARLSON Ava | 61% | 32% | 6% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 91 | HERDMAN Samantha J. | 22% | 41% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
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.