Secaucus, NJ - Secaucus, 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 | CHEN Jessie S. | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 7% |
2 | LUNG Katerina | - | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 41% | 27% |
3 | SHAW Kayla M. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 30% | 39% | 19% |
3 | SADAN Jordan E. | - | - | - | 3% | 17% | 42% | 37% |
5 | PEVZNER Victoria | - | - | - | 3% | 17% | 41% | 38% |
6 | HUANG Natalie | - | 1% | 12% | 32% | 35% | 17% | 3% |
7 | DE LA CRUZ Eden | - | - | 5% | 21% | 40% | 30% | 4% |
8 | EYER Hailey M. | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 33% | 13% | 2% |
9 | HECKMANN Emma | - | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 30% | 9% |
10 | CHEN Allison V. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 35% | 37% | 11% |
11 | KOENIG Charlotte R. | - | - | 1% | 12% | 42% | 44% | |
12 | TAN Kaitlyn N. | - | - | 1% | 18% | 41% | 32% | 8% |
13 | CHEN Jia P. | - | - | - | 7% | 28% | 43% | 22% |
14 | YE Eileen | - | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 38% | 18% |
15 | XU Madison | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 38% | 16% | 2% |
16 | XU Christine | - | 3% | 17% | 38% | 32% | 8% | |
17 | ZHANG Yunjia | - | - | - | - | 4% | 28% | 68% |
18 | LI Meilin | - | 2% | 11% | 31% | 39% | 18% | |
19 | DAVIA Daniella V. | - | - | 3% | 17% | 43% | 37% | |
20 | YU Lauren C. | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 33% | 12% | 1% |
21 | JANG Kimberley | - | - | 1% | 12% | 37% | 38% | 13% |
22 | LI Rachel Y. | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
23 | LEE Bethany W. | - | 1% | 7% | 30% | 45% | 17% | |
24 | YU Jaime L. | 2% | 15% | 35% | 33% | 13% | 2% | |
25 | CHO Rebecca H. | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 3% |
26 | PERLMAN Talia | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 6% |
27 | SHEN Lydia | - | - | 2% | 20% | 41% | 30% | 7% |
28 | BHAN Zala | 1% | 9% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - |
29 | CHEN Kelly | - | - | 5% | 22% | 38% | 28% | 7% |
30 | WU Celine | 2% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 5% | 1% |
31 | FU Qihan | 13% | 37% | 35% | 13% | 2% | - | |
32 | SEO Irene Y. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
33 | HOLLE Aviella S. | - | 4% | 16% | 31% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
34 | ZHANG Alina C. | - | 4% | 19% | 39% | 31% | 7% | |
35 | ADAMS KIM Natalie | - | 2% | 14% | 34% | 36% | 13% | |
36 | OUYANG Bridgette Z. | - | - | 4% | 19% | 39% | 31% | 6% |
37 | PAVE Claire | 5% | 25% | 39% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
38 | WU Julianna Y. | 1% | 8% | 26% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
39 | ORVANANOS Anice | 1% | 10% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% | 1% |
40 | SU Michelle | 1% | 9% | 32% | 40% | 16% | 2% | |
41 | LAM Victoria M. | 7% | 35% | 40% | 16% | 2% | - | |
41 | LIU Sophia | 19% | 41% | 30% | 9% | 1% | - | |
43 | MCKEE Alexandra K. | 21% | 41% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
44 | XIANG Emma | - | 13% | 37% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - |
45 | LENZ Zoe N. | 2% | 37% | 41% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
46 | WANG Ashley | 13% | 36% | 34% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
47 | WANG Chloe | - | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 11% | 2% |
48 | LIN Emma | 26% | 42% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
49 | MUSTO Isabella | 10% | 39% | 36% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
50 | WONG Sophia M. | - | 5% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 7% | |
51 | LOGAN Jade | 12% | 38% | 35% | 13% | 2% | - | |
52 | KONDAMANI Anya | 53% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | - | |
53 | CHEN Jasmine | 38% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | |
54 | FELLUS Talia E. | 4% | 24% | 41% | 25% | 5% | - | |
55 | SOLDATOVA Maria | - | 6% | 25% | 38% | 25% | 6% | - |
56 | MI Anning | 5% | 22% | 37% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
57 | DONG TianTian | 23% | 48% | 27% | 2% | - | - | - |
58 | CHARALEL Jessica | 20% | 46% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
59 | HSIEH Rebecca | 16% | 46% | 35% | 3% | - | - | - |
60 | THIRUVENGADAM Harini | 32% | 48% | 19% | 1% | - | - | - |
61 | LEE Samantha X. | 17% | 39% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
61 | SLASKI Caroline O. | 18% | 38% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
63 | BAKER-ROSENBERG Raynor S. | 12% | 36% | 36% | 14% | 2% | - | |
64 | WERBACH Esther | 9% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
65 | KOSTOPOULOS Katerina | 18% | 38% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
66 | HSIEH Sabrina | 90% | 9% | - | - | - | - | - |
66 | BHOGAL Sukhneet | 55% | 36% | 8% | 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.