Owings Mills, MD - Owings Mills, MD, 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 | HUSISIAN Hadley N. | - | - | - | - | 3% | 28% | 69% |
| 2 | LEE Michelle | - | 1% | 11% | 33% | 38% | 16% | |
| 3 | YAO Jillian | 4% | 19% | 36% | 31% | 10% | 1% | |
| 3 | JOYCE Michaela | - | - | - | 2% | 20% | 78% | |
| 5 | LEE Kyungmin | - | - | 2% | 13% | 38% | 41% | 7% |
| 6 | GORDON Rachel A. | 8% | 30% | 38% | 20% | 5% | - | |
| 7 | FENG Kelly L. | 7% | 28% | 38% | 22% | 5% | - | |
| 8 | DESAI Meera P. | 3% | 18% | 35% | 32% | 11% | 1% | |
| 9 | LONG Cindy | - | - | 2% | 12% | 40% | 46% | |
| 10 | MIN MAGNOLIA | - | 1% | 8% | 31% | 42% | 17% | 1% |
| 11 | GUMAGAY Erika L. | - | 5% | 22% | 40% | 26% | 6% | - |
| 12 | IGOE Nirali B. | 4% | 19% | 36% | 31% | 10% | - | |
| 13 | KIM Caroline | 2% | 14% | 34% | 35% | 14% | 2% | |
| 14 | CHAWLA Ishika | 16% | 37% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 15 | BYBEE Lucy J. | 15% | 41% | 33% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 16 | TONG Sarah Shen | < 1% | 4% | 19% | 38% | 32% | 7% | |
| 17 | ZHANG Maya | - | 3% | 15% | 36% | 34% | 11% | |
| 18 | MAGRO Caroline A. | 2% | 14% | 34% | 33% | 15% | 2% | |
| 19 | CHOI Yuni D. | 22% | 45% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 20 | FLO Sena | 36% | 42% | 18% | 3% | - | - | |
| 21 | LU Samantha R. | 3% | 19% | 39% | 30% | 9% | 1% | |
| 22 | HENRY Asha S. | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 33% | 10% | |
| 23 | ZAKHAROV Anne E. | 8% | 31% | 39% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 24 | HU Chelsea | 27% | 44% | 23% | 5% | - | - | |
| 25 | LONG Madeline M. | 30% | 44% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
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.