Columbus, OH - Columbus, OH, 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 | GANDHI Sedna S. | - | - | 4% | 15% | 33% | 34% | 13% |
2 | MONTOYA Kimberlee C. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 35% | 15% |
3 | SHAMSIAN Shaya | 1% | 6% | 20% | 32% | 27% | 12% | 2% |
3 | BEITTEL Chloe F. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 40% | 25% |
5 | TONCHEVA Victoria M. | - | - | 4% | 15% | 32% | 34% | 14% |
6 | CHOY LeeAnn | 1% | 7% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 11% | 2% |
7 | YEE-WADSWORTH Sofia L. | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 30% | 10% |
8 | CHIN Isabella | - | 4% | 17% | 31% | 30% | 15% | 3% |
9 | LEUNG Natalie | - | 1% | 7% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 8% |
10 | MARCHANT Sandra M. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 35% | 15% |
11 | WHITTEMORE Lucy K. | 2% | 11% | 27% | 32% | 20% | 7% | 1% |
12 | ADAMS KIM Madeline | - | 3% | 13% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 4% |
13 | SZPAK Lara K. | 5% | 20% | 33% | 27% | 12% | 3% | - |
14 | QUINLAN Nicole P. | - | 1% | 5% | 18% | 33% | 31% | 12% |
15 | GRESHAM Rebekah L. | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 6% |
16 | RABEL Brenna V. | 6% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 11% | 2% | - |
17 | WADE-CURRIE Ava S. | - | 3% | 12% | 27% | 33% | 21% | 5% |
18 | KWOK Tianna W. | - | 4% | 15% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 3% |
18 | TOMASELLO Olivia E. | 4% | 18% | 32% | 29% | 13% | 3% | - |
20 | LIM Clarice | 1% | 5% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
21 | CHAN Elizabeth | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 6% |
22 | ISERT Sarah | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 17% | 4% |
23 | KULKARNI Diya | 1% | 6% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
24 | MCFADDEN Christa M. | 1% | 6% | 20% | 31% | 27% | 12% | 2% |
25 | GREGORY Elizabeth | - | - | 3% | 12% | 30% | 37% | 17% |
26 | RATZLAFF Jocelyn T. | - | 2% | 9% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 6% |
27 | CHU Audrey | - | 3% | 13% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 4% |
28 | BINDAS Blodwen S. | 1% | 7% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
29 | LEE Olive | 3% | 16% | 31% | 31% | 15% | 4% | - |
30 | SMUK Daria A. | 6% | 22% | 33% | 26% | 11% | 2% | - |
30 | MCNEILL Claire A. | 3% | 14% | 30% | 31% | 17% | 4% | - |
32 | PROVANCE Allison N. | 7% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 9% | 2% | - |
33 | LEE Michelle | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 6% |
34 | KIMURA Kimberley H. | - | 3% | 14% | 28% | 32% | 18% | 4% |
35 | PROVENZA Hannah G. | - | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 41% | 34% |
36 | WOLSTENHOLME-BRITT Samantha (Sam) G. | 2% | 12% | 27% | 32% | 20% | 7% | 1% |
37 | GIFFORD Emily R. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 41% | 29% |
38 | HENRY Asha S. | - | 5% | 16% | 30% | 30% | 15% | 3% |
39 | BEI Karen | - | 5% | 17% | 31% | 30% | 15% | 3% |
40 | LEIGHTON Eleanor T. | 1% | 9% | 24% | 32% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
41 | GEBALA Natalie Brooke A. | - | 1% | 4% | 16% | 32% | 33% | 13% |
42 | KOWALSKY Rachel A. | - | 3% | 13% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 4% |
43 | LIN Anna F. | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
44 | ROSS Naomi O. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 35% | 16% |
45 | JOHNSON Ryleigh E. | 3% | 17% | 36% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - |
46 | PYO Yunice | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 4% |
46 | LANZMAN Anna B. | 1% | 8% | 23% | 33% | 24% | 9% | 1% |
48 | PATURU Meghana | - | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 36% | 18% |
48 | NI Emma | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 4% |
50 | FENG Kelly L. | 5% | 23% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 2% | - |
51 | MOTON Mckenzie R. | 5% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 3% | - |
52 | LAWSON Marie A. | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 5% |
53 | KANG Dahyun | - | 5% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 14% | 2% |
54 | LIU Jennifer L. | 1% | 5% | 17% | 31% | 30% | 14% | 3% |
55 | DOUGLAS Mary K. | 4% | 18% | 32% | 29% | 13% | 3% | - |
56 | KAUR Simarpreet | 13% | 33% | 32% | 16% | 4% | 1% | - |
57 | BAFFA Arianna M. | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 6% |
57 | MEHROTRA Anya | 1% | 10% | 25% | 32% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
59 | SOIN Anika A. | 10% | 30% | 34% | 19% | 6% | 1% | - |
60 | BELSLEY Devon K. | 4% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 2% | - |
61 | GORDET Cristina G. | 2% | 13% | 29% | 31% | 18% | 5% | 1% |
62 | LEWIS Sophia | 3% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 15% | 4% | - |
62 | MYERS Jeanelle Christina A. | 14% | 36% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
64 | KIM Elizabeth Y. | 1% | 9% | 24% | 33% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
65 | KUNDU Anisha | - | 3% | 13% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 4% |
66 | TAO Olivia A. | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 5% |
67 | BALAKRISHNAN Monica S. | 1% | 5% | 18% | 31% | 29% | 14% | 3% |
67 | RUNIONS Emersyn | - | 4% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 14% | 2% |
69 | JANOWSKI Madeline (Madeline Janowski) A. | 1% | 9% | 24% | 32% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
70 | HABERKERN Kundry E. | - | 2% | 12% | 27% | 33% | 20% | 5% |
71 | BRILL Sophie | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 5% |
72 | DROVETSKY Alexandra M. | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 34% | 26% | 8% |
73 | CHAN Paree A. | 1% | 8% | 22% | 33% | 25% | 10% | 1% |
74 | SAFKO Liubov V. | 1% | 5% | 18% | 32% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
75 | MONTOYA Amy C. | 6% | 24% | 34% | 25% | 9% | 2% | - |
76 | ZHANG Maya | - | 3% | 12% | 27% | 33% | 20% | 5% |
77 | GRESHAM Sarah L. | - | 3% | 11% | 26% | 33% | 21% | 6% |
78 | BOURDEAU Emily B. | 3% | 14% | 30% | 31% | 17% | 5% | 1% |
79 | BROOKS Tean R. | - | 2% | 9% | 25% | 34% | 24% | 6% |
80 | ZUHARS Renee A. | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 34% | 26% | 8% |
81 | SHOATES Jacqueline A. | 2% | 12% | 28% | 33% | 19% | 5% | - |
82 | QURESHI Aafreen | 2% | 14% | 30% | 31% | 17% | 5% | 1% |
83 | SMIK Leonie A. | 2% | 12% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 5% | 1% |
84 | LONG Cindy | - | 2% | 9% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 6% |
85 | VANDERLINDEN Mira | 8% | 27% | 34% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
86 | DOUGLAS Julia F. | 2% | 10% | 25% | 32% | 22% | 8% | 1% |
87 | YAO Jillian | 4% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 14% | 3% | - |
88 | GLOVER Cynthia E. | 6% | 24% | 34% | 25% | 9% | 2% | - |
89 | FILIPPOV Nika D. | 4% | 18% | 32% | 29% | 14% | 3% | - |
90 | MARTUS Cosima O. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 35% | 17% |
91 | LEANG Andrea K. | 1% | 9% | 25% | 33% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
92 | SAUL Nicole | 11% | 31% | 34% | 18% | 5% | 1% | - |
93 | GANSER Yuliya | 1% | 7% | 21% | 32% | 26% | 11% | 2% |
94 | MOHABIR Ariane | 1% | 5% | 17% | 30% | 29% | 15% | 3% |
95 | BROWN Amanda | 23% | 41% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
96 | JI Catherine | 8% | 27% | 34% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
97 | COBERT Helen G. | 1% | 5% | 19% | 32% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
98 | REITINGER Emilie B. | 2% | 11% | 27% | 32% | 20% | 7% | 1% |
99 | YOON Julia J. | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 3% |
100 | UYANIK Nerine | - | - | 4% | 16% | 33% | 33% | 13% |
101 | PROVANCE Amanda R. | 6% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
102 | SHAO Ariel | 20% | 38% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
103 | MYERS Helen Sophia A. | 5% | 21% | 33% | 26% | 11% | 2% | - |
104 | HAUK Zsofia F. | 7% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
105 | BLOOMER Suzanne | 2% | 10% | 25% | 32% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
106 | KIM Caroline | 17% | 36% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
107 | TIMMONS Sarah J. | 7% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 9% | 2% | - |
108 | TOTEMEIER Ann M. | - | < 1% | 4% | 17% | 34% | 33% | 12% |
109 | SIBLEY Elisabeth J. | 20% | 39% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
109 | SLACKMAN Valerie | 3% | 14% | 30% | 31% | 17% | 5% | - |
111 | BOTNER Olivia | 5% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
112 | CAPELLUA Mariasole | 5% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
113 | SCHMID Carola K. | 7% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
113 | NANTON SHYAMALA M. | 10% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 7% | 1% | - |
115 | SCHMUGAR Brooke | 18% | 37% | 30% | 12% | 3% | - | - |
116 | SEMIKIN Julia | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 4% |
117 | SAAL Anna | 15% | 34% | 32% | 15% | 4% | 1% | - |
118 | ALLEN Susan B. | 11% | 30% | 34% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
119 | PROKOP Jeannine A. | 14% | 34% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
119 | SCHAFF Marlene M. | 9% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 7% | 1% | - |
119 | DIDONATO Gianina L. | 10% | 31% | 35% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
122 | BARR Abigail D. | 6% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 2% | - |
123 | KORNGUTH Lindsay | 9% | 27% | 34% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
124 | TONG Sarah Shen | 11% | 33% | 34% | 17% | 4% | 1% | - |
125 | SIDDIQUI Ammna K. | 10% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 7% | 1% | - |
126 | THORNTON Paula R. | 18% | 37% | 30% | 12% | 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.