Manalapan, NJ - Manalapan, 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 | LIU Charlene (Kai) | - | - | - | - | 5% | 30% | 65% |
| 2 | KUZNETSOV Victoria | - | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 40% | 21% |
| 3 | DAVIS Jessica L. | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 7% |
| 3 | GU Sarah | - | 1% | 4% | 16% | 32% | 33% | 14% |
| 5 | SCHMIDT Lori M. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 35% | 12% |
| 6 | ZHANG Tina | - | 1% | 4% | 17% | 35% | 32% | 11% |
| 7 | KOWALSKY Rachel A. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 26% |
| 8 | DOUGLAS Julia F. | 1% | 8% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 4% | |
| 9 | WANG Yumin | - | - | 2% | 14% | 40% | 44% | |
| 10 | LONG Cindy | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 5% |
| 11 | LIVERANT Jordan S. | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 40% | 18% | 2% |
| 12 | LEE kyungmin | - | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 42% | 18% |
| 13 | JOHNSON Ryleigh E. | - | 5% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 8% | 1% |
| 13 | TEMIRYAEV Anna M. | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 7% |
| 15 | BLIN Margaux J. | - | 5% | 21% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
| 16 | SMOTRITSKY Mia | 17% | 37% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 17 | CHIN Isabella | - | - | - | 4% | 20% | 44% | 31% |
| 18 | KIM Diane E. | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 6% |
| 19 | DE JAGER Celine | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 12% | 2% |
| 20 | LEE Yedda | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% | |
| 21 | MARCHANT Sandra M. | - | 4% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 13% | |
| 22 | CHAN Elizabeth | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
| 23 | HUH Anna | 1% | 8% | 24% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
| 24 | SAAL Anna | - | 5% | 17% | 31% | 30% | 14% | 3% |
| 25 | PAN Michelle | 2% | 15% | 39% | 32% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 26 | LU Junyao | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 36% | 15% | |
| 27 | DESAMOURS Sabine I. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 35% | 14% |
| 28 | NICOU Nicole | 18% | 37% | 30% | 12% | 3% | - | - |
| 29 | BOWIE Charlotta | 9% | 30% | 35% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 30 | GANSER Yuliya | 5% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 1% | |
| 31 | HENRY Asha S. | - | 1% | 4% | 17% | 34% | 32% | 11% |
| 32 | SLACKMAN Valerie | 5% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 1% | |
| 33 | SIBLEY Elisabeth J. | - | 4% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
| 34 | FALLON Kyle R. | - | - | 4% | 16% | 33% | 34% | 13% |
| 34 | LEE Olive | - | 4% | 20% | 39% | 29% | 8% | - |
| 36 | HODGES Grace A. | 3% | 17% | 35% | 32% | 12% | 2% | |
| 37 | GOLDBERG Sophie C. | 11% | 34% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 38 | SMUK Daria A. | 1% | 9% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
| 39 | LI Alisha | 5% | 23% | 36% | 25% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 40 | KULKARNI Diya | - | - | 3% | 18% | 40% | 33% | 5% |
| 41 | ZAKHAROV Anne (Anya) E. | 4% | 33% | 39% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 42 | KIM Elizabeth Y. | 1% | 9% | 29% | 38% | 20% | 3% | |
| 43 | GLASSNER Sophia Rose S. | 6% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 44 | PROKOP Jeannine A. | 1% | 5% | 19% | 32% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
| 45 | SAFKO Liubov V. | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 4% |
| 45 | ZHAO Yingying | 2% | 12% | 28% | 32% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
| 47 | SIDDIQUI Ammna K. | 1% | 10% | 31% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 48 | HILL Phoebe | 3% | 17% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 49 | GAO Judy | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 50 | PERALTA-VIRTUE Kamilla M. | 9% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 5% | 1% | |
| 51 | YAO Jillian | - | 6% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
| 52 | GOLDEN Danielle | 17% | 38% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 53 | MORIN Jenna | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 54 | GANGEMI Julia | 16% | 39% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 55 | RIST Rebecca (Beck) J. | 25% | 46% | 23% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 56 | LEE Anna | 42% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 57 | HOSANAGAR Inchara | 15% | 43% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 58 | ROWLAND May | 26% | 43% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 59 | DANNHAUSER Carol A. | 35% | 46% | 17% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 60 | MIDGLEY Janice M. | 28% | 43% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 61 | ZISCHKE Alexandra A. | 75% | 23% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
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.