Baltimore, MD - Baltimore, MD, USA
Explore the probability of achieving at least a certain number of victories in the pool 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 | OLSEN Natalie J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 30% | 5% |
| 2 | PAK Kaitlyn | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 35% |
| 3 | GUTHIKONDA Nithya | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 33% |
| 3 | NAZLYMOV Tatiana F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 78% | 34% |
| 5 | POSSICK Lola P. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 38% |
| 6 | SATHYANATH Kailing | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 13% |
| 7 | JULIEN Michelle | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 35% | 6% |
| 8 | STONE Hava S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 51% | 13% |
| 9 | LEE Alexandra B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 60% |
| 10 | TAO Hannah J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 31% | |
| 11 | KOO Samantha | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 42% | 9% | |
| 12 | FREEDMAN Janna N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 74% | 31% |
| 13 | SHOMAN Jenna | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 26% | |
| 14 | CHIOLDI Mina | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 46% | 12% | |
| 15 | CANNON Sophia E. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 16 | HAN Jeanette X. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 31% | 6% |
| 17 | LI Amanda C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 30% | 6% |
| 18 | CHING Sapphira S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 52% | 16% |
| 19 | TANG Annie L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 61% | 22% |
| 20 | CAO Stephanie X. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 41% | 9% |
| 20 | LU Amy | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 46% | 14% | 1% |
| 22 | TONG Kunling | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 32% | |
| 23 | WIGGERS Susan Q. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 6% | |
| 24 | ANDRES Charmaine G. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 49% | 14% | 1% |
| 25 | DELSOIN Chelsea C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 35% | 8% |
| 26 | WEBER Juliana I. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 37% | 7% | |
| 27 | BHATTACHARJEE Rhea | 100% | 100% | 92% | 60% | 21% | 3% | |
| 28 | KATZ Anat | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 14% | |
| 29 | CHEN Erica | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 36% | 7% |
| 30 | SINHA Anika | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 27% | 6% | - |
| 31 | KOBOZEVA Tamara V. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 61% | 25% | 4% |
| 32 | NYSTROM Sofia C. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 53% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 33 | GORMAN Victoria M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 32% | 6% |
| 34 | HU Allison C. | 100% | 96% | 71% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 35 | KALRA Himani V. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 40% | 9% | |
| 36 | TUCKER Iman R. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 27% | 5% | |
| 37 | WU Erica L. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 5% |
| 38 | CHANG Emily | 100% | 100% | 94% | 74% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 39 | HILD Nisha | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 39% | 12% | 1% |
| 40 | ALCEBAR Kayla | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 41% | 9% | |
| 41 | CANSECO Laura K. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 17% | 2% | |
| 42 | MIKA Veronica | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 33% | 7% |
| 43 | LU Yi Lin | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 28% | 7% | 1% |
| 44 | DEPEW Charlotte R. | 100% | 98% | 80% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 44 | NEWELL Alexia C. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 16% | 2% |
| 46 | CHEN Xinyan | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 47 | BALAKUMARAN Maya | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 18% | 2% |
| 48 | SHOMAN Miriam | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 18% | 3% |
| 49 | BUHAY Rachel T. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 20% | 3% |
| 50 | WEI Vivian W. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 51 | ANDRES Katherine A. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 20% | 3% | |
| 52 | YANG Ashley M. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 36% | 7% | |
| 53 | TODD Phoebe | 100% | 86% | 52% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 54 | LIN Selena | 100% | 97% | 80% | 46% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 55 | NEIBART Fiona | 100% | 100% | 94% | 72% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
| 56 | RIZKALA Joanna | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 45% | 15% | 2% |
| 57 | SUBRAMANIAN Nitika | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 26% | 6% | - |
| 58 | MATAIEV Natalie S. | 100% | 96% | 77% | 44% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 59 | DARINGA Arianna | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 60 | YUAN Greta | 100% | 97% | 77% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 61 | DHAR Aamina | 100% | 99% | 69% | 26% | 5% | - | |
| 62 | RHIE Lena | 100% | 97% | 75% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 63 | NG Sarah W. | 100% | 99% | 76% | 28% | 5% | - | - |
| 64 | BEVACQUA Aria F. | 100% | 86% | 48% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 65 | JENKINS Scotland | 100% | 75% | 32% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 66 | YANG Kaitlyn H. | 100% | 100% | 86% | 47% | 13% | 1% | |
| 67 | SLOBODSKY Sasha L. | 100% | 99% | 84% | 49% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 68 | GIRARDI Aemilia | 100% | 95% | 70% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 69 | BILILIES Sophia | 100% | 97% | 78% | 42% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 70 | JAVERI Amaya | 100% | 62% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 71 | BAKER Amelia M. | 100% | 97% | 51% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 72 | GUTHIKONDA Sunanya | 100% | 89% | 42% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 73 | LIAO Siwen | 100% | 91% | 57% | 20% | 4% | - | |
| 74 | JIN Olivia P. | 100% | 78% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 75 | BHOGAL Sukhleen | 100% | 36% | 5% | - | - | - | |
| 76 | WILSON Isley N. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 72% | 37% | 11% | 1% |
| 77 | SCHIKORE Anna M. | 100% | 76% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 78 | D'ORAZIO Sofia V. | 100% | 54% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 79 | CHIANG Emily | 100% | 98% | 80% | 44% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 80 | WHEELER Kira | 100% | 53% | 13% | 2% | - | - | |
| 81 | ZIELINSKI Isabella G. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 33% | 8% | 1% |
| 82 | HORMEL Molly | 100% | 8% | - | - | - | - | |
| 83 | MANTOAN Adeline L. | 100% | 33% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 83 | ZENG Megan | 100% | 44% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 85 | HUANG Lily | 100% | 12% | - | - | - | - | - |
| 86 | CONGIUSTA Aelex | 100% | 49% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 87 | MEYTIN Sophia E. | 100% | 36% | 6% | 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.