Charlotte, NC - Charlotte, NC, 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 | AKSAMIT Monica | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 21% |
| 2 | SHELTON Aleksandra | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 44% |
| 3 | RUSSO Francesca | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 41% |
| 3 | THOMPSON Kamali A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 29% |
| 5 | KONG Vera | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 67% | 33% | 8% |
| 6 | JOHNSON Honor B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 45% | |
| 7 | WOZNIAK Dagmara I. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 66% | 32% | 7% |
| 8 | PLUNKETT Kerry A. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 57% | 24% | 4% |
| 9 | CHAMBERLAIN Maia C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 51% |
| 10 | WOZNIAK Kelli | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 76% | 41% | 10% |
| 11 | WALTER Zsofia R. | 100% | 86% | 50% | 17% | 3% | < 1% | |
| 12 | FOX-GITOMER Chloe N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 69% |
| 13 | GREENBAUM Atara R. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 62% | 28% | 5% |
| 14 | MILLER Sky | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 21% | |
| 15 | MERZA Sarah | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 31% | 5% | |
| 16 | YUN Joy | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 78% | 41% | 8% |
| 17 | BURKE Nora S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 49% |
| 18 | JENKINS Ryan J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 72% | 28% | |
| 18 | SKARBONKIEWICZ Magda | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 29% | |
| 20 | STRZALKOWSKI Aleksandra (Ola) M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 39% | 10% |
| 21 | WHANG Rebecca | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 32% | 3% |
| 22 | HIRSCH Sydney R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 41% | 9% |
| 23 | FOUR-GARCIA Madison | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 40% | 7% |
| 24 | SHEA Erin | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 43% | 14% | 2% |
| 25 | KIM Zoe | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 45% | 12% | |
| 26 | OISHI Megumi | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 27% | 3% |
| 27 | SINGLETON-COMFORT Leanne | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 62% |
| 28 | WITEK Sophie B. | 100% | 94% | 70% | 33% | 8% | 1% | |
| 29 | LU Vivian Y. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 23% | 3% | |
| 30 | PARKER Abigale B. | 100% | 90% | 58% | 22% | 4% | - | |
| 31 | KOVACS Sophia | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 41% | 13% | 2% |
| 32 | LASOTA Marta | 100% | 93% | 67% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 33 | TAO Hannah J. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
| 34 | JOHNSON Edith (Tori) V. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 32% |
| 35 | TARTAKOVSKY Elizabeth | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 24% |
| 36 | HOFFMAN Ilsa L. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 55% | 22% | 4% |
| 37 | SATHYANATH Kailing | 100% | 99% | 88% | 59% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 38 | WILLIAMS Jadeyn E. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 18% | |
| 39 | WEINBERG Alexandra L. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 54% | 20% | 3% |
| 40 | ANGLADE Alexis C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 30% |
| 41 | MORALES Jessica Y. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 22% | 3% |
| 42 | STONE Hava S. | 100% | 94% | 72% | 38% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 43 | DOHERTY Maverick L. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 46% | 13% | 1% |
| 44 | LEE Alexandra B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 45% | 11% |
| 45 | SECK Chejsa-Kaili F. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 57% | 23% | 4% |
| 46 | EDGINGTON Grace | 100% | 94% | 68% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 47 | TONG Kunling | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 37% | 11% | 1% |
| 48 | LINDER Kara E. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 23% | |
| 49 | HEE Malia K. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 52% | 17% | 2% | |
| 50 | SULLIVAN Siobhan R. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 31% | 6% | |
| 51 | CHAN Casey | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 54% | 16% |
| 51 | HARRISON Imogen N. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 32% | 6% |
| 53 | BROWN Emma | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 23% | 5% | 1% |
| 54 | TZOU Alexandra | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 19% | 2% |
| 55 | KUDRIAVTSEVA Daria | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 65% | 31% | 7% |
| 56 | MOYA Keona L. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 63% | 29% | 6% |
| 57 | PINCUS Emma Y. | 100% | 89% | 57% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 58 | GORMAN Alexandra C. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 40% | 13% | 2% |
| 59 | MARSEE Samantha | 100% | 94% | 70% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 60 | TANG Annie L. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 54% | 20% | 3% |
| 61 | LIANG Megan | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 35% | 7% | |
| 62 | GREENBAUM Ella K. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 33% | 7% | - |
| 63 | MERZA Celina | 100% | 100% | 99% | 96% | 80% | 48% | 14% |
| 64 | SHIN Andrea Y. | 100% | 86% | 50% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 65 | CHIN Erika J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 28% | 4% |
| 66 | POSSICK Lola P. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 54% | 20% | 3% |
| 67 | TANG Catherine H. | 100% | 91% | 63% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 68 | YUN Maya | 100% | 87% | 52% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 69 | PAK Kaitlyn | 100% | 99% | 88% | 57% | 22% | 3% | |
| 70 | HINDS Eva R. | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 70 | CHEN Erin Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 49% | 12% |
| 72 | HARRILL Gillian N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 46% | 11% |
| 73 | WILSON Sienna | 100% | 99% | 88% | 58% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 73 | GUTHIKONDA Nithya | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 66% | 31% | 6% |
| 75 | LARGAESPADA Fatima | 100% | 94% | 70% | 32% | 7% | 1% | |
| 76 | TURNER Zoe Y. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 20% | 3% | |
| 77 | BUCHMANN Vivien | 100% | 97% | 81% | 50% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 78 | WIGGERS Susan Q. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 31% | 9% | 1% |
| 79 | WILLIAMS Chloe C. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 58% | 25% | 5% |
| 80 | JULIEN Michelle | 100% | 95% | 76% | 43% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 81 | GOUHIN Chloe | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 86% | 56% | 18% |
| 82 | MANUBAG Amanda R. | 100% | 79% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 83 | FREEDMAN Janna N. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 15% | 2% |
| 84 | HOOGENDOORN Sterre | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
| 85 | TOMASZEWSKI Alicja C. | 100% | 93% | 65% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 85 | KUZNETSOVA Nastassja | 100% | 95% | 73% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 87 | KOBOZEVA Tamara V. | 100% | 88% | 57% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 88 | LI Victoria J. | 100% | 97% | 79% | 45% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 89 | SHOMAN Miriam | 100% | 84% | 46% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 90 | KATZ Anat | 100% | 91% | 61% | 25% | 5% | - | |
| 91 | HONE Katarina G. | 100% | 85% | 48% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 92 | SHEALY Maggie | 100% | 96% | 77% | 41% | 11% | 1% | |
| 92 | THEODORE Maria A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 19% | |
| 94 | TIMOFEYEV Daniella | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 39% | 7% | |
| 95 | ROH Rachel E. | 100% | 97% | 79% | 43% | 12% | 1% | |
| 96 | CHANG Josephine S. | 100% | 94% | 70% | 33% | 8% | 1% | |
| 97 | TIMOFEYEV Nicole | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 46% | 14% | 1% |
| 98 | HOOGENDOORN Levi | 100% | 95% | 72% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 99 | REDDY Shreya | 100% | 95% | 74% | 39% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 100 | LACSON Sarah | 100% | 97% | 80% | 47% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 101 | DANAHY Ellen D. | 100% | 85% | 47% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 102 | SWALLOW Abigail R. | 100% | 93% | 69% | 34% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 103 | MENKE Kavya I. | 100% | 79% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 104 | MATAIEV Natalie S. | 100% | 73% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 105 | LIU Rachel | 100% | 95% | 71% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 105 | SHOMAN Jenna | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 21% | 3% |
| 107 | SCALAMONI-GOLDSTEIN Charlotte S. | 100% | 97% | 79% | 44% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 108 | LAMBERT Jasmine M. | 100% | 97% | 80% | 48% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 108 | KOLMYKOVA Aleksandra | 100% | 96% | 77% | 44% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 110 | FLOREZ Melissa | 100% | 93% | 69% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 111 | ZEGERS Anneke E. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 40% | 10% |
| 112 | ZEGERS Gabrielle N. | 100% | 86% | 48% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 112 | KOO Samantha | 100% | 93% | 66% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 114 | DRAGON Rainer | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
| 115 | HANADARI-LEVY Amit | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 28% | 7% | 1% |
| 116 | GORMAN Victoria M. | 100% | 95% | 72% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 117 | VALADEZ Emily T. | 100% | 85% | 49% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 118 | PINCUS Lucy Y. | 100% | 76% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 119 | ANDRES Katherine A. | 100% | 92% | 62% | 25% | 5% | - | |
| 120 | DELSOIN Chelsea C. | 100% | 91% | 59% | 22% | 4% | - | |
| 121 | GHOSH Priyanka | 100% | 84% | 46% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 122 | OLSEN Natalie J. | 100% | 88% | 53% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 123 | WU Erica L. | 100% | 82% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 124 | SAYLES Nina R. | 100% | 85% | 48% | 15% | 3% | - | |
| 124 | KIM Catherine | 100% | 85% | 48% | 16% | 2% | - | |
| 124 | DI PERNA Chiara I. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 40% | |
| 127 | WEBER Juliana I. | 100% | 86% | 49% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 128 | HILADO Sarah | 100% | 94% | 70% | 35% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 129 | LAWLOR Gillian M. | 100% | 97% | 80% | 49% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 130 | CHEN Crystal | 100% | 82% | 44% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 130 | LIN Audrey J. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 29% | 6% | - |
| 132 | HE Charlotte | 100% | 98% | 85% | 56% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 133 | BLUM Leah I. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 35% | 9% | 1% |
| 134 | KALRA Himani V. | 100% | 96% | 79% | 47% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 135 | VAN ATTA Grace Y. | 100% | 85% | 51% | 19% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 136 | BOIS Adele | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 137 | DEPEW Charlotte R. | 100% | 81% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 138 | BERMAN Stella | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 35% | 9% | 1% |
| 139 | YURT Leyla | 100% | 75% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 140 | CHEN Xinyan | 100% | 76% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 141 | ZHOU Rebecca M. | 100% | 84% | 48% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 142 | TURNOF Kayla M. | 100% | 82% | 44% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 143 | BENOIT Adelaide L. | 100% | 95% | 71% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 144 | BAE EMMELINE | 100% | 83% | 46% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 145 | SHAY-TANNAS Zoe | 100% | 86% | 50% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 146 | NEIBART Fiona | 100% | 81% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 147 | ZIELINSKI Isabella G. | 100% | 82% | 45% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 148 | DUNLAP Allison N. | 100% | 81% | 44% | 15% | 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.