New Haven, CT - New Haven, CT, 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 | SHAW Kayla M. | - | - | - | 4% | 18% | 42% | 36% |
2 | SEMEL Liana M. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 38% | 18% |
3 | MILLER Naomi E. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 42% | 26% |
3 | OUYANG Bridgette Z. | - | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 42% | 30% |
5 | ACHILOVA Feyza | - | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 35% | 12% |
6 | WU Irene M. | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 5% |
7 | YE Eileen | - | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 9% |
8 | ZHAO Aileen Y. | - | 3% | 17% | 34% | 32% | 12% | 2% |
9 | YU Lauren C. | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 6% |
10 | COSTELLO Angeline S. | - | - | 7% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 5% |
11 | WEBB Ella | - | 5% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
12 | ZHANG Alina C. | - | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 42% | 33% |
13 | XUE Alanna L. | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 39% | 19% | 3% |
14 | LI Rachel Y. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 35% | 12% |
15 | CHOW Annabelle | - | 3% | 21% | 38% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
16 | DU Hannah | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 7% |
17 | ROY Layla | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
18 | FU Qihan | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
19 | SU Michelle | 1% | 8% | 24% | 33% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
20 | WANG Jasmine | 3% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
21 | HSIEH Rebecca | 13% | 37% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
22 | HUANG Natalie | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 37% | 26% | 6% |
23 | MEYER Claudia | 27% | 42% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
24 | MI Aileen | 5% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
25 | XIANG Emma | 1% | 10% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - |
26 | MI Anning | 1% | 6% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
27 | PAHLAVI Dahlia | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 29% | 10% |
28 | WU Julianna Y. | - | 1% | 13% | 35% | 35% | 14% | 2% |
29 | MEI Sarah | 2% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - |
30 | GU Emily | - | 4% | 23% | 38% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
31 | JIANG Claire | 30% | 42% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
32 | OLIVEIRA Lavinia M. | 2% | 19% | 37% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
33 | SEO Irene Y. | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 23% | 5% |
34 | ASCHETTINO Aurora | 9% | 30% | 36% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
35 | SHA Yi Ling | 2% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 19% | 6% | 1% |
36 | SCHMIDT Victoria | 1% | 51% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
37 | THIRUVENGADAM Harini | 27% | 40% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
38 | YU Jaime L. | 1% | 8% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
39 | LENZ Zoe N. | 16% | 54% | 25% | 5% | - | - | - |
40 | ROHRING Anna | 61% | 32% | 6% | 1% | - | - | - |
41 | ZHENG Ying | 98% | 2% | - | - | - | - | - |
42 | WININGER-SIEVE Taylor | 53% | 38% | 9% | 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.