Philadelphia, PA - Philadelphia, PA, 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 | HUSISIAN Hadley N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 72% |
| 2 | CHENG Ava | 100% | 99% | 88% | 60% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 3 | LIN Katie Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 36% | |
| 3 | ISERT Sarah | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 38% | 9% | |
| 5 | DOUGLAS Julia F. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 64% | 30% | 7% |
| 6 | GEBALA Natalie Brooke A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 17% |
| 7 | DAVIS Jessica L. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 49% | 13% | |
| 8 | DONDISCH Sophia | 100% | 87% | 54% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 9 | BEI Karen | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 24% |
| 10 | ZHANG Tina Tianyi | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 22% | 2% |
| 11 | MCLANE Lauren | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 27% | |
| 12 | ZIGALO Elizabeth | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 45% | 12% | |
| 13 | COBERT Helen G. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 22% | 4% | |
| 14 | GABERKORN Nadia | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 67% | 33% | 8% |
| 15 | ROSS Naomi O. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 54% | 17% | |
| 16 | NI Emma | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 33% | 6% | |
| 17 | REID Anousheh | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 4% |
| 18 | DROVETSKY Alexandra M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 48% | |
| 19 | KUZNETSOV Victoria | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 43% | 10% |
| 20 | DOROSHKEVICH Victoriia | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 27% | 5% |
| 21 | LEUNG Natalie | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 14% | |
| 22 | CHU Audrey | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 27% | |
| 23 | LIN Elaine | 100% | 88% | 55% | 21% | 5% | - | |
| 24 | LEANG Priscilla Y. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 47% | 13% | |
| 25 | MILEWSKI Nicole | 100% | 99% | 88% | 60% | 23% | 3% | |
| 26 | SZEWC Alexandra | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 20% | 3% | |
| 27 | LEE Yedda | 100% | 98% | 84% | 54% | 22% | 5% | 1% |
| 28 | PAN Michelle | 100% | 97% | 83% | 52% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 29 | PRIMES Amanda M. | 100% | 92% | 62% | 25% | 5% | - | |
| 30 | SCHMIDT Lori M. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 40% | 8% | |
| 31 | GLASSNER Sophia Rose S. | 100% | 95% | 73% | 37% | 10% | 1% | |
| 32 | LEANG Andrea K. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 52% | 19% | 3% | |
| 33 | LIU Christina A. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 58% | 22% | 3% | |
| 34 | BALAKRISHNAN Monica S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 25% |
| 35 | BOK Michelle | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 23% | 5% | 1% |
| 36 | GUMAGAY Erika L. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 28% | 5% | |
| 37 | SHEVCHENKO Viktoriia | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 13% | 2% | |
| 38 | LAN Alice S. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 86% | 59% | 26% | 5% |
| 39 | DESAI Meera P. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 53% | 21% | 4% |
| 40 | CHAN Elizabeth | 100% | 98% | 84% | 53% | 20% | 3% | |
| 41 | IGOE Nirali B. | 100% | 96% | 77% | 42% | 13% | 2% | |
| 42 | GAJJALA Sharika R. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 25% | |
| 43 | BAJAJ Nikita K. | 100% | 93% | 68% | 33% | 9% | 1% | |
| 44 | MAO Amy | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 19% | 3% | |
| 45 | LU Samantha R. | 100% | 97% | 80% | 46% | 15% | 2% | |
| 46 | GAO Judy | 100% | 91% | 61% | 25% | 6% | 1% | |
| 47 | ZAFFT Sharrie A. | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 4% | |
| 48 | SWEET Ryleigh E. | 100% | 81% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 49 | ASHER Valerie | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 40% | 9% | |
| 50 | MARCHANT Sandra M. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 52% | 20% | 3% |
| 51 | FELAND Alexandra | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 49% | 17% | 3% |
| 52 | KALE Anika A. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 53 | CAPELLUA Mariasole | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 28% | 6% | - |
| 54 | SIBLEY Elisabeth J. | 100% | 96% | 78% | 46% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 55 | SAAL Anna | 100% | 93% | 66% | 29% | 7% | 1% | |
| 56 | MUELLER Emma M. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 32% | 8% | 1% | |
| 57 | KIM Elizabeth Y. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 28% | 5% | |
| 58 | GANSER Yuliya | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 22% | 4% | |
| 59 | EBRAHIM Ameera H. | 100% | 97% | 84% | 55% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
| 60 | SMUK Daria A. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 59% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 61 | ABRAMSON Mariela R. | 100% | 75% | 32% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 62 | PRIHODKO Nina | 100% | 87% | 52% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 63 | KIM Zoe L. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 25% | 4% | |
| 64 | DARANOUVONG Logan | 100% | 97% | 79% | 44% | 13% | 1% | |
| 65 | SMOTRITSKY Mia | 100% | 99% | 88% | 59% | 22% | 3% | |
| 66 | MING Cynthia | 100% | 84% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 67 | WEBER Nora | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 40% | 12% | 2% |
| 68 | ZENG Katrina | 100% | 73% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 69 | PROKOP Jeannine A. | 100% | 89% | 57% | 22% | 4% | - | |
| 70 | PEARSON Heila | 100% | 82% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 71 | KIM Jayna | 100% | 86% | 49% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 72 | YAO KATHARINE | 100% | 92% | 63% | 26% | 5% | - | |
| 73 | MYERS Jeanelle Christina A. | 100% | 83% | 44% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 74 | KENT Elizabeth J. | 100% | 82% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 75 | POLANICHKA Nicole P. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 41% | 11% | |
| 76 | AHUJA Arianna | 100% | 96% | 76% | 40% | 11% | 1% | |
| 77 | DAMRATOSKI Anna Z. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 37% | 10% | 1% |
| 78 | LI Alisha | 100% | 87% | 54% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 79 | RAINEY Zoe-Andrea | 100% | 74% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 80 | MESCHIA Maggie | 100% | 91% | 63% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 81 | SCHAFF Marlene M. | 100% | 94% | 70% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 82 | CAREY Michele S. | 100% | 95% | 73% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 83 | GLOVER Cynthia E. | 100% | 82% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 84 | MORGAN Elizabeth (Ella) R. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 22% | 4% | |
| 85 | BOWIE Charlotta | 100% | 67% | 26% | 5% | 1% | - | |
| 86 | POPOVICI Alina B. | 100% | 87% | 52% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 87 | NGUYEN Audrey | 100% | 86% | 52% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 88 | HU Chelsea | 100% | 78% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 89 | PROVANCE Amanda R. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 40% | 13% | 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.