Philadelphia, PA - Philadelphia, PA, 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 | NORCONK Claire R. | - | - | - | 6% | 33% | 60% | |
| 2 | KORFONTA Jolie | - | - | - | 2% | 11% | 38% | 49% |
| 3 | BONDAR Nika | - | 2% | 9% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 7% |
| 3 | FENG ge | - | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 38% | 16% |
| 5 | WITTE Vera | - | - | 4% | 16% | 33% | 34% | 13% |
| 6 | YANG Chloe | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 41% | 28% | |
| 7 | GUJJA Misha | - | 3% | 15% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 3% |
| 8 | LEE Yedda | - | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 37% | 20% |
| 9 | BOK Michelle | - | - | 2% | 14% | 43% | 41% | |
| 10 | MCSHINE Katelyn H. | - | 2% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 5% |
| 11 | YOU Emily | 1% | 9% | 26% | 33% | 22% | 8% | 1% |
| 12 | CHERNYSHOVA Victoria | - | 2% | 14% | 33% | 36% | 14% | |
| 13 | PALANSKI Cate | - | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 40% | 25% |
| 14 | ANDERSON Claire | - | 5% | 21% | 34% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 15 | HABERMAN Hailey | 9% | 30% | 36% | 20% | 5% | - | |
| 16 | RAINEY Zoe-Andrea | 1% | 13% | 34% | 36% | 15% | 2% | |
| 17 | PECK Maia A. | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 11% |
| 18 | CHANG Ella | 1% | 5% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 19 | CAPELLUA Mariasole | - | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 40% | 21% |
| 20 | TAYLOR Beth | - | 1% | 4% | 17% | 34% | 32% | 11% |
| 21 | MORIN Jenna | - | 2% | 9% | 25% | 34% | 24% | 6% |
| 22 | DOERR Zoe | 2% | 11% | 26% | 32% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
| 23 | LEE Kaitlyn M. | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 34% | 26% | 8% |
| 24 | HUANG NATALIE | - | 6% | 22% | 37% | 28% | 8% | |
| 25 | POPOVICI Alina B. | - | 2% | 14% | 36% | 37% | 11% | |
| 26 | LESPERANCE Jordan | 6% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | |
| 27 | LIU Nicole | - | 3% | 19% | 42% | 30% | 6% | |
| 28 | PRIHODKO Nina | 1% | 12% | 33% | 35% | 16% | 3% | |
| 29 | FURMAN Maria | - | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 38% | 18% |
| 30 | CAVANAUGH Evelyn R. | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 37% | 17% | 3% |
| 31 | NGUYEN Audrey | 1% | 10% | 25% | 32% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
| 32 | ZENG Katrina | 1% | 9% | 24% | 33% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
| 33 | LONADIER Keira | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 7% |
| 34 | BENZAN India | - | 4% | 25% | 43% | 25% | 3% | |
| 35 | UPHAM Karolyn | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 36 | DUARTE-GARCIA Zoya A. | - | 4% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% |
| 37 | SCHULTZ Gillian | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 34% | 26% | 8% |
| 38 | PEARSON Heila | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 7% |
| 39 | GROSSL Karina | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 3% |
| 40 | MCGEE Sophia | - | 3% | 12% | 28% | 34% | 19% | 4% |
| 41 | MILEWSKI Samantha | - | 4% | 17% | 32% | 31% | 14% | 2% |
| 41 | MURDOCH ROY Grace | 8% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 43 | APPLEBEE Andralyn | 2% | 13% | 31% | 33% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 44 | ROWLAND May | 6% | 34% | 39% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 45 | ABRAMSON Mariela R. | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 6% |
| 46 | HICKS Grace | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
| 47 | LI Alisha | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 11% |
| 48 | BOLES Savvianna | 1% | 7% | 21% | 32% | 27% | 11% | 2% |
| 49 | SHEIN Evita | 17% | 38% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 50 | EGENOLF Gabriella | 10% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 51 | KRUMHOLZ Nicole | 1% | 5% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 2% |
| 52 | HILLYER Megan | 14% | 34% | 32% | 15% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 53 | HAMILTON Nina M. | 1% | 9% | 25% | 34% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 54 | WIESSLER-HUGHES Linda | - | 3% | 14% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 3% |
| 55 | SCHAFF Marlene M. | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 4% |
| 56 | MACEDON Gianna | 13% | 36% | 35% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 57 | TAN Jocelyn | 2% | 13% | 28% | 31% | 19% | 6% | 1% |
| 58 | CAI Catelynn | 17% | 37% | 31% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
| 59 | FLANIGAN KENDRA | 1% | 10% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 60 | PARKS Eliana | 12% | 31% | 33% | 18% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 61 | XU Katelyn | 2% | 13% | 31% | 33% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 62 | HIRSCH Naomi B. | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 13% | 1% |
| 63 | KANEVSKY Samantha | - | 11% | 35% | 37% | 15% | 2% | |
| 64 | SAINT-PHARD Shana | 5% | 28% | 39% | 22% | 6% | 1% | |
| 65 | NAROTZKY Emma | - | 4% | 19% | 36% | 31% | 10% | |
| 66 | BYBEE Lucy J. | 2% | 13% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 3% | |
| 67 | ZOU Jiayi-Hannah | 55% | 38% | 7% | - | - | - | |
| 68 | ARAYE Nasro | - | 3% | 13% | 29% | 34% | 18% | 3% |
| 69 | RIST Rebecca (Beck) J. | 3% | 16% | 32% | 30% | 15% | 4% | - |
| 70 | NEELAM Neha | 2% | 12% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 5% | - |
| 71 | SHUKLA Tanya | 27% | 42% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 72 | NOLLNER Jennifer R. | 11% | 31% | 34% | 18% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 73 | HAYDEN Molly | 1% | 11% | 30% | 36% | 18% | 3% | |
| 74 | CHANG Ella | 9% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 5% | 1% | |
| 75 | GELMAN Emily | 50% | 38% | 11% | 2% | - | - | |
| 76 | DONDISCH Andrea | 40% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - | - | |
| 77 | MEZACK Nicole | 9% | 37% | 39% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 77 | MANDAP Svetlanna | 1% | 9% | 25% | 33% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
| 79 | BARREIRO Katrina | 34% | 41% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 80 | SOTELO Michelle | 3% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 81 | BENJAMIN Stephanie | 6% | 23% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 81 | LEWIS Rachel | 3% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 83 | TOFFELMIRE Amelia A. | - | < 1% | 1% | 8% | 27% | 41% | 22% |
| 84 | SHICK Klaudia | 2% | 14% | 33% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 84 | UNGURIANU Nika | 13% | 33% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 86 | DANNHAUSER Carol A. | 5% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 86 | FRIEDLANDER Sarah | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 86 | KIM Lynne | 54% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 89 | AUCHTERLONIE Seven | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 90 | MAGALSKI Mary | 12% | 32% | 34% | 18% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 91 | GARTNER Kacie | 13% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 4% | - | - |
| 92 | RYDMAN Grace | 8% | 36% | 42% | 12% | 1% | - | |
| 93 | STECKMEISTER Evelyn | 7% | 30% | 42% | 19% | 2% | - | |
| 94 | CAPEZZA Olivia | 28% | 40% | 24% | 7% | 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.