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 | WU Irene M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 34% | |
| 2 | MI Anning | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 60% | 26% | 5% |
| 3 | PENG Amber L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 36% |
| 3 | OLIVEIRA Lavinia M. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 20% | 3% |
| 5 | SLASKI Caroline O. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
| 6 | SIMONOV Dasha | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 50% | 13% |
| 7 | HWANG Alison | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 28% |
| 8 | CHEW Alexis T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 15% |
| 9 | RANDOLPH Piper | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 18% |
| 10 | ROY Layla | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 83% | 51% | 15% |
| 11 | CANNON Lira J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 52% | |
| 12 | MARKOVSKY Nina | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 13 | WEBB Ella | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 23% |
| 14 | KALE Anika A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 48% | 14% |
| 15 | JENKINS Hannah G. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 45% | 14% | 2% |
| 16 | SCHMIDT Victoria | 100% | 100% | 93% | 65% | 27% | 5% | - |
| 17 | PANT Anisha | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 33% |
| 18 | FU Qihan | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 55% | 23% | 4% |
| 19 | COOPER Piper W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 48% | 11% |
| 20 | XU Marie-Anne J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 35% | 7% |
| 21 | COKER Bettina M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 47% | 12% |
| 22 | TRACZ Calleigh D. | 100% | 95% | 71% | 32% | 7% | 1% | |
| 23 | DU Hannah | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 32% |
| 24 | HIRSCH Sophie A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 33% | 7% |
| 25 | YU Jaime L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 26% |
| 26 | YANG Lingting | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 32% | 6% |
| 27 | XIANG Emma | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 42% | 9% |
| 28 | MORADI Raiyan N. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 67% | 32% | 7% |
| 29 | HUNT Abigail S. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 37% | 10% | 1% |
| 30 | FURST Chloe | 100% | 95% | 73% | 37% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 31 | CHEN Jasmine | 100% | 95% | 71% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 32 | LIU Siyuan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 51% | 15% |
| 33 | BHAN Zala | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 45% | 11% |
| 34 | LUO Sandra J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 25% |
| 35 | MUSTO Isabella | 100% | 98% | 81% | 40% | 9% | 1% | |
| 36 | YIN Helen | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 20% |
| 37 | CHARALEL Jessica | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 44% | 14% | 2% |
| 38 | THIRUVENGADAM Harini | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
| 39 | BRANDON Fionnoula | 100% | 100% | 93% | 65% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 40 | MAO Rebecca J. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 51% | 13% | |
| 41 | LIU Sophia | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 44% | 8% | |
| 42 | PERKINS Jazmin A. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 60% | 25% | 5% |
| 43 | MAESTRADO Ashley R. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 19% | 3% |
| 44 | RAO Sonia D. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 33% | 9% | 1% |
| 45 | PAVE Claire | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 26% | 6% | 1% |
| 45 | YANG Liu (Willow) | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 30% | 7% | 1% |
| 47 | SCHUEPPERT Amelia V. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 39% | 9% |
| 48 | OLSEN Jen | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 47% | 16% | 2% |
| 49 | SHUM Elizabeth | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 44% | 14% | 2% |
| 50 | PARK Leah | 100% | 97% | 80% | 46% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 51 | ZGOMBIC Emily | 100% | 98% | 83% | 52% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 52 | BAWA Sahana | 100% | 97% | 81% | 50% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 53 | LIN Victoria T. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 22% | 3% |
| 54 | TAMRAGOURI Sucheta | 100% | 96% | 74% | 36% | 9% | 1% | |
| 55 | HIRSCH Gabriella H. | 100% | 90% | 51% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 56 | MEYER Claudia | 100% | 96% | 76% | 36% | 8% | 1% | |
| 57 | ROHRING Anna | 100% | 88% | 54% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 58 | HEISER Anna M. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 16% | 2% |
| 59 | DATLA Medha | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 26% | 6% | - |
| 60 | VAUGHAN Norah | 100% | 98% | 83% | 49% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 61 | TAYLOR-CASAMAYOR Marisol | 100% | 84% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 62 | BASSIK Eva | 100% | 96% | 78% | 45% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 63 | QUINN Anna | 100% | 80% | 34% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 64 | LI Irina | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 65 | ZAMELIS Madelyn | 100% | 92% | 63% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 66 | NELSON Gwendolyn H. | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 67 | ASCHETTINO Aurora | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 38% | 12% | 1% |
| 68 | TIBURZI hallie | 100% | 98% | 83% | 52% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 69 | OETZEL Taylor | 100% | 70% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 70 | NICKOLOV Nora | 100% | 70% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 71 | WININGER-SIEVE Taylor | 100% | 63% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 72 | GANDLURI Sreehitha | 100% | 79% | 39% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 73 | HSIUNG Samantha | 100% | 100% | 94% | 67% | 26% | 3% | |
| 74 | KONDAMANI Anya | 100% | 94% | 68% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 75 | DUVVURI Oorvi | 100% | 81% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 76 | HIMMEL Alexandra | 100% | 52% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 77 | SCARLETT Skye | 100% | 78% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 78 | LEE Kaitlyn | 100% | 94% | 70% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 79 | SCHUEPPERT Chloe M. | 100% | 91% | 54% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 80 | ROMANO Megan C. | 100% | 77% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 81 | MADSEN Ansley | 100% | 87% | 40% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 82 | MOSE Anastasia E. | 100% | 71% | 29% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 82 | LEMASTERS Elise M. | 100% | 43% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
| 84 | ECKSTEIN Harriet A. | 100% | 76% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 85 | MCLANE Katherine | 100% | 42% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 86 | KAYGUSUZ Zeynep | 100% | 85% | 49% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 87 | SEMENETS Mira | 100% | 92% | 59% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 88 | CHACE-ORTIZ Naneen | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 89 | BLAM Kaitlin | 100% | 95% | 67% | 27% | 5% | - | - |
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.