Richmond, VA - Richmond, VA, 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 | PAK Kaitlyn | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 51% |
| 2 | FOUR-GARCIA Madison | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 57% |
| 3 | BUHAY Rachel T. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 41% | 13% | 2% |
| 3 | FREEDMAN Janna N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 57% | 18% |
| 5 | DELSOIN Chelsea C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 31% | 5% |
| 6 | TAO Hannah J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 75% | 33% |
| 7 | OISHI Megumi | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 48% |
| 8 | SHEARER Natalie E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 34% | 5% |
| 9 | NEWELL Alexia C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 29% | 4% |
| 10 | STONE Hava S. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 34% | 7% |
| 11 | TZOU Alexandra | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 28% |
| 12 | BOIS Adele | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 18% |
| 13 | MOZHAEVA MARIA | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 61% | 16% |
| 14 | CARVALHO Isabela A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 18% |
| 15 | BALAKUMARAN Maya | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 33% | 8% | 1% |
| 16 | CHIOLDI Mina | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 19% | |
| 17 | SULLIVAN Siobhan R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 44% |
| 18 | SHOMAN Miriam | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 29% | 4% |
| 19 | ANDRES Charmaine G. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 36% | 7% | |
| 20 | MIKA Veronica | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 60% | 26% | 5% |
| 21 | KALRA Himani V. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 53% | 12% |
| 22 | LI Amanda C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 40% | 10% |
| 23 | GREENBAUM Ella K. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 14% | |
| 24 | TIMOFEYEV Nicole | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 35% | |
| 25 | YANG Ashley M. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 30% | 5% | |
| 26 | VESTEL Mira B. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 21% | 3% |
| 27 | LEE Alexandra B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 44% |
| 28 | MARSEE Samantha | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 37% | 9% |
| 29 | WIGGERS Susan Q. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 31% | 6% |
| 30 | SHOMAN Jenna | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 42% |
| 31 | GHAYALOD reya | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 19% | 2% |
| 32 | ATLURI Sara V. | 100% | 99% | 86% | 54% | 19% | 3% | |
| 33 | BLUM Leah I. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 30% | |
| 34 | YONG Erika E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 37% | |
| 35 | SZETO Chloe | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 49% | 13% | |
| 36 | GORMAN Victoria M. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 36% | 8% | |
| 37 | JULIEN Michelle | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 41% | 9% |
| 38 | GRAFF Sophie | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 39 | LIU Sophie | 100% | 78% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 40 | MANSPERGER Leena | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
| 41 | WU Erica L. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 35% | 6% |
| 42 | NOVICK Mia J. | 100% | 96% | 76% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 43 | JOHNSON Lauren | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 22% | 3% |
| 44 | PAUL Lila | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 62% | 27% | 5% |
| 44 | DANK Dina | 100% | 99% | 88% | 55% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 46 | CHANG Josephine S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 52% | 16% |
| 46 | NEIBART Fiona | 100% | 100% | 95% | 71% | 31% | 6% | - |
| 48 | LIAO Siwen | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 49 | HULSEBURG Kaitlyn | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 25% | |
| 50 | SINHA Anika | 100% | 99% | 86% | 50% | 15% | 2% | |
| 51 | WANG Jianning | 100% | 78% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 52 | LI Victoria J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 57% | 17% | |
| 53 | WEI Vivian W. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 49% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 54 | LUKASHENKO Angelina | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 15% | 2% |
| 55 | LU Amy | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 47% | 14% | 1% |
| 56 | SOURIMTO Valeria | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 42% | 12% | 1% |
| 57 | BEVACQUA Aria F. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 45% | 15% | 2% |
| 58 | OLSEN Natalie J. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 37% | 7% | |
| 59 | SCALAMONI-GOLDSTEIN Charlotte S. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 39% | 9% | |
| 60 | CHIN Sophia J. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 16% | 1% |
| 61 | LEMUS-IAKOVIDOU ALEXANDRA | 100% | 94% | 63% | 24% | 5% | - | - |
| 62 | BAKER Audrey C. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 46% | 14% | 1% |
| 62 | HUANG MADELINE | 100% | 40% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 64 | MONTORIO Lily M. | 100% | 74% | 29% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 65 | VADASZ Ibla P. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
| 66 | JEAN Olympe G. | 100% | 95% | 74% | 37% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 67 | CHIANG Emily | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 23% | 5% | - |
| 68 | LIGH Erenei J. | 100% | 89% | 53% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 69 | PRIEUR Lauren | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 27% | 4% | |
| 70 | ENGELMAN Madeline A. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 55% | 15% | |
| 71 | SUBRAMANIAN Nitika | 100% | 99% | 87% | 54% | 18% | 2% | |
| 72 | CODY Alexandra C. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 29% | 5% | |
| 73 | OBRADOVIC Ana | 100% | 93% | 66% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 74 | LU Elaine | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 26% | 6% | - |
| 75 | SCHIMINOVICH Sophia I. | 100% | 100% | 93% | 70% | 34% | 9% | 1% |
| 76 | BARTON Mele | 100% | 76% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 77 | CALLAHAN Chase J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 27% | 4% |
| 78 | FANG Victoria W. | 100% | 100% | 93% | 72% | 38% | 12% | 2% |
| 79 | ANDRES Katherine A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 33% | 7% |
| 80 | CHAPMAN-LAYLAND Astrid M. | 100% | 94% | 71% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 81 | HURST Kennedy | 100% | 96% | 77% | 39% | 10% | 1% | |
| 82 | NYSTROM Sofia C. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 32% | 8% | 1% | |
| 83 | KIM Marley I. | 100% | 96% | 77% | 41% | 12% | 1% | |
| 84 | YUAN Greta | 100% | 96% | 76% | 40% | 11% | 1% | |
| 85 | BARNOVITZ Maya | 100% | 70% | 26% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 86 | ALFARACHE Gabriella C. | 100% | 89% | 53% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 87 | KONG Carys H. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 30% | 6% |
| 88 | LUKER Sophia | 100% | 99% | 85% | 47% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 89 | JAVERI Amaya | 100% | 68% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 90 | DAI Olivia | 100% | 63% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 91 | KHAN Alissa | 100% | 83% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 92 | JOHNSON Dagny L. | 100% | 96% | 76% | 42% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 93 | EVANS Madelynn | 100% | 79% | 33% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 94 | SLOBODSKY Sasha L. | 100% | 98% | 77% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 95 | ENDO Miyuki N. | 100% | 97% | 73% | 35% | 9% | 1% | |
| 96 | CHIN Elise | 100% | 40% | 7% | 1% | - | - | |
| 97 | TONG Jessie | 100% | 46% | 9% | 1% | - | - | |
| 98 | ERIKSON Kira R. | 100% | 93% | 63% | 24% | 4% | - | |
| 99 | PAL Anjali G. | 100% | 85% | 45% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 100 | HOLMES Emma | 100% | 96% | 75% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 101 | BOLTON Eleksi M. | 100% | 79% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 102 | TODD Phoebe | 100% | 96% | 75% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 103 | BENOIT Adelaide L. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 74% | 41% | 13% | 2% |
| 103 | HE Lizbeth | 100% | 97% | 73% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 105 | XU ALINA | 100% | 82% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 105 | KANTIPUDI Shrika | 100% | 92% | 61% | 21% | 3% | - | - |
| 107 | SCHICK Veronica | 100% | 84% | 46% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 108 | GOMES Diana C. | 100% | 88% | 45% | 12% | 1% | - | |
| 109 | CHEN Xinyan | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 110 | FEARNS Zara A. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 34% | 6% | |
| 110 | HU Michelle | 100% | 60% | 17% | 2% | - | - | |
| 112 | NATH Trisha | 100% | 82% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 113 | JOHNSON Lydia | 100% | 81% | 42% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 114 | ULIBARRI Nevaeh L. | 100% | 97% | 79% | 45% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 115 | D'ORAZIO Sofia V. | 100% | 43% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 116 | XU Emily T. | 100% | 84% | 46% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 117 | CHANG Audrey | 100% | 71% | 28% | 6% | - | - | |
| 118 | KOLL-BRAVMANN Ryder S. | 100% | 59% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 119 | HAMILTON Ciera | 100% | 85% | 46% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
| 120 | ELNATAN Mica A. | 100% | 34% | 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.