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 | WILLIAMS Jadeyn E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 25% |
| 2 | GREENBAUM Atara R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 32% |
| 3 | AVAKIAN Mikaela | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 51% |
| 3 | KIM Zoe | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 28% |
| 5 | LU Vivian Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 43% | |
| 6 | FOUR-GARCIA Madison | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 70% | 26% | |
| 7 | JOHNSON Honor B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 81% |
| 8 | TZOU Alexandra | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 44% | 8% |
| 9 | PAK Kaitlyn | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 18% |
| 10 | POSSICK Lola P. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 23% |
| 11 | SHOMAN Jenna | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 58% | 14% |
| 12 | WILLIAMS Chloe C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 25% |
| 13 | GOUHIN Chloe | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 25% |
| 14 | HARRISON Imogen N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 59% | 18% |
| 15 | YUN Joy | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 16% |
| 16 | VADASZ Ibla P. | 100% | 98% | 71% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 17 | SULLIVAN Siobhan R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 23% |
| 18 | CHIN Erika J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 25% | |
| 19 | ZEGERS Anneke E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 17% |
| 19 | SKARBONKIEWICZ Magda | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 49% |
| 21 | MILLER Sky | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 53% |
| 22 | KONG Vera | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 46% |
| 23 | CHIOLDI Mina | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 48% | 12% | - |
| 24 | DELSOIN Chelsea C. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 25% | 4% | |
| 25 | NAZLYMOV Tatiana F. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 14% | |
| 26 | LEE Alexandra B. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 23% | |
| 27 | SATHYANATH Kailing | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 55% | 13% | |
| 28 | FREEDMAN Janna N. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 45% | 11% | |
| 29 | LI Amanda C. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 20% | 3% |
| 30 | MARSEE Samantha | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 52% | 15% | 1% |
| 31 | JOHNSON Lauren | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 41% | 9% | 1% |
| 32 | BLUM Leah I. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 28% | 5% |
| 33 | OISHI Megumi | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 18% |
| 34 | CODY Alexandra C. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 78% | 41% | 11% | 1% |
| 35 | JULIEN Michelle | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 47% | 14% | 1% |
| 36 | HILD Nisha | 100% | 96% | 74% | 38% | 10% | 1% | |
| 37 | SZETO Chloe | 100% | 98% | 84% | 52% | 19% | 3% | |
| 37 | ENDO Miyuki N. | 100% | 92% | 63% | 26% | 5% | - | |
| 39 | CHANG Josephine S. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 31% | 4% |
| 40 | TONG Kunling | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 15% |
| 41 | KALRA Himani V. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 50% | 16% | 2% |
| 42 | GREENBAUM Ella K. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 27% | 4% |
| 43 | BUHAY Rachel T. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 56% | 20% | 3% | - |
| 43 | TIMOFEYEV Nicole | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 25% | 4% |
| 45 | OLSEN Natalie J. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 39% | 10% | 1% |
| 46 | NI Sharon | 100% | 97% | 78% | 38% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 47 | FEARNS Zara A. | 100% | 91% | 60% | 25% | 5% | - | |
| 48 | LIANG Megan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 37% | |
| 49 | SHEALY Maggie | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 56% | 16% | |
| 50 | MOZHAEVA MARIA | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 28% | 5% | |
| 51 | BALAKUMARAN Maya | 100% | 92% | 63% | 25% | 5% | - | |
| 52 | ANDRES Katherine A. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 35% | 9% | 1% |
| 53 | ANDRES Charmaine G. | 100% | 100% | 93% | 64% | 27% | 5% | - |
| 54 | CARVALHO Isabela A. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 22% | 4% |
| 55 | XI Shining | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 43% | 11% | 1% |
| 56 | BOIS Adele | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 27% | 4% |
| 57 | MIKA Veronica | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
| 58 | TAO Hannah J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 23% | 1% |
| 59 | LUKASHENKO Angelina | 100% | 99% | 89% | 57% | 20% | 3% | - |
| 60 | YONG Erika E. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 48% | 12% | |
| 61 | DARINGA Arianna | 100% | 82% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 62 | KATZ Anat | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 42% | 12% | 1% |
| 63 | ZIELINSKI Isabella G. | 100% | 83% | 45% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 64 | LEVITIS Danielle | 100% | 78% | 38% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 65 | MATAIEV Natalie S. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 57% | 21% | 3% | - |
| 66 | GORMLEY Arwen E. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 30% | 5% |
| 67 | TODD Phoebe | 100% | 96% | 68% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 68 | STONE Hava S. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 42% | 8% | |
| 69 | NEIBART Fiona | 100% | 80% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 70 | NEWELL Alexia C. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 41% | 11% | 1% |
| 71 | HULSEBURG Kaitlyn | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 20% | 1% |
| 72 | GHAYALOD reya | 100% | 99% | 86% | 53% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 73 | SHOMAN Miriam | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 16% | 2% |
| 74 | KOBOZEVA Tamara V. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 39% | 10% | 1% |
| 75 | BARTON Mele | 100% | 55% | 14% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 76 | CALLAHAN Chase J. | 100% | 100% | 91% | 61% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 77 | DANK Dina | 100% | 97% | 72% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 78 | CAO Stephanie X. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 31% | 6% | |
| 79 | GORMAN Victoria M. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 19% | 3% | |
| 80 | ULIBARRI Nevaeh L. | 100% | 95% | 60% | 17% | 2% | - | |
| 81 | PAUL Lila | 100% | 97% | 81% | 46% | 14% | 2% | |
| 82 | WU Erica L. | 100% | 96% | 77% | 41% | 11% | 1% | |
| 83 | LACSON Sarah | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 35% | 7% |
| 84 | PRIEUR Lauren | 100% | 100% | 93% | 62% | 24% | 4% | - |
| 85 | FANG Victoria W. | 100% | 99% | 85% | 50% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 86 | SCALAMONI-GOLDSTEIN Charlotte S. | 100% | 100% | 91% | 63% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
| 87 | BHATTACHARJEE Rhea | 100% | 99% | 81% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 88 | HUANG MADELINE | 100% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 89 | LIGH Erenei J. | 100% | 85% | 49% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 90 | HOLMES Emma | 100% | 87% | 49% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 91 | JAVERI Amaya | 100% | 67% | 24% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 92 | BEVACQUA Aria F. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 31% | 7% | 1% | |
| 93 | ERIKSON Kira R. | 100% | 78% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 94 | BAKER Audrey C. | 100% | 87% | 51% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 95 | GUTHIKONDA Nithya | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 19% | |
| 96 | DEPEW Charlotte R. | 100% | 82% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 97 | NOVICK Mia J. | 100% | 94% | 57% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 98 | SHIN Andrea Y. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 56% | 19% | 3% | - |
| 98 | LIAO Siwen | 100% | 99% | 68% | 26% | 5% | - | - |
| 100 | GRAFF Sophie | 100% | 99% | 86% | 54% | 19% | 3% | - |
| 101 | TONG Jessie | 100% | 42% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 102 | CHIN Sophia J. | 100% | 93% | 66% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 103 | CHIANG Emily | 100% | 88% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 104 | CALVERT Sarah-Jane E. | 100% | 98% | 80% | 37% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 105 | DILLE Carolina G. | 100% | 82% | 31% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 106 | EVANS Madelynn | 100% | 40% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 107 | ALFARACHE Gabriella C. | 100% | 82% | 37% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 108 | CHANG Audrey | 100% | 87% | 41% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 109 | WANG Jianning | 100% | 91% | 49% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
| 110 | ELNATAN Mica A. | 100% | 34% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 111 | WIGGERS Susan Q. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 19% | 3% | |
| 112 | JEAN Olympe G. | 100% | 95% | 64% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
| 113 | KOLL-BRAVMANN Ryder S. | 100% | 33% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 114 | LU Amy | 100% | 86% | 48% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 115 | SCHIKORE Anna M. | 100% | 59% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 116 | LIGH Karis | 100% | 19% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 117 | D'ORAZIO Sofia V. | 100% | 43% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
| 118 | MEYTIN Sophia E. | 100% | 36% | 5% | - | - | - | |
| 119 | NATH Trisha | 100% | 85% | 41% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 120 | RODGERS Rachel | 100% | 3% | - | - | - | - | - |
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.