Fort Worth, TX - Fort Worth, TX, 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 | CHAMBERLAIN Maia C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 34% |
| 2 | STONE Anne-Elizabeth | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 37% |
| 3 | THOMPSON Kamali A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 26% |
| 3 | FOX-GITOMER Chloe N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 55% | |
| 5 | JOHNSON Honor B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 61% |
| 6 | WOZNIAK Dagmara I. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 49% | 13% |
| 7 | JENKINS Ryan J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 60% | 19% |
| 8 | RUSSO Francesca | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 54% | |
| 9 | SHELTON Aleksandra | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 30% |
| 10 | BURKE Nora S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 41% |
| 11 | LINDER Kara E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 58% | 15% |
| 12 | WITEK Sophie B. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 6% | - |
| 13 | GUTHIKONDA Nithya | 100% | 99% | 92% | 63% | 19% | ||
| 14 | NAZLYMOV Tatiana F. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 37% | 10% | 1% |
| 15 | GREENBAUM Atara R. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 56% | 22% | 3% |
| 16 | BROWN Emma | 100% | 98% | 81% | 46% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 17 | HARRILL Gillian N. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 74% | 37% | 8% | |
| 18 | SINGLETON-COMFORT Leanne | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 41% |
| 19 | THEODORE Maria A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 34% | 7% |
| 20 | TARTAKOVSKY Elizabeth | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 52% | 15% |
| 21 | POSSICK Lola P. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 50% | 18% | 3% |
| 22 | ANGLADE Alexis C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 23% | |
| 23 | WILLIAMS Chloe C. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 51% | 19% | 3% |
| 24 | AVAKIAN Mikaela | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 19% |
| 25 | KOVACS Sophia | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 39% | 11% | 1% |
| 26 | ZEGERS Anneke E. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 48% | 16% | 2% |
| 27 | DUNGEY Amelia S. | 100% | 95% | 73% | 36% | 10% | 1% | |
| 28 | DELSOIN Chelsea C. | 100% | 95% | 73% | 34% | 7% | - | |
| 29 | CHANG Josephine S. | 100% | 97% | 79% | 43% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 30 | TONG Kunling | 100% | 99% | 92% | 63% | 27% | 6% | - |
| 31 | LEE Alexandra B. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 51% | 18% | 2% |
| 32 | FREEDMAN Janna N. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 30% | 7% | 1% |
| 33 | MARSEE Samantha | 100% | 87% | 49% | 13% | 1% | ||
| 34 | CAO Stephanie X. | 100% | 96% | 79% | 48% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 35 | ADYNSKI Gillian I. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 31% | 6% |
| 36 | LACSON Sarah | 100% | 97% | 81% | 47% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 37 | LU Vivian Y. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 21% | 2% |
| 38 | OISHI Megumi | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 52% | 18% | 2% |
| 39 | SHOMAN Jenna | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 49% | 18% | 3% |
| 40 | DOHERTY Maverick L. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 37% | 10% | 1% |
| 41 | ENGELMAN Madeline A. | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 42 | CHIN Erika J. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 19% | 2% |
| 43 | KIM Zoe | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 32% | 6% |
| 44 | WILLIAMS Jadeyn E. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 34% | 5% | |
| 45 | PAK Kaitlyn | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 24% | 3% | |
| 46 | JULIEN Michelle | 100% | 84% | 44% | 11% | 1% | ||
| 47 | GORMAN Victoria M. | 100% | 92% | 61% | 24% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 48 | KALRA Himani V. | 100% | 94% | 66% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 49 | BLUM Leah I. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 64% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 50 | GOUHIN Chloe | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 61% | 15% | |
| 51 | OLSEN Natalie J. | 100% | 92% | 63% | 24% | 4% | - | |
| 52 | GREENBAUM Ella K. | 100% | 91% | 60% | 23% | 4% | - | |
| 53 | STAPLETON Lindsay K. | 100% | 78% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 54 | CARVALHO Isabela A. | 100% | 88% | 55% | 20% | 4% | - | |
| 54 | HILD Nisha | 100% | 83% | 44% | 12% | 1% | - | |
| 56 | ATLURI Sara V. | 100% | 87% | 51% | 16% | 2% | - | |
| 57 | ANDRES Charmaine G. | 100% | 72% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 58 | WEINBERG Alexandra L. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 14% | 1% |
| 59 | BOIS Adele | 100% | 98% | 84% | 53% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 60 | WALTER Zsofia R. | 100% | 96% | 76% | 43% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 61 | LIN Audrey J. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 62 | LU Amy | 100% | 65% | 24% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 63 | YODER Bridget H. | 100% | 77% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 64 | KONG Vera | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 32% | ||
| 65 | WIGGERS Susan Q. | 100% | 95% | 75% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 66 | ANDRES Katherine A. | 100% | 96% | 75% | 39% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 67 | MIKA Veronica | 100% | 82% | 41% | 10% | 1% | ||
| 68 | SATHYANATH Kailing | 100% | 83% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 69 | SULLIVAN Siobhan R. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 54% | 20% | 3% |
| 70 | YUN Maya | 100% | 94% | 72% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 71 | TURNER Zoe Y. | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 26% | 6% | 1% |
| 72 | LI Victoria J. | 100% | 95% | 72% | 37% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 73 | HARRISON Imogen N. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 24% | 4% |
| 73 | FOUR-GARCIA Madison | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 16% | 2% |
| 75 | TURNOF Kayla M. | 100% | 73% | 27% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 75 | KATZ Anat | 100% | 92% | 62% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 77 | PRIEUR Lauren | 100% | 87% | 51% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 77 | ZIELINSKI Isabella G. | 100% | 75% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 79 | SINHA Anika | 100% | 72% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 80 | ALCEBAR Kayla | 100% | 93% | 65% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 81 | STRZALKOWSKI Aleksandra (Ola) M. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 27% | 5% | |
| 82 | SZETO Chloe | 100% | 89% | 55% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 83 | STONE Hava S. | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 84 | CALVERT Sarah-Jane E. | 100% | 57% | 16% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 85 | LARIMER Katherine E. | 100% | 62% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 85 | NEIBART Fiona | 100% | 69% | 23% | 4% | - | - | - |
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.