Columbus, OH, 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 | FOX-GITOMER Chloe N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 46% |
| 2 | JOHNSON Honor B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 59% |
| 3 | THEODORE Maria A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 23% |
| 3 | KAKHIANI-MECKLING Teodora | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 15% |
| 5 | SKARBONKIEWICZ Magda | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 48% | |
| 6 | SULLIVAN Siobhan R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 52% | 13% |
| 7 | VESTEL Mira B. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 74% | 41% | 13% | 2% |
| 8 | DELSOIN Chelsea C. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 48% | 17% | 3% |
| 9 | ENGELMAN-SANZ Madeline A. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 44% | 12% | 1% |
| 10 | LINDER Kara E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 32% |
| 11 | PAK Kaitlyn | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 77% | 43% | 12% |
| 12 | JENKINS Ryan J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 43% | |
| 13 | KIM Zoe | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 53% | 14% |
| 14 | LU Vivian Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 54% | 17% |
| 15 | GOUHIN Chloe | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 47% | 13% |
| 16 | LEE Alexandra B. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 18% | 2% |
| 17 | TARTAKOVSKY Elizabeth | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 44% |
| 18 | SHOMAN Jenna | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 36% | 7% |
| 19 | STONE Anne-Elizabeth | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 35% |
| 20 | GREENBAUM Atara R. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 96% | 80% | 48% | 13% |
| 21 | ANGLADE Alexis C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 32% |
| 22 | WILLIAMS Jadeyn E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 29% |
| 23 | FREEDMAN Janna N. | 100% | 97% | 77% | 39% | 9% | 1% | |
| 24 | NAZLYMOV Tatiana F. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 76% | 42% | 11% |
| 25 | SINGLETON-COMFORT Leanne | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 26% |
| 25 | LU Elaine | 100% | 82% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 27 | ANDRES Charmaine G. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 76% | 44% | 15% | 2% |
| 28 | TONG Kunling | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 51% | 19% | 3% |
| 29 | XU Ellen | 100% | 97% | 82% | 51% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 30 | ANDRES Katherine A. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 33% | 8% | 1% |
| 31 | HARRILL Gillian N. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 59% | 15% | |
| 32 | LU Yi Lin | 100% | 93% | 67% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 33 | MARSEE Samantha | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 37% | 11% | 1% |
| 34 | TOLEDO AMES Julieta Isabel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 69% | 19% |
| 35 | WHANG Rebecca | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 54% | 19% | 2% |
| 36 | VADASZ Ibla P. | 100% | 97% | 79% | 44% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 37 | LI Amanda C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 69% | 35% | 8% |
| 38 | GORMAN Victoria M. | 100% | 98% | 87% | 60% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
| 39 | JOHNSON Lauren | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 39% | 13% | 2% |
| 40 | BLUM Leah I. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 17% | 2% |
| 41 | OISHI Megumi | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 86% | 56% | 19% |
| 42 | LIU Lily | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 45% | 14% | 2% |
| 43 | SZETO Chloe | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 44 | HARRISON Imogen N. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 30% | 6% |
| 45 | KUDRIAVTSEVA Daria | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 70% | 35% | 8% |
| 46 | OLSEN Natalie J. | 100% | 97% | 82% | 51% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 47 | GHOSH Priyanka | 100% | 94% | 66% | 27% | 5% | - | |
| 48 | KOVACS Sophia | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 34% | 5% | |
| 49 | ADYNSKI Gillian I. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 20% |
| 49 | SCALAMONI-GOLDSTEIN Charlotte S. | 100% | 95% | 75% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 51 | POSSICK Lola P. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 83% | 52% | 16% |
| 52 | BOIS Adele | 100% | 100% | 94% | 70% | 33% | 8% | 1% |
| 53 | CHIN Erika J. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 21% | 2% |
| 53 | PERRIER Eleonore | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 64% | 29% | 6% |
| 55 | TZOU Alexandra | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 30% | 6% |
| 56 | CHEN Xiaohan | 100% | 93% | 65% | 26% | 5% | - | - |
| 57 | CHANG Josephine S. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 16% | 2% |
| 58 | CHIN Sophia J. | 100% | 93% | 67% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 59 | WILLIAMS Chloe C. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 49% | 10% | |
| 60 | ERIKSON Kira R. | 100% | 70% | 26% | 4% | - | - | |
| 61 | ENDO Miyuki N. | 100% | 89% | 53% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 62 | TAO Hannah J. | 100% | 98% | 88% | 63% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
| 63 | CHIOLDI Mina | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 64 | LEE Hannah | 100% | 85% | 50% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 65 | MOZHAEVA MARIA | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
| 66 | KALRA Himani V. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 43% | 15% | 2% |
| 67 | LI Victoria J. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 63% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 68 | FOUR-GARCIA Madison | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 79% | 45% | 12% |
| 68 | KATZ Anat | 100% | 95% | 73% | 39% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 68 | CHEN Jane | 100% | 89% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 71 | SADIK HANA | 100% | 79% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 72 | CARVALHO Isabela A. | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 46% | 16% | 3% |
| 73 | BEVACQUA Aria F. | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 74 | XI Shining | 100% | 96% | 75% | 37% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 75 | TUCKER Iman R. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 37% | 11% | 1% |
| 76 | SATHYANATH Kailing | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 43% | 13% | 1% |
| 77 | TIMOFEYEV Nicole | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 23% | 3% |
| 78 | FEARNS Zara A. | 100% | 96% | 75% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 79 | PRIEUR Lauren | 100% | 93% | 66% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 80 | GHAYALOD reya | 100% | 91% | 63% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 81 | HULSEBURG Kaitlyn | 100% | 96% | 74% | 35% | 8% | 1% | |
| 82 | CALVERT Sarah-Jane E. | 100% | 78% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 83 | STONE Hava S. | 100% | 96% | 77% | 44% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 84 | LEVITIS Danielle | 100% | 91% | 61% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 85 | NEWELL Alexia C. | 100% | 95% | 70% | 31% | 7% | - | - |
| 86 | BAKER Audrey C. | 100% | 88% | 56% | 23% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 87 | KER Grace | 100% | 96% | 78% | 44% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 88 | DANK Dina | 100% | 91% | 63% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 89 | CAO Stephanie X. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 4% |
| 90 | LIN Audrey J. | 100% | 96% | 78% | 44% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 91 | JULIEN Michelle | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 60% | 24% | 3% |
| 92 | LUKASHENKO Angelina | 100% | 92% | 64% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 93 | GUTHIKONDA Nithya | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 21% | 3% |
| 94 | CODY Alexandra C. | 100% | 96% | 77% | 44% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 94 | HILD Nisha | 100% | 98% | 87% | 61% | 28% | 7% | 1% |
| 96 | LIU Sophie | 100% | 76% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 97 | BUHAY Rachel T. | 100% | 95% | 73% | 39% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 98 | BILILIES Sophia | 100% | 72% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 99 | NEIBART Fiona | 100% | 85% | 46% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 100 | CALLAHAN Chase J. | 100% | 85% | 51% | 19% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 101 | YUAN Greta | 100% | 87% | 49% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 102 | HASSAN Aziza R. | 100% | 96% | 79% | 47% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 103 | NATHANSON Sammy E. | 100% | 92% | 62% | 23% | 4% | - | - |
| 104 | ULIBARRI Nevaeh L. | 100% | 69% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 105 | GREENBAUM Ella K. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 37% | 11% | 1% |
| 106 | XIKES Katherine E. | 100% | 89% | 47% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 107 | MIKA Veronica | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 108 | DRAGON Rainer | 100% | 97% | 81% | 49% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 109 | CHEN Xinyan | 100% | 83% | 47% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 110 | SHAY-TANNAS Zoe | 100% | 61% | 19% | 3% | - | - | |
| 111 | LU Amy | 100% | 94% | 69% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 112 | BALAKUMARAN Maya | 100% | 93% | 68% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 113 | WIGGERS Susan Q. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 114 | ARNECKE Lauren A. | 100% | 73% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 115 | LARIMER Katherine E. | 100% | 80% | 42% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 116 | GLUCK Myriam | 100% | 44% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 117 | SINHA Anika | 100% | 73% | 31% | 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.