Kansas City, MO - Kansas City, MO, USA
Explore the pool victory probability density 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 | SKARBONKIEWICZ Magda | - | - | - | 3% | 18% | 42% | 36% |
2 | POSSICK Lola P. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 41% | 28% |
3 | WILLIAMS Chloe C. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 18% |
3 | CHIN Erika J. | - | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 32% | 10% |
5 | GORDON Tamar | - | 3% | 14% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 3% |
6 | YONG Erika E. | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 38% | 24% | 5% |
7 | TZOU Alexandra | - | - | 5% | 18% | 35% | 31% | 11% |
8 | KONG Isabel | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 33% | 13% | |
9 | SHOMAN Jenna | - | - | - | 3% | 19% | 49% | 29% |
10 | SULLIVAN Siobhan R. | - | - | - | 3% | 17% | 46% | 34% |
11 | DELSOIN Chelsea C. | 1% | 8% | 24% | 34% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
12 | KALRA Himani V. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 40% | 45% | |
13 | RIZKALA Joanna | 7% | 28% | 37% | 22% | 5% | - | |
14 | OISHI Megumi | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 41% | 45% |
15 | WIGGERS Susan Q. | - | 1% | 5% | 18% | 35% | 31% | 10% |
16 | CARVALHO Isabela A. | - | - | 3% | 18% | 38% | 32% | 8% |
17 | LEE Alexandra B. | - | - | - | 1% | 12% | 41% | 46% |
18 | HULSEBURG Kaitlyn | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 38% | 51% |
19 | TONG Kunling | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 5% |
20 | TIMOFEYEV Nicole | - | - | 3% | 17% | 39% | 34% | 8% |
21 | MOZHAEVA MARIA | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 38% | 20% | 3% |
22 | PAK Kaitlyn | - | 2% | 15% | 35% | 33% | 13% | 2% |
23 | FOUR-GARCIA Madison | - | - | - | 2% | 16% | 46% | 36% |
24 | FREEDMAN Janna N. | - | - | - | 3% | 21% | 49% | 27% |
25 | BUHAY Rachel T. | - | 3% | 19% | 39% | 29% | 9% | 1% |
26 | MARSEE Samantha | - | 1% | 11% | 34% | 39% | 13% | 1% |
27 | CODY Alexandra C. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 43% | 23% |
28 | XU Ellen | - | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 39% | 22% |
29 | ANDRES Katherine A. | - | 6% | 27% | 41% | 21% | 4% | - |
30 | BENOIT Adelaide L. | 2% | 17% | 42% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - |
31 | NEWELL Alexia C. | 1% | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
32 | FEARNS Zara A. | 5% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 9% | 1% | |
33 | STONE Hava S. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 41% | 21% |
34 | GORMAN Victoria M. | - | 3% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
35 | BAKER Audrey C. | 1% | 9% | 25% | 33% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
36 | SCALAMONI-GOLDSTEIN Charlotte S. | 2% | 11% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 4% | |
37 | CHEEMA Sophia | 2% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 15% | 3% | |
38 | LUKASHENKO Angelina | - | 1% | 10% | 33% | 39% | 15% | 2% |
39 | SHOMAN Miriam | - | - | 3% | 17% | 39% | 34% | 7% |
40 | BLUM Leah I. | - | - | 3% | 16% | 38% | 34% | 9% |
41 | GREENBAUM Ella K. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 38% | 20% |
42 | SZETO Chloe | 1% | 9% | 32% | 37% | 17% | 3% | - |
43 | WU Erica L. | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 4% |
44 | JULIEN Michelle | - | 6% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
45 | MIKA Veronica | - | 5% | 19% | 32% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
46 | ATLURI Sara V. | - | - | 5% | 25% | 42% | 24% | 3% |
47 | TAO Hannah J. | - | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 33% | 10% |
48 | SUBRAMANIAN Nitika | - | 8% | 30% | 38% | 20% | 4% | - |
49 | KRYLOVA Valery | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 33% | 11% | 1% |
50 | CHIOLDI Mina | - | 3% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 3% |
51 | ANDRES Charmaine G. | 2% | 14% | 33% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - |
52 | YANG Ashley M. | - | 1% | 12% | 32% | 36% | 16% | 3% |
53 | OLSEN Natalie J. | 3% | 17% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 2% | |
54 | LIN Audrey J. | 2% | 11% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 5% | |
55 | NAZLYMOV Tatiana F. | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 36% | 9% | |
56 | HURST Kennedy | 5% | 23% | 39% | 27% | 7% | - | |
57 | PATEL Riya | 1% | 8% | 33% | 37% | 18% | 4% | - |
58 | CHEN Jacqueline | 6% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - |
59 | PRIEUR Lauren | 1% | 13% | 36% | 35% | 13% | 2% | - |
60 | BENTOLILA Thalia | 3% | 24% | 47% | 22% | 4% | - | - |
61 | BOLTON Eleksi M. | 1% | 8% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - |
62 | HELLER Mikenna E. | 7% | 32% | 38% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
63 | BOIS Adele | 5% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - |
64 | ULIBARRI Nevaeh L. | 29% | 44% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
65 | CHEN Xinyan | 7% | 29% | 38% | 21% | 5% | - | - |
66 | LI Victoria J. | - | 2% | 13% | 38% | 35% | 12% | 1% |
67 | ALCEBAR Kayla | - | 3% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
68 | CALLAHAN Chase J. | - | 6% | 25% | 41% | 23% | 4% | - |
69 | ALFARACHE Gabriella C. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 2% |
70 | TODD Phoebe | 8% | 44% | 35% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
70 | ZINNI Kaylyn M. | 2% | 12% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 6% | 1% |
72 | WANG Zidan | 18% | 46% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
73 | D'ORAZIO Isabella | 2% | 13% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 5% | 1% |
74 | SINHA Anika | - | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 36% | 11% |
75 | ENDO Miyuki N. | 36% | 41% | 18% | 4% | - | - | - |
76 | WANG Jianning | 9% | 32% | 38% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
77 | BEVACQUA Aria F. | 23% | 42% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | |
78 | SADOVA Olga | 6% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
79 | ADAMS Morrigan B. | 27% | 47% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
80 | ZENG Xiaoyi | 38% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
81 | NEIBART Fiona | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 12% | 2% | - |
82 | HUANG Tina | 44% | 42% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
83 | BAKER Amelia M. | 17% | 52% | 26% | 5% | - | - | - |
84 | FU Linqian (Helen) | 7% | 36% | 37% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
85 | MUNGOVAN Cecilia C. | 69% | 27% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
86 | SLOBODSKY Sasha L. | 13% | 38% | 36% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
87 | FERRARI-BRIDGERS Marinella O. | 23% | 39% | 27% | 9% | 2% | - | |
88 | BELTRAN Emilia M. | 18% | 39% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
88 | WEI Vivian W. | 4% | 35% | 40% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
90 | KOLL-BRAVMANN Ryder S. | 67% | 29% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
91 | MCMAHON Byronie | 17% | 36% | 31% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
92 | LU Amy | 16% | 47% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
93 | GUTHIKONDA Sunanya | 35% | 46% | 16% | 2% | - | - | - |
94 | LITVAK-HINENZON Michaela | 55% | 37% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
94 | LIN Selena | 27% | 41% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
96 | HOLMES Emma | 44% | 42% | 12% | 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.