Salt Lake City, UT - Salt Lake City, UT, 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 | LEE Brianna J. | - | 2% | 11% | 33% | 40% | 15% | |
| 2 | ZHANG Yunjia | - | - | 2% | 10% | 30% | 39% | 18% |
| 3 | JING Emily | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 41% | 40% |
| 3 | CHEN Jia P. | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 43% | 23% | |
| 5 | SHEN Sophia H. | - | - | 1% | 5% | 21% | 42% | 31% |
| 6 | PETROVA Kristina | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 39% | 49% |
| 7 | FANG Sabrina | - | - | 2% | 12% | 39% | 47% | |
| 8 | STUTCHBURY Carolina J. | - | - | 4% | 21% | 44% | 30% | |
| 9 | ZHENG Ivy | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 39% | 50% |
| 10 | CHEN Allison V. | - | - | 3% | 23% | 42% | 27% | 5% |
| 11 | CAO Arianna L. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 40% | 17% |
| 12 | CHEN Jessie S. | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 39% | 23% | 4% |
| 13 | LI Phoebe J. | - | - | 8% | 32% | 43% | 16% | |
| 14 | LUNG Katerina | - | - | 3% | 21% | 45% | 31% | |
| 15 | CHUSID Mikayla | - | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 41% | 25% |
| 16 | KIM Katherine | - | 3% | 18% | 40% | 32% | 7% | |
| 17 | KONG Chin-Yi | - | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 42% | 22% |
| 18 | OH Erin H. | - | 5% | 21% | 38% | 29% | 6% | |
| 19 | CHO Cameron S. | - | 1% | 11% | 32% | 37% | 17% | 2% |
| 20 | LIU Jaelyn A. | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 36% | 20% | 3% |
| 21 | LESLIE Ryanne T. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 38% | 51% | |
| 22 | CASTANEDA Erika L. | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 37% | 13% | |
| 23 | YHIP Mikaela M. | 1% | 8% | 30% | 39% | 19% | 3% | |
| 24 | SUN Ruoxi | - | 7% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 25 | NEWHARD Zelia "Zizi" | - | - | 5% | 30% | 42% | 20% | 3% |
| 26 | GRIFFIN Emma G. | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 44% | 26% | |
| 27 | KIM Rachael | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 42% | 28% | |
| 27 | LIU Angel(Daying) | 8% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - | |
| 29 | LI Rachel Y. | - | 4% | 31% | 42% | 20% | 3% | |
| 30 | KOROL Neta | 1% | 7% | 27% | 40% | 22% | 3% | |
| 31 | OUYANG Bridgette Z. | - | - | 3% | 20% | 42% | 30% | 6% |
| 32 | PEVZNER Victoria | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 42% | 19% | |
| 33 | WANG Ellen | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 43% | 24% | |
| 34 | TAN Kaitlyn N. | - | - | 5% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 8% |
| 35 | KOSLOW Amicie | 15% | 40% | 33% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 36 | SHEN Lydia | - | - | 3% | 19% | 39% | 30% | 8% |
| 37 | MI Anning | 1% | 27% | 41% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 38 | GEBALA Gabrielle Grace A. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 18% |
| 39 | SULEIMAN Alena J. | - | 6% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
| 40 | HO Brianna W. | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 43% | 34% |
| 41 | KOENIG Charlotte R. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 38% | 13% |
| 42 | HE Fenghuan | - | - | 3% | 17% | 38% | 34% | 8% |
| 43 | CHO Gracie L. | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 6% |
| 44 | WU Julianna Y. | - | 3% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
| 45 | RANDOLPH Piper | 1% | 11% | 31% | 34% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 46 | SENIC Adeline | - | 2% | 23% | 43% | 27% | 5% | |
| 47 | HUANG NATALIE | 2% | 18% | 39% | 31% | 9% | 1% | |
| 48 | EYER Hailey M. | - | 5% | 23% | 40% | 26% | 5% | |
| 49 | KONG Olivia | 2% | 13% | 33% | 36% | 15% | 2% | |
| 50 | SHITAMOTO Audrey F. | 6% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% | |
| 51 | GUERRA Sofia E. | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
| 52 | ZHANG Alina C. | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 7% |
| 53 | CHO Rebecca H. | - | 4% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
| 54 | LIU Joy Zhaoyi | - | 6% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
| 55 | PENG Amber L. | - | 10% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 56 | WONG Sophia M. | - | 5% | 27% | 39% | 23% | 5% | - |
| 57 | NISSINOFF Alexandra | 1% | 15% | 34% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 58 | ZHAO Sophie L. | 2% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 14% | 2% | |
| 58 | SUN Chien-Yu | 6% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 6% | - | |
| 60 | KOROL Dana | 11% | 33% | 36% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 61 | FU Qihan | 20% | 42% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 62 | SHIH Diane | - | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
| 63 | DING Abigail | 10% | 33% | 37% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 63 | PAHLAVI Dahlia | 2% | 17% | 38% | 32% | 11% | 1% | |
| 65 | HWANG Alison | 2% | 21% | 40% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 66 | DUAN Konnie | - | 7% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
| 67 | PANT Anisha | 2% | 17% | 36% | 31% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 68 | LEE Lavender | 8% | 29% | 37% | 20% | 5% | - | |
| 69 | WANDJI Anais | 2% | 12% | 32% | 36% | 16% | 2% | |
| 70 | CHARALEL Jessica | 48% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - | - | |
| 71 | LOCKE Savannah | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 12% | 2% |
| 71 | DOROSHKEVICH Taisiia | - | 8% | 36% | 38% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 73 | SEO IRENE Y. | - | 4% | 23% | 39% | 26% | 7% | - |
| 74 | DE LA CRUZ Eden | - | 6% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
| 75 | CABALU Alaina | 61% | 33% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
| 76 | LEE Ji Ahn | 30% | 56% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
| 77 | CUI Amy | 11% | 33% | 36% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 78 | DONDERIS Hannah E. | 38% | 43% | 16% | 3% | - | - | |
| 79 | GOOR Viviene E. | 15% | 39% | 33% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 80 | CHANG Elizabeth | 16% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 81 | DAVIS Bonnie Z. | - | 5% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
| 82 | MI Aileen | 3% | 28% | 41% | 22% | 5% | - | - |
| 83 | THIRUVENGADAM Harini | 12% | 51% | 32% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 84 | HOBSON Ava | 14% | 50% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 85 | LENZ Zoe N. | 37% | 49% | 13% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 86 | PARK Leah | 62% | 33% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 87 | QUINN Anna | 67% | 30% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
| 88 | HSIUNG Samantha | 3% | 28% | 50% | 17% | 2% | - | - |
| 89 | YU Jaime L. | 10% | 38% | 36% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 90 | CHEN Chloe I. | 10% | 43% | 34% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 91 | NIKOLIC Alexandra | 22% | 41% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 91 | CHANDLER Darcy | 55% | 40% | 4% | - | - | - | |
| 93 | XIANG Emma | 25% | 42% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 94 | PATTERSON Natalia | 70% | 26% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 95 | ALANDIA Qiya | 89% | 10% | - | - | - | - | - |
| 96 | HWANG Sophia | 25% | 46% | 25% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 97 | FRANCIS Annette | 68% | 27% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 98 | ZAMELIS Madelyn | 83% | 16% | 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.