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 | ZHENG Ivy | - | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 41% | 20% |
| 2 | PETROVA Kristina | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 35% |
| 3 | CHUSID Renata M. | - | - | 3% | 17% | 44% | 36% | |
| 3 | JING Emily | - | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 43% | 27% |
| 5 | KNIGHT Skylar | - | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 8% |
| 6 | LESLIE Ryanne T. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 32% | 38% | 16% |
| 7 | KONG Chin-Yi | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 8% |
| 8 | OH Erin H. | - | 3% | 17% | 36% | 31% | 12% | 1% |
| 9 | CHO Sabrina N. | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 40% | 46% |
| 9 | LEE Brianna J. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 37% | 14% |
| 11 | HE Elizabeth W. | - | - | - | 3% | 18% | 43% | 36% |
| 12 | LUNG Katerina | - | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 39% | 21% |
| 13 | CAO Arianna L. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 42% | 20% |
| 14 | KIM Rachael | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 29% | 8% |
| 15 | JO Mia C. | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 5% |
| 16 | ZHANG Yunjia | - | 2% | 16% | 38% | 34% | 9% | |
| 17 | TAN Helen | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 38% | 50% |
| 18 | QIAN Crystal | - | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 40% | 21% |
| 19 | CHEN Jia P. | - | - | 5% | 21% | 40% | 28% | 6% |
| 20 | ZHENG Vivian | - | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 18% |
| 21 | ZHANG Alina C. | - | 5% | 19% | 34% | 30% | 11% | 1% |
| 22 | OUYANG Bridgette Z. | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 39% | 20% | 3% |
| 23 | SHEN Sophia H. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 36% | 14% |
| 24 | GRIFFIN Emma G. | - | 1% | 14% | 38% | 36% | 10% | |
| 25 | CHENG Evelyn | - | - | 3% | 20% | 44% | 33% | |
| 26 | DEBACK Greta I. | - | 10% | 35% | 38% | 15% | 2% | |
| 27 | LI Phoebe J. | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 5% |
| 28 | HUNG Juliana K. | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 30% | 9% |
| 29 | LI Grace Q. | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 38% | 20% | 3% |
| 30 | HO Brianna W. | - | 1% | 5% | 17% | 33% | 33% | 12% |
| 31 | CHEN Allison V. | 1% | 6% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
| 32 | HE Xiangxin | - | 3% | 16% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
| 33 | STUTCHBURY Carolina J. | 1% | 6% | 23% | 39% | 27% | 5% | |
| 34 | APELIAN Katherine | - | - | 2% | 11% | 32% | 39% | 16% |
| 35 | SHAW Kayla M. | - | 5% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
| 36 | KOROL Neta | - | 10% | 31% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 37 | CHUSID Mikayla | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 10% |
| 37 | FANG Sabrina | - | - | 3% | 13% | 32% | 36% | 16% |
| 39 | HE Fenghuan | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 13% | 2% |
| 40 | CONWAY Josephina (JoJo) J. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 39% | 20% |
| 40 | STAMOS Maria | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 43% | 35% |
| 42 | LEE Allison (Allie) | - | - | 2% | 9% | 29% | 41% | 19% |
| 43 | YU Seneca | - | 9% | 33% | 37% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 44 | PUSTILNIK Nicole | - | - | 1% | 8% | 35% | 57% | |
| 45 | SENIC Adeline | 1% | 11% | 38% | 36% | 13% | 1% | |
| 46 | LIU Jaelyn A. | - | 4% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 15% | 3% |
| 47 | SEAL Grace (Gracie) C. | 2% | 13% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 5% | 1% |
| 47 | LEE Alina | - | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 42% | 24% |
| 49 | SHEN Lydia | - | 1% | 11% | 32% | 36% | 17% | 3% |
| 50 | JING Alexandra | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 43% | 34% |
| 51 | PARK Rowan M. | - | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 33% | 8% |
| 52 | DE LA CRUZ Eden | 2% | 14% | 36% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 53 | KOO Rachel A. | - | - | - | 5% | 23% | 44% | 28% |
| 54 | HOOSHI Erica S. | - | - | 2% | 12% | 33% | 40% | 14% |
| 55 | WANG Ellen | - | 1% | 8% | 31% | 43% | 17% | |
| 56 | KIM Katherine | - | 5% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
| 57 | CHOI Lenna K. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 36% | 37% | 12% |
| 58 | RANDOLPH Piper | 9% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 59 | BREKER Anika | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 3% |
| 60 | FLANAGAN Catherine H. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 38% | 18% |
| 61 | DING Abigail | 1% | 11% | 33% | 36% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 62 | TAN Kaitlyn N. | 7% | 28% | 38% | 22% | 5% | - | |
| 63 | KONG Olivia | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 64 | DU Hannah | 5% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 65 | CASTANEDA Erika L. | - | 1% | 10% | 29% | 37% | 20% | 3% |
| 66 | KOENIG Charlotte R. | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 16% | 3% |
| 67 | LEE Paulina | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 4% |
| 68 | SULEIMAN Alena J. | 7% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 69 | SULEIMAN Alysa J. | 11% | 31% | 34% | 18% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 70 | CHO Cameron S. | 1% | 8% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
| 71 | EYER Hailey M. | - | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
| 72 | MASSICK Laine | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 5% |
| 73 | LI Rachel Y. | - | 7% | 26% | 37% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
| 74 | SUN Ruoxi | - | 12% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 75 | YHIP Mikaela M. | 1% | 8% | 23% | 33% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
| 75 | LOCKE Savannah | 1% | 9% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
| 77 | SANTOS Annika Beatrice I. | 8% | 35% | 38% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 78 | CHENG Lydia A. | - | 12% | 37% | 36% | 13% | 1% | |
| 79 | GALAVOTTI Claire Teresa | 5% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 7% | - | |
| 80 | SHITAMOTO Audrey F. | 4% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 81 | MI Anning | 4% | 29% | 40% | 21% | 5% | - | - |
| 82 | LIN Ashley | 1% | 14% | 36% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 83 | GEBALA Gabrielle Grace A. | - | 2% | 14% | 35% | 34% | 14% | 1% |
| 84 | DAVIA Daniella V. | - | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
| 85 | PANT Anisha | 8% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 86 | CHO Taylor S. | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 86 | CHEN Jessie S. | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 88 | TAN Clarisse | 7% | 37% | 38% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 89 | PAHLAVI Dahlia | 1% | 14% | 34% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 90 | SEO IRENE Y. | 4% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 91 | XIANG Emma | 15% | 43% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 92 | CHO Gracie L. | - | 5% | 22% | 40% | 26% | 7% | 1% |
| 93 | FU Qihan | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 94 | KOROL Dana | 1% | 14% | 35% | 34% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 95 | DUAN Konnie | 7% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 96 | SUN Chien-Yu | 4% | 30% | 41% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 97 | SHIH Diane | 8% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 98 | HSIUNG Samantha | 47% | 40% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 99 | WEBB Ella | 31% | 43% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 100 | WONG Sophia M. | 1% | 31% | 43% | 21% | 4% | - | |
| 101 | TALAVERA Daena | 3% | 16% | 35% | 33% | 12% | 1% | |
| 102 | HWANG Alison | 34% | 49% | 16% | 2% | - | - | |
| 103 | WANDJI Anais | 26% | 42% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 104 | NEWHARD Zelia "Zizi" | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 105 | LIAO Lu Jia (Lucy) | 1% | 8% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
| 106 | ZHAO Sophie L. | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 107 | WU Kyra | 4% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 108 | CHO Rebecca H. | - | 16% | 36% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 109 | CHANG Elizabeth | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 109 | LEE Ji Ahn | 60% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 111 | DAVIS Bonnie Z. | 8% | 26% | 34% | 23% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 112 | PENG Amber L. | 4% | 29% | 41% | 21% | 5% | - | - |
| 113 | WHITESIDES Ella K. | 64% | 31% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 114 | WU Julianna Y. | 2% | 16% | 34% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 114 | HUANG NATALIE | 9% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 116 | CHARALEL Jessica | 46% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 117 | PRIETO Sofia M. | 2% | 31% | 42% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 118 | LENZ Zoe N. | 62% | 32% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 119 | THIRUVENGADAM Harini | 76% | 22% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 120 | LIU Angel(Daying) | 5% | 28% | 41% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 121 | GUERRA Sofia E. | < 1% | 4% | 21% | 38% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
| 121 | KOSLOW Amicie | 16% | 40% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 121 | CUI Amy | 6% | 43% | 37% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 124 | PATTERSON Natalia | 63% | 31% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
| 125 | ZAMELIS Madelyn | 92% | 8% | - | - | - | - | - |
| 126 | YU Jaime L. | 36% | 48% | 15% | 2% | - | - | |
| 127 | NIKOLIC Alexandra | 30% | 42% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 128 | CHEN Chloe I. | 45% | 39% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 129 | FRANCIS Annette | 93% | 7% | - | - | - | - | |
| 130 | HWANG Sophia | 87% | 13% | 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.