Minneapolis, MN, 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 | SUN Chloe | - | - | 1% | 9% | 39% | 51% | |
| 2 | TSIMIKLIS aphrodite | - | - | - | 7% | 35% | 58% | |
| 3 | LIU Enjia sherry | - | - | - | - | 5% | 30% | 65% |
| 3 | ZOU Ella | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 39% | 45% |
| 5 | FENG Grace | - | - | - | 1% | 6% | 30% | 64% |
| 6 | HARRIS Julia | - | - | 1% | 12% | 60% | 27% | |
| 7 | LUO Miranda | - | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 41% | 26% |
| 8 | DUAN Sophie | - | - | 2% | 15% | 42% | 42% | |
| 9 | BROWN Lola | - | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 43% | 24% |
| 10 | HAN Gian | - | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 36% | 16% |
| 11 | FIELD Elizabeth | - | - | - | 1% | 20% | 78% | |
| 12 | TAO Ann | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 5% |
| 13 | SIROTA Francis | - | - | 1% | 9% | 37% | 53% | |
| 14 | ZHANG Gwenyth | 1% | 8% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 8% | |
| 15 | WANG Amabel | - | - | 3% | 16% | 42% | 39% | |
| 16 | MCFARLANE Asha | - | 1% | 10% | 35% | 47% | 7% | |
| 17 | BING Charlotte | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 3% | |
| 18 | ORRINGER Lottie | - | - | 5% | 24% | 44% | 27% | |
| 19 | CHAN Ella | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 20 | LIN Yunong | 3% | 18% | 37% | 31% | 10% | 1% | |
| 21 | MARTIN Sloan | - | 2% | 14% | 39% | 37% | 9% | |
| 22 | CULLIVAN Sienna | - | - | - | 3% | 36% | 62% | |
| 23 | KIM Sydney | - | 4% | 20% | 42% | 28% | 5% | |
| 24 | CASHMAN Hailey | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 8% |
| 25 | LI Olivia | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 3% |
| 26 | CHAN Mila | - | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
| 27 | VENZON Makena Jane | 10% | 32% | 37% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 28 | MIYASHIRO Katelyn | - | 3% | 18% | 39% | 33% | 7% | |
| 29 | MCSHERRY Kayla | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 35% | 10% | |
| 30 | LIU Ariana | 2% | 17% | 39% | 31% | 10% | 1% | |
| 31 | HAN Mia | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 4% |
| 32 | SALMI-BYDALEK Ada | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
| 33 | WANG Joanna | 1% | 9% | 29% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 34 | WANG DINA C. | - | 2% | 12% | 33% | 40% | 13% | |
| 35 | WOODLEY Isabella | - | 2% | 13% | 38% | 39% | 9% | |
| 36 | THERON Zoe | - | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 37 | WU Elynna | 3% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 37 | FEDER Acadia | 2% | 13% | 31% | 33% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 39 | EYER Brooke | - | 1% | 10% | 33% | 40% | 15% | |
| 40 | ZEE Savannah | 3% | 18% | 39% | 32% | 8% | - | |
| 40 | LI savannah | - | 4% | 21% | 43% | 27% | 4% | |
| 42 | LUCAS Ava | 12% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | |
| 43 | DENG Claire | 25% | 51% | 20% | 3% | - | - | |
| 44 | MUMMANENI Samyuta | - | - | 2% | 12% | 33% | 38% | 15% |
| 45 | ZAHRAN Emily | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
| 46 | OS Danielle | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% |
| 47 | ZHANG Zoey | 2% | 15% | 34% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 48 | ZHANG Constance | - | 7% | 27% | 37% | 23% | 5% | - |
| 49 | UHLIG Natalie | 5% | 25% | 41% | 25% | 4% | - | |
| 50 | BO Iris | 21% | 44% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 51 | HOM Avery | 15% | 40% | 33% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 52 | LI Alice | 25% | 43% | 25% | 6% | - | - | |
| 53 | TULYAG Sayda | 3% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 10% | 1% | |
| 54 | LIN isabella | - | 4% | 25% | 42% | 24% | 4% | |
| 55 | LI Joy | 25% | 41% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 56 | FRASER Morgan | - | 4% | 21% | 40% | 28% | 7% | |
| 57 | RAFFAELE Nancy | 2% | 21% | 40% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 58 | BOIKE Lucille | - | 2% | 13% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 3% |
| 59 | DE CASTRO Kai | 6% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 60 | KIM Sophia | 2% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 61 | WU Allison | 4% | 28% | 40% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 62 | LI Doreen | 13% | 38% | 35% | 12% | 1% | - | |
| 63 | MORTENSEN Carissa | < 1% | 11% | 33% | 36% | 16% | 3% | |
| 64 | SAIFEE Zahra | 42% | 44% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
| 65 | HUSSAIN Maya | - | 2% | 14% | 32% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
| 66 | GOITIA Genevieve | 8% | 30% | 37% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 67 | LIN Katrina | - | 5% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 7% | 1% |
| 68 | WANG Doreen | 13% | 41% | 35% | 10% | - | - | |
| 69 | YU Sophie | 5% | 26% | 43% | 24% | 2% | - | |
| 70 | SHUSTA Lily | 3% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% | |
| 71 | BAULIN Zoya | 3% | 22% | 44% | 28% | 3% | - | |
| 72 | HUGHES Olivia | 14% | 43% | 32% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 73 | ZOLDAN Nolabelle | 1% | 5% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 10% | |
| 74 | CHANG Lydia | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
| 75 | HAFEZ Sahar | 1% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 75 | LEE Zoe | 6% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 77 | BEHL Alessandra | 13% | 38% | 34% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 78 | LIU Angelina | 16% | 38% | 32% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 79 | YIN Chloe | 35% | 42% | 19% | 4% | - | - | |
| 80 | KOSCIK-AQUINO Emily | 1% | 11% | 37% | 37% | 13% | 1% | |
| 81 | LLOYD Bianca | 11% | 37% | 38% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 82 | OSMINKINA-JONES Kai | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 33% | 14% | 1% |
| 83 | KNAPP Isabella | 1% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 23% | 7% | - |
| 84 | HUANG Natalie | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 4% |
| 85 | WONG charlotte | 48% | 41% | 10% | 1% | - | - | |
| 86 | RAUCH Iris | 20% | 43% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 87 | LING Camryn | 6% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 6% | - | |
| 88 | KIM Alison | 9% | 33% | 39% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 89 | LISKA Sofia | 2% | 13% | 34% | 36% | 14% | 2% | |
| 90 | HOM Emma | 31% | 44% | 21% | 4% | - | - | |
| 90 | LI Emma Jing | 36% | 44% | 18% | 3% | - | - | |
| 92 | DUVVA Sanika | 31% | 42% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 93 | CHIN Riley | 63% | 31% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 94 | WANG Christina | 76% | 21% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 95 | TEPMAN Zoey | 33% | 42% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 95 | LIN Zhishan | 73% | 24% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
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.