Minneapolis, MN, 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 | SUN Chloe | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 51% | |
2 | TSIMIKLIS aphrodite | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 93% | 58% | |
3 | LIU Enjia sherry | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 65% |
3 | ZOU Ella | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 45% |
5 | FENG Grace | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 64% |
6 | HARRIS Julia | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 27% | |
7 | LUO Miranda | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 26% |
8 | DUAN Sophie | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 42% | |
9 | BROWN Lola | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 24% |
10 | HAN Gian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 16% |
11 | FIELD Elizabeth | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 78% | |
12 | TAO Ann | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 30% | 5% |
13 | SIROTA Francis | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 53% | |
14 | ZHANG Gwenyth | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 33% | 8% | |
15 | WANG Amabel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 39% | |
16 | MCFARLANE Asha | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 54% | 7% | |
17 | BING Charlotte | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 20% | 3% | |
18 | ORRINGER Lottie | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 70% | 27% | |
19 | CHAN Ella | 100% | 95% | 76% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - |
20 | LIN Yunong | 100% | 97% | 79% | 41% | 11% | 1% | |
21 | MARTIN Sloan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 46% | 9% | |
22 | CULLIVAN Sienna | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 62% | |
23 | KIM Sydney | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 33% | 5% | |
24 | CASHMAN Hailey | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 37% | 8% |
25 | LI Olivia | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 22% | 3% |
26 | CHAN Mila | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 45% | 15% | 2% |
27 | VENZON Makena Jane | 100% | 90% | 58% | 21% | 4% | - | |
28 | MIYASHIRO Katelyn | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 39% | 7% | |
29 | MCSHERRY Kayla | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 45% | 10% | |
30 | LIU Ariana | 100% | 98% | 81% | 42% | 11% | 1% | |
31 | HAN Mia | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 4% |
32 | SALMI-BYDALEK Ada | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 16% | 2% |
33 | WANG Joanna | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 25% | 5% | - |
34 | WANG DINA C. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 13% | |
35 | WOODLEY Isabella | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 48% | 9% | |
36 | THERON Zoe | 100% | 100% | 91% | 64% | 27% | 6% | - |
37 | WU Elynna | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 21% | 4% | - |
37 | FEDER Acadia | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 21% | 4% | - |
39 | EYER Brooke | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 55% | 15% | |
40 | ZEE Savannah | 100% | 97% | 79% | 40% | 8% | - | |
40 | LI savannah | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 31% | 4% | |
42 | LUCAS Ava | 100% | 88% | 53% | 17% | 3% | - | |
43 | DENG Claire | 100% | 75% | 23% | 3% | - | - | |
44 | MUMMANENI Samyuta | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 15% |
45 | ZAHRAN Emily | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 15% | 2% |
46 | OS Danielle | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 18% | 3% |
47 | ZHANG Zoey | 100% | 98% | 82% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - |
48 | ZHANG Constance | 100% | 100% | 92% | 66% | 28% | 5% | - |
49 | UHLIG Natalie | 100% | 95% | 71% | 29% | 5% | - | |
50 | BO Iris | 100% | 79% | 35% | 7% | 1% | - | |
51 | HOM Avery | 100% | 85% | 44% | 12% | 1% | - | |
52 | LI Alice | 100% | 75% | 31% | 6% | - | - | |
53 | TULYAG Sayda | 100% | 97% | 78% | 42% | 11% | 1% | |
54 | LIN isabella | 100% | 100% | 95% | 70% | 28% | 4% | |
55 | LI Joy | 100% | 75% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - | |
56 | FRASER Morgan | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 35% | 7% | |
57 | RAFFAELE Nancy | 100% | 98% | 77% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - |
58 | BOIKE Lucille | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 55% | 21% | 3% |
59 | DE CASTRO Kai | 100% | 94% | 71% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - |
60 | KIM Sophia | 100% | 98% | 77% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - |
61 | WU Allison | 100% | 96% | 68% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - |
62 | LI Doreen | 100% | 87% | 49% | 14% | 1% | - | |
63 | MORTENSEN Carissa | 100% | 100% | 88% | 55% | 19% | 3% | |
64 | SAIFEE Zahra | 100% | 58% | 14% | 1% | - | - | |
65 | HUSSAIN Maya | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 52% | 17% | 2% |
66 | GOITIA Genevieve | 100% | 92% | 62% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
67 | LIN Katrina | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 34% | 8% | 1% |
68 | WANG Doreen | 100% | 87% | 46% | 10% | - | - | |
69 | YU Sophie | 100% | 95% | 70% | 27% | 2% | - | |
70 | SHUSTA Lily | 100% | 97% | 79% | 46% | 15% | 2% | |
71 | BAULIN Zoya | 100% | 97% | 74% | 30% | 3% | - | |
72 | HUGHES Olivia | 100% | 86% | 43% | 11% | 1% | - | |
73 | ZOLDAN Nolabelle | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 40% | 10% | |
74 | CHANG Lydia | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
75 | HAFEZ Sahar | 100% | 99% | 84% | 50% | 17% | 3% | - |
75 | LEE Zoe | 100% | 94% | 71% | 37% | 11% | 2% | - |
77 | BEHL Alessandra | 100% | 87% | 49% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
78 | LIU Angelina | 100% | 84% | 45% | 13% | 2% | - | |
79 | YIN Chloe | 100% | 65% | 23% | 4% | - | - | |
80 | KOSCIK-AQUINO Emily | 100% | 99% | 88% | 51% | 14% | 1% | |
81 | LLOYD Bianca | 100% | 89% | 52% | 15% | 2% | - | |
82 | OSMINKINA-JONES Kai | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 48% | 15% | 1% |
83 | KNAPP Isabella | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 30% | 7% | - |
84 | HUANG Natalie | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 31% | 4% |
85 | WONG charlotte | 100% | 52% | 11% | 1% | - | - | |
86 | RAUCH Iris | 100% | 80% | 37% | 8% | 1% | - | |
87 | LING Camryn | 100% | 94% | 66% | 28% | 6% | - | |
88 | KIM Alison | 100% | 91% | 58% | 20% | 3% | - | |
89 | LISKA Sofia | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 16% | 2% | |
90 | HOM Emma | 100% | 69% | 25% | 4% | - | - | |
90 | LI Emma Jing | 100% | 64% | 20% | 3% | - | - | |
92 | DUVVA Sanika | 100% | 69% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
93 | CHIN Riley | 100% | 37% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
94 | WANG Christina | 100% | 24% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
95 | TEPMAN Zoey | 100% | 67% | 25% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
95 | LIN Zhishan | 100% | 27% | 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.