America's Center Convention Complex - St. Louis, MO, 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 | PAI Dong-Ying | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 52% |
| 2 | TYSHCHENKO Andrey | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 23% | 3% |
| 3 | CHO Michael | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 78% | 30% |
| 3 | WYSZYNSKI Marek B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% |
| 5 | PIMOUTKINE Roustam R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 93% | 56% |
| 6 | BENNETT Philippe | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 38% |
| 7 | GRAJALES Nestor L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 62% | 14% |
| 8 | BALESTRACCI Chris | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 21% | 3% |
| 9 | TANG Julian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 39% |
| 10 | PHILLIPS Jasper | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 18% | - |
| 11 | FLANAGAN James | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 17% | 2% | - |
| 12 | RITTER Nathan E. | 100% | 97% | 80% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 13 | POWERS Douglas A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 70% | 28% | 3% |
| 14 | PATTERSON Jan (Janmon) M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 22% | 3% |
| 14 | FADL Omar | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 46% | 13% | 1% |
| 16 | VALENTINE Iain | 100% | 98% | 83% | 51% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 17 | EPPLY-SCHMIDT Paul | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 51% |
| 18 | SANCHEZ Leon D. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 46% | 7% |
| 19 | BALBOA Rolando M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 46% | 9% |
| 20 | WILBERT Matt | 100% | 99% | 88% | 59% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 21 | GROSS Stephen R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 72% | 33% | 5% |
| 22 | LEYLAND John | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 10% | - |
| 23 | KLEIN Johannes | 100% | 99% | 88% | 60% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 24 | JOHANSON David B. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 56% | 15% | 1% |
| 25 | ESTELL Oscar M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 31% | 5% |
| 26 | KRAUSS John W. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 34% | 7% | - |
| 27 | DENMAN Matthew L. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 51% | 14% | - |
| 28 | LUTTON Thomas (Tom) W. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 34% | 5% |
| 29 | WU Clarence C. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 30 | KRYLTSOV Greg | 100% | 99% | 88% | 55% | 19% | 3% | - |
| 31 | TOMASI John | 100% | 99% | 88% | 46% | 7% | - | - |
| 32 | PRECCIOZZI Aldo F. | 100% | 82% | 31% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 33 | HERNANDEZ Marc A. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 19% | 3% |
| 34 | DARRICAU Henri J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 52% |
| 35 | BROWN Jason | 100% | 99% | 85% | 40% | 6% | - | - |
| 36 | KAIHATSU Edward J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 32% |
| 37 | MCGINTY Eli G. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 28% | 6% | - |
| 38 | BERKE Daniel (Dan) L. | 100% | 96% | 72% | 30% | 6% | - | - |
| 39 | PASHBY Stephen N. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 15% | 2% |
| 40 | HILL David E. | 100% | 70% | 27% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 41 | CARTER Tony | 100% | 84% | 47% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 42 | MAHNKEN Thomas G. | 100% | 98% | 83% | 46% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 43 | JEFFCOAT Timothy | 100% | 81% | 37% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 44 | SAUCEDO Fernando | 100% | 82% | 39% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 45 | NEWELL Tim | 100% | 70% | 23% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 46 | CHANG William | 100% | 89% | 38% | 6% | - | - | - |
| 47 | KAZIMIROFF Paul B. | 100% | 100% | 92% | 59% | 21% | 3% | - |
| 48 | YOO Terry S. | 100% | 67% | 25% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 48 | WEIL Brent | 100% | 84% | 46% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 50 | GLADNICK Michael J. | 100% | 74% | 32% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 51 | CUNNIFF Joe | 100% | 80% | 39% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 52 | RODRIGUEZ VINCENT | 100% | 41% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 53 | BRYKCZYNSKI James V. | 100% | 96% | 74% | 38% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 53 | WEMPLE Charles | 100% | 29% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
| 53 | CHAO Pierre | 100% | 62% | 18% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 56 | KLUCZYNSKI Mike k. | 100% | 71% | 25% | 4% | - | - | - |
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.