Georgia Tech Campus Recreation Center: Atlanta, GA - Atlanta, GA, 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 | SHIN Andy (Sung-moon) (Andy) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 74% |
2 | JUNG Ho(Daniel) (Daniel) Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 43% |
3 | NORMAN Christian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 33% |
3 | LIN Kason | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 27% | 2% |
5 | RIGGINS Joshua | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 39% | 7% |
6 | GLENNON Sebastian J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 68% | 19% |
7 | GORDON Reis J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 70% | 25% |
8 | JAAFAR Omar | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 31% |
9 | WANG Maxwell L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 43% |
10 | OLIVERIUS Joseph W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 55% |
11 | ZHOU Alec Q. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 42% | 5% |
12 | SHAW Ian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 52% |
13 | SARIKONDA Akhil | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 29% | 5% |
14 | ZHANG Eric | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 11% | - |
15 | VACCARO Dominick J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 5% |
16 | AWAN Saqlain A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 34% | 4% |
17 | MODULLA Yathin R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 57% | 15% |
18 | TREBON Hayden | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 46% |
19 | ELLIOTT Wyatt | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 22% |
20 | KULIKOWSKI Adam J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 67% | 16% |
21 | NGUYEN Audrey | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 23% | 3% |
22 | WANG Bryan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 24% |
23 | ALLEY Everett T | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 58% | 12% |
24 | JACKSON James | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 47% | 9% |
25 | PARCELEWICZ John M. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 17% | 2% |
26 | DANZIG Jacob S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 75% |
27 | LABROZZI Aidan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 43% | 6% |
28 | LIU Dylan Y. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 35% | 6% |
28 | TURK Reggie | 100% | 100% | 89% | 54% | 18% | 3% | - |
30 | SCALES Chad | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 54% | 14% |
31 | PAVLINEC John (Jack) C. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 21% | 3% | - |
32 | WILLIAMS Eli | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 37% | 11% | 1% |
33 | FERRARA Milo | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 37% | 10% | 1% |
34 | RAVI Arjun | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 73% | 26% | 3% |
35 | HWANG Brandon | 100% | 91% | 49% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
36 | FREY Wayne N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 66% | 20% |
37 | WANG Aidan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 49% | 13% | 1% |
38 | BROWN Hannah | 100% | 100% | 98% | 71% | 28% | 5% | - |
39 | CORLEY Avery | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 35% | 7% |
40 | BERNSTEIN Stuart E. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 22% | 3% |
41 | WOOLLEY Blake M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 19% |
42 | MIHILL Margaret | 100% | 76% | 29% | 5% | - | - | - |
43 | SHAFRITZ Noah | 100% | 100% | 95% | 69% | 31% | 7% | 1% |
44 | HWANG Aidan | 100% | 85% | 49% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
45 | HAWKINS Sophia | 100% | 84% | 49% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
46 | WEBB Jacob T. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 27% | 4% |
47 | CARRIE Konnor | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - |
48 | KRIEGER Jack | 100% | 99% | 88% | 53% | 15% | 1% | - |
48 | TUCKER Evan | 100% | 97% | 77% | 39% | 11% | 2% | - |
50 | KARRIEM Zainuddin | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 28% | 7% | 1% |
51 | LEE Winston | 100% | 92% | 64% | 26% | 5% | - | - |
52 | JEONG Arisu | 100% | 79% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
53 | ZIMINSKY Karel M. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 47% | 13% | 1% |
54 | MCFARLAND John G. | 100% | 98% | 82% | 41% | 9% | 1% | - |
54 | BOLLE Elijah | 100% | 98% | 84% | 45% | 11% | 1% | - |
56 | ATON Dave | 100% | 99% | 89% | 51% | 15% | 2% | - |
57 | DAVIS Jonah | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 29% | 5% | - |
57 | JIANG Harry | 100% | 100% | 92% | 52% | 8% | - | - |
59 | JAAFAR Hamza | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 26% | 6% | - |
60 | CHEN Jordan | 100% | 100% | 94% | 72% | 35% | 9% | 1% |
61 | LEE Aaron | 100% | 98% | 81% | 43% | 12% | 2% | - |
62 | DAVIS Kelly | 100% | 95% | 58% | 19% | 3% | - | - |
63 | DAVIDENKO Alexander | 100% | 97% | 79% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - |
64 | WEDDLE Carson | 100% | 94% | 67% | 27% | 5% | - | - |
65 | DUNKLIN Devon | 100% | 98% | 80% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - |
66 | DEMAREE Adam | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 41% | 12% | 1% |
67 | KWON Jason | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 29% | 6% | - |
68 | ADIBZADEH Mehrdad | 100% | 92% | 64% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - |
69 | PARK Andrew | 100% | 100% | 97% | 74% | 22% | 3% | - |
70 | ROCKWELL Nolan | 100% | 92% | 65% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
71 | REDDY Daksh | 100% | 99% | 86% | 48% | 12% | 1% | - |
71 | HAYES Zackery | 100% | 78% | 27% | 4% | - | - | - |
73 | IYER Arjun | 100% | 96% | 77% | 38% | 9% | 1% | - |
74 | EDWARDS Darby | 100% | 97% | 75% | 21% | 2% | - | - |
75 | WANDMACHER GUERRERO Angela | 100% | 97% | 66% | 26% | 5% | 1% | - |
76 | KIM Sangone | 100% | 91% | 45% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
77 | SANCHEZ Jordan | 100% | 97% | 76% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - |
78 | BELL Adam | 100% | 89% | 57% | 22% | 4% | - | - |
79 | AGEE Brendon | 100% | 60% | 16% | 2% | - | - | - |
80 | ARMES Maggie | 100% | 60% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
81 | KIM Lauren | 100% | 84% | 46% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
82 | ZHOU alex | 100% | 95% | 72% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - |
83 | PETE Landon | 100% | 52% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
83 | KNOX Aidan | 100% | 79% | 38% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
85 | VALENZUELA Elijah | 100% | 45% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
86 | FRATTA Caterina | 100% | 81% | 40% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
87 | BASKIN Julia | 100% | 51% | 7% | - | - | - | - |
88 | FORD Mattie | 100% | 39% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
89 | TYMOFIEIEVA Arina | 100% | 93% | 64% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - |
90 | DOUGLAS John | 100% | 66% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
91 | CROSS Phoenix | 100% | 61% | 15% | 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.