Philadelphia, PA - Philadelphia, PA, 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 | O'LOUGHLIN Chris S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 61% |
| 2 | TEPEDELENLIOGLU Mehmet | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 15% |
| 3 | NORMILE Jon M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 55% |
| 3 | HOFFMANN Christopher J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 32% | 6% |
| 5 | LANG Markus | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 62% | 23% |
| 6 | HAYENGA Gary M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 28% | 5% |
| 7 | JOHNSON Jeff | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 41% | 10% |
| 8 | SUPONYA Sergey | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 52% | 14% |
| 9 | REES Daniel I. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 23% |
| 10 | FRANK Fred | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 64% | 29% | 6% |
| 11 | DEUCHER Joseph H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 18% |
| 12 | CRANOR Erich L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 28% |
| 13 | LEE PETER H. | 100% | 87% | 53% | 19% | 3% | < 1% | - |
| 14 | BAILEY Creston P. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 26% | 5% |
| 15 | BLANCHARD Aaron (Sam) S. | 100% | 99% | 80% | 42% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 16 | BAXTER David | 100% | 73% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 17 | WILSON Jeffrey M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 47% | 8% |
| 18 | BARREIRO Darren | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 44% | 11% |
| 19 | KURITZ Marc M. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 41% | 12% | 2% |
| 20 | GILLHAM Timothy A. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 46% | 15% | 2% |
| 21 | MAR Kevin | 100% | 95% | 71% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 22 | FELDMAN Adam | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 55% | 21% | 4% |
| 23 | GUMAGAY Paul | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 42% | 13% | 2% |
| 24 | LOEFFLER Carl E. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 76% | 41% | 10% |
| 25 | WOZNIAK Greg | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 39% | 9% |
| 26 | WAY Kashi M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 30% | 6% |
| 27 | CHERNYSHOV Max | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 24% | 4% |
| 28 | KENT Dwain | 100% | 97% | 80% | 46% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 29 | JENSEN David | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 32% | 6% | - |
| 30 | SWANSON Dave | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 37% | 10% | 1% |
| 31 | REID Michael | 100% | 77% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 32 | SANCHEZ Leon D. | 100% | 92% | 63% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
| 33 | SNIDER Jeffrey H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 13% |
| 34 | MAYCHROWITZ Matt | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
| 34 | PIERRO Roger | 100% | 96% | 73% | 36% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 36 | NEMAZIE David A. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 16% | 2% |
| 37 | STEVENS Terrence | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 22% | 4% |
| 38 | CHEN Chang-Rung | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 25% | 4% | - |
| 39 | BALESTRACCI Chris | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 6% | - |
| 40 | KISSINGFORD John F. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 57% | 20% | 2% |
| 41 | KANE Tim | 100% | 89% | 54% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 42 | WILLIAMS Richard | 100% | 60% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 43 | COTLAR Andrew D. | 100% | 95% | 69% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 44 | HEKMAT Sina R. | 100% | 100% | 86% | 51% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 45 | WEINTRAUB Adam | 100% | 85% | 47% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 46 | BUSH Thomas | 100% | 97% | 79% | 44% | 13% | 1% | - |
| 47 | DESAMOURS Georges H. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 45% | 13% | 1% | - |
| 47 | COETZEE Frans M. | 100% | 93% | 63% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 49 | POPOVICI Alexander M. | 100% | 86% | 52% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 50 | KOKENGE Chad | 100% | 93% | 63% | 24% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 51 | LEE Richard U. | 100% | 91% | 63% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 52 | VAUGHN David | 100% | 97% | 78% | 42% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 53 | SAWASDIKOSOL Sansana | 100% | 83% | 42% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 54 | MAYS Sean | 100% | 81% | 36% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 55 | SIMS Martin L. | 100% | 53% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 56 | SCHARF David | 100% | 10% | - | - | - | - | - |
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.