Columbus, OH - Columbus, OH, 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 | GEFELL Andrew P. | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 40% | 46% |
2 | SMITH Mitchell M. | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 38% | 51% |
3 | KOKKIN Jack S. | - | 1% | 10% | 29% | 37% | 19% | 3% |
3 | ARNIPALLI Shanvanth | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 41% | 26% | 3% |
5 | HANEY Vincent | - | 2% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% |
6 | WOODWARD Dylan P. | - | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 38% | 18% |
7 | CHENNURU Nischal | - | 5% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
8 | CALKINS William H. | 1% | 8% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
9 | D'ORAZIO Joseph | - | - | 3% | 13% | 32% | 37% | 14% |
10 | MONTGOMERY Jadon T. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 39% | 20% |
11 | DUDLEY LeByron | - | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 30% | 9% |
12 | LIU Edward H. | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 36% | 17% | 2% |
13 | MURZYN III Cj | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 4% |
14 | LEFEVRE Colin B. | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 39% | 19% | 2% |
15 | PARKER Timothy S. | - | 5% | 23% | 37% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
17 | WANG Jonathan | 5% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
18 | DESHETLER Scott | 18% | 44% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
19 | COLEMAN Joseph | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
21 | SCHARDINE James | 2% | 16% | 36% | 33% | 11% | 2% | - |
22 | BORTHWICK Benjamin J. | 5% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
23 | BORGERDING Callen | 11% | 31% | 35% | 18% | 5% | - | - |
23 | DENISON Joseph | 15% | 36% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
25 | JAWOROWSKI Matthew | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% | - |
26 | FORBES Wyatt | 12% | 39% | 37% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
27 | CONN Jackson | 20% | 40% | 30% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
28 | TUCKER Gabriel | 35% | 43% | 18% | 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.