Salt Lake City, UT - Salt Lake City, UT, 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 | ROBINSON Riley | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 20% |
2 | BLISS Atticus H. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 37% | 9% |
3 | COX Matthew T. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 64% | 30% | 6% |
3 | BURTON Patrick | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 43% | 10% |
5 | GORDON-SAND Spencer | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 18% | 1% |
6 | MOSES Alexander | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 75% | 39% | 9% |
7 | GOLDMAN Rami | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 39% | 12% | 2% |
8 | CUMMINGS Kai W. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 56% | 23% | 4% |
9 | GREEN Jake L. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 45% | 15% | 2% |
10 | BRONZO Justin G. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 36% | 8% |
11 | MUGA Boris | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 21% | 3% |
12 | JONES Dominic R. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 79% | 50% | 19% | 3% |
13 | TODREAS Simon | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 22% | 5% | - |
14 | KAUFMAN Joel H. | 100% | 94% | 73% | 40% | 14% | 3% | - |
15 | STEVENS James F. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 21% | 3% |
16 | O'HARA Keegan J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 36% | 8% |
17 | MAENG Jake W. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 30% | 6% |
18 | DRAKE Owen G. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 64% | 31% | 9% | 1% |
19 | LI Brian X | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 40% | 9% |
20 | YUMIACO Nolan C. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 59% | 26% | 5% |
21 | YAO Shun | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 34% | 9% | 1% |
22 | SMITH Jackson | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 74% | 41% | 10% |
23 | XIAO Zherui | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 49% | 18% | 3% |
24 | PARK Jong-Eun | 100% | 98% | 82% | 49% | 18% | 4% | - |
25 | HOLDERNESS Landon | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 41% | 10% |
26 | ROMERO Caleb E. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 32% | 9% | 1% |
27 | LAWLER Aidan | 100% | 95% | 71% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - |
28 | WISNIEWSKI Bart | 100% | 99% | 83% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - |
29 | INSLER Ethan C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 70% | 37% | 9% |
30 | GUMAGAY Paul | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 37% | 9% |
31 | SMITH Nicholas S. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 40% | 10% |
32 | BURCH Tristan H. | 100% | 72% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
33 | HU Alexander W. | 100% | 98% | 82% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - |
34 | KAEDING Alexander (Alex) B. | 100% | 100% | 93% | 71% | 37% | 11% | 1% |
35 | WEISE Eli S. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 77% | 45% | 16% | 2% |
36 | VANDERVELDE Pierce F. | 100% | 80% | 43% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
37 | WESTMAAS Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 95% | 79% | 48% | 17% | 3% |
38 | LIANG Aaron | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 25% | 5% |
39 | MORSE Tyler | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 42% | 10% |
40 | CLINEFELTER Dennis S. | 100% | 97% | 73% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - |
41 | SMAY II Joseph E. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 22% | 3% |
42 | KUHN Jeffrey | 100% | 85% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
43 | PARTRIDGE Lucas F. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 62% | 26% | 5% |
44 | LIPTON Michael D. | 100% | 88% | 50% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
45 | KRUGER Mark (Mark Kruger) | 100% | 95% | 73% | 37% | 11% | 1% | - |
46 | THORESON Gary C. | 100% | 93% | 67% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
47 | FANGMAN Daniel L. | 100% | 87% | 55% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - |
48 | KASTENBERG Leo M. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 48% | 17% | 3% |
48 | VAN VOORHEES Andrew | 100% | 87% | 54% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
50 | RYAN Christopher | 100% | 96% | 75% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
51 | KIRSCH Adam J. | 100% | 90% | 58% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - |
52 | SPENCER Richard (Spenc) E. | 100% | 97% | 82% | 51% | 21% | 5% | - |
53 | KATOPES Peter | 100% | 32% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
54 | KING Richard (Dick) M. | 100% | 89% | 54% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
55 | SMITH Brandon J. | 100% | 84% | 42% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
56 | GRAVIS Martin V. | 100% | 63% | 23% | 5% | 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.