Bellevile High School Gymnasium - Belleville, MI, 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 | ARLINGTON Nicholas J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 49% |
| 2 | SILVERS Ari | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 76% | 38% | 8% |
| 3 | POON Alvin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 30% | 6% |
| 3 | PRABHAKAR Vibhav | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 10% | |
| 5 | HAW Keith F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 15% |
| 6 | BROOKS Zachary B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 61% | 21% |
| 7 | ELYADERANI Paxon | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 67% | 21% | |
| 8 | SONN Rohan | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 28% | 5% | |
| 9 | MICKO Fritz K. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 23% | ||
| 10 | MCKEEVER Luca | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 42% | 10% |
| 11 | HEIM Bryce | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 35% | 8% |
| 12 | GOHSMAN Maxwell | 100% | 89% | 58% | 24% | 5% | 1% | |
| 13 | WILKINSON Derek H. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 69% | 25% | ||
| 14 | ELTERMAN Lev | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 27% | 4% |
| 15 | SWANSON Dave | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 75% | 37% | 8% |
| 16 | DITTEL Aaron K. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 19% | |
| 17 | OCHS Bradley C. | 100% | 93% | 67% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 18 | BECKER Thomas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 21% |
| 19 | NORCONK Claire R. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 7% | 1% |
| 20 | RIVERA Ricky N. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 37% | 8% | |
| 21 | JANYSKA Allen | 100% | 98% | 79% | 26% | 4% | - | |
| 22 | ASGARALLY Anthony | 100% | 99% | 87% | 56% | 20% | 3% | |
| 23 | KLINE R. Jay | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 56% | 19% | 2% |
| 24 | VELINOV Gabriel | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 42% | 14% | 2% |
| 25 | DALTON Matthew | 100% | 87% | 43% | 9% | 1% | ||
| 26 | OWENS Andrew J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 49% | 13% |
| 27 | KWOK Roland | 100% | 100% | 88% | 52% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 28 | MITTAL Sanil | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 42% | 11% | |
| 29 | BROWN Amanda | 100% | 95% | 72% | 35% | 9% | 1% | |
| 30 | VUKELICH Daniel | 100% | 90% | 57% | 21% | 4% | - | |
| 31 | DEPAUW Devan | 100% | 92% | 66% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 32 | HADD Jonathon | 100% | 98% | 83% | 51% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 33 | WIDMANN Ceili | 100% | 99% | 90% | 59% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 34 | ECKEL Anson J. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 16% | 2% |
| 35 | SKOURLETOS Angelina | 100% | 98% | 84% | 53% | 21% | 3% | |
| 36 | BERTRAND Matthew T. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 45% | 14% | 2% |
| 37 | JONES Reilly | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 38 | CACCAMO Nicholas | 100% | 99% | 87% | 36% | 6% | - | - |
| 39 | RODACHY Jeffrey M. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 62% | 24% | 4% | |
| 40 | KIM Sebastian | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 17% | 2% | |
| 41 | GREEN Scott D. | 100% | 98% | 69% | 27% | 5% | - | - |
| 42 | LI Qiuye | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 23% | 4% |
| 43 | HOORNSTRA David S. | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 44 | KOKA Ashwin | 100% | 82% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 45 | MURRAY John P. | 100% | 90% | 54% | 17% | 2% | ||
| 46 | DIEPSTRA Jeremy | 100% | 98% | 83% | 50% | 18% | 3% | |
| 47 | MITKUS Marianne J. | 100% | 88% | 37% | 7% | - | - | |
| 48 | GREEN Zachary J. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 34% | 10% | 1% |
| 49 | LANDIS Geoffrey A. | 100% | 86% | 49% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 50 | FAGERHAUG Aubrey R. | 100% | 92% | 64% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 51 | MCGRATH Polina S. | 100% | 93% | 65% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 52 | GERTISER Amalie (Amy) C. | 100% | 59% | 18% | 3% | - | - | |
| 53 | LIEBER Adam | 100% | 82% | 35% | 6% | - | ||
| 54 | LAPP Laurie E. | 100% | 95% | 72% | 36% | 9% | 1% | |
| 55 | ZEHE Michele A. | 100% | 65% | 23% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 56 | BAKKE Alexander | 100% | 99% | 88% | 60% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 57 | ELTERMAN Kate | 100% | 83% | 45% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 58 | TURZILLO Mary A. | 100% | 18% | 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.