DC Fencers Club - Silver Spring, MD, 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 | 7 | ||
| 1 | MOORE Shomari A. | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 37% | 55% | |
| 2 | NORTH Gary S. | - | - | - | - | 6% | 39% | 54% | |
| 3 | KWOUN Miles S. | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 41% | 26% | 2% | |
| 3 | CHAWLA Armaan | - | - | 1% | 11% | 35% | 42% | 11% | |
| 5 | HARDY Tristan L. | - | - | - | 4% | 17% | 36% | 33% | 10% |
| 6 | DEUCHER Joseph H. | - | - | - | - | 2% | 11% | 39% | 48% |
| 7 | ELLIS Yehia S. | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 42% | 40% | |
| 8 | SMOAK Omari Z. | - | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 43% | 29% | |
| 9 | SIVAKUMAR Ajit | - | - | 1% | 6% | 26% | 47% | 21% | |
| 10 | JORDAN Anton | - | 2% | 14% | 35% | 37% | 11% | 1% | |
| 11 | UPSHAW Micah | - | 7% | 25% | 36% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 12 | LI Benjamin | - | - | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 32% | 8% |
| 13 | TAMULONIS Fen C. | - | - | 5% | 26% | 43% | 22% | 3% | |
| 13 | DOAN Joseph M. | - | - | 2% | 15% | 39% | 37% | 8% | |
| 15 | ZHANG Caden | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 7% | - | |
| 16 | HILBERT Gabriel E. | - | 1% | 9% | 34% | 40% | 16% | 2% | |
| 17 | TABLEMAN Doug S. | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 40% | 45% | |
| 18 | WOLFE Alex | - | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 37% | 20% | 4% |
| 19 | SO Lorenzo | 1% | 5% | 21% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 20 | CHIMAHUSKY Rebecca | - | 19% | 42% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 21 | HRAPSKY Ryan J. | - | - | - | - | 2% | 21% | 77% | |
| 22 | CHAMBLISS Logan C. | 1% | 9% | 31% | 38% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 23 | HANSEN Lars | - | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 8% | |
| 24 | ANDREWS Iain | - | 1% | 8% | 32% | 40% | 18% | 2% | |
| 25 | CAO Albert | - | - | 1% | 4% | 18% | 35% | 32% | 10% |
| 26 | WOZNIAK Fryderyk | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
| 27 | CAO Brad | - | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 11% | 1% |
| 28 | MURPHY Thomas P. | 1% | 5% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 8% | 1% | |
| 29 | LIN Harrison | 3% | 24% | 46% | 22% | 4% | - | - | |
| 30 | LEE JoonWon | 2% | 16% | 35% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 31 | PALAMARCHUK Andriy | 4% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 32 | TOMASZEWSKI Joshua | - | 7% | 27% | 39% | 22% | 5% | - | |
| 33 | TIRRELL Justin J. | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 38% | 21% | 4% | |
| 34 | LIU Nicole | 2% | 13% | 30% | 32% | 18% | 5% | - | |
| 35 | LE BORGNE Matthieu | 6% | 43% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - | - | |
| 36 | AYMETT Robert (Skip) S. | 1% | 7% | 24% | 37% | 24% | 6% | 1% | |
| 37 | ROTHKA Spencer J. | 1% | 11% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 5% | - | - |
| 38 | SOKOL Luke | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 39 | ASHER Valerie | - | 5% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 40 | MARTINEZ Joshua | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 8% | - | |
| 41 | PALAMARCHUK Matthew | 1% | 11% | 35% | 37% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 42 | LEE Aiden | - | 8% | 38% | 38% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 43 | GAUVEY Ken C. | 1% | 10% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - | |
| 44 | SELLAR Ian | 19% | 39% | 30% | 10% | 2% | - | - | |
| 45 | FRENCH Phaelen | 62% | 33% | 5% | - | - | - | - | |
| 46 | MEGGERS Davin | 27% | 42% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | - | |
| 47 | HULL Liam | 2% | 17% | 41% | 30% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 48 | HUTZ Michael B. | 2% | 15% | 39% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 49 | SIEDOW William | - | 69% | 27% | 3% | - | - | - | |
| 50 | DAN Chuntao | 30% | 47% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - | |
| 51 | BLACK Ethan | 34% | 48% | 16% | 2% | - | - | - | |
| 52 | ZHANG Sen | 8% | 32% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 53 | DAN Rex | 4% | 22% | 38% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 54 | BANNEN Nicholas | 13% | 37% | 34% | 13% | 2% | - | - | |
| 55 | MURPHY Katherine | 24% | 49% | 23% | 4% | - | - | - | |
| 56 | JOHNSON Merit | 21% | 39% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - | - | |
| 57 | MEGGERS Samuel | 52% | 38% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 58 | SAMPAIO Beatriz | 27% | 40% | 24% | 8% | 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.