John T. Rhodes Myrtle Beach Sports Center - Myrtle Beach, SC, 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 | HUTTO Joshua | - | - | 3% | 12% | 30% | 37% | 18% |
| 2 | WANG Maxwell L. | - | - | - | 5% | 24% | 44% | 27% |
| 3 | SNYDER Ari | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 4% |
| 3 | CLICK Tristan | - | 3% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 4% |
| 5 | RACHEL Dylan | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 5% |
| 6 | TIKHONOV Iliya | - | - | 3% | 14% | 34% | 36% | 13% |
| 7 | ZIMINSKY Karel M. | 1% | 6% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
| 8 | SLOUGH Sean | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 25% |
| 9 | BERNARD Jack B. | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 37% | 18% | 3% |
| 10 | DUBE Ian D. | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 37% | 52% |
| 11 | WANG Bryan | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 34% | 31% | 11% |
| 12 | IFORD Andrew W. | 5% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 13 | BUI Henry | - | 2% | 13% | 35% | 36% | 14% | 1% |
| 14 | HAN Ethan | 1% | 5% | 21% | 37% | 29% | 8% | |
| 15 | PATEL Kushal | 1% | 7% | 24% | 37% | 26% | 6% | |
| 16 | TIKHONOV Daniel | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 34% | 17% | 3% |
| 17 | SCHARF Ryan | - | - | 2% | 12% | 34% | 38% | 14% |
| 18 | CHUNG Joshua | - | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 38% | 18% |
| 19 | GLENNON Sebastian J. | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 6% |
| 20 | JUNG Joshua | 2% | 12% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 6% | 1% |
| 21 | ALLEY Everett T | - | - | 4% | 21% | 40% | 29% | 6% |
| 22 | DILLE Brice | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 11% |
| 23 | SHAFRITZ Noah | 19% | 37% | 29% | 12% | 3% | - | - |
| 24 | SAKO Ayrton J. | - | 1% | 8% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 7% |
| 25 | PAVLINEC John (Jack) C. | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% |
| 26 | HEINZE Luke H. | 1% | 7% | 27% | 39% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 27 | SINGH Ravin | 1% | 8% | 23% | 33% | 24% | 9% | 1% |
| 28 | PAPPAS Brian | 2% | 13% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 5% | 1% |
| 29 | HONG Ryan | 4% | 20% | 34% | 27% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 30 | CHOI David | 40% | 41% | 16% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 31 | SCHIAVONE Oreste | 3% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 32 | MALONE Jacob | 15% | 36% | 33% | 13% | 3% | - | |
| 33 | ZHANG Caden | - | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 40% | 21% |
| 34 | AWAN Saqlain A. | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 40% | 21% | |
| 35 | PAL Ian K. | 18% | 38% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 36 | RUSSELL Tallis | 6% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% | |
| 37 | ACKLAND Matthew | 8% | 29% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 38 | CUI Jack | - | - | 3% | 17% | 38% | 33% | 9% |
| 39 | NICKERSON Oliver | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 40 | CRAWFORD Charles (Marston) M. | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 8% |
| 40 | TSAI Caleb | - | 1% | 8% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 8% |
| 42 | SMALLWOOD Jaylon | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 33% | 21% | 5% |
| 43 | CHOI Adam | 15% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 44 | DECKER Carlton | 1% | 8% | 22% | 32% | 25% | 10% | 2% |
| 45 | JUNG Elliot | 3% | 17% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 46 | KE Sebastian | 11% | 44% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 47 | DAN Rex | 1% | 10% | 27% | 33% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
| 47 | KIM Jeff | 1% | 9% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 49 | HU Robert J. | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 50 | COCHRAN Keith M. | 11% | 39% | 35% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 51 | MUELLER Will | 24% | 41% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 52 | RUIZ Jayden | 33% | 44% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 53 | MCDANIEL Eamon | 13% | 35% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | |
| 54 | ZHANG Sen | 4% | 21% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 55 | RUSSELL James | 2% | 13% | 31% | 33% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 56 | SMITH Christopher | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 57 | JONES Jackson | 2% | 18% | 41% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 58 | PAK Joel | 29% | 41% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 59 | CHILDS Edward B. | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 59 | HONG Robin | 54% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 61 | DAILEY John | 6% | 27% | 40% | 22% | 5% | - | - |
| 62 | DAVIS Kelly | 11% | 31% | 33% | 19% | 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.