Denver Fencing Center - Denver, CO, 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 | STRAUSS Luke | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 40% | |
| 2 | WESTPHAL David R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 55% | |
| 3 | LI Patrick | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 57% | 18% |
| 3 | BUERGISSER Kai | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 22% | 2% | |
| 5 | GAO Zachary | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 35% | 8% |
| 6 | CUMMINGS Atticus C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 23% |
| 7 | OGBORN Teddy (Ty) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 49% | |
| 8 | HARR Carver | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 42% | 8% | |
| 9 | KENT V David | 100% | 95% | 73% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 10 | CHOI Kaiden I. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 16% | |
| 11 | MCCOWN Ronan | 100% | 99% | 88% | 51% | 14% | 1% | |
| 12 | GASPAROVICH IV George M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 47% | |
| 13 | AGGELER Donovan | 100% | 96% | 58% | 18% | 2% | - | |
| 14 | GIOVAGNOLI Nolan | 100% | 99% | 85% | 51% | 17% | 2% | |
| 15 | MACMILLAN Collin | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 34% | 3% | - |
| 16 | ERKENBECK Nathan M. | 100% | 99% | 79% | 38% | 9% | 1% | |
| 17 | ALTMAN Jeff H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 55% | |
| 18 | DANIS Blake M. | 100% | 100% | 93% | 64% | 24% | 3% | |
| 19 | BARTLETT Christopher | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 35% | 7% |
| 20 | PEARSON Heila | 100% | 96% | 78% | 44% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 21 | GAMMILL Luke | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
| 22 | MCDONALD Connor | 100% | 62% | 20% | 3% | - | - | |
| 23 | MU Jason | 100% | 72% | 26% | 4% | - | - | |
| 24 | BEALL Milo M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 37% | 8% |
| 25 | FUNSTON Lauren L. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 36% | 11% | 1% |
| 26 | BURBEY Sam | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 39% | 13% | 2% |
| 27 | MCGOUGH Kevin | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 28 | KENT Elizabeth J. | 100% | 98% | 83% | 48% | 14% | 1% | |
| 29 | LEE Jayden J. | 100% | 97% | 78% | 40% | 11% | 1% | |
| 30 | GORMLEY Robert | 100% | 100% | 94% | 68% | 27% | 4% | |
| 31 | LEWIS Rachel | 100% | 80% | 34% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 32 | COLE Matthew | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 40% | 12% | 1% |
| 33 | SHULL Marc | 100% | 100% | 93% | 67% | 25% | 1% | |
| 34 | MCADOO Declan | 100% | 100% | 84% | 44% | 11% | 1% | |
| 35 | PETERSON Matthew | 100% | 100% | 99% | 84% | 36% | 5% | |
| 36 | FRENCH Phaelen | 100% | 86% | 52% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 37 | LEEDER Elizabeth | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
| 37 | RODRIGUES Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 94% | 62% | 10% | - | - |
| 39 | WANG Zoe | 100% | 84% | 50% | 19% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 40 | ANDERSON Claire | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 29% | 5% | |
| 41 | TRIFILETTI Lawrence T. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 63% | 20% | |
| 42 | JAMES Ethan | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 35% | 7% | |
| 43 | PEARSON Arwa | 100% | 77% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 44 | ANDERSON Donald | 100% | 90% | 47% | 12% | 1% | - | |
| 45 | FAIRBANKS George | 100% | 99% | 88% | 53% | 14% | - | |
| 46 | EYMAN Hans | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 28% | 3% | |
| 47 | WHEELER Sterling Anne P. | 100% | 96% | 74% | 36% | 9% | 1% | |
| 48 | RIEBSOMER Ethan | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 28% | 7% | 1% |
| 49 | LETTANG John | 100% | 94% | 64% | 24% | 4% | - | |
| 50 | TIBBLES Nolan | 100% | 98% | 77% | 37% | 8% | 1% | |
| 51 | BLANCHARD Timothy | 100% | 69% | 22% | 2% | - | - | |
| 51 | FOX Alexander | 100% | 29% | 3% | - | - | - | |
| 53 | ROMERO River | 100% | 93% | 64% | 25% | 5% | - | |
| 54 | SZABO Oliver | 100% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - | |
| 55 | VAZIRI Maya | 100% | 94% | 66% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 56 | NUTTYCOMBE Erasmus | 100% | 97% | 82% | 53% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
| 57 | BADNER- LANE Eliza | 100% | 95% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 2% | - |
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.