University of Maryland, Reckord Armory - College Park, 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 | ||
| 1 | DEL VECCHIO Nicolas (None PLEASE) S. | - | - | - | - | 2% | 21% | 76% |
| 2 | JOHNSON Langston C. | - | - | - | - | 6% | 33% | 60% |
| 3 | FERRARA Nicholas S. | - | - | - | 6% | 32% | 51% | 10% |
| 3 | CORTEZ Christopher | - | - | - | 4% | 26% | 48% | 22% |
| 5 | WONG Tzer | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 40% | 46% |
| 6 | YEN Preston | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 40% | 47% |
| 7 | LAU Justin Y. | - | 5% | 35% | 42% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 8 | THORNHILL Kwasi | - | - | 3% | 15% | 36% | 36% | 10% |
| 9 | FERRARO Pietro | - | - | - | - | 6% | 33% | 60% |
| 11 | FENKER William M. | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 45% | 38% |
| 12 | JONES Graham H. | - | - | - | - | 4% | 28% | 68% |
| 13 | SHANKAR Karthik | 1% | 10% | 29% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 14 | GAUVEY Kieran | 1% | 13% | 31% | 33% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 15 | HOTHA Nikhil | - | 4% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
| 16 | MOL Spencer | - | - | 2% | 17% | 44% | 31% | 6% |
| 17 | BRIDGEMAN Andrew T. | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 12% | 1% |
| 18 | LIN Felix | 1% | 9% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 19 | ZHOU James Y. | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 33% | 16% | 3% |
| 20 | BOUKHTIN Maxim | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 41% | 24% | 2% |
| 21 | LIU Mingyang Ryan | - | 1% | 4% | 17% | 34% | 33% | 12% |
| 22 | PATEL Rayn | - | - | 1% | 11% | 38% | 41% | 9% |
| 23 | MOORE Evan M. | - | 1% | 9% | 31% | 40% | 18% | 1% |
| 24 | NOURELDIN Gabriel | - | - | 3% | 20% | 45% | 28% | 4% |
| 25 | OLALIA-NAPIER Gabriel | 3% | 21% | 38% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 26 | MOL Justin | 2% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 27 | WALKE Devin | 1% | 11% | 33% | 36% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 28 | CHENG Brandon | 1% | 9% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 29 | MARKOWITZ Jonathan | 4% | 25% | 42% | 25% | 4% | - | - |
| 30 | SUORSA Markus | - | - | 9% | 33% | 42% | 15% | 1% |
| 31 | KLEBS Robert | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 32 | DECK Tyson | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 33% | 16% | 3% |
| 33 | MAUREL Nicolas | - | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 32% | 11% |
| 34 | CLARK Keagan | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
| 35 | LE Brandon | 4% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 36 | LYON Drew | - | 3% | 26% | 45% | 23% | 3% | - |
| 37 | REHM Liam | 11% | 36% | 38% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 38 | JENSBY Jason | 1% | 15% | 40% | 32% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 39 | XU Ivan | 20% | 40% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 40 | PAN Henry | - | 5% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
| 41 | WEBER Mattias A. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 37% | 39% | 8% |
| 42 | BAKER Keith L. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 35% | 37% | 10% |
| 43 | WEINSTEIN Nate | 2% | 16% | 38% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 44 | YAN William | - | 2% | 14% | 37% | 35% | 12% | 1% |
| 45 | HUFF Clayton R. | 1% | 7% | 26% | 42% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 46 | KEEFER Philip E. | - | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 37% | 17% |
| 47 | FARAON Paulus | 11% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 48 | MILLS Matthew P. | - | 5% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 8% | 1% |
| 49 | BHATIA Ekam | 2% | 17% | 36% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 50 | MOLDABEK-MACHADO Aron | 47% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 51 | LICHTERMAN Jakub | 8% | 43% | 36% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 52 | STRUCKER Rocco | 14% | 40% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 53 | COHEN Charlie | 14% | 64% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 54 | AKST Elliot | 7% | 28% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 55 | GORDON Jonathan | 40% | 42% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 56 | SZULIM Lucjan | 11% | 38% | 37% | 13% | 1% | - | - |
| 57 | SHU Richard | 70% | 27% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
| 58 | AMES Kylan | 5% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 58 | BAKIAN Tristan | 29% | 45% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 58 | LESHIN Taran | 56% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 61 | PARCELL Colby | 37% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 62 | KENNEDY Aidan | 58% | 34% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 63 | CHOHAN Jibreel | 77% | 22% | 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.