Phoenix Convention Center - Phoenix, AZ, 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 | WATRALL Rick | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 76% | 35% |
| 2 | VARNEY John R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 54% | 15% |
| 3 | RICHARDS Dick | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 41% |
| 3 | SCHINDLER Sergey M. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 63% | 27% | 5% |
| 5 | HUDSON Jeffrey (Jeff) A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 29% | |
| 6 | AMELI Sean | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 43% |
| 7 | VAN DYKE Frank | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 19% | 3% |
| 8 | JENSEN David | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 56% | 16% |
| 9 | DRAGONETTI Walter E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 67% |
| 10 | PERKA Michael | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 13% |
| 10 | FRANK Fred | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 52% | 12% |
| 12 | KAROLAK Dale W. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 32% | 6% |
| 13 | GLASS Timothy C. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 42% | 10% | |
| 14 | NIEMIEC Mark | 100% | 88% | 55% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 15 | HAYENGA Gary M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 26% |
| 16 | NEALE James H. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 39% | 10% | 1% |
| 17 | SEGAL Mark N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 24% |
| 18 | DELGADO Jr. Eli M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 36% | 7% |
| 19 | JAMES Lonnie M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 83% | 46% | 13% | 1% |
| 20 | SWANSON Dave | 100% | 99% | 88% | 62% | 28% | 7% | 1% |
| 21 | RANES Evan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 19% |
| 22 | JUGAN Bruce M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 43% | 10% |
| 23 | SETTE Alessandro | 100% | 91% | 55% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 24 | ALEXANDER Chuck | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 19% | 2% |
| 25 | MCTIGUE J. Michael | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 19% | 3% |
| 26 | KLEIN Johannes | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 27% | 4% | - |
| 27 | LANDIS Geoffrey A. | 100% | 86% | 48% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 28 | SIMMONS Matthew C. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 76% | 36% | 8% | 1% |
| 29 | POPPRE Michael N. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 27% | 5% | |
| 30 | KRUGER Mark | 100% | 86% | 49% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 31 | DOWNEY Gerard C. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 40% | 12% | 1% |
| 32 | MARSHALL William L. | 100% | 98% | 83% | 47% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 33 | CHANG Henry | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 46% | 15% | 2% |
| 34 | LINGVAY Laurance (Larry) S. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 28% | 6% | - |
| 35 | WHITELOCK James R. | 100% | 76% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 36 | WHEELER Mark C. | 100% | 96% | 74% | 36% | 9% | 1% | |
| 37 | EVANS Allen L. | 100% | 99% | 87% | 54% | 19% | 3% | - |
| 38 | HUGHES Michael D. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 79% | 39% | 9% | 1% |
| 39 | BEITTEL David F. | 100% | 96% | 73% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 40 | PITZEL John E. | 100% | 95% | 66% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 41 | SIEDOW Jeffrey | 100% | 54% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 42 | MCKEE David | 100% | 48% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 43 | MITCHELL Matthew D. | 100% | 68% | 14% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 44 | POOLE James M. | 100% | 78% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 45 | POPOVICI Alexander M. | 100% | 95% | 75% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 46 | TIERNEY Luke | 100% | 96% | 75% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 47 | STONE Ken | 100% | 33% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 48 | GROSS Louis A. | 100% | 97% | 78% | 42% | 12% | 1% | - |
| 49 | CROUCH William John (John) | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 35% | 9% | 1% |
| 50 | CHERNEK Stephen L. | 100% | 69% | 25% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 50 | GILLESPIE Jeremy W. | 100% | 95% | 71% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 52 | SKOPIK Jr August | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 53 | ENGLISH William | 100% | 94% | 70% | 35% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 54 | MONES Robert (Bob) J. | 100% | 95% | 68% | 27% | 5% | - | - |
| 55 | OLSON Mark R. | 100% | 50% | 7% | - | - | - | - |
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.