DC Fencers Club - Silver Spring, MD, 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 | NORTH Gary S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 93% | 60% | 17% |
| 2 | PARK Ian C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 68% | 24% | |
| 3 | HRAPSKY Ryan J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 44% | |
| 3 | TABLEMAN Doug S. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 58% | 17% | |
| 5 | CULPEPPER John (JR) R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 93% | 57% | 14% |
| 6 | TAMULONIS Fen C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 59% | 19% | 2% |
| 7 | PAN Colin | 100% | 94% | 65% | 26% | 5% | - | |
| 8 | GANA Jr Jorge M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 69% | 21% |
| 9 | CARTER Austin L. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 52% | 16% | 2% | |
| 10 | SO Lorenzo | 100% | 100% | 97% | 61% | 13% | 1% | - |
| 11 | HE Lawrence | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 27% |
| 12 | SU Caleb | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 61% | 17% | |
| 13 | SNYDER IV William B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 71% | 17% | |
| 14 | WHEELER Daniel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 88% | 35% | 6% | - |
| 15 | JAKEL Sophia N. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 60% | 24% | 4% | |
| 16 | CAO Brad | 100% | 99% | 88% | 57% | 18% | 2% | |
| 17 | LE BORGNE Matthieu | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 33% | 9% | 1% |
| 18 | JORDAN Anton | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 43% | 11% | 1% |
| 19 | WITTER Catherine A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 29% | 5% |
| 20 | SAUNIER Cameron | 100% | 80% | 38% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 21 | SWENSON Keane J. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 78% | 38% | 8% | |
| 22 | HILBERT Gabriel E. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 34% | 5% | |
| 23 | TIKHONOV Iliya | 100% | 98% | 82% | 47% | 14% | 1% | |
| 24 | CAO Albert | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 27% | 4% |
| 25 | DAN Rex | 100% | 98% | 83% | 47% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 26 | TIKHONOV Daniel | 100% | 90% | 55% | 18% | 2% | - | |
| 27 | JAKEL Alysa C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 45% | 12% |
| 28 | ZHANG Caden | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 59% | 18% | 2% |
| 29 | ROBERT Oliver | 100% | 80% | 29% | 5% | - | - | |
| 30 | ZHANG Sen | 100% | 70% | 27% | 5% | - | - | |
| 31 | CSAJBOK Attila | 100% | 90% | 56% | 19% | 3% | - | - |
| 32 | QIU Emily | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 33 | CHENH Justin | 100% | 82% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 34 | ARMSTRONG TyLee | 100% | 90% | 49% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 35 | LEE Aiden | 100% | 85% | 47% | 13% | 1% | - | |
| 36 | YU Jason | 100% | 48% | 9% | 1% | - | - | |
| 37 | SZIEDE Kieran | 100% | 57% | 14% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 38 | MACTOUGH Ben | 100% | 34% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 39 | SUNKARA Vishnu | 100% | 77% | 17% | 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.