Indianapolis Fencing Club - Indianapolis, IN, 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 | ||
1 | LEUNG Ethan | - | 1% | 5% | 25% | 44% | 26% |
2 | BLAKEMAN Michael J. | - | - | 6% | 35% | 59% | |
3 | SANTOS Carlos R. | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 37% | 17% |
3 | PALMA Matthew Dominic | - | - | 1% | 12% | 50% | 37% |
5 | GNEUHS Sam | 3% | 18% | 39% | 32% | 9% | |
6 | CHAN Matthew | - | - | 3% | 21% | 50% | 26% |
7 | KUE Temujin | 13% | 52% | 29% | 5% | - | |
8 | ISHANOVA Sofia | 3% | 17% | 36% | 31% | 12% | 1% |
9 | DENMAN Matthew L. | - | 2% | 14% | 35% | 36% | 12% |
10 | MARCUS Peter | 2% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
11 | PALMA Nathan Anthony | 1% | 9% | 29% | 40% | 21% | |
12 | HAAS Zane | 16% | 49% | 28% | 6% | - | - |
13 | HICKEY Connor | 1% | 17% | 42% | 33% | 6% | - |
14 | GOSMEYER Matthew E. | - | 5% | 31% | 44% | 18% | 1% |
15 | SMITH Erick | 1% | 11% | 42% | 38% | 9% | |
16 | WANG Jim | 5% | 28% | 41% | 22% | 4% | |
17 | DUNLAP Ian | 9% | 34% | 39% | 16% | 2% | - |
18 | BATES Austin | 1% | 12% | 43% | 40% | 4% | |
19 | TAN Isabella | 1% | 14% | 36% | 34% | 14% | 2% |
20 | LEE Claire L. | 27% | 42% | 24% | 6% | 1% | |
21 | FULLER II Thomas | 11% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - |
22 | JAMES John | 44% | 43% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
23 | VANWORMER Daniel | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 32% | 11% |
24 | LASKA Patryk | 3% | 18% | 36% | 31% | 11% | 1% |
25 | SMITH Aiden | 4% | 25% | 42% | 24% | 4% | |
26 | BERNWANGER Phillip | 63% | 32% | 5% | - | - | |
27 | DVORAK Ryan | 13% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - |
28 | FRASER Alistair | 25% | 46% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
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.