John T. Rhodes Myrtle Beach Sports Center - Myrtle Beach, SC, 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 | CLICK Aiden | - | - | - | - | 3% | 25% | 72% |
| 2 | RACHEL Dylan | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 29% | 9% | |
| 3 | WANG Maxwell L. | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 40% | 20% | |
| 3 | HUTTO Joshua | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 35% |
| 5 | KROPP Jack | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 39% | 49% |
| 6 | GLENNON Sebastian J. | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 35% | 12% | |
| 7 | SINGH Ravin | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 4% |
| 8 | LIN Harrison | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 42% | 20% | |
| 9 | JACKSON James | - | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 33% | 12% |
| 10 | TATE William Isom | 1% | 10% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
| 11 | DINKINS Shuayb | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 43% | 23% | |
| 12 | VACCARO Dominick J. | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 6% |
| 13 | SCHARF Ryan | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 6% |
| 14 | MEGGERS Davin | - | 2% | 12% | 28% | 33% | 19% | 4% |
| 15 | TOUSSAINT Semaj | - | 6% | 23% | 40% | 25% | 5% | |
| 16 | CHUNG Joshua | - | 1% | 6% | 26% | 43% | 24% | |
| 17 | LIN Kason | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 33% | 12% | |
| 18 | LAM Alan | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 9% |
| 19 | SLOUGH Sean | - | - | 2% | 13% | 36% | 38% | 10% |
| 20 | LEE Jacob | 5% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | |
| 21 | WALLACE James | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 31% | 11% | |
| 22 | BERNARD Jack B. | 1% | 6% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 7% | |
| 23 | CLICK Tristan | 2% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 5% | |
| 24 | ALLEY Everett T | - | 1% | 7% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 9% |
| 25 | HULL Liam | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 26 | DAVIS Jonah | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 40% | 19% | 3% |
| 27 | XIE Brandon | - | 4% | 17% | 32% | 31% | 14% | 2% |
| 28 | MODULLA Yathin R. | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 40% | 17% | |
| 29 | SNYDER Ari | 1% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 6% | |
| 30 | ZHANG Lucas | 10% | 30% | 34% | 20% | 5% | 1% | |
| 31 | CHUNG Andrew | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 32 | HE Lingyun Matthew | 3% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 33 | SAKO Ayrton J. | - | 5% | 22% | 40% | 27% | 6% | |
| 34 | RAVI Arjun | - | 4% | 18% | 33% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
| 35 | CARNALL Hunter | 2% | 16% | 36% | 33% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 36 | KUO Garrett | - | 2% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
| 37 | AMOLSCH Dylan | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | |
| 38 | YI Nathan | 15% | 39% | 33% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 39 | HAN Sam | - | 5% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 11% | 2% |
| 40 | RUSSELL James | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 41 | GARCIA-CABRERA Jeffrey | 1% | 12% | 33% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 42 | CHUNG Joseph | 12% | 32% | 33% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 43 | ROCKWELL Nolan | 6% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 1% | |
| 44 | MARKOWITZ Sam | 25% | 45% | 24% | 5% | - | - | |
| 45 | RAPALSKI Thomas | 27% | 44% | 23% | 5% | - | - | |
| 46 | PAL Ian K. | 6% | 27% | 39% | 22% | 5% | - | |
| 47 | JONES Jackson | 27% | 45% | 23% | 5% | - | - | |
| 47 | DAN Rex | 2% | 14% | 32% | 33% | 16% | 3% | |
| 49 | BOUDREAUX James | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 3% | |
| 50 | PATEL Shloke | 15% | 38% | 33% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 51 | HE Xiangrui | 3% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 52 | REDDY Daksh | 9% | 35% | 37% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 53 | MILLER Jonathan | 6% | 34% | 39% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 54 | SUNKARA Vishnu | 58% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 55 | CORBIN Bennett | - | 2% | 12% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 2% |
| 56 | PETROW Zoryan | 2% | 17% | 38% | 31% | 11% | 1% | |
| 57 | KIM Joshua | 27% | 43% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 58 | ODEA Ryan | 25% | 41% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 59 | ZHU Aaron | - | 9% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 60 | SHAFRITZ Noah | 1% | 7% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
| 61 | WATERS Nathaniel | 65% | 30% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 62 | DINKINS Adam | 1% | 15% | 37% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 63 | BETTS Kieran | 43% | 41% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 64 | LAM Bill | 3% | 19% | 37% | 29% | 10% | 1% | |
| 65 | FARRER Brennecke E | 77% | 20% | 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.