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 | HADDAD Justin R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 49% |
| 2 | TAMULONIS Fen C. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 37% | 11% | 1% |
| 3 | HITCHCOCK David | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 39% | 10% |
| 3 | SUICO Zachary Emanuel O. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 14% |
| 5 | HUSISIAN Hadley N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 52% | 16% |
| 6 | JOYCE Michaela | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 14% |
| 7 | PICCUS Isaac S. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 75% | 40% | 11% | 1% |
| 8 | TONG Sarah Shen | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 36% | 11% | 1% |
| 9 | PARK Faith K. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 54% | 16% |
| 10 | HILBERT Xavier | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 68% | 20% | |
| 11 | LAMPE-VORGITY Donald D. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 56% | 22% | 4% |
| 12 | HODGE Jaydon L. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 7% | 1% |
| 13 | KIM Elizabeth Y. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 39% | 12% | 2% |
| 14 | STEVENS Daniel | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 15 | RUEDA Mateo | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 25% | 5% | |
| 16 | DOAN Joseph M. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 42% | 8% | |
| 17 | TAE William G. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 83% | 53% | 17% |
| 18 | SILVA Philip | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 45% | 15% | 2% |
| 19 | LEE Kyungmin | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 44% | 16% | 2% |
| 20 | WALTHER Bryan M. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 40% | 13% | 2% |
| 21 | NOMANI Shibli D. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 62% | 29% | 6% |
| 22 | JONES Clinton | 100% | 99% | 91% | 69% | 37% | 12% | 2% |
| 23 | EVANS Allen L. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 65% | 33% | 10% | 1% |
| 24 | ADLER Ethan M. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 25 | ROTONDI Gregory V. | 100% | 99% | 87% | 58% | 25% | 6% | 1% |
| 26 | PARK Ian C. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 52% | 19% | 3% |
| 27 | DESAMOURS Sabine I. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 28 | TRIMMER Colin | 100% | 84% | 45% | 12% | 1% | - | |
| 29 | DESAI Meera P. | 100% | 95% | 75% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 30 | LU Samantha R. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 59% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
| 31 | BOLE Samuel B. | 100% | 85% | 49% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 32 | FLO Sena | 100% | 89% | 58% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 33 | ASHER Valerie | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 17% | 2% |
| 34 | SALISBURY Cary | 100% | 90% | 58% | 23% | 5% | - | - |
| 35 | LEE Yedda | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 34% | 8% | - |
| 36 | SEID Zachary W. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
| 37 | LU Sebastian X. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 58% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 38 | DESAMOURS Georges H. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 31% | 6% | - |
| 39 | ZHENG Yuanlong (Bill) | 100% | 100% | 93% | 71% | 35% | 9% | 1% |
| 40 | LI Benjamin | 100% | 95% | 72% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 41 | HENSAL Nicolas A. | 100% | 95% | 71% | 32% | 6% | - | |
| 42 | COHN Benjamin | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 38% | 9% | 1% |
| 43 | LU Qi | 100% | 85% | 50% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 44 | TEJADA Mikaela Aprille S. | 100% | 95% | 75% | 43% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 45 | CHAMBERS Thomas J. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 56% | 22% | 4% |
| 46 | MURPHY Thomas P. | 100% | 96% | 79% | 47% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 47 | MONTESI Eric | 100% | 96% | 78% | 45% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 48 | MILLIGAN Bruce C. | 100% | 97% | 79% | 46% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 48 | MILLIGAN Lauren M. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 57% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 50 | PARRIS Thomas M. | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 51 | REICHBACH Solomon | 100% | 98% | 80% | 46% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 52 | YOON Katherine | 100% | 94% | 71% | 36% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 53 | BAGHA Armin | 100% | 90% | 56% | 18% | 2% | - | |
| 54 | ZHANG Caden | 100% | 89% | 53% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 55 | BANNEN Nicholas | 100% | 94% | 70% | 34% | 9% | 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.