San Jose McEnery Convention Center - San Jose, CA, 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 | WYSZYNSKI Marek B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% |
| 2 | PAI Dong-Ying | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 62% | 12% |
| 3 | KISSINGFORD John F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 23% |
| 3 | POPOKH Leo | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 40% | 7% |
| 5 | BALBOA Rolando M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 48% | 12% |
| 6 | BENNETT Philippe | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 48% |
| 7 | PIMOUTKINE Roustam R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 79% | 30% |
| 8 | CUNNINGHAM Scott | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 53% |
| 9 | FLANAGAN James | 100% | 100% | 98% | 79% | 39% | 8% | 1% |
| 10 | DARRICAU Henri J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 67% | 18% |
| 11 | GEARHART Andrew (Andy) R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 48% | 12% |
| 12 | TANG Julian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 51% |
| 13 | GAVILLI Lorenzo | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 21% |
| 14 | LAWRENCE John W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 48% |
| 15 | FADL Omar | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 47% | 12% |
| 16 | WOOD BEn | 100% | 79% | 25% | 3% | < 1% | - | - |
| 17 | BERKE Daniel (Dan) L. | 100% | 96% | 73% | 32% | 6% | < 1% | - |
| 18 | JONES Sam J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 64% | 22% | 2% |
| 19 | POWERS Douglas A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 84% | 46% | 12% | 1% |
| 19 | KOEHN Ted | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 68% | 25% |
| 21 | HERNANDEZ Marc A. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 48% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 22 | KLEIN Johannes | 100% | 99% | 89% | 56% | 19% | 2% | - |
| 23 | PATTERSON Jan (Janmon) M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 40% | 7% |
| 24 | LUTTON Thomas (Tom) W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 76% | 33% | 5% |
| 25 | TOMASI John | 100% | 97% | 79% | 43% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 26 | MARIANI Lou | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 36% | 8% | 1% |
| 27 | VOYIAZIAKIS Emanuel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 60% | 15% |
| 28 | LEE Stephen K. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 67% | 3% |
| 29 | PRECCIOZZI Aldo F. | 100% | 98% | 82% | 40% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 30 | JONES Bryan T. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 72% | 31% | 6% | - |
| 31 | GLADNICK Michael J. | 100% | 96% | 77% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 32 | ROUNTREE Andrew | 100% | 73% | 28% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 33 | KAIHATSU Edward J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 45% | 11% |
| 34 | LEYLAND John | 100% | 100% | 97% | 71% | 28% | 5% | - |
| 35 | DE BARROS CONTI Thibaut | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 29% | 3% | - |
| 36 | MINOTT Nicolas D. | 100% | 83% | 26% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 37 | SAUCEDO Fernando | 100% | 83% | 34% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 38 | VALENTINE Iain | 100% | 100% | 91% | 58% | 17% | 2% | - |
| 39 | CARTER Tony | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 33% | 4% | - |
| 40 | WU Jingxiao | 100% | 93% | 64% | 26% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 41 | POOLE James M. | 100% | 76% | 32% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 42 | KRAUSS John W. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 70% | 29% | 5% | - |
| 43 | RODRIGUEZ VINCENT | 100% | 79% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 44 | MAHNKEN Thomas G. | 100% | 95% | 59% | 18% | 2% | - | - |
| 45 | LI Sheng | 100% | 26% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 46 | SESSIONS Adrian | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 49% | 12% | 1% |
| 47 | CHAO Pierre | 100% | 56% | 13% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 48 | RESS Michael A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 83% | 43% | 9% | 1% |
| 48 | RUSANOV Oleg | 100% | 99% | 78% | 34% | 6% | - | - |
| 50 | YOO Terry S. | 100% | 93% | 58% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
| 51 | ORNELAS Polo | 100% | 41% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 52 | JEFFCOAT Timothy | 100% | 74% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 53 | NEWELL Tim | 100% | 83% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 54 | FELDMAN Louis | 100% | 25% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 55 | HAGOPIAN Mitchell | 100% | 52% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 56 | HILL David E. | 100% | 67% | 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.