Gainesville, GA, 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 | LABROZZI Aidan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 23% | |
| 2 | KUCIA Michael J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 29% | 4% |
| 3 | PAYNE Gareth | 100% | 99% | 94% | 76% | 45% | 16% | 2% |
| 3 | WILLIAMS Eli | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 65% | 25% |
| 5 | CHA Patrick | 100% | 100% | 95% | 79% | 49% | 19% | 3% |
| 6 | KIM Daniel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 62% | 20% | |
| 7 | REDDY Daksh | 100% | 92% | 65% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 8 | BERNSTEIN Matthew B. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 49% | 15% | 2% | |
| 10 | DAVIDENKO Alexander | 100% | 98% | 83% | 49% | 16% | 2% | |
| 11 | KERTESZ Stefan G. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 74% | 32% | 5% | |
| 12 | TUCKER Evan | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 38% | 12% | 1% |
| 13 | KONG Chuizheng | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 23% |
| 15 | HONG Robin | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
| 16 | LEE Daehyeon | 100% | 96% | 75% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 17 | JAAFAR Hamza | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 54% | 21% | 3% |
| 18 | MARSHALL Wesley | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 59% |
| 19 | JUNG Elliot | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 32% | 7% | 1% |
| 20 | SOPER Adam | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 44% | 9% |
| 21 | ZHOU Alex | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 35% | 7% | |
| 22 | PATEL Krishiv | 100% | 100% | 94% | 72% | 35% | 8% | |
| 23 | SOTTILE Cole | 100% | 99% | 86% | 51% | 17% | 2% | |
| 24 | MA Bochen | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 35% | 6% | |
| 25 | THUN William | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 51% | 19% | 3% |
| 26 | NAM Nathaniel | 100% | 95% | 72% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 27 | PARK Andrew | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 54% | 19% | 2% |
| 28 | BILLARD Julien | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 40% | 9% |
| 29 | TURK Reggie | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 48% | 12% | |
| 30 | TOWNS jordan | 100% | 85% | 51% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 31 | LEE Winston | 100% | 96% | 75% | 39% | 11% | 1% | |
| 32 | MCDANIEL Eamon | 100% | 98% | 84% | 55% | 23% | 5% | - |
| 33 | KRIEGER Jack | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 17% |
| 34 | WILFORD Madigan | 100% | 72% | 27% | 5% | < 1% | - | - |
| 35 | GREEN Marvin | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 36 | MAYO Candler | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 29% | 7% | 1% |
| 37 | ZIELINSKI Alexander E. | 100% | 98% | 83% | 51% | 18% | 2% | |
| 38 | JEONG Arisu | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 6% | - |
| 39 | PUVALOWSKI Ryan | 100% | 98% | 80% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 40 | ATON Dave | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 37% | 8% |
| 41 | RIGSBEE Rachel | 100% | 98% | 87% | 61% | 29% | 8% | 1% |
| 42 | ROBINSON Blake | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 28% | 6% | - |
| 43 | MCCUBBINS Tyler | 100% | 99% | 87% | 55% | 20% | 3% | |
| 44 | ROBERTS Quinton | 100% | 93% | 69% | 35% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 45 | SANDERS Charlotte | 100% | 89% | 59% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 46 | PAK Joel | 100% | 96% | 79% | 48% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 47 | LEE Aaron | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 33% | 7% |
| 48 | DOUGLAS John | 100% | 85% | 51% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 49 | FORD Austin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 31% | 6% |
| 50 | EDWARDS Darby | 100% | 99% | 91% | 56% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 51 | SILVA Daniel | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 39% | 12% | 1% |
| 52 | PETE Landon | 100% | 91% | 49% | 13% | 1% | - | |
| 53 | HICKS Matthew | 100% | 34% | 5% | - | - | - | |
| 54 | WATKINS James | 100% | 94% | 65% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 55 | ARZT Nicholas | 100% | 93% | 68% | 34% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 56 | MOSS Riley | 100% | 75% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 57 | HAWKINS Sophia | 100% | 72% | 29% | 6% | - | - | |
| 58 | JACKSON Viktoria | 100% | 66% | 24% | 4% | - | - | |
| 60 | RUSCONI Jane | 100% | 96% | 71% | 30% | 6% | 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.