Indianapolis Fencing Club - Indianapolis, IN, 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 | SOBESHKEVYCH Roman | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 15% |
| 2 | GERACI Paul A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 52% | 14% | |
| 3 | SMOTHERMAN Jason N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 70% | 25% | |
| 3 | THOMAS Samuel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 85% | 40% |
| 5 | BARFORD Giovanni | 100% | 92% | 64% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 6 | STAUBITZ Marc | 100% | 85% | 42% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 7 | DAZEY Jason T. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 43% | 10% | |
| 8 | DUNKLIN Cameron | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 35% | 7% | |
| 9 | PRIJATEL John R. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 23% | |
| 10 | SON Eric | 100% | 100% | 94% | 75% | 40% | 10% | |
| 11 | PAMERLEAU Ian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 71% | 24% |
| 12 | KRAJ Pawel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 62% | 20% | |
| 13 | LAUER Michael | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 46% | 12% | |
| 14 | EDWARDS Tim | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 16% |
| 15 | SWANSON Dave | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 25% | |
| 16 | REED Dusty (Allen) | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 21% | |
| 17 | MILLER Brent | 100% | 94% | 64% | 25% | 5% | - | |
| 18 | SERAFYM Damian | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 23% | 3% |
| 19 | FANG Samuel | 100% | 99% | 75% | 35% | 8% | 1% | |
| 20 | HE Lingyun Matthew | 100% | 99% | 47% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 21 | SOARE Maria Elena | 100% | 87% | 45% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 22 | VAN DYK Mark | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 15% | 2% |
| 23 | LASKA Patryk | 100% | 99% | 87% | 53% | 18% | 2% | |
| 24 | MACNEIL Matthew | 100% | 100% | 86% | 32% | 5% | - | |
| 25 | KRAVITZ Sarah | 100% | 97% | 61% | 21% | 3% | - | |
| 26 | FAUGHT Dalton | 100% | 98% | 82% | 41% | 10% | 1% | |
| 27 | MILLER Hayden | 100% | 87% | 45% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 28 | WILTSHIRE Kaden | 100% | 78% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 29 | RIPLEY Ian | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 41% | 10% | |
| 30 | CHUTKAY Sai Pratham | 100% | 100% | 92% | 61% | 19% | 2% | |
| 30 | MBERIA Alexander | 100% | 90% | 36% | 6% | - | - | |
| 32 | TARR Robert | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 34% | 7% |
| 33 | ORGAN Jason | 100% | 92% | 61% | 21% | 3% | - | - |
| 34 | PIERCE Marcia M. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 55% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 35 | MACNEIL Sydney | 100% | 78% | 35% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 36 | BRETHAUER Adah | 100% | 38% | 6% | - | - | - | |
| 37 | DUTTON Kitty | 100% | 36% | 4% | - | - | - | |
| 38 | WELLS Aenea | 100% | 26% | 3% | - | - | - | |
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.