14th Annual Yellow Jacket Open

Div III Mixed Épée

Sunday, March 3, 2024 at 3:00 PM

Georgia Tech Campus Recreation Center: Atlanta, GA - Atlanta, GA, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 HWANG Brandon - 2% 10% 27% 35% 22% 5%
2 RAVI Arjun - - 3% 17% 39% 34% 7%
3 MARSHALL Wesley - - - 1% 7% 33% 59%
3 ROCKWELL Nolan - 4% 18% 38% 32% 8%
5 LEE Aaron 2% 13% 35% 35% 13% 1%
6 KUCIA Michael J. - - 3% 16% 36% 34% 11%
7 FERRARA Milo - - 2% 13% 34% 37% 14%
8 HUGHES Eric - - - 2% 14% 41% 43%
9 BERNSTEIN Stuart E. - - 3% 17% 43% 37%
10 KRIEGER Jack - 4% 21% 39% 27% 8% 1%
10 JEONG Arisu - 2% 12% 37% 36% 13% 1%
12 FORD Tillman - - 1% 8% 27% 41% 23%
13 HWANG Aidan 1% 7% 21% 33% 27% 11% 2%
14 KIM Daniel - - 2% 13% 40% 44%
15 PETE Landon 2% 15% 37% 34% 11% 1% -
16 LU Ethan - - 2% 10% 31% 39% 17%
17 PAYNE Gareth - - 1% 8% 27% 44% 21%
18 DAVIDENKO Alexander - 1% 8% 28% 38% 21% 4%
19 ZHOU alex - - 4% 18% 36% 32% 10%
20 TURK Reggie - - 4% 20% 39% 30% 7%
21 CARRIE Konnor - 2% 10% 26% 34% 22% 6%
22 PARK Andrew - 6% 30% 40% 20% 3%
23 KIM Sangone 11% 36% 36% 14% 2% - -
24 JAAFAR Hamza - 3% 16% 34% 33% 13% 1%
25 MUNAGAPATI Vishwa - 1% 7% 22% 36% 27% 7%
26 WRIGHT Alex - - 2% 11% 32% 39% 15%
27 LEE Christopher 2% 15% 33% 33% 14% 2% -
28 WANDMACHER GUERRERO Angela 1% 14% 36% 34% 13% 2% -
29 LIANG Jacob - 6% 22% 35% 26% 9% 1%
30 HAWKINS Sophia 7% 24% 34% 24% 9% 2% -
31 RAMIREZ Michael - 4% 18% 35% 30% 11% 1%
32 PAKULATH Nihal 1% 14% 35% 33% 15% 3% -
33 LIU Elinda 1% 7% 24% 35% 25% 8% 1%
34 ILENRE Roni - 1% 9% 27% 36% 22% 5%
35 OTERO Ethan 1% 7% 23% 34% 25% 9% 1%
36 CORLEY Avery - - 4% 19% 43% 34%
37 REDDY Daksh 1% 6% 23% 36% 26% 8% 1%
38 YANG Maximus - - 1% 8% 27% 41% 23%
39 SEATON Jake 1% 12% 32% 34% 17% 4% -
40 KARRIEM Zainuddin - 1% 5% 19% 35% 31% 10%
41 TAK Jemi 3% 16% 34% 31% 13% 2% -
42 BASKIN Julia 14% 43% 31% 10% 1% - -
43 ATON Dave - 2% 16% 40% 35% 8%
44 DEMAREE Adam - 2% 14% 36% 37% 10%
45 BONNER Cohen - - 2% 12% 38% 37% 10%
46 BOLLE Elijah 1% 13% 36% 35% 13% 2% -
47 TUCKER Evan - 4% 19% 33% 29% 12% 2%
48 PAVLINEC John (Jack) C. - 1% 4% 15% 32% 34% 14%
49 LEE Winston - 1% 6% 23% 38% 27% 5%
50 MCFARLAND John G. - 1% 12% 31% 35% 18% 3%
51 OLSON Clayton M. 3% 23% 38% 26% 8% 1% -
52 HARTIGAN Joe - 5% 18% 32% 30% 13% 2%
53 CHOI Benjamin 12% 38% 34% 13% 2% -
54 ZIELINSKI Alexander E. - 6% 27% 40% 23% 4%
55 FRAGER Soleil 19% 42% 29% 8% 1% -
56 DANDRIDGE Laila 9% 32% 37% 18% 4% -
57 WILLIAMS Eli - 1% 7% 21% 33% 28% 9%
58 ELEY Ellis 4% 23% 38% 26% 8% 1% -
59 DUNKLIN Devon - 5% 16% 30% 30% 15% 3%
60 JIANG Harry 3% 19% 36% 29% 11% 2% -
61 DOUGLAS John 13% 37% 34% 14% 2% - -
62 BARRETT John 5% 22% 35% 26% 10% 2% -
63 HAYES Zackery 12% 39% 36% 12% 2% - -
64 DAVIS Shanna 53% 37% 9% 1% - - -
65 IYER Arjun - 4% 19% 39% 30% 7%
66 PIERCE Chandon 2% 13% 37% 36% 12% 1%
67 ANDERSON Pierson 1% 30% 40% 22% 6% 1% -
68 RIGSBEE Rachel 1% 8% 25% 34% 23% 8% 1%
69 BELL Adam - 1% 8% 28% 39% 21% 4%
70 FRATTA Caterina 1% 18% 47% 27% 6% 1% -
71 MIHILL Margaret 7% 29% 37% 21% 6% 1% -
72 ARMES Maggie 12% 33% 35% 17% 4% - -
73 CHAVEZ Leontine - 2% 12% 28% 34% 20% 5%
74 AGUILLON Alexis 1% 8% 28% 37% 21% 4% -
75 SANCHEZ Jordan 3% 43% 40% 13% 2% -
76 FORD Mattie 27% 42% 24% 6% 1% - -
77 SHADOFF Samantha 39% 44% 14% 2% - - -
78 SHAKULA Matvey 1% 6% 22% 34% 26% 10% 1%
79 KNOX Aidan 12% 40% 35% 11% 2% -
80 STEWART Sarah 27% 41% 24% 7% 1% - -
81 BARRETT John 24% 41% 26% 7% 1% - -
82 DOSS matthew 38% 42% 17% 3% - -
83 TYMOFIEIEVA Arina 13% 40% 34% 12% 2% - -
84 KARTHIKEYAKANNAN Madhav < 1% 6% 26% 43% 21% 4% -
85 WATKINS Robert 19% 41% 29% 9% 1% - -
86 AGEE Brendon 40% 42% 15% 2% - - -
86 VALENZUELA Elijah 19% 42% 29% 9% 1% - -
88 LEWIS Katherine 91% 9% - - - -

Explanation

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.