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 | MASON Alexander T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% |
| 2 | THOMAS Samuel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 22% | |
| 3 | NOWAK Jakub P. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 93% | 45% |
| 3 | BAMPTON Nicholas J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 65% | 17% | |
| 5 | SMOTHERMAN Jason N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 32% |
| 6 | COHEN Henry | 100% | 97% | 77% | 38% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 7 | SERAFYM Damian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 69% | 20% | |
| 8 | WILLIAMS Logan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 48% | 10% | - |
| 9 | AGARWAL Adheesh | 100% | 100% | 90% | 58% | 20% | 2% | |
| 10 | SWANSON Dave | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 42% | |
| 11 | PRIJATEL John R. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 63% | 23% | 3% | |
| 12 | KRZYSIAK David F. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 78% | 39% | 8% | |
| 13 | STOCK Olivia | 100% | 99% | 82% | 35% | 5% | - | |
| 14 | EVERT Todd | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 65% | 22% | |
| 15 | MILLER Jackson | 100% | 99% | 91% | 60% | 18% | 2% | |
| 16 | FELICIANO Damien | 100% | 68% | 22% | 3% | - | - | |
| 17 | BARFORD Giovanni | 100% | 98% | 46% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 18 | HE Lingyun Matthew | 100% | 100% | 94% | 68% | 26% | 2% | - |
| 19 | LEHNER Brian | 100% | 93% | 58% | 17% | 2% | - | |
| 20 | LAUER Michael | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 55% | 17% | |
| 21 | CHRISTIAN John R. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 69% | 30% | 5% | |
| 22 | GUILFORD Corey | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 47% | 3% |
| 23 | REED Dusty (Allen) | 100% | 100% | 97% | 74% | 31% | 5% | |
| 24 | DWITYABASWARA Emil | 100% | 99% | 90% | 59% | 21% | 2% | - |
| 25 | CRAPNELL Daniel | 100% | 100% | 92% | 54% | 14% | 1% | - |
| 26 | MACNEIL Matthew | 100% | 100% | 90% | 58% | 20% | 2% | - |
| 27 | BOLARIN Oluwatosin N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 44% | |
| 28 | STAUBITZ Marc | 100% | 92% | 58% | 18% | 2% | - | |
| 29 | RIPLEY Ian | 100% | 99% | 90% | 56% | 18% | 2% | |
| 30 | FULLER II Thomas | 100% | 96% | 69% | 26% | 4% | - | |
| 31 | LUGO Emmanuel | 100% | 67% | 22% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 32 | CHEN Bowen | 100% | 73% | 27% | 5% | - | - | |
| 33 | PATEL Aayan | 100% | 95% | 66% | 26% | 5% | - | - |
| 34 | LAGONA Anna | 100% | 84% | 42% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 35 | GILL Anhad | 100% | 50% | 6% | - | - | - | |
| 36 | MACNEIL Sydney | 100% | 60% | 18% | 3% | - | - | |
| 37 | DUTTON Kimberly | 100% | 11% | - | - | - | - | |
| 38 | WELLS Aenea | 100% | 46% | 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.