University of Maryland, Reckord Armory - College Park, MD, 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 | YAN William | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 45% | 12% | 1% |
| 2 | CHIN Matthew W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 31% |
| 3 | HOTHA Nikhil | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 56% | 18% | 2% |
| 3 | CORTEZ Christopher | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 45% | |
| 5 | CHUNG Connor | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 59% | 14% | |
| 6 | PATEL Rayn | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 53% | 16% |
| 7 | STAMIS Kyle | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 29% | 5% |
| 8 | HUANG Zekai | 100% | 99% | 92% | 63% | 23% | 3% | - |
| 9 | CHEN Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 22% | 3% |
| 10 | FELDMAN Drew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 47% | 13% |
| 11 | LIN Felix | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 49% | 16% | 2% |
| 12 | WANG Charles | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 38% |
| 13 | MATT Chris | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 71% |
| 14 | YANG Dylan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 52% | 13% |
| 15 | JENSBY Jason | 100% | 96% | 72% | 32% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 16 | FILATOV Aleksandr | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 17 | MCCARTHY Devan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 45% | 10% | 1% |
| 18 | JEFFORDS Alexander | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 59% |
| 19 | KLEBS Robert | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 39% | 10% | 1% |
| 20 | JONES Graham H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 56% | 16% |
| 21 | POSY Daniel | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 39% | 9% | - |
| 22 | FERRARA Nicholas S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 38% |
| 23 | BRIDGEMAN Andrew T. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 41% | 11% | 1% |
| 24 | FERRARO Pietro | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 33% |
| 25 | CRAIN Bennett | 100% | 93% | 66% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 26 | FENKER William M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 35% | 7% |
| 27 | DECK Tyson | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 29% | 6% |
| 28 | SHANKAR Karthik | 100% | 97% | 79% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 29 | ROBLES Julio C. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 54% | 21% | 4% |
| 30 | SHIMER Joseph (Joey) D. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 37% | 4% |
| 31 | SZULIM Lucjan | 100% | 94% | 65% | 26% | 5% | - | - |
| 32 | NOTOPRADONO Nicholas | 100% | 98% | 80% | 40% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 33 | VLASENKO Bohdan | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
| 34 | RIGGINS Littleton K. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 36% | 5% |
| 35 | WANG Max | 100% | 99% | 78% | 39% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 36 | VALENCIA Jose | 100% | 94% | 65% | 22% | 3% | - | |
| 37 | BAKER Keith L. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 33% | 5% | |
| 38 | VARNER Michael A. | 100% | 96% | 75% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 39 | CLARK Keagan | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 29% | 6% | - |
| 40 | STRUCKER Rocco | 100% | 72% | 29% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 41 | MARKOWITZ Jonathan | 100% | 89% | 56% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 42 | FENG Brendan | 100% | 79% | 34% | 6% | - | - | |
| 43 | LEMERY Marc | 100% | 68% | 22% | 3% | - | - | |
| 44 | PARCELL Colby | 100% | 85% | 46% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 45 | BENSON Jacob | 100% | 93% | 66% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 46 | REHM Liam | 100% | 92% | 54% | 16% | 2% | - | - |
| 47 | MILLS Matthew P. | 100% | 62% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 47 | ELDER John | 100% | 94% | 64% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
| 49 | HO Alex | 100% | 44% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 50 | ROSE Colin | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 51 | MISHULOVICH Ronen | 100% | 91% | 58% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
| 52 | LICHTERMAN Jakub | 100% | 82% | 44% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 52 | MILLS Henry | 100% | 94% | 67% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 54 | ROORDA Easton | 100% | 35% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
| 55 | CAI fungyu | 100% | 50% | 12% | 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.