Central Community Center Rink - Mount Prospect, IL, 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 | ZMYSLOWSKI Maciek A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 31% | |
| 2 | EDWARDS Ethan S. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 43% | 10% | |
| 3 | NOWAK Jakub P. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 33% | |
| 3 | MALYSZ Anthony J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 83% | 52% | 16% |
| 5 | WOZNIAK David | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 41% | 9% | |
| 6 | SYED Saif M. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 26% | 2% | |
| 7 | LENDER David | 100% | 100% | 98% | 76% | 35% | 6% | |
| 8 | LENTINE Henry | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 20% | 3% | |
| 9 | MADISON Ethan S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 62% | 15% |
| 10 | CONKLIN Jim | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 30% | 6% | |
| 11 | WOZNIAK Sebastian | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 50% | 13% | |
| 12 | GUINAN Joseph | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 42% | 9% |
| 13 | KAISH Jeremy H. | 100% | 96% | 73% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 14 | BENYOVSZKY Barnabas | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 39% | 8% | |
| 15 | NESTEROV Andrew E. | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 43% | 12% | |
| 16 | SZPAK Lara K. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 77% | 46% | 17% | 3% |
| 17 | OH Matthew M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 14% |
| 18 | ZEKO David J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 33% | 7% |
| 19 | PONTICELLI Jared M. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 70% | 31% | 6% | |
| 20 | OH Kevin Y. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 79% | 40% | 8% | |
| 21 | SCHRANK Mitchell | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 7% | 1% |
| 22 | TOPAZ Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 32% | 5% |
| 23 | BRENNAN Charles F. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 34% | 8% | 1% |
| 24 | STENCEL Andrew E. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 19% | |
| 25 | JUSCINSKI MIchal | 100% | 98% | 79% | 37% | 7% | - | |
| 26 | IVAKIMOV Vasil | 100% | 100% | 89% | 56% | 20% | 3% | |
| 27 | PICK Ian | 100% | 97% | 82% | 51% | 19% | 3% | |
| 28 | SCHULTZ Douglas B. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 20% | 3% |
| 29 | BURN Lauren M. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 50% | 14% | 1% |
| 30 | ZUBECK Dominic | 100% | 99% | 86% | 50% | 13% | 1% | |
| 31 | SILVERS Noah E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 71% | 28% | |
| 32 | NORCONK Claire R. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 38% | 9% | |
| 33 | OCHS Bradley C. | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 19% | 3% | |
| 34 | PRABHAKAR Vibhav | 100% | 85% | 22% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 35 | SCHULTZ Rowan | 100% | 99% | 89% | 54% | 17% | 2% | |
| 36 | LOMBARD Ella | 100% | 99% | 86% | 52% | 17% | 2% | |
| 37 | CASTELLANOS Rene E. | 100% | 91% | 56% | 18% | 2% | - | |
| 38 | ARTHUR Theodore W. | 100% | 90% | 39% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 39 | BYNAGARI Niketh | 100% | 99% | 87% | 50% | 12% | 1% | |
| 40 | KIM Erika S. | 100% | 91% | 61% | 25% | 6% | - | |
| 41 | SWANSON Dave | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 24% | 4% |
| 42 | CANCELO Jose | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 43 | OH Kaitlin Y. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 20% | 3% | - |
| 44 | ZIRKLE James | 100% | 89% | 53% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 45 | PATEL Neal | 100% | 92% | 65% | 30% | 8% | 1% | |
| 46 | TIERNEY Luke | 100% | 90% | 60% | 26% | 6% | 1% | |
| 47 | RUMMEL Katherine E. | 100% | 92% | 54% | 16% | 2% | - | |
| 49 | BYNAGARI Prateek | 100% | 93% | 66% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 50 | SAMANDAS Jackelyn | 100% | 83% | 47% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 51 | RAZA Nadia A. | 100% | 93% | 67% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 52 | BALDWIN Robert (Bob) C. | 100% | 82% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
| 53 | PONTICELLI Samuel | 100% | 64% | 21% | 3% | - | - | |
| 54 | EITZEN Carissa | 100% | 82% | 43% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 55 | DUNLOP Richard (Dick) M. | 100% | 28% | 3% | - | - | - | |
| 56 | OLEDZKA Julia | 100% | 72% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 57 | COHA Richard A. | 100% | 88% | 50% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
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.