DC Fencers Club - Silver Spring, MD, USA
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 | 7 | ||
| 1 | SU Caleb | - | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 42% | 39% |
| 2 | HRAPSKY Ryan J. | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 43% | 39% | |
| 3 | TIKHONOV Iliya | - | - | 5% | 23% | 39% | 27% | 5% | |
| 3 | CHEN Brian | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 39% | 31% | 6% |
| 5 | LE BORGNE Matthieu | - | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 9% |
| 6 | CULPEPPER John (JR) R. | - | - | - | - | 1% | 7% | 36% | 57% |
| 7 | TAMULONIS Fen C. | - | 4% | 21% | 40% | 29% | 7% | ||
| 8 | WHEELER Daniel | - | - | 3% | 19% | 43% | 35% | ||
| 9 | GORIUNOV IVAN A. | - | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 36% | 55% |
| 10 | CHRISTY Peter C. | - | - | 2% | 9% | 26% | 37% | 22% | 4% |
| 11 | CAO Albert | - | - | - | 4% | 17% | 37% | 33% | 9% |
| 12 | HULL Liam | - | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 13 | TABLEMAN Doug S. | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 35% | 42% | 11% |
| 14 | SNIDER Jeffrey H. | - | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 39% | 16% | |
| 14 | KING Cameron | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 25% | |
| 16 | HILBERT Gabriel E. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 41% | 20% | 2% |
| 17 | HEARNE Gavin | - | 1% | 8% | 21% | 31% | 26% | 11% | 2% |
| 18 | ZHANG William | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 19 | RACHTCHININE Alexandre | - | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 43% | 17% | |
| 20 | DISIMONE David Z. | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 39% | 24% | 4% | |
| 21 | PAN Colin | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 35% | 14% | 2% | |
| 22 | HUGHES Michael D. | - | 6% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 6% | 1% | |
| 23 | DAN Rex | 1% | 22% | 43% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 24 | LAM Alan | - | - | 3% | 12% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 4% |
| 25 | YU Jason | 1% | 9% | 27% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - | - |
| 26 | SO Lorenzo | - | 2% | 13% | 32% | 35% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 27 | TIKHONOV Daniel | - | 6% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 6% | - | |
| 28 | BOUDREAUX James | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% | |
| 29 | DEUCHER Joseph H. | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 41% | 41% | |
| 30 | LEE Aiden | 1% | 6% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 31 | ROBITZSKI David R. | 1% | 9% | 31% | 38% | 19% | 3% | ||
| 32 | PANDEY Yash | 4% | 27% | 40% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 33 | YAP Nathan | 5% | 27% | 38% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 34 | ORTIZ Benjamin | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 35 | VELLALA Avinash | 5% | 24% | 37% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 36 | CARTER Austin L. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 38% | 20% | 3% |
| 37 | SWENSON Keane J. | - | - | 1% | 4% | 17% | 34% | 32% | 12% |
| 38 | CHHU Allen | 5% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 39 | SINFUEGO Adrian | 1% | 8% | 27% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 40 | PETROW Zoryan | 1% | 9% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% | |
| 41 | MEGGERS Davin | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 24% | 7% | 1% | |
| 42 | PARRISH Bryce W. | 1% | 8% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 4% | ||
| 43 | WANG Aiden | 37% | 44% | 17% | 3% | - | - | ||
| 44 | MEGGERS Samuel | 2% | 30% | 43% | 21% | 4% | - | - | |
| 45 | CHAWLA Aarav | 55% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - | |
| 46 | WU Shaochi | 11% | 33% | 36% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 47 | SUN Ethan | 11% | 33% | 36% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 48 | MOORE Guy L. | 2% | 14% | 32% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 49 | ARMSTRONG TyLee | 17% | 42% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - | ||
| 50 | WATSON Raymond | 1% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 51 | O'REILLY Robert | 16% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 52 | LEE DoWon | 6% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - | - |
| 53 | ARMSTRONG Gary | 2% | 14% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 4% | - | - |
| 54 | LIN Haley | 15% | 39% | 32% | 11% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 55 | PENHOET Evelyn | 85% | 14% | 1% | - | - | - | - | |
| 56 | LEECH Braedan | 29% | 42% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 57 | BUI Ryan | 49% | 38% | 11% | 2% | - | - | - | |
| 58 | DAN Chuntao | 19% | 38% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 59 | WATERS Nathaniel | 34% | 44% | 19% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
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.