Greater Columbus Convention Center - Columbus, OH, 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 | ||
| 1 | MAKMATOV Vadim | - | - | 1% | 6% | 28% | 45% | 20% |
| 2 | MANDOKI Sandor I. | - | - | - | - | 4% | 27% | 68% |
| 3 | MACZIK Adam W. | - | - | - | 2% | 17% | 49% | 32% |
| 3 | LIOU Solomon | - | - | 3% | 15% | 42% | 40% | |
| 5 | HOLTZ Donovan K. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 44% | 21% |
| 6 | ROSTAL Scott E. | - | - | 3% | 23% | 61% | 12% | |
| 7 | BARTLETT Jonathan R. | - | 1% | 12% | 41% | 45% | 1% | |
| 8 | PAI Dong-Ying | 11% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | |
| 9 | LOISEAU Cedric | - | - | - | - | 3% | 97% | |
| 10 | HANSEN Eric J. | - | - | - | - | - | 10% | 89% |
| 11 | CHRISTY Peter C. | 1% | 9% | 35% | 42% | 13% | - | |
| 12 | PHO Eric | - | - | 4% | 18% | 43% | 35% | |
| 13 | STONE Brian M. | - | - | - | 3% | 18% | 45% | 35% |
| 14 | FERKO Philip J. | - | - | - | 1% | 14% | 48% | 37% |
| 15 | CHU Brandon A. | 1% | 9% | 29% | 38% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 16 | GORMLEY Robert | - | - | 7% | 29% | 41% | 20% | 3% |
| 17 | CARTER Austin L. | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 34% | 11% | |
| 18 | PEI Suyang | 10% | 39% | 37% | 12% | 2% | < 1% | |
| 19 | ZUCKER Noah L. | - | - | - | 5% | 23% | 45% | 27% |
| 20 | CHENG Thomas | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 25% | |
| 21 | WILKINSON Derek H. | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 34% | 10% | |
| 22 | GROSSE Michael | - | 1% | 15% | 43% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 23 | RODACHY Jeffrey M. | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 42% | 24% | 1% |
| 24 | SANTOS Felipe | 4% | 23% | 40% | 27% | 6% | - | |
| 25 | SLOTER Lewis E. | 12% | 34% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 26 | TURNER Joshua | - | 5% | 22% | 39% | 27% | 6% | |
| 27 | MENDOZA Zandro | - | - | 6% | 26% | 42% | 22% | 4% |
| 28 | LIN Kimball | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 41% | 22% | 2% |
| 29 | WORLEY Aren R. | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 42% | 22% | 1% |
| 30 | KENT IV David | 8% | 29% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - | |
| 31 | WILLIAMS Charles | 11% | 42% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 32 | VILLAREAL Quentin | 4% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 10% | 1% | |
| 33 | SHULL Marc | - | 3% | 22% | 43% | 26% | 6% | - |
| 34 | DEPAUW Devan | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 35% | 10% | |
| 35 | KIM Jeff | - | 6% | 44% | 37% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 36 | BARANOWSKI Philip | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 40% | 22% | 2% |
| 37 | SUICO louie | 3% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 13% | 2% | |
| 38 | BELLIVEAU Shane | - | 4% | 22% | 39% | 27% | 7% | - |
| 39 | LYTLE Evan | - | - | 6% | 32% | 46% | 14% | 1% |
| 40 | WANG Zhenhai | 24% | 43% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 41 | STERR Eric | 3% | 26% | 48% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
| 42 | LOCASALE Nicholas A. | 2% | 15% | 39% | 37% | 8% | - | |
| 43 | EVERT Todd | 2% | 20% | 44% | 29% | 5% | - | |
| 44 | OZANNE Jeffrey S. | 3% | 19% | 38% | 30% | 10% | 1% | |
| 45 | DANIELS Jonathan | 15% | 39% | 33% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 46 | SLOAN Ryan | 1% | 9% | 39% | 37% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 47 | CHECKEYE Daniel J. | 1% | 11% | 33% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 48 | STAUBITZ Marc | 8% | 45% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 49 | CONN Brian | - | - | 10% | 35% | 38% | 15% | 2% |
| 50 | MORET Eric N. | 7% | 27% | 38% | 23% | 5% | - | |
| 51 | STOY Patrick | 52% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | - | |
| 52 | DAN Chuntao | 37% | 42% | 18% | 3% | - | - | |
| 53 | SAYLER Gordon | 14% | 36% | 34% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 54 | SCIACCA Nick | - | < 1% | 2% | 13% | 39% | 45% | |
| 55 | TOMASI John | 11% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 56 | REED David | 8% | 49% | 36% | 7% | - | - | - |
| 57 | FRANGER Jeff | 5% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 58 | OLSON McGee | 64% | 31% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 59 | KONG Qingjun | 37% | 50% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 60 | STOCKTON J. DeVeaux | 45% | 48% | 7% | - | - | - | - |
| 61 | O'BRIEN Timothy S. | 6% | 31% | 39% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 62 | APANASEWICZ Dan | 42% | 52% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 63 | TARDIFF Seth | 72% | 26% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
| 64 | GREEN Scott D. | 57% | 36% | 7% | - | - | - | |
| 65 | WILLIAMS Brian | 39% | 48% | 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.