Georgia Tech Campus Recreation Center: Atlanta, GA - Atlanta, GA, 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 | ISOLANI Gregorio | - | - | - | - | 3% | 29% | 67% |
| 2 | MOORE Jeremy S. | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 37% | 53% |
| 3 | MITCHELL Philip D. | - | - | - | - | 4% | 49% | 47% |
| 3 | KORABLINA Aleksandra | - | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 40% | 21% |
| 5 | ANDREYENKA Yana | - | - | - | 1% | 7% | 33% | 59% |
| 6 | BAILEY William F. | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 50% | 39% |
| 7 | KORABLIN Anton | - | - | - | 6% | 27% | 43% | 24% |
| 8 | ANDREYENKA Hanna | - | - | - | 3% | 43% | 46% | 7% |
| 9 | ASHIDA Tomoaki | - | - | 2% | 14% | 42% | 39% | 2% |
| 10 | LI Sophia M. | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 6% |
| 11 | VIVEROS Evan | - | - | 3% | 19% | 43% | 34% | |
| 12 | FEDELI Caterina S. | - | - | - | - | 2% | 23% | 75% |
| 13 | COOPER Piper W. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 31% | 55% | 7% |
| 14 | FAN Yuchen | - | 3% | 19% | 42% | 30% | 6% | |
| 15 | EMENHEISER Conrad | - | - | 1% | 7% | 36% | 45% | 11% |
| 16 | MOE Annan | - | - | 5% | 24% | 46% | 23% | 1% |
| 17 | MO Jason | - | - | 3% | 17% | 45% | 31% | 5% |
| 18 | OH Sean | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 49% | 40% |
| 19 | GADIYARAM Madhav | - | 5% | 27% | 47% | 19% | 2% | - |
| 20 | MCMANUS Liam | - | 1% | 9% | 34% | 42% | 14% | |
| 21 | SHEHORN Connor | - | 4% | 21% | 44% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 22 | CHEN Kuan-Ting | - | - | 3% | 19% | 51% | 24% | 3% |
| 23 | CAO Kellen | - | 32% | 46% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 24 | WEBB Jacob T. | - | - | - | 5% | 29% | 62% | 5% |
| 25 | HARKINS Craig T. | - | - | - | 1% | 14% | 54% | 32% |
| 26 | KIMURA Ryo | 2% | 20% | 46% | 29% | 3% | - | - |
| 27 | SHIVPRASAD Akshaya | - | 1% | 9% | 36% | 43% | 11% | 1% |
| 28 | HARKINS Asher | 1% | 8% | 29% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 29 | SHAJI Karthik | - | - | - | 5% | 27% | 54% | 14% |
| 30 | LOBEL Dillan | 4% | 24% | 40% | 26% | 5% | - | - |
| 31 | KATZE Ashley | 1% | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 1% |
| 32 | CHEN Andrew | 1% | 11% | 33% | 36% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 33 | MORALEJO Ivan | 2% | 14% | 35% | 35% | 12% | 1% | - |
| 34 | OH Seonghun | 10% | 46% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 35 | OLSON Clayton M. | 15% | 45% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 35 | EKMEKCILER Onur | 10% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 37 | GILLIAM Elijah | 13% | 43% | 35% | 9% | - | - | - |
| 38 | MCARTHUR Kemp | 12% | 40% | 36% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 39 | HERNANDEZ Veronica L. | 6% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 40 | COUSINS Patrick | 6% | 28% | 39% | 22% | 5% | - | - |
| 41 | MILES Greyson | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 10% | - |
| 42 | FLYNN Oliver | 8% | 32% | 41% | 17% | 2% | - | - |
| 43 | HUGHES Eric | 1% | 10% | 33% | 38% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 44 | ELLINGTON Keegan A. | 2% | 14% | 36% | 36% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 45 | BOCKSNICK John Robert | 38% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 45 | ERBEN Samuel | 4% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 47 | CANTERO Erick | 6% | 25% | 39% | 24% | 5% | - | - |
| 48 | VIVEROS Oscar A. | 1% | 13% | 38% | 35% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 49 | DESAUTELS Julie | 15% | 43% | 35% | 6% | - | - | - |
| 50 | FILLGROVE Benjamin E. | - | 7% | 32% | 47% | 13% | 1% | - |
| 51 | MILLER Jonah | 21% | 42% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 51 | WERTH Mario | 1% | 11% | 40% | 39% | 9% | - | - |
| 54 | NAM David | 16% | 42% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 55 | ANDUJAR Gerardo | 45% | 41% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 56 | BLACK Elias | 45% | 41% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 57 | HERARD Weiman | 3% | 20% | 42% | 31% | 4% | - | - |
| 57 | BRISON Alexander | 4% | 22% | 41% | 27% | 6% | - | - |
| 59 | ZHOU Hannan | 11% | 34% | 36% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 60 | CHENG Emma | 21% | 40% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 60 | HENDERSON Phillip | 26% | 43% | 24% | 6% | - | - | - |
| 62 | RIDLEY Mary Emma | 53% | 45% | 2% | - | - | - | |
| 63 | SUTAR Tanmay | 54% | 36% | 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.