Baird Center - Milwaukee, WI, 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 | HURME Tommi K. | - | - | 2% | 21% | 64% | 12% | |
| 2 | YAMASAKI Kyle A. | - | - | - | 1% | 13% | 43% | 43% |
| 3 | DANILOV Sergey | 1% | 16% | 49% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 3 | STEPHAN Jens | - | - | 2% | 13% | 41% | 45% | |
| 5 | MACZIK Adam W. | - | - | - | 1% | 7% | 35% | 57% |
| 6 | HOLTZ Donovan K. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 29% | 43% | 20% |
| 7 | TSINIS Alexander E. | - | - | - | 1% | 20% | 79% | |
| 8 | CONKLIN Jim | - | - | 3% | 20% | 43% | 29% | 5% |
| 9 | MAKMATOV Vadim | - | 1% | 9% | 31% | 41% | 18% | |
| 10 | POTTER Joshua (Josh) M. | - | 1% | 8% | 31% | 42% | 18% | |
| 11 | HALLMAN Nicholas (Nick) J. | - | - | - | 7% | 42% | 51% | |
| 12 | EVERT Todd | 2% | 15% | 34% | 34% | 14% | 1% | |
| 13 | ZUCKER Noah L. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 35% | 55% | |
| 14 | PENG Gregory | 8% | 29% | 38% | 20% | 4% | - | |
| 15 | BELLIVEAU Shane | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
| 16 | SHULL Marc | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 4% |
| 17 | OLIVERIUS Joseph W. | - | - | 2% | 15% | 54% | 29% | |
| 18 | LAWLOR Lee | - | 6% | 25% | 40% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 19 | MANDOKI Sandor I. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 29% | 43% | 20% |
| 20 | DEPAUW Devan | - | 1% | 13% | 40% | 35% | 11% | 1% |
| 21 | CHU Brandon A. | - | 2% | 18% | 39% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 22 | PHO Eric | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 38% | 51% |
| 23 | FRENCH Timothy | - | - | - | 5% | 25% | 48% | 21% |
| 23 | MCCHESNEY Colin J. | 6% | 27% | 40% | 22% | 5% | - | |
| 25 | COX Matthew T. | - | - | 3% | 19% | 42% | 31% | 6% |
| 26 | STONE Brian M. | - | - | 1% | 11% | 36% | 39% | 13% |
| 27 | WORLEY Aren R. | 7% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 6% | - | |
| 28 | STOCK Jordan | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 3% |
| 29 | ALLEN Graham | - | 1% | 11% | 34% | 39% | 14% | |
| 30 | PEI Suyang | 15% | 36% | 33% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 31 | CHIZ Max H. | 1% | 12% | 37% | 41% | 8% | - | |
| 32 | O'BRIEN Timothy S. | 26% | 47% | 23% | 4% | - | - | |
| 33 | LIOU Solomon | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 41% | 39% |
| 34 | JERDEE trevor | 2% | 17% | 38% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 35 | MCNALLY Thomas J. | - | 5% | 27% | 41% | 23% | 4% | - |
| 36 | MORET Eric N. | 4% | 21% | 37% | 29% | 8% | 1% | |
| 37 | REED David | 4% | 24% | 42% | 26% | 4% | - | |
| 38 | PAI Dong-Ying | 8% | 35% | 42% | 14% | 1% | - | |
| 39 | EYMAN Hans | - | 3% | 23% | 41% | 26% | 6% | - |
| 40 | KIM Jeff | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 40% | 21% | 3% |
| 41 | MENDOZA Zandro | - | - | 2% | 14% | 37% | 38% | 9% |
| 42 | MIZRAHI Meir | 17% | 44% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 43 | CHRISTY Peter C. | - | 2% | 11% | 33% | 41% | 13% | |
| 44 | CARTER Austin L. | 1% | 8% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 3% | |
| 45 | LEWIS-RAMIREZ Ben | 4% | 24% | 42% | 26% | 4% | - | |
| 46 | EDGECOMB Michael J. | - | 3% | 21% | 48% | 23% | 4% | - |
| 47 | CHEN Vincent | 26% | 45% | 25% | 5% | - | - | |
| 49 | SOTO Michael | 1% | 14% | 47% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 50 | TOMASI John | 4% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 51 | SAYLER Gordon | 1% | 12% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 52 | KENT IV David | 14% | 41% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 53 | GOLCU Doruk | 15% | 40% | 34% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 54 | RHEA Eric L. | 9% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 55 | ZHANG Qing | 28% | 50% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 56 | KONG Qingjun | 31% | 50% | 17% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 57 | VRUBEL Nathan | 22% | 56% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 57 | RUBIN Josh | 40% | 46% | 13% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 59 | SADLER Allen | 54% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 60 | SLOTER Lewis E. | 18% | 39% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 61 | OZANNE Jeffrey S. | 9% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 62 | CHI Kai-Hung | 29% | 45% | 22% | 4% | - | - | |
| 63 | CHO Hans | 35% | 44% | 18% | 2% | - | - | |
| 64 | VERWORN Jonathan | 40% | 44% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 65 | GOODMAN Craig | 43% | 46% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 65 | OLSON McGee | 59% | 37% | 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.