Durham, NC - Durham, NC, 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 | DANNULL Lukas J. | - | 1% | 17% | 47% | 35% | ||
| 2 | ESCUETA Tony V. | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 42% | 23% | |
| 3 | BENAVRAM Lev C. | - | - | 2% | 24% | 74% | ||
| 3 | SMITH David C. | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 35% | 12% | |
| 5 | FERNANDEZ Rodrigo | - | 1% | 6% | 19% | 34% | 30% | 11% |
| 6 | HAMMER Peter A. | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 42% | 38% |
| 7 | LEONARD Cole | 5% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 8% | 1% | |
| 8 | HOFFMAN Skyler E. | 6% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 9 | HAMMERSTROM Jared | - | 5% | 23% | 40% | 26% | 6% | |
| 10 | CHIN Matthew W. | - | 6% | 26% | 39% | 24% | 5% | |
| 11 | HUSSAIN Faaris | - | 3% | 30% | 47% | 20% | ||
| 12 | DANNULL Linus N. | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 34% | 26% | 7% |
| 13 | TONG ZACHARY | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 1% |
| 14 | ZHOU Justin | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 42% | 22% | |
| 15 | GILMORE Thomas W. | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 34% | 11% | |
| 16 | BERRIO Carter E. | 3% | 16% | 32% | 30% | 15% | 4% | - |
| 17 | DODRILL Grant | - | - | 4% | 20% | 43% | 32% | |
| 18 | CHEN Brian | - | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 38% | 12% |
| 19 | HENSHAW Joseph | 2% | 14% | 39% | 39% | 7% | ||
| 20 | BUKOWSKI Bronson | - | 2% | 14% | 36% | 36% | 11% | |
| 21 | ZHOU Kevin | - | 7% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 5% | |
| 22 | JARAMILLO Tobias L. | 1% | 6% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 6% | |
| 23 | NAZLYMOV Andrei | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
| 24 | CHANG Eliot A. | - | 7% | 38% | 42% | 13% | ||
| 25 | PARK Collin D. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 11% | 2% |
| 26 | GREENBAUM Ian L. | 5% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 27 | SIMAK Joseph P. | 2% | 15% | 38% | 33% | 11% | 1% | |
| 28 | PAN Andrew W. | 1% | 6% | 20% | 32% | 28% | 12% | 2% |
| 29 | COX Luis E. | 32% | 54% | 13% | 1% | - | ||
| 30 | DELARUE NELSON Y. | 8% | 34% | 42% | 15% | 1% | ||
| 31 | CHAVES Matthew J. | 17% | 44% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 32 | LU Caleb Q. | 27% | 43% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 33 | GHENEA George Philipe | 8% | 41% | 36% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 34 | JIANG Kevin | 33% | 41% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 35 | COSGROVE Connor R. | 14% | 42% | 35% | 8% | - | ||
| 36 | FORT David | 35% | 44% | 18% | 2% | - | ||
| 37 | WRIGHT Athan | 12% | 36% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | |
| 38 | WOODWARD Connor | 1% | 10% | 26% | 33% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 39 | DESHETLER Scott | 50% | 44% | 6% | - | - | ||
| 40 | GAO Andrew | 40% | 43% | 15% | 2% | - | - | |
| 41 | HOLDEN Joseph | 34% | 42% | 19% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 42 | RENGER Felipe | 60% | 33% | 7% | 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.