Durham, NC - Durham, NC, USA
Explore the probability of achieving at least a certain number of victories in the pool 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. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 82% | 35% | ||
| 2 | ESCUETA Tony V. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 23% | |
| 3 | BENAVRAM Lev C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 74% | ||
| 3 | SMITH David C. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 47% | 12% | |
| 5 | FERNANDEZ Rodrigo | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 41% | 11% |
| 6 | HAMMER Peter A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 38% |
| 7 | LEONARD Cole | 100% | 95% | 72% | 34% | 8% | 1% | |
| 8 | HOFFMAN Skyler E. | 100% | 94% | 66% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 9 | HAMMERSTROM Jared | 100% | 100% | 95% | 72% | 32% | 6% | |
| 10 | CHIN Matthew W. | 100% | 100% | 93% | 67% | 29% | 5% | |
| 11 | HUSSAIN Faaris | 100% | 100% | 96% | 67% | 20% | ||
| 12 | DANNULL Linus N. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 33% | 7% |
| 13 | TONG ZACHARY | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 12% | 1% |
| 14 | ZHOU Justin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 22% | |
| 15 | GILMORE Thomas W. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 11% | |
| 16 | BERRIO Carter E. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 17 | DODRILL Grant | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 32% | |
| 18 | CHEN Brian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 50% | 12% |
| 19 | HENSHAW Joseph | 100% | 98% | 85% | 46% | 7% | ||
| 20 | BUKOWSKI Bronson | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 47% | 11% | |
| 21 | ZHOU Kevin | 100% | 100% | 92% | 65% | 27% | 5% | |
| 22 | JARAMILLO Tobias L. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 32% | 6% | |
| 23 | NAZLYMOV Andrei | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 38% | 10% | 1% |
| 24 | CHANG Eliot A. | 100% | 100% | 93% | 55% | 13% | ||
| 25 | PARK Collin D. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 39% | 12% | 2% |
| 26 | GREENBAUM Ian L. | 100% | 95% | 69% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 27 | SIMAK Joseph P. | 100% | 98% | 83% | 45% | 13% | 1% | |
| 28 | PAN Andrew W. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 42% | 14% | 2% |
| 29 | COX Luis E. | 100% | 68% | 14% | 1% | - | ||
| 30 | DELARUE NELSON Y. | 100% | 92% | 58% | 16% | 1% | ||
| 31 | CHAVES Matthew J. | 100% | 83% | 39% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 32 | LU Caleb Q. | 100% | 73% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 33 | GHENEA George Philipe | 100% | 92% | 51% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 34 | JIANG Kevin | 100% | 67% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 35 | COSGROVE Connor R. | 100% | 86% | 43% | 9% | - | ||
| 36 | FORT David | 100% | 65% | 20% | 2% | - | ||
| 37 | WRIGHT Athan | 100% | 88% | 52% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 38 | WOODWARD Connor | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
| 39 | DESHETLER Scott | 100% | 50% | 6% | - | - | ||
| 40 | GAO Andrew | 100% | 60% | 17% | 2% | - | - | |
| 41 | HOLDEN Joseph | 100% | 66% | 24% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 42 | RENGER Felipe | 100% | 40% | 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.