February NAC

Veteran Men's Épée

Sunday, February 15, 2026 at 8:00 AM

Duke Energy Convention Center - Cincinnati, OH, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 LICHTEN Keith H. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 68%
2 MACZIK Adam W. 100% 100% 100% 98% 84% 41%
3 KROGH Daniel (Dan) M. 100% 99% 91% 64% 26% 4%
3 YAMASAKI Kyle A. 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 69% 27%
5 DEUCHER Joseph H. 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 77% 35%
6 HALLMAN Nicholas (Nick) J. 100% 100% 100% 99% 91% 63% 22%
7 GERSEN Jacob 100% 98% 85% 56% 24% 5% -
8 ZUCKER Noah L. 100% 100% 100% 98% 84% 43%
9 PRIHODKO Andrew 100% 100% 98% 86% 54% 16%
10 CARTER Austin L. 100% 100% 98% 87% 59% 25% 5%
11 CHRISTY Peter C. 100% 100% 100% 96% 81% 47% 13%
12 SUVOROV Yuly 100% 100% 100% 97% 83% 47% 10%
13 CHENG Thomas 100% 100% 100% 97% 81% 45% 11%
14 MAKMATOV Vadim 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 68% 27%
15 HITCHCOCK David 100% 100% 100% 99% 89% 60% 20%
16 TEITENBERG John F. 100% 100% 99% 95% 79% 45% 12%
17 CONKLIN Jim 100% 100% 100% 98% 86% 50% 8%
18 GLASS Timothy C. 100% 100% 100% 94% 73% 36% 7%
19 LIOU Solomon 100% 100% 100% 97% 79% 33% 4%
20 GATES Darcy C. 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 83% 42%
21 KIM Jeff 100% 100% 93% 68% 31% 8% 1%
22 GREENBAUM Isaac 100% 100% 100% 97% 83% 48% 12%
23 WHEELER Daniel 100% 100% 100% 99% 88% 56% 17%
24 BARREIRO Darren 100% 100% 100% 98% 90% 63% 22%
25 LEE Tobias (Toby) T. 100% 100% 99% 94% 75% 41% 11%
26 HELGE James R. 100% 100% 96% 77% 43% 13% 2%
27 EVERT Todd 100% 100% 97% 81% 48% 16% 2%
28 PHO Eric 100% 100% 99% 89% 58% 16%
29 HABIB Farooq 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 75% 33%
30 BLAT Robert 100% 98% 87% 60% 27% 7% 1%
31 KENT Dwain 100% 100% 96% 77% 41% 10%
32 CHU Brandon A. 100% 95% 70% 32% 7% 1%
33 CLAWSON Brian C. 100% 100% 100% 98% 85% 53% 16%
34 HARRIS Robert S. 100% 100% 100% 97% 83% 48% 13%
35 MEHALL Michael 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 67%
36 CRANOR Erich L. 100% 100% 100% 95% 75% 32%
37 COX Matthew T. 100% 100% 100% 97% 82% 48% 12%
38 GERACI Paul A. 100% 100% 100% 94% 74% 36% 8%
39 HUDSON Jeffrey (Jeff) A. 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 67% 26%
40 YAO Shun 100% 100% 98% 88% 62% 26% 5%
41 PEI Suyang 100% 99% 87% 53% 18% 3% -
42 VARNEY John R. 100% 100% 96% 79% 42% 9%
43 TYSON Julian F. 100% 100% 100% 98% 85% 45% 6%
44 RODACHY Jeffrey M. 100% 100% 97% 82% 47% 14% 1%
45 DEPAUW Devan 100% 100% 98% 87% 59% 24% 4%
47 LAWLOR Lee 100% 100% 94% 66% 23% 3% -
48 PERKA Michael 100% 100% 94% 73% 34% 6%
49 SPRINGER Michael 100% 100% 99% 93% 71% 34% 6%
50 GOLCU Doruk 100% 96% 72% 33% 8% 1% -
51 O'DOWD Andrew J. 100% 100% 97% 81% 50% 18% 3%
52 YAKIMENKO Andrei 100% 100% 98% 88% 58% 21% 3%
53 JOYCE David 100% 100% 93% 70% 35% 10% 1%
54 BRANG David J. 100% 100% 97% 83% 51% 19% 3%
55 WILKINSON Derek H. 100% 100% 100% 96% 77% 39% 9%
56 CHEN Steve 100% 100% 98% 87% 55% 19% 3%
57 CAMPBELL Paul 100% 94% 68% 30% 7% 1% -
58 SIMMONS Matthew C. 100% 100% 96% 77% 43% 13% 2%
59 BECK Brian C. 100% 93% 63% 22% 4% - -
60 POTTER Joshua (Josh) M. 100% 100% 99% 90% 65% 29% 5%
61 MCGRATH Sean L. 100% 100% 94% 72% 38% 12% 2%
62 ELTERMAN Lev 100% 99% 89% 63% 28% 7% 1%
63 MARINI Davide 100% 76% 34% 8% 1% -
64 STEWART Robert 100% 100% 94% 74% 37% 8%
65 KURITZ Marc M. 100% 95% 75% 41% 14% 2% -
65 GREGORY Dean 100% 96% 78% 44% 15% 3% -
67 ELBAG Mark H. 100% 100% 100% 96% 81% 48% 13%
68 GROSSE Michael 100% 99% 90% 64% 29% 7% 1%
69 LOCASALE Nicholas A. 100% 99% 93% 71% 34% 7% -
70 FIEDERLEIN Andrew M. 100% 100% 95% 76% 41% 12% 1%
71 CARTER Tony 100% 100% 95% 72% 35% 9% 1%
72 MORET Eric N. 100% 88% 52% 18% 3% -
73 MCDONNELL Michael 100% 94% 70% 31% 6% -
74 MENDOZA Zandro 100% 97% 79% 44% 13% 2%
75 TURNER Joshua 100% 92% 61% 23% 4% -
76 SWANSON Dave 100% 96% 77% 43% 14% 2% -
77 MAYCHROWITZ Matt 100% 100% 95% 74% 36% 7%
78 SANTOS Felipe 100% 99% 81% 43% 13% 2% -
79 MARIANI Lou 100% 100% 94% 72% 38% 12% 2%
80 LIPTON Michael D. 100% 93% 66% 30% 8% 1% -
81 HUGHES Michael D. 100% 100% 95% 73% 36% 9% 1%
82 WALTING Paul J. 100% 99% 89% 60% 23% 4% -
83 EVANS Allen L. 100% 88% 53% 18% 3% -
84 TRAN John 100% 99% 87% 55% 21% 4% -
85 KRAMER Mark 100% 99% 82% 44% 13% 2% -
86 FREY Wayne N. 100% 99% 86% 51% 17% 3% -
87 KRIEGER Nathanial 100% 99% 93% 71% 37% 11% 1%
88 MCNALLY Thomas J. 100% 98% 84% 52% 20% 4% -
89 KERTESZ Stefan G. 100% 99% 78% 38% 10% 1% -
90 WHITELOCK James R. 100% 95% 65% 27% 6% 1% -
91 REED David 100% 96% 69% 25% 4% - -
92 SUCHOSKI Annika 100% 81% 40% 10% 1% - -
93 KLINE R. Jay 100% 91% 58% 21% 4% -
93 MALLOY Christopher B. 100% 88% 50% 15% 2% - -
95 CHI Kai-Hung 100% 55% 15% 2% - - -
96 WAGMAN Robert S. 100% 93% 66% 27% 5% -
97 DOWNEY Gerard C. 100% 77% 35% 8% 1% -
97 NUDELMAN Aleksandr 100% 94% 69% 30% 6% -
99 EDWARDS Tim 100% 99% 87% 53% 18% 3% -
100 KOKENGE Chad 100% 93% 62% 25% 5% 1% -
101 DAVIS Kelly 100% 49% 12% 2% - - -
102 MINOTT Nicolas D. 100% 70% 28% 6% 1% - -
103 SIMS Martin L. 100% 72% 27% 5% - - -
104 COLE Matthew 100% 98% 86% 54% 20% 4% -
104 VALENTINE Shem 100% 73% 32% 8% 1% - -
106 KRUGER Mark 100% 94% 72% 38% 12% 2% -
107 GAO "George" Xiaojiang 100% 86% 44% 12% 2% - -
108 RODRIGUEZ VINCENT 100% 69% 27% 6% 1% - -
109 MIZRAHI Meir 100% 60% 16% 2% - - -
110 VERWORN Jonathan 100% 34% 5% - - - -
111 JEFFCOAT Timothy 100% 56% 14% 2% - - -
112 RESS Michael A. 100% 100% 98% 85% 51% 16% 2%
113 BAGAMANOV Ruslan 100% 93% 60% 23% 5% 1% -
114 BEITTEL David F. 100% 91% 63% 29% 8% 1% -
115 HUNKER Frederick 100% 73% 31% 7% 1% -
116 ROGERS John D. 100% 19% 1% - - - -
116 TOMASI John 100% 71% 28% 6% 1% -
118 ANDERSON Donald 100% 42% 8% 1% - - -
119 KALAPASEV Nenad (Ned) (Ned) S. 100% 100% 99% 91% 66% 30% 6%
120 LONADIER Robert 100% 13% 1% - - - -
121 TREANOR Donald K. 100% 96% 73% 36% 9% 1% -
122 DELONG Mike 100% 94% 57% 16% 2% - -
123 ROZALSKI Pavel 100% 10% - - - - -

Explanation

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.