Georgia Tech Campus Recreation Center: Atlanta, GA - Atlanta, GA, 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 | FULLERTON Houston T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 74% |
| 2 | HUTTO Joshua | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 29% |
| 3 | KULIKOWSKI Adam J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 44% |
| 3 | IRWIN Peter | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 51% |
| 5 | WEBB Jacob T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 31% |
| 6 | ZHOU Alec Q. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 40% |
| 7 | WEISSMAN Kai E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 47% |
| 8 | CORLEY Avery | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 31% | 5% |
| 9 | JEONG Arisu | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 42% | 8% | |
| 10 | MOORE Jeremy S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 57% |
| 11 | WILSON Andrew T. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 20% | 3% |
| 11 | PANTALONE giuseppe A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 26% |
| 13 | ARZT Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 39% | 11% | 1% |
| 14 | WANG Bryan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 70% | 23% |
| 15 | LABROZZI Aidan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 36% |
| 16 | RAVI Arjun | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 23% | 3% |
| 17 | MUMMIDI Rishi | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 19% | 2% |
| 18 | ELLIOTT Wyatt | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 67% | 16% |
| 19 | CHENG Thomas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 74% | 33% |
| 20 | SHOUSHA Yassin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 40% | 9% |
| 21 | ALVIOR Jonathan Adrian | 100% | 98% | 87% | 55% | 18% | 2% | |
| 22 | BATISTA Julian | 100% | 100% | 98% | 66% | 19% | 1% | - |
| 23 | FREY Wayne N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 13% |
| 24 | TYSON Charlie | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 38% | 8% |
| 25 | ALVIOR Jacob A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 45% | |
| 26 | MODULLA Yathin R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 63% | ||
| 27 | THOMPSON Daniel M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 76% | 16% |
| 28 | HICKS Matthew | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 39% | 10% | 1% |
| 29 | DAVIDENKO Alexander | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 38% |
| 30 | DIEKER Edwin | 100% | 89% | 57% | 22% | 5% | - | - |
| 31 | JIANG Harry | 100% | 94% | 67% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 32 | HUGHES Eric | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 24% | 3% |
| 33 | PAYNE Gareth | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 49% | |
| 34 | SCALES Chad | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 42% | 10% |
| 35 | HERARD Weiman | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 20% | 3% |
| 36 | NGUYEN Hubert | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 42% | 9% |
| 37 | SARSOUR Ghaleb | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 29% | 5% |
| 38 | NAM Nathaniel | 100% | 100% | 92% | 58% | 20% | 3% | - |
| 39 | MEGGERS Davin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 85% | 41% | 7% | |
| 40 | WRIGHT Alex | 100% | 99% | 83% | 38% | 8% | 1% | |
| 41 | KOSSMANN Alexander | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 32% | 6% |
| 42 | SIGG Noah | 100% | 86% | 48% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 43 | MCFARLAND John G. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 72% | 31% | 3% | - |
| 44 | GILBRETH Geoffrey (Chance) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 19% |
| 44 | SORANNO James | 100% | 95% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 46 | OLSON Clayton M. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 17% | 2% |
| 47 | KRIEGER Jack | 100% | 100% | 94% | 72% | 33% | 5% | - |
| 48 | LANGE Eric A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 47% | |
| 49 | CARRIE Konnor | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 49% | 10% |
| 50 | LEE Winston | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 38% | 9% | 1% |
| 51 | QUINTIN Guillaume | 100% | 100% | 95% | 79% | 48% | 17% | 3% |
| 52 | SCORDINSKY Liam | 100% | 85% | 47% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 53 | MALONE Jacob | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 31% | 3% |
| 54 | CHEN Andrew | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 55 | BEDULLA Asher | 100% | 97% | 75% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 56 | BONILHA-VAN'T HOF Rafael | 100% | 100% | 99% | 84% | 45% | 10% | 1% |
| 57 | IBANEZ Julien | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 56% | 21% | 3% |
| 58 | WAGNER Cosette | 100% | 87% | 46% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 59 | WYNN Paul | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 60 | BUZINKAI Brennan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 47% | 10% | |
| 61 | MUNAGAPATI Vishwa | 100% | 96% | 76% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 62 | SUN Yuzheng | 100% | 80% | 41% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 63 | XHEMALI Nathan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 29% | 5% |
| 64 | BELL Leo P. | 100% | 99% | 87% | 45% | 6% | ||
| 65 | ERIZE Alejandro | 100% | 99% | 77% | 29% | 2% | ||
| 66 | ANGADI Shreyas | 100% | 98% | 85% | 51% | 16% | 2% | |
| 67 | MURO Ryan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 52% | 16% |
| 68 | CREMONA Viola Maria | 100% | 98% | 62% | 19% | 2% | ||
| 69 | GUNDUBOGULA Shrihan | 100% | 100% | 96% | 62% | 16% | 1% | - |
| 70 | DONGES Anna | 100% | 98% | 87% | 60% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
| 72 | HEINZE Luke H. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 29% | 6% | - |
| 73 | KIM Ian | 100% | 91% | 54% | 14% | 1% | - | - |
| 74 | MOYERS Diego | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 75 | CALINSKY Edward | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 26% | 4% |
| 76 | SOU Barry | 100% | 97% | 79% | 42% | 10% | 1% | |
| 77 | PEACOCK Audrey | 100% | 65% | 24% | 5% | - | - | |
| 78 | MARSHALL Wesley | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 29% |
| 79 | RAGLAND Ben | 100% | 96% | 66% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
| 80 | BATCHU ashrith | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 81 | HAWKINS Sophia | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 55% | 16% | 1% |
| 82 | CUPO Anthony | 100% | 95% | 67% | 28% | 5% | - | - |
| 83 | HOUSMANS Emma | 100% | 70% | 25% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 84 | DING Tommy | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 27% | 6% | - |
| 85 | SONG Apolo | 100% | 93% | 61% | 20% | 3% | - | |
| 86 | FERRARO Nicholas | 100% | 96% | 74% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 87 | ABEL Nathanael | 100% | 94% | 69% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 88 | KARPF Jonah | 100% | 100% | 97% | 77% | 35% | 2% | - |
| 89 | HUA Daniel | 100% | 86% | 50% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 90 | CARRERO Quentin | 100% | 94% | 70% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 91 | SUMMEY Travis | 100% | 94% | 68% | 30% | 6% | - | - |
| 92 | BEST Sydney | 100% | 82% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 93 | HUSZAR Sara | 100% | 99% | 90% | 54% | 14% | 1% | |
| 94 | BARRETT John | 100% | 25% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
| 95 | SOKOLOWSKI Olivia | 100% | 18% | 1% | - | - | ||
| 96 | PHILLIPS Carson | 100% | 74% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
| 97 | SIGGINS Wally | 100% | 96% | 44% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 98 | SEARS SARAH | 100% | 83% | 11% | - | - | - | - |
| 99 | KINSELLA John | 100% | 97% | 68% | 27% | 5% | - | - |
| 100 | SZETO Octavius | 100% | 98% | 80% | 42% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 101 | JOHNSTON Jacob | 100% | 99% | 82% | 43% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 102 | YAO Sophia | 100% | 98% | 84% | 53% | 19% | 3% | - |
| 103 | BEDWORTH Paige | 100% | 98% | 88% | 61% | 28% | 7% | 1% |
| 104 | GEISSLER Maximilian | 100% | 97% | 78% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 105 | KAWALE Rachita | 100% | 80% | 39% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 106 | LAND John | 100% | 94% | 55% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 107 | HICKS Joseph | 100% | 83% | 43% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 108 | CLOPPER Meredith | 100% | 82% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 109 | LE BLANC Anna | 100% | 34% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 109 | GARG Shiv | 100% | 99% | 86% | 49% | 12% | 1% | - |
| 111 | PUREFOY Malik | 100% | 91% | 61% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
| 111 | HANNER Robert | 100% | 47% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 113 | PIERCE Chandon | 100% | 98% | 78% | 37% | 8% | 1% | |
| 114 | ATON Dave | 100% | 92% | 55% | 17% | 2% | - | |
| 115 | SCHLEY Nancy | 100% | 62% | 19% | 2% | - | - | |
| 116 | RAMIREZ Michael | 100% | 95% | 67% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 116 | SAFRAN Isaac | 100% | 31% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 118 | AUTREY Blaine | 100% | 82% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 119 | PIPER Maggie | 100% | 44% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 120 | HUNTER James | 100% | 82% | 43% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 121 | CARVER David | 100% | 91% | 58% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 121 | GURRAM Srirugneth | 100% | 96% | 74% | 33% | 7% | - | - |
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.