USA Fencing National Championships & July Challenge

Vet-50 Men's Épée

Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 10:00 AM

Columbus, OH - Columbus, 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 NORMILE Jon M. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 84%
2 ILIEV Velizar K. 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 81% 16%
3 REES Daniel I. 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 82% 41%
3 LOEFFLER Carl E. 100% 100% 98% 87% 57% 21% 3%
5 PERKA Michael 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 64% 19%
6 WATRALL Rick 100% 100% 100% 98% 86% 51% 12%
7 HAYENGA Gary M. 100% 100% 97% 86% 59% 26% 5%
8 GILLHAM Timothy A. 100% 100% 95% 75% 38% 9%
9 JOHNSON Jeff 100% 100% 100% 97% 85% 54% 17%
10 SUPONYA Sergey 100% 100% 100% 97% 84% 55% 18%
11 TRAIN Timothy D. 100% 100% 100% 99% 93% 68% 26%
12 DEUCHER Joseph H. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 73%
13 FREY Wayne N. 100% 99% 93% 72% 39% 12% 2%
14 SUMLER Jeffery 100% 100% 97% 79% 43% 13% 1%
15 BALESTRACCI Chris 100% 100% 98% 84% 48% 13% 1%
16 SAYLOR David A. 100% 99% 85% 52% 19% 4% -
17 LANG Markus 100% 100% 100% 98% 88% 58% 18%
18 SCHINDLER Sergey M. 100% 100% 100% 97% 81% 40% 3%
19 HUDSON Jeffrey (Jeff) A. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 62%
20 POULIQUEN Benoit (Ben) 100% 100% 99% 92% 70% 35% 8%
21 CLARK Timothy J. 100% 96% 75% 39% 11% 1%
22 GUMAGAY Paul 100% 100% 91% 64% 28% 7% 1%
23 FRANK Fred 100% 100% 99% 90% 64% 25% 2%
24 MAZZOLI Julio C. 100% 100% 100% 97% 85% 54% 16%
25 PARTE Aidan 100% 85% 46% 13% 2% - -
26 SCHULTZ Douglas B. 100% 99% 91% 64% 29% 7% 1%
27 HARRINGTON Joseph 100% 99% 94% 73% 38% 9%
28 HITCHCOCK David 100% 100% 100% 98% 88% 59% 19%
29 STEWART Robert 100% 100% 97% 83% 47% 12% -
30 BEITTEL David F. 100% 94% 69% 34% 9% 1% -
31 HANAHAN Thomas M. 100% 100% 99% 92% 71% 35% 8%
32 KAUFMAN Joel H. 100% 97% 76% 40% 11% 1% -
33 HERGERT Earl 100% 100% 95% 76% 40% 9%
34 TRIFILETTI Lawrence T. 100% 97% 76% 39% 11% 2% -
35 WALLACE Patric 100% 100% 99% 94% 74% 38% 9%
36 ESVAL Kevin 100% 100% 98% 86% 51% 15% 2%
37 DAVIS Andrew 100% 100% 92% 65% 28% 6% 1%
38 JONES John (Mike) M. 100% 98% 86% 57% 24% 5% -
39 NGUYEN Cuong T. 100% 100% 99% 94% 72% 35% 6%
40 KOKENGE Chad 100% 100% 95% 75% 40% 12% 1%
41 MAHMOUD Hossam 100% 76% 35% 9% 1% - -
42 CROUCH William John (John) 100% 99% 94% 75% 43% 15% 2%
43 MRAK Michael R. 100% 100% 94% 71% 30% 4% -
44 POPOVICI Alexander M. 100% 100% 94% 70% 32% 7% 1%
45 AMRINE JR Terry L. 100% 100% 100% 95% 76% 42% 10%
46 GILLESPIE Jeremy W. 100% 76% 29% 6% 1% - -
47 BLANCHARD Aaron (Sam) S. 100% 100% 97% 80% 43% 11% 1%
48 MILLS Tim A. 100% 100% 97% 82% 49% 16% 2%
48 PITZEL John E. 100% 95% 69% 32% 8% 1% -
50 DICKSON Tim 100% 99% 73% 33% 8% 1% -
51 MALLECK Robert H. 100% 93% 66% 31% 9% 1% -
52 GREGORY Dean 100% 88% 54% 20% 4% - -
53 POWERS Bill 100% 99% 92% 66% 29% 5% -
53 WILLIAMS Richard 100% 93% 59% 18% 2% - -
55 MCBRIDE Steve 100% 99% 88% 60% 27% 7% 1%
56 GAURIAT Olivier 100% 88% 56% 22% 5% 1% -
57 REID Michael 100% 84% 44% 12% 1% - -
59 SWANSON Dave 100% 99% 90% 61% 22% 3% -
60 BECK Brian C. 100% 99% 84% 49% 16% 3% -
61 LIPTON Michael D. 100% 94% 66% 25% 4% - -
62 FANGMAN Daniel L. 100% 100% 97% 82% 48% 14% 2%
63 PIERRO Roger 100% 100% 93% 69% 32% 7% -
64 CHEN Chang-Rung 100% 98% 87% 58% 24% 5% -
65 LIU Chien-ye 100% 83% 42% 11% 1% - -
66 MANOUKIAN David 100% 96% 75% 39% 12% 1%
67 LEE Richard U. 100% 70% 28% 6% 1% -
68 LAHMAN Richard 100% 92% 61% 23% 4% - -
69 DESAMOURS Georges H. 100% 99% 94% 73% 38% 11% 1%
70 CONSTANTINE George C. 100% 84% 45% 12% 1% - -
71 STEPHENS Rick W. 100% 92% 63% 25% 5% - -
72 ROGERS John D. 100% 46% 10% 1% - - -
73 VONA Gary J. 100% 33% 5% - - - -
74 KELBLEY Jay 100% 84% 42% 10% 1% - -
75 PREUD'HOMME Xavier A. 100% 40% 6% - - - -
76 GIOCOLO David 100% 17% 1% - - - -

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.