Cincinnati, OH - Cincinnati, OH, 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 | MORAIS Paulo | - | - | - | 1% | 6% | 33% | 60% |
2 | MION Lorenzo | - | - | 1% | 9% | 39% | 51% | |
3 | FARQUHARSON Cole | - | - | 4% | 21% | 45% | 30% | |
3 | ZHAO Jason L. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 38% | 54% | |
5 | BOLTON Lucas R. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 39% | 19% |
6 | ROBINSON Keegan B. | - | 4% | 31% | 42% | 20% | 3% | |
7 | ANDERSON David C. | - | 11% | 36% | 37% | 14% | 2% | |
8 | LARGAESPADA LUIS V. | 2% | 11% | 30% | 36% | 18% | 3% | |
9 | KASI Sanjay | - | - | 1% | 12% | 41% | 46% | |
10 | LEE Chris | - | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 41% | 18% |
11 | FERNANDES Zain | - | 2% | 13% | 36% | 36% | 12% | |
12 | WANG Michael | - | 4% | 18% | 36% | 32% | 10% | |
13 | RINEHART Conner M. | - | 7% | 26% | 39% | 24% | 5% | |
15 | MANGE Nathan | - | 1% | 10% | 33% | 43% | 13% | |
16 | FREEDMAN Samuel E. | 4% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 8% | 1% | |
17 | MESSINESE Brando | - | 1% | 7% | 32% | 45% | 16% | |
18 | KONG Kenneth | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 38% | 16% | |
19 | MCKINNEY Isaiah | - | 2% | 14% | 33% | 36% | 14% | |
20 | HAN Andersen Y. | 3% | 21% | 42% | 28% | 5% | - | - |
21 | HSIUNG Richie | 1% | 16% | 35% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - |
22 | CHREKY Jacob D. | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 36% | 18% | 2% |
24 | ESTEVES Dionel L. | 7% | 39% | 39% | 13% | 2% | - | |
25 | FOGELSON Frederick J. | 1% | 11% | 39% | 38% | 10% | 1% | |
26 | ARTIS Tre D. | - | 2% | 13% | 36% | 35% | 12% | 1% |
27 | MANGE Andrew (Andrew Mange) E. | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 40% | 24% | 3% |
28 | JANSEN Jesse | 4% | 19% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
29 | WANG Duke R. | 1% | 13% | 37% | 36% | 12% | 1% | |
30 | HARDMAN III Harry C. | 18% | 40% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - | |
31 | LO Hung Yui | 3% | 17% | 36% | 32% | 11% | 1% | |
32 | ANGLIN Benjamin S. | 17% | 42% | 30% | 9% | 1% | - | |
33 | SON Eric | - | 8% | 31% | 40% | 19% | 2% | |
34 | ZHANG Thales | 6% | 25% | 36% | 25% | 7% | 1% | |
35 | BERKE Daniel (Dan) L. | 2% | 20% | 42% | 29% | 7% | - | |
36 | KITAGAWA Eric S. | - | 3% | 18% | 39% | 32% | 9% | 1% |
37 | SANCHEZ Leon D. | 7% | 26% | 37% | 24% | 6% | - | |
38 | LEYLAND John | 56% | 37% | 7% | 1% | - | - | |
39 | MCINTOSH Michael | 4% | 25% | 42% | 24% | 5% | - | |
40 | WILBERT Matt | 27% | 46% | 24% | 4% | - | - | |
41 | DENMAN Matthew L. | 11% | 38% | 35% | 13% | 2% | - | |
43 | VO Jonathan | 44% | 42% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
44 | PELAN Justin D. | 7% | 25% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
45 | GREEN Zachary J. | 17% | 42% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - | |
46 | GREEN Scott D. | 22% | 40% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | |
48 | UPTON Craig | 17% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
49 | KIRSHNER Ronald | 53% | 39% | 8% | - | - | - | |
50 | AMES Tucker | 9% | 32% | 38% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
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.