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 | MACKIEWICZ Andrew A. | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 42% | 39% |
2 | THOMPSON Khalil A. | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 42% | 40% |
3 | SPEAR Jeff | - | - | - | - | 2% | 22% | 76% |
3 | METRYKA Karol | - | - | - | 3% | 17% | 43% | 36% |
5 | COSTIN Michael V. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 40% | 24% |
6 | WILLIAMS Grant W. | - | - | 4% | 17% | 36% | 33% | 10% |
7 | SPEAR Will | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 9% |
8 | KOLASA Thomas M. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 35% | 56% | |
9 | SOUDERS Peter F. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 19% |
10 | ARFA Fares | - | 5% | 24% | 45% | 22% | 3% | |
11 | IGOE Benjamin | - | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 38% | 19% |
12 | SHAINBERG Jonah L. | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 34% | 57% |
13 | DODDO Andrew | - | - | - | 4% | 18% | 42% | 36% |
14 | KANARY Logan A. | 1% | 8% | 29% | 41% | 18% | 3% | - |
15 | FLORENCIA Hector | 1% | 7% | 22% | 34% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
16 | ZHAO Raymond H. | - | 2% | 13% | 35% | 37% | 13% | |
17 | CONTRERAS Alessandro | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 25% |
18 | KARAM Tariq A. | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 38% | 20% | 2% |
19 | KIM Charlson | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 5% |
20 | GOODE Matthew (Matt) G. | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 36% | 22% | 5% |
21 | MA Jonathan D. | - | - | 4% | 15% | 33% | 34% | 13% |
22 | JOHNSON Andrew J. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 40% | 20% |
23 | MERCHANT Marcel J. | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 9% |
24 | COHEN Josef A. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 41% | 45% | |
25 | ARMIJO Gabriel K. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 40% | 44% | |
26 | VIDOVSZKY Robert T. | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 38% | 19% | |
27 | MARCUS Benjamin H. | 12% | 33% | 33% | 17% | 4% | 1% | - |
28 | JOHNSON Zachary (Zack) C. | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 30% | 9% | 1% |
29 | DI TELLA Pascual M. | - | 2% | 12% | 29% | 34% | 18% | 3% |
30 | GREENBAUM Maxwell H. | - | 3% | 17% | 39% | 33% | 8% | |
31 | MULVANEY Alec S. | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 31% | 10% | 1% |
32 | SCHOLL Ben Q. | 3% | 20% | 40% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - |
33 | TE VELDE Noah C. | - | 1% | 12% | 34% | 38% | 15% | |
34 | CHOU Stephen C. | - | 5% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
35 | MERCHANT Julian T. | 1% | 11% | 32% | 38% | 17% | 2% | |
36 | LEVITT Benjamin | - | 3% | 15% | 38% | 37% | 7% | |
37 | LOSS Geoffrey M. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 18% |
38 | SWARTZ Roscoe O. | - | 5% | 19% | 33% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
39 | ZHOU Matthew R. | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% | - |
40 | LIU Jesse Y. | 4% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 13% | 3% | - |
41 | CHOI HYUNSEOK | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 40% | 27% | 4% |
42 | CENTANNI Salvatore (Sal) M. | - | 4% | 17% | 36% | 31% | 11% | 1% |
43 | CHEN Alan | 3% | 19% | 34% | 28% | 12% | 2% | - |
44 | DESCHERER David | - | 1% | 9% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 5% |
45 | BAK Daniel | 16% | 40% | 32% | 10% | 1% | - | |
46 | BOOTH Zaheer | 7% | 31% | 39% | 19% | 4% | - | |
47 | OSOLINIEC Victor E. | 1% | 11% | 30% | 35% | 19% | 4% | - |
48 | GUY Philippe | - | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 35% | 14% |
49 | CAMPBELL Colin B. | 2% | 11% | 27% | 33% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
50 | PARK Donghwan | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 38% | 19% | 3% |
51 | ROTENSTEIN Leon G. | 5% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - |
52 | ATTIG Will T. | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 36% | 17% | 2% |
53 | RIVERA Inigo Franco | 1% | 8% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
54 | MOISE Bryan R. | 2% | 16% | 34% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
55 | LANDAU Nathaniel (Nat) B. | - | 1% | 10% | 28% | 36% | 20% | 4% |
56 | SIERADZKY Dawson | 4% | 44% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - | |
57 | MULLENNIX Ethan M. | - | 5% | 23% | 41% | 27% | 3% | |
58 | BUENAVENTURA Christian | 19% | 39% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | |
59 | HAMMER Peter A. | - | 4% | 21% | 38% | 29% | 8% | |
60 | KIM Brian S. | - | 3% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 15% | 3% |
61 | HU William | 1% | 10% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 4% | - |
62 | KIM Stephen E. | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 5% |
63 | PRICE Jack S. | 1% | 5% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
64 | WOOD Elden S. | 1% | 11% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 4% | - |
65 | JULIEN William A | 2% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - |
66 | MEHTA Sachin N. | - | 3% | 14% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 3% |
67 | GRUBE Sterling T. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 36% | 36% | 11% |
68 | MICHELL Bailey | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 34% | 16% | 2% |
69 | YEN Darren | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 5% |
70 | ROHRLACK Charles (Charlie) F. | 4% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 2% | |
71 | SCHMITT Trenton R. | - | 4% | 21% | 41% | 28% | 5% | |
72 | BOLTON Dawson E. | 18% | 39% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | |
73 | MIKA Casper | 1% | 11% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 5% | - |
74 | MOON Sean H. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 40% | 24% |
75 | BIERNACKI Maciej L. | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 4% |
76 | KENNEDY Falan M. | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
77 | BERKAY Deniz | 4% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 13% | 3% | - |
78 | RICHARDSON Andrew | 10% | 30% | 35% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
79 | RICH Augustus (Gus) G. | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
80 | LIMB Matthew G. | 1% | 5% | 19% | 32% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
81 | LORTKIPANIDZE Nickoloz | - | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 12% | 2% |
82 | GREEN Adam M. | 9% | 31% | 37% | 18% | 4% | - | |
83 | LIN John A. | - | 3% | 24% | 41% | 26% | 6% | |
84 | DODRILL Grant | 7% | 31% | 39% | 19% | 4% | - | |
85 | STONE Ben | 1% | 10% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
86 | KOKOSINSKI Eryk | 19% | 38% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
87 | DOARES Andrew | - | 5% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
88 | COPELAND Oliver E. | 1% | 8% | 29% | 37% | 21% | 4% | - |
89 | QIU Le | 13% | 34% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
90 | PRIEST Leighton K. | 9% | 31% | 36% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
91 | LORTKIPANIDZE Guram | 2% | 14% | 34% | 33% | 14% | 2% | - |
92 | PHILLIPS Kim V. | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
93 | LUEBBE Macklan C | 2% | 20% | 39% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - |
94 | KARNES Jameson D. | 6% | 33% | 39% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
95 | WU Nicholas R. | 22% | 40% | 27% | 9% | 2% | - | - |
96 | RAINVILLE-POND Schuyler J. | 20% | 41% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
97 | TONG Qilin | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
98 | GEFELL Andrew P. | - | 5% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 7% | 1% |
99 | ALLUM Christopher T. | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
99 | MURTHY mukund | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
101 | MARSEE James | 14% | 35% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
102 | HAYES Matthew T. | 32% | 41% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
103 | NADILE Henry V. | 3% | 18% | 36% | 31% | 11% | 1% | |
104 | STATEN-LUSTY Silas J. | 1% | 14% | 37% | 35% | 12% | 1% | |
105 | BRADFORD Blake | 5% | 27% | 41% | 22% | 4% | - | |
106 | CHAN Zachary D. | 1% | 8% | 26% | 37% | 24% | 5% | |
107 | PREVEY-SULLIVAN Owen D. | 7% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
108 | KAUFMAN Bradley A. | 27% | 45% | 23% | 5% | - | - | - |
109 | MATHARU Sukhveer | 38% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
110 | VACCARI Braden | 11% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
111 | LAI Adam J. | 4% | 26% | 39% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
112 | THORNTON Ronald J. | 2% | 14% | 32% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
113 | STREB JR. Joseph T. | 11% | 32% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
114 | BARTOLO Domenic V. | 16% | 36% | 32% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
115 | DANIELS Douglas A. | 29% | 46% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
116 | SHANAHAN Adam E. | 11% | 39% | 35% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
117 | MONTGOMERY Jadon T. | 1% | 10% | 35% | 36% | 15% | 2% | - |
118 | COHEN Samuel D. | 32% | 46% | 20% | 2% | - | - | |
119 | OSTER Keegan J. | 2% | 11% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 5% | - |
120 | BURR Tanner B. | 84% | 15% | 1% | - | - | - | |
121 | WOODWARD Dylan P. | 62% | 31% | 6% | 1% | - | - | - |
121 | ARNIPALLI Shanvanth | 32% | 47% | 18% | 3% | - | - | - |
123 | SEVOSTYANOV Stepan (Seva) | 8% | 30% | 37% | 20% | 5% | - | |
123 | RIGGINS Littleton K. | 39% | 43% | 16% | 2% | - | - | |
125 | ERACHSHAW Taras P. | 4% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 3% | - |
126 | HANEY Vincent | 28% | 44% | 23% | 5% | - | - | - |
127 | MOSKOWITZ Mason C. | 34% | 41% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
128 | BOLTON Braydon A. | 7% | 31% | 38% | 20% | 5% | - | - |
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.