400 N High Street, OH - 400 N High Street, 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 | GORNOVSKY David J. | - | - | - | - | 2% | 20% | 79% |
| 2 | PEDERSEN Trevor W. | - | 2% | 12% | 37% | 39% | 10% | |
| 3 | FULLERTON Houston T. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 29% | 9% | |
| 3 | MARTIN Nathan C. | - | - | 1% | 13% | 43% | 43% | |
| 5 | LI Jesse | - | - | - | 4% | 20% | 43% | 33% |
| 6 | IVAKIMOV Vasil | - | 1% | 12% | 36% | 38% | 13% | |
| 7 | DAVIES Morgan | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 41% | 26% | |
| 8 | MARTIN Liam N. | - | 3% | 18% | 43% | 30% | 6% | |
| 9 | EDWARDS Ethan S. | - | 2% | 15% | 39% | 36% | 8% | |
| 10 | GLASS Timothy C. | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 35% | 10% | |
| 11 | NORTH Gary S. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 19% |
| 12 | GUINAN Joseph | - | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 32% | 9% |
| 13 | WANG William | - | - | 4% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 12% |
| 14 | KENT Dwain | 10% | 30% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - | |
| 15 | BEACH John | 5% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% | |
| 16 | SHERWOOD Dominic | - | 8% | 29% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 17 | CHAWLA Armaan | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 3% | |
| 18 | RHYU Kozmo | - | 4% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 19 | RODACHY Jeffrey M. | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 40% | 31% | 3% |
| 20 | JOVANOVIC Jovan | - | - | 1% | 10% | 39% | 49% | |
| 21 | UKOLOV Dimitri | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 38% | 22% | 4% |
| 22 | HAYENGA Gary M. | - | 1% | 8% | 32% | 44% | 15% | |
| 23 | WOJCIECHOWSKI Matthew N. | - | - | 2% | 12% | 40% | 46% | |
| 24 | SHAH S Ayush | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% | |
| 25 | PICK Ian | 6% | 35% | 42% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 26 | WINTERSHEIMER Adam | 5% | 23% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% | |
| 27 | HANXU Richard A. | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% |
| 28 | TEITENBERG John F. | - | 5% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
| 29 | O’DEA Anthony | 9% | 35% | 40% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 30 | MCDONNELL Michael | 7% | 31% | 40% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 31 | ROTONDI Gregory V. | 4% | 19% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% | |
| 32 | ELLINGTON Keegan A. | - | 3% | 19% | 42% | 30% | 6% | |
| 33 | SWANSON Dave | 1% | 7% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 6% | - |
| 34 | SINGH Anil | 1% | 9% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 35 | CULLEN Daniel F. | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% | |
| 36 | KLINE R. Jay | 6% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 7% | - | |
| 37 | HERMANSON David B. | 9% | 35% | 38% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 38 | GISLER Benjamin B. | 9% | 34% | 37% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 39 | STEIBER Zane T. | - | 1% | 6% | 26% | 44% | 23% | |
| 40 | MOORE Gabriel | 46% | 41% | 12% | 1% | - | - | |
| 41 | EDWARDS Tim | 3% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 42 | SIVAKUMAR Ajit | 1% | 7% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 43 | WANG Albert | 5% | 32% | 39% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 44 | YANG Brandon | 10% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 45 | VISURAKAPALLI Sathvik | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 6% | |
| 46 | MA Bochen | 7% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 5% | - | |
| 47 | HONG James | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | |
| 48 | PARKS Robert | 22% | 40% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 49 | O'BRIEN Timothy S. | 21% | 41% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 50 | WHEELER Mark C. | 5% | 21% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% | |
| 51 | STEFANOV Michael A. | 39% | 43% | 16% | 2% | - | - | |
| 52 | MARTIN Dirk | 16% | 42% | 30% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 53 | KENT Matthew | 41% | 43% | 14% | 1% | - | - | |
| 54 | LANDIS Geoffrey A. | 69% | 27% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 55 | DICKSON Tim | 11% | 40% | 37% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 56 | WILLIAMS Richard | 27% | 42% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 57 | FITZGERALD Aidan | 38% | 43% | 16% | 3% | - | - | - |
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.