Georgia Tech Campus Recreation Center - 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 | HAN David | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 41% | 9% |
| 2 | JAAFAR Omar | 100% | 99% | 85% | 42% | |||
| 3 | YI Daniel | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 44% | 11% | 1% |
| 3 | JOSEPH William | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 22% |
| 5 | WEBSTER Davis | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 51% | 15% |
| 6 | LENAHAN Conor | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 17% |
| 7 | NG Joshua | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 36% | 7% |
| 8 | FORD Tillman | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 57% | 24% | 5% |
| 9 | BERKOWITZ Jeffrey | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 32% |
| 10 | MAIER Elijah | 100% | 99% | 85% | 50% | 15% | 2% | |
| 10 | KIM Ray | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 34% | 6% |
| 12 | BOBERTZ Hogan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 30% | 5% |
| 13 | CORLEY Avery | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 45% | 13% | 1% |
| 14 | MERMIGKAS John | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 32% | 6% |
| 15 | WANG Maxwell | 100% | 100% | 100% | 89% | 56% | 19% | 2% |
| 16 | NGUYEN Audrey | 100% | 88% | 38% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 17 | TREBON Hayden | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 20% |
| 18 | CHRONISTER Charles | 100% | 100% | 90% | 57% | 19% | 2% | |
| 19 | PROCTER Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 31% | 6% |
| 21 | DULISSE ALeX | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 21% | |
| 23 | TILAKA Michael | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 59% | 15% | |
| 24 | BASKIN Miles | 100% | 98% | 85% | 56% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
| 25 | SONG Ervin | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 36% | 8% | |
| 26 | PAVLINEC Jack | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 48% | 17% | 2% |
| 27 | RYU Daniel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 26% | |
| 28 | CHANG Shane | 100% | 99% | 86% | 55% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 28 | EVANS Grant | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 25% | 4% | |
| 30 | SMITH Naja | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 35% | 10% | 1% |
| 30 | GARTNER Kara | 100% | 85% | 49% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 33 | MISKELL William | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 29% | 6% |
| 34 | ALLISON zachary | 100% | 100% | 97% | 78% | 43% | 13% | 2% |
| 35 | HARRIS Calvin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 54% | 18% |
| 36 | SPERRY Gregory | 100% | 99% | 86% | 52% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 37 | PRICE Makalyn | 100% | 58% | 16% | 2% | |||
| 38 | PAK Matthew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 91% | 58% | 20% | 3% |
| 39 | ARUN Vikhyat | 100% | 80% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 40 | FOSTER Nick | 100% | 98% | 81% | 41% | 9% | 1% | |
| 41 | WESTRAAD MacKinnon | 100% | 92% | 52% | 11% | |||
| 42 | SCHARF Ryan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 53% | 15% | 1% |
| 43 | TO Hang Minh | 100% | 64% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 44 | TRACY Samarra | 100% | 98% | 89% | 64% | 32% | 9% | 1% |
| 46 | HIRSCH Jordan V. | 100% | 92% | 63% | 26% | 6% | - | |
| 47 | PRICE Wade | 100% | 90% | 58% | 22% | 4% | - | - |
| 48 | SHIM Yeonjae(emma) | 100% | 74% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 49 | SONG John | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 19% | 3% |
| 50 | RYU Seri | 100% | 90% | 47% | 7% | |||
| 51 | RICKMAN II Samuel B. | 100% | 85% | 47% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 52 | THOMPSON Suzanne | 100% | 88% | 52% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 53 | MCARTHUR William | 100% | 95% | 52% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 54 | SCHOEN Michelle | 100% | 63% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 55 | SONG Austin | 100% | 91% | 61% | 23% | 4% | - | - |
| 57 | MANEKAR Pooja | 100% | 83% | 45% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 57 | ALMUHAWAS Abdulmohsen | 100% | 62% | 17% | 2% | - | - | |
| 59 | RAULS Jackson | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 32% | 7% | - |
| 60 | MODULLA Yathin | 100% | 99% | 90% | 66% | 32% | 8% | - |
| 61 | GARTNER Kacie | 100% | 50% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 61 | BALDWIN Marissa | 100% | 89% | 49% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
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.