UNG Gainesville PE Complex - Gainesville, GA, 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 | FAYEZ Sherif | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 44% | 38% |
2 | MALLOY Patrick G. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 42% | 42% | |
3 | CAI Brian | - | - | - | - | 5% | 29% | 66% |
3 | KIM Ethan J. | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 41% | 22% | |
5 | FULLERTON Houston T. | - | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 32% | 11% |
6 | KIM Alexander | - | - | 1% | 9% | 39% | 51% | |
7 | SHIN Sung (Andy) | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 41% | 42% |
8 | TINSLEY Cole | - | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 40% | 17% |
9 | DOELEMAN Zeno | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 43% | 40% |
10 | MUNLIN Donovan | - | - | 1% | 6% | 26% | 45% | 22% |
11 | MCINTYRE Kendric J. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 27% | 46% | 21% |
12 | CAPELLUA Tommaso | - | 1% | 6% | 26% | 46% | 21% | |
13 | BENATER Lauren | 2% | 11% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 4% | |
14 | PARK Jong-Eun | - | 7% | 27% | 38% | 23% | 5% | |
15 | JANG Jaeho (Jason) | - | 3% | 14% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 3% |
16 | JUNG Minche | 5% | 20% | 32% | 27% | 12% | 3% | - |
17 | FAYEZ Ahmed A. | - | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 37% | 18% |
18 | WEBB Jacob T. | - | 2% | 11% | 31% | 38% | 16% | 2% |
19 | SMITH Jett A. | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 3% |
20 | SWENSON Keane J. | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 38% | 20% | |
21 | GILBRETH Geoffrey (Chance) | - | 1% | 9% | 32% | 43% | 14% | |
22 | MARTIN Anthony (AJ) J. | 1% | 9% | 23% | 31% | 24% | 10% | 2% |
23 | JACKSON James | - | 1% | 13% | 35% | 36% | 14% | 1% |
24 | JOSEPH William | 1% | 9% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 6% | - |
25 | BAKER Julian L. | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 4% | - |
26 | TRAVAGLINO Stefano | - | - | - | - | 6% | 31% | 63% |
27 | CHO Tyler H. | 1% | 5% | 17% | 30% | 29% | 15% | 3% |
28 | GUNDUBOGULA Raj | 4% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
29 | YIM Nathan H. | - | 2% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
30 | NORMAN Christian | - | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
31 | PAK Matthew | - | 6% | 39% | 38% | 14% | 2% | - |
32 | DOMKAM Alan W. | 1% | 12% | 39% | 34% | 12% | 2% | - |
33 | PARNAS Ely | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 37% | 17% | 1% |
34 | BENDER Rhys T. | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 29% | 10% |
35 | PARCELEWICZ John M. | - | 4% | 15% | 31% | 31% | 16% | 3% |
36 | MISKELL William | 3% | 19% | 38% | 29% | 10% | 1% | - |
37 | PARAMESH Dhilan R. | - | 5% | 23% | 37% | 27% | 8% | - |
38 | SCHNEIDER Allen J. | - | 6% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
39 | SHAH Anuj | 16% | 39% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
39 | JAAFAR Youssef | - | 2% | 13% | 35% | 35% | 14% | 1% |
41 | CAPELLUA Mariasole | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 21% | 5% | |
42 | GUO Shuliang | - | 6% | 34% | 40% | 17% | 2% | |
43 | SPANGENBERG Joshua K. | 4% | 24% | 41% | 24% | 6% | - | |
44 | PARNAS Apollo | 2% | 12% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 4% | |
45 | HAN David | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 20% | 3% | |
46 | LIM Joshua | - | 9% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 3% | |
47 | WEBSTER Davis G. | - | 8% | 34% | 39% | 16% | 2% | |
48 | GILBRETH Miles S. | - | 2% | 13% | 37% | 39% | 9% | |
49 | MA Bochen | - | 2% | 14% | 37% | 36% | 11% | 1% |
50 | CHAKRABORTY Rishi N. | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 5% |
51 | LABROZZI Aidan | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 5% |
52 | VALES Keyan | - | 7% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 7% | - |
53 | TISON John D. | - | 12% | 34% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - |
53 | JARVIS Trent | - | 1% | 11% | 31% | 37% | 18% | 2% |
55 | LEE Kennith | 20% | 40% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
56 | MCGRATH Russell D. | - | - | 4% | 16% | 35% | 35% | 10% |
57 | MERMIGKAS John | 25% | 45% | 25% | 5% | - | - | - |
58 | SONG Ervin | 16% | 37% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
59 | MARKS Luke | - | 7% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 6% | - |
60 | DULISSE ALeX | 1% | 8% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 4% | |
61 | CHRONISTER Charles | 17% | 43% | 32% | 7% | 1% | - | |
62 | LANGE Eric A. | - | - | 4% | 17% | 39% | 35% | 5% |
63 | JIANG Hannah S. | - | 3% | 18% | 39% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
64 | PINCKNEY John F. | 3% | 16% | 31% | 30% | 15% | 4% | - |
65 | EVANS Grant | 1% | 17% | 36% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - |
66 | MEYERS Jory B. | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 33% | 13% | 1% |
67 | FLOYD Sean C. | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 37% | 19% | 2% |
68 | MAIER Elijah B. | 9% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 6% | 1% | |
69 | DAVIS Campbell | 2% | 13% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 4% | |
70 | CRISTIAN Ana | 1% | 14% | 36% | 34% | 13% | 2% | |
71 | TAUBLER Michelle | 4% | 16% | 30% | 29% | 16% | 4% | 1% |
72 | MOON Seojung | 6% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 10% | 2% | - |
73 | LENAHAN Conor J. | - | 3% | 20% | 43% | 29% | 5% | - |
74 | LIU Eric | 2% | 10% | 25% | 33% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
75 | CHAN Tyler | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 20% | 4% | - |
76 | DORSETT Elizabeth | 14% | 33% | 31% | 16% | 4% | 1% | - |
77 | ASH Neil | 22% | 42% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - | |
78 | PROCTER Jonathan R. | 1% | 11% | 33% | 40% | 14% | 1% | |
79 | EDWARDS Darby | 17% | 39% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | |
79 | LAZCANO TORRES Luis | 18% | 39% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | |
81 | YI Daniel | 15% | 40% | 32% | 11% | 2% | - | |
82 | MERRIMAN Morgan | 14% | 40% | 33% | 11% | 2% | - | |
83 | WANG Aidan | 23% | 45% | 26% | 6% | - | - | |
84 | WAGNER Lyndsay K. | 1% | 5% | 18% | 31% | 29% | 14% | 3% |
85 | ZIMINSKY Karel M. | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
86 | LE Tan | 1% | 6% | 23% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
86 | RICKMAN II Samuel B. | 5% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
88 | ADIBZADEH Mehrdad | 10% | 30% | 35% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
89 | LORES Alicia | 5% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 10% | 1% | - |
90 | KEMLE Brian | 1% | 8% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 5% | - |
91 | BRANDS Michael W. | 2% | 16% | 35% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - |
92 | RAFF Kaleb | 9% | 39% | 36% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
93 | DEWITT Sarah | 12% | 56% | 27% | 4% | - | - | - |
94 | FITZPATRICK Ryan | 4% | 51% | 43% | 3% | - | - | |
94 | PRICE Wade | 34% | 49% | 15% | 2% | - | - | |
96 | HAYES Zackery | 73% | 24% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
97 | ALVARENGA Darby | 24% | 47% | 24% | 5% | - | - | - |
98 | ALMUHAWAS Abdulmohsen | 62% | 36% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
99 | PUVALOWSKI Ryan | 35% | 48% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
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.