Boston, MA - Boston, MA, 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 | ANDREEV Arthur | - | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 41% | 20% |
2 | FEINBERG Gabriel M. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 42% | 28% |
3 | INSLER Gabriel C. | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 4% |
3 | WHELAN Thomas (Tony) | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 41% | 23% |
5 | JONES Simon A. | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 39% | 46% |
6 | MUNLIN Donovan | - | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 35% | 11% |
7 | DOLMETSCH Max | 1% | 9% | 25% | 33% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
8 | MARKHAM Jimmy | - | 3% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
9 | GIBSON Nowell L. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 29% | 40% | 19% |
10 | JONES Tristan Kai | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 35% | 56% |
11 | MAISEL Simon F. | - | - | 4% | 21% | 41% | 29% | 4% |
12 | YU Colin | - | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 40% | 34% |
13 | LEIGH David A. | - | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 37% | 17% |
14 | MCDERMOTT Brian | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
15 | INSLER Ethan C. | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 5% |
16 | GOHEL Dayus T. | - | 4% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
17 | YOSHIDA Stephen R. | - | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
18 | YUROVCHAK Andrew T. | - | - | 2% | 9% | 28% | 39% | 22% |
19 | LAVENSTEIN Kinley V. | - | 2% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% |
20 | MEHALL Michael | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 41% | 25% | 4% |
21 | DECKER Tristan H. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 36% | 14% |
22 | NIXON Christian A. | 2% | 13% | 31% | 33% | 17% | 4% | - |
23 | MACKIN Samuel | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% |
24 | MORSE Tyler | 2% | 12% | 28% | 32% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
25 | COLLYMORE Spencer T. | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 35% | 30% | 9% |
26 | KRONROD Tal | - | 3% | 16% | 39% | 31% | 9% | 1% |
27 | GARCIA-ROGERS Lucas H. | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 10% |
28 | THORDARSON Paul (Thor) J. | 2% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 9% | 2% | - |
29 | GARCIA-ROGERS Kyle J. | - | 10% | 31% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - |
30 | SIDDIQUI Humza K. | 4% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
31 | WU Joseph | 2% | 13% | 29% | 32% | 19% | 5% | 1% |
32 | PRIHODKO Max | 18% | 38% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
33 | JIN Alexander | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
34 | LANGTON Sawyer | - | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
35 | SUMLER Jeffery | - | 6% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
36 | ZAFFT Maximo S. | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 8% |
37 | ALFAIATE Lucas | - | 5% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
38 | CARVALHO Daniel S. | 2% | 13% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 5% | - |
39 | SCOTT George R. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
40 | OLIVERIUS Joseph W. | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 7% |
40 | MCDERMOTT James E. | 10% | 33% | 36% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
40 | FOLEY Kevin | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 9% | 1% |
43 | HU Jansen T. | 19% | 42% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
44 | BELLIVEAU Raven C. | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 13% | 2% |
45 | LAI Coby | 9% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
46 | SCHACK Samuel D. | 1% | 7% | 22% | 33% | 26% | 10% | 1% |
46 | HANRATTY Liam | 10% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
48 | SHAH Maximilian A. | - | 11% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - |
49 | BURKE Cyril | 2% | 24% | 39% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - |
50 | SITBON-TAYLOR Noe B. | - | 3% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
51 | KAIN Brad | 76% | 22% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
52 | KOLKER Gregory A. | 1% | 15% | 35% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - |
53 | ADAMIAN David | 4% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
53 | PAHLAVI Kamran | 14% | 36% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
55 | BURNHAM Charlie E. | 1% | 6% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
56 | SKIFFINGTON Sam | 20% | 40% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
57 | MATEI Daniel | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
58 | GERSEN Jacob | 20% | 44% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
59 | PAPAVASSILIOU Christos | 87% | 13% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
59 | HERBERT Harrison | 81% | 18% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
61 | HA Daniel | 31% | 42% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
62 | PAGE Duncan | 31% | 44% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
63 | CONNELLY Asa D. | 19% | 43% | 30% | 7% | 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.