Catonsville, MD - Catonsville, MD, 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 | CAMPBELL Daniel R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 45% |
2 | LEE Timothy S. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 29% | 6% |
3 | SNYDER IV William B. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 6% |
3 | YI Kyle | 100% | 100% | 93% | 70% | 33% | 8% | 1% |
5 | HOFFMANN Christopher J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 12% |
6 | KIM Derek D. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 19% | 3% |
7 | SCHWARTZ Elliott | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 49% | 16% | 2% |
8 | KIM Ethan S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 47% | 13% |
9 | SIELING Eric A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 38% | 9% |
10 | LEE Woosuk | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 34% |
11 | YOON Nathan | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 24% | 5% | - |
12 | DAVIS Jeffrey H. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 65% | 31% | 7% |
13 | ADOLPHE Benjamin S. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 21% | 4% |
14 | ECKERT Kevin M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 32% | 7% |
15 | CHEN Wesley | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 24% | 5% | - |
16 | TAE William G. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 67% | 33% | 7% |
17 | HITCHCOCK David | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 46% | 12% |
18 | TIRRELL Justin J. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 16% | 2% |
19 | LIU John | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 61% | 21% |
20 | DOAN Joseph M. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 17% | 2% |
21 | YOON Sungho | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 46% | 15% | 2% |
22 | RINEHART Conner M. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 54% | 20% | 3% |
23 | KIM Dohyun D. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 29% | 6% | - |
24 | TRAIN TIMOTHY | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 69% | 35% | 8% |
25 | BOWERMAN Lucas A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 48% | 14% |
26 | PLUMER Jack E. | 100% | 98% | 88% | 61% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
27 | SIMMS David | 100% | 96% | 78% | 46% | 16% | 3% | - |
28 | TRAN Dai Long | 100% | 95% | 73% | 40% | 14% | 3% | - |
29 | ADLER Ethan M. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 50% | 19% | 3% |
30 | CHAWLA Armaan | 100% | 92% | 64% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - |
31 | MITCHUM Drew J | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 20% | 4% | - |
32 | SALISBURY Cary | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 23% | 5% | - |
33 | WALTHER Bryan M. | 100% | 94% | 72% | 37% | 11% | 2% | - |
34 | SOZANSKI Kyle S. | 100% | 95% | 74% | 41% | 14% | 3% | - |
35 | PICCUS Isaac S. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 46% | 16% | 2% |
36 | EVANS Allen L. | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 27% | 6% | - |
37 | NOMANI Shibli D. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 26% | 5% | - |
38 | DESAMOURS Georges H. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 25% | 4% |
39 | BENKLER Yuriy | 100% | 95% | 71% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - |
40 | MARKAS Justin W. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 16% | 2% |
41 | RODRIGUEZ Ryan | 100% | 84% | 48% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
42 | SIMMS Daniel | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 16% | 2% | - |
43 | ROY NATHAN J | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 41% | 13% | 2% |
44 | STEVENS Daniel | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 39% | 11% | 1% |
45 | LI Benjamin | 100% | 71% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
46 | DUDLEY Logan M. | 100% | 93% | 67% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
47 | KIM Brad K. | 100% | 88% | 51% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
48 | ERDEK Michael | 100% | 98% | 88% | 61% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
49 | CAMMETT William J. | 100% | 90% | 60% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
50 | ZHENG Yuanlong (Bill) | 100% | 88% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
51 | DE KLERK Ryan | 100% | 84% | 43% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
52 | SNYDER John W. | 100% | 93% | 67% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - |
53 | HODGE Jaydon L. | 100% | 64% | 21% | 3% | - | - | - |
54 | BRAVO Drake X. | 100% | 92% | 65% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - |
55 | SHETE Smit | 100% | 87% | 48% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
55 | HERMAN Nathan | 100% | 89% | 55% | 19% | 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.