Georgia Tech Campus Recreation Center - Atlanta, 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 | ||
2 | OÂCONNOR Riley | - | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 41% | 34% |
3 | YANG Alan H. | - | 1% | 5% | 18% | 34% | 32% | 11% |
3 | SARIKONDA Akhil | - | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 37% | 16% |
5 | ALLEY Everett | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 5% |
6 | WANG Bryan | - | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 35% | 14% |
7 | LENAHAN Conor J. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 32% | 39% | 16% |
8 | SU Rui | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 7% |
9 | WANG Aidan | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 6% | |
10 | DULISSE ALeX | - | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 37% | 16% |
11 | BASKIN Miles | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 41% | 36% |
12 | NWOKOLO Lotenne | - | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 46% | 17% |
13 | WOLF Christopher | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 31% | 11% | 1% |
14 | LIU Dylan Y. | 1% | 10% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 4% | |
15 | SUNDQUIST Matthew | - | 5% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
16 | RACHEL Dylan | - | 6% | 29% | 41% | 21% | 3% | |
17 | KRIEGER Jack | 2% | 15% | 37% | 34% | 12% | 1% | |
18 | PARK Judy | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 1% |
19 | TAM Ethan | - | 1% | 11% | 30% | 36% | 18% | 3% |
20 | JUNG Elliot | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 39% | 21% | 3% |
21 | PATIL Amulya | - | 5% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
22 | BETTS Jr Anthony P. | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 6% |
23 | SCHARF Ryan | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 12% | 2% |
24 | RAY William | - | 2% | 11% | 31% | 39% | 18% | |
25 | LEE Daehyeon | 2% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - |
26 | CORLEY Avery | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 5% |
27 | MISKELL William | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 6% |
28 | HAN Ethan | - | 8% | 28% | 39% | 21% | 4% | |
29 | ZHANG Eric | - | 5% | 19% | 35% | 31% | 10% | |
30 | COUSIN-HARDRICK Addison | - | 1% | 7% | 21% | 34% | 28% | 9% |
31 | DEMAREE Adam | 2% | 13% | 31% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
32 | PAVLINEC John (Jack) C. | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 36% | 17% | 2% |
33 | NGUYEN Audrey | - | - | 2% | 10% | 30% | 41% | 18% |
34 | CHANG Shane | - | 3% | 19% | 40% | 30% | 7% | |
35 | CAGLE Glenn | - | 5% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
36 | SNYDER Ari | - | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 37% | 14% |
37 | LIN Kason | - | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 12% | 2% |
38 | BIRT David (Dave) L. | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 6% |
39 | SANDERS Charlotte | 1% | 11% | 32% | 36% | 16% | 3% | - |
40 | ARUN Vikhyat | - | 1% | 9% | 33% | 42% | 15% | |
41 | GUDAPATI Rahul | - | - | 4% | 21% | 44% | 32% | |
42 | KERTESZ Stefan G. | - | 6% | 26% | 39% | 24% | 5% | |
43 | DAVIS Andrew | 1% | 11% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 5% | - |
44 | BERKOWITZ Jeffrey | - | - | 3% | 12% | 30% | 37% | 18% |
45 | LEE Sophie | 3% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 15% | 3% | |
46 | APLIN Canyon | - | 5% | 19% | 33% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
46 | ENGLISH Marli | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 4% |
48 | FULLERTON Joshua D. | - | - | 6% | 27% | 43% | 24% | |
49 | BERNSTEIN Matt B. | - | - | 4% | 18% | 41% | 37% | |
50 | CHRONISTER Charles | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 6% |
51 | WALKER Luke | 1% | 5% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 2% |
52 | CAI Catelynn | 2% | 12% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 5% | - |
52 | HAWKINS Sophia | - | 6% | 24% | 39% | 26% | 6% | |
54 | FREEMAN Zachary | 1% | 11% | 37% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - |
55 | KOKA Ashwin | 1% | 8% | 28% | 38% | 20% | 4% | - |
56 | ARNOLD Benjamin | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 3% |
57 | WANG Zarina | 13% | 33% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
58 | HALL Leandra M. | 33% | 42% | 20% | 4% | - | - | |
59 | GEISSLER Maximilian | 1% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 4% | |
60 | HIGGINBOTHAM Sydney C. | - | 4% | 35% | 41% | 17% | 2% | |
61 | KEMLE Brian | 5% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 11% | 2% | - |
61 | JACKSON Viktoria | 10% | 31% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
63 | PAK Joel | - | 5% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
64 | MEYERS Jory B. | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 6% |
65 | ORTHOUS Lucas | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 35% | 11% | |
66 | LE Kevin | - | 5% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
67 | MIHILL Margaret | 12% | 33% | 33% | 16% | 4% | 1% | - |
68 | SCHARF David | 12% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 3% | - | |
69 | MCCREARY Madeleine | 29% | 41% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
70 | SOTTILE Cole | 3% | 17% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
71 | BENITEZ Abner | 1% | 8% | 25% | 36% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
72 | PIETILA Matthew | 6% | 29% | 40% | 20% | 4% | - | |
73 | DEFEE Thomas | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
74 | ILENRE Roni | 5% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
75 | LEVERETT-HALL Corrina | 3% | 17% | 37% | 32% | 11% | 1% | - |
76 | DECKER Carlton | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 6% | |
76 | REALINA Reinart | 3% | 21% | 38% | 28% | 9% | 1% | |
78 | JEROME Jovenson | 2% | 29% | 42% | 22% | 5% | - | |
79 | SNYDER Kathryn | 23% | 61% | 15% | 1% | - | - | |
80 | ALMANZA Julio | 36% | 41% | 19% | 4% | - | - | |
82 | MA Terry | 36% | 41% | 18% | 4% | 1% | - | - |
83 | WILLIAMS Eli | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 4% | - |
84 | TRACY Samarra | 1% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
85 | RILEY Grace | 12% | 34% | 34% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
86 | HARTIG Larisa | 35% | 47% | 16% | 2% | - | - | - |
87 | ROBERTS Quinton | 23% | 43% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
88 | WILFORD Madigan | 18% | 39% | 30% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
89 | FRANKLIN Amari | 1% | 10% | 34% | 37% | 16% | 3% | - |
90 | LIU Nick | 26% | 45% | 24% | 5% | - | - | - |
91 | CULLEN Reilly | 11% | 41% | 35% | 12% | 2% | - | |
92 | DIOP Ismael | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - |
93 | FRAGER Soleil | 2% | 16% | 40% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - |
94 | ECKARD Melody | 20% | 38% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
95 | LIU Kevin | 4% | 22% | 37% | 26% | 9% | 2% | - |
96 | ROBINSON Blake | 15% | 36% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
97 | SHEFFIELD Lydia | 47% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - | - | |
98 | LIN Samantha | 5% | 28% | 41% | 21% | 5% | - | - |
99 | SIGALAS Noah | 2% | 15% | 35% | 34% | 13% | 1% | |
99 | COLLINS Kayla | 3% | 16% | 32% | 30% | 15% | 4% | - |
101 | ALVARENGA Darby | 52% | 38% | 9% | 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.