Example report · Level 8
A Level 8 with 507 matches on the map they are worst at
The largest sample in this set, and the clearest demonstration that a map pool is a decision, not a fact about you.
This is a real FACEIT profile, anonymised. Every statistic below is exactly as the public FACEIT API returned it on 2026-08-13 — nothing is illustrative and nothing is rounded for effect. The account name, avatar and match ids are replaced, because there is no reason to attach a stranger's name to a permanent page analysing their play.
The report underneath is the same report you get for your own profile, produced by the same engine. It is frozen rather than live so the analysis written around it keeps describing what the page shows.
1,602 matches. 30,560 rounds. This is a profile with enough history that nothing in it is variance, which makes it the most useful example here: every number below is a measurement, not a sample.
The player sits at 1,661 ELO, 90 short of Level 9, with a 48% lifetime win rate. ADR 75.4, K/D 1.01, 48% headshots. Solidly Level 8 in every mechanical respect.
The report’s top finding, at severity 68, is that three of the maps they queue lose.
What the report found
| Map | Matches | Win rate |
|---|---|---|
| Ancient | 209 | 52% |
| Nuke | 65 | 51% |
| Dust2 | 373 | 50% |
| Anubis | 233 | 47% |
| Mirage | 507 | 46% |
| Inferno | 129 | 45% |
Look at the row with the largest sample. Mirage: 507 matches, 46%. Nearly a third of their entire career is played on the map they are second-worst at, and 507 matches is far past the point where that could be a bad run.
Against Ancient at 52% over 209 matches, the spread is six points of win rate between two maps played by the same person in the same period.
Six points of win rate is the entire gap
Their gap to Level 9 is 90 ELO. At their current 48% they never get there — a sub-50% win rate does not climb. At 55% it is 36 matches.
They do not need to become a better player to reach 55%. They need to stop playing Mirage. If the maps they queued matched the maps they win on, their aggregate win rate moves toward the 50–52% end of their own range, and the gap closes on its own.
This is the least glamorous finding the engine produces and frequently the largest. Nothing about it requires improvement. It requires a different pick/ban.
Why “just get better at Mirage” is the wrong answer
It is the instinctive response, and over 507 matches it has been tested. They have played Mirage more than any other map and it is still their second-worst. Whatever the mismatch is — the angles, the default pacing, the utility discipline that map demands — 507 attempts have not resolved it.
Depth beats coverage below Level 10. Four maps known properly wins more than seven known vaguely, because every map you half-know is a coin flip you volunteered for. There is more on the reasoning in the map pool guide.
What else is on the card
Only two other findings, which is unusual — most reports in this set produce four.
- Role, severity 56. 48.1% opening duel win rate against 51% median, while taking 22.4% of the team’s opening duels against a 20.4% median. The same shape as the Level 6 role profile, at a fraction of the magnitude.
- Economy, severity 30, unmeasured. It is on every report as a rule rather than a finding, because FACEIT publishes no per-round buy data. The report labels it as advisory instead of pretending otherwise.
No session leak at all: their sessions are short and their history shows no pattern of queueing through losses. That is a real result — the absence of a card is information too.
A note on the dead maps
Their history also contains Vertigo at 59% over 32 matches, Train at 54% over 24, and Overpass at 47% over 19. All three are out of the Active Duty pool. A 59% win rate on a map that no longer exists is not an asset, and the report marks them dead rather than averaging them into anything.
The report, in full
Everything below this line is generated. It is what the site returns for any profile you paste into it.