The future of US Fencing is at stake!

For transparency, fairness, and athlete support, VOTE NOW for:
(1) Maria Panyi, (2) Andrey Geva, (3) Igor Chirashnya, and (4) Sue Moheb.

January NAC

Junior Men's Saber

Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 2:00 PM

San Jose, CA, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 MOON Sean H. - - - 2% 13% 39% 45%
2 WILLIAMS Nolan E. - - 1% 7% 25% 41% 25%
3 JEFFORDS Alexander - - 3% 17% 36% 33% 10%
3 MORRILL William - - 1% 6% 22% 41% 30%
5 HARLEY Colby A. - - - - 4% 27% 69%
6 HU William - - 2% 11% 30% 39% 18%
7 JI Cody Walter - - 1% 8% 26% 40% 25%
8 BERMAN Luca 1% 6% 22% 36% 27% 8% 1%
9 YANG Ziyi 1% 6% 24% 38% 25% 5%
10 LO Joshua H. - - 1% 8% 27% 41% 22%
11 DINU Nicholas D. - - - 6% 28% 44% 22%
12 LAI Adam J. - - 1% 7% 25% 41% 25%
13 LINSKY Matthew - - 2% 11% 30% 38% 19%
14 BASALYGA Jeffrey - - 2% 12% 31% 37% 16%
15 DESROSIERS Olivier - - 3% 18% 42% 36%
16 REN James 8% 28% 36% 22% 6% 1% -
17 PAN Jack (Yuxiang) - - 3% 14% 33% 36% 14%
18 TONG Qilin - - 4% 19% 37% 31% 8%
19 NAZLYMOV Andrei 2% 13% 30% 33% 18% 5% < 1%
20 WOOD Elden S. - - - 4% 22% 44% 29%
21 HAMMERSTROM Jared - - 2% 12% 31% 39% 16%
22 LIANG Connor - - 1% 7% 25% 43% 25%
23 LILOV Neil - - 1% 7% 26% 42% 24%
24 TRAVERS Samir T. - - 1% 8% 28% 41% 21%
25 BARBER William S. - - 4% 20% 40% 29% 7%
26 PAN Jerry - 1% 6% 23% 39% 27% 4%
27 JOHNSON Langston C. - 2% 11% 29% 36% 19% 2%
28 SILBERZWEIG Jordan H. - - 1% 5% 21% 42% 31%
29 WIND Nicky E. - 1% 9% 28% 37% 21% 4%
30 TANN Justin - 2% 10% 27% 35% 21% 5%
31 CHON Taylor A. - 1% 9% 28% 37% 21% 4%
32 DENNER Lysander H. - - 4% 20% 38% 30% 8%
33 HONG Vincent Q. - 1% 8% 26% 37% 23% 4%
34 HARVEY Nicholas J. - - 2% 10% 30% 40% 19%
35 GUAY-TARDIF Xavier - - 1% 9% 28% 42% 20%
36 BERGER Oliver - 1% 6% 21% 36% 28% 8%
37 SOHN Kevin J. - - 1% 8% 27% 42% 23%
38 STATEN-LUSTY Silas J. - - 4% 16% 34% 34% 12%
39 BARRETO Elliott - - 3% 14% 33% 36% 13%
40 NOBLE Daniel - 1% 5% 18% 34% 31% 11%
41 SO Hananiah - 2% 10% 29% 39% 19%
42 SMITH David C. - 3% 15% 34% 35% 13%
43 DHINGRA Gian K. - - 5% 22% 42% 31%
44 ANGLADE Junior Ronald (RJ) E. - - - - 5% 31% 63%
45 KUSHKOV Simon O. - - - 4% 24% 45% 26%
46 DODRILL Grant - - 2% 12% 32% 38% 16%
47 ZIELINSKI Nicholaus M. - - 3% 21% 42% 28% 6%
48 RIVERA Inigo Franco - - 6% 25% 38% 24% 5%
48 MORRILL Justin - 3% 14% 31% 33% 16% 3%
50 TONG ZACHARY 1% 7% 23% 34% 25% 9% 1%
51 WU Mengke - - 3% 16% 36% 34% 11%
52 MARGULIES William 1% 9% 27% 36% 21% 6% -
53 FRIAS SAUL F. - 1% 7% 26% 39% 23% 5%
54 CZYZEWSKI Konrad R. - 1% 13% 40% 34% 10% 1%
55 BULL Anderson - 7% 25% 35% 24% 8% 1%
56 LUEBBE Macklan C 2% 13% 31% 34% 17% 3%
57 CALLAHAN Jaden P. - - 1% 8% 28% 42% 21%
58 HUSSAIN Faaris - - - 3% 17% 41% 39%
59 KOTOV Leonid 1% 9% 28% 35% 21% 6% 1%
60 DU Gavin J. - 4% 18% 34% 30% 12% 1%
61 XUE ALEXANDER 1% 11% 29% 34% 19% 5% 1%
62 FERNANDEZ Rodrigo - - 1% 10% 33% 40% 16%
63 STONE Esmond A. 1% 17% 39% 31% 11% 2% -
64 KAYDALIN Artyom - 1% 12% 32% 35% 17% 3%
65 BRAR Sanjeet - 4% 18% 33% 29% 12% 2%
66 RAI Avin - - 3% 16% 35% 34% 12%
67 HAN Daniel Y. - 2% 12% 30% 35% 18% 3%
68 BREIER Satchel E. - 1% 5% 20% 35% 30% 9%
68 YANG Richard 1% 7% 23% 35% 26% 9% 1%
70 RAJA Arnav - 2% 11% 29% 35% 19% 4%
71 GREENBAUM Ian L. 1% 8% 27% 35% 22% 6% 1%
72 SAKHAMURI Surya - 1% 5% 18% 36% 32% 9%
73 KIM Andrew H. 1% 5% 20% 34% 28% 10% 1%
74 LE Hayden - 4% 18% 34% 30% 12% 2%
75 JIANG Anthony - 3% 18% 37% 33% 9%
76 CHIN Matthew W. - 2% 12% 28% 34% 20% 5%
77 LIMB Matthew G. - - - 3% 15% 40% 43%
78 CHANG Colin S. 2% 14% 34% 33% 14% 3% -
79 CHOI HYUNSEOK - - - 4% 19% 43% 34%
79 JINICH Ilan R. - 6% 25% 38% 23% 6% 1%
81 KIM Shaun M. - 5% 24% 37% 25% 8% 1%
82 FREYRE DE ANDRADE Elian R. - 3% 23% 42% 26% 6% -
83 YUN Jake - 2% 13% 31% 34% 17% 3%
84 HOLZ William A. - 15% 43% 31% 9% 1% -
84 HOLZ Daniel - 4% 18% 34% 31% 11% 1%
86 AVAKIAN Alec - 3% 15% 32% 33% 15% 2%
87 LEE Justin 1% 10% 29% 35% 20% 5% -
88 KOGAN Benjamin 1% 8% 25% 35% 23% 7% 1%
89 REN Richard 2% 12% 31% 34% 17% 4% -
90 LEE Aydan J. 2% 13% 31% 34% 17% 4% -
91 DENNER Maximilian P. 1% 8% 28% 38% 22% 4%
92 CHAN Matthew 1% 8% 28% 38% 21% 4%
93 EICHHORN Lukas H. 2% 11% 29% 34% 19% 5% -
94 YOU Jaden 7% 32% 38% 18% 4% - -
95 KIBBAR Tomer L. - 4% 18% 33% 30% 13% 2%
96 MAKLIN Edward P. 1% 9% 27% 35% 22% 5% -
97 BEITEL Noah 4% 28% 40% 22% 5% 1% -
98 NIL Michael Y. - 3% 16% 32% 32% 15% 3%
98 SHIRPAL Oleksandr - 3% 16% 34% 32% 13% 2%
100 WONG Ryan 2% 14% 33% 33% 15% 3% -
101 BENAVRAM Lev C. - - 2% 10% 29% 39% 19%
101 BARBER Brendan 1% 7% 23% 34% 25% 8% 1%
103 QIU Nathan - 3% 15% 33% 33% 14% 2%
104 REYES Xavier M. - 3% 15% 31% 32% 16% 3%
105 WANG Robert - 9% 38% 37% 14% 2% -
106 LIU kelly - 3% 14% 30% 33% 17% 3%
107 XU William - 3% 14% 30% 33% 17% 3%
108 BARTOLO Domenic V. - 1% 9% 27% 36% 22% 5%
108 PAN Andrew W. 1% 11% 30% 35% 18% 4% -
110 DELARUE NELSON Y. 5% 23% 36% 25% 9% 1% -
111 POPE Nico 1% 10% 27% 34% 21% 6% 1%
112 ZUBATIY Samuel - 6% 24% 38% 24% 7% 1%
113 ROSBERG Dashiell W. - 6% 23% 36% 26% 8% 1%
114 GHAYALOD ansh 3% 17% 36% 31% 11% 1%
115 HO Kaden M. 1% 8% 27% 38% 22% 4%
116 LASORSA Matthew - 2% 14% 33% 34% 15% 3%
117 LO Alexander 1% 43% 41% 13% 2% - -
118 ERMAKOV Lev - 2% 12% 30% 35% 18% 3%
119 XU Luke - 7% 24% 35% 24% 8% 1%
120 LUO George F. 1% 10% 28% 35% 20% 5% -
120 LINDHOLM Oliver S. 5% 22% 35% 26% 10% 2% -
122 CHEONG Heonjae 1% 8% 26% 36% 22% 6% 1%
123 COVINGTON Max G. 1% 9% 26% 34% 22% 6% 1%
124 WOODWARD Connor 1% 7% 24% 36% 24% 7% 1%
125 BUKOWSKI Bronson 1% 9% 26% 34% 22% 6% 1%
126 CHTERENTAL Alex 22% 39% 27% 9% 2% - -
127 MAGUIRE Matthew V. 1% 6% 21% 34% 26% 10% 1%
128 ATANASSOV Vasil V. 6% 25% 37% 24% 7% 1%
129 CHEN Evan P. 2% 15% 37% 32% 12% 2% -
130 LIN Daniel 10% 31% 36% 19% 5% -
131 SANDERS Samuel B. 20% 42% 29% 9% 1% -
132 ALTIRS Alexander 1% 7% 22% 34% 26% 9% 1%
133 GRATHWOL-SEAR Oliver 12% 36% 34% 15% 3% - -
133 LIM William J. 11% 31% 34% 18% 5% 1% -
135 GHENEA George Philipe 5% 21% 34% 27% 11% 2% -
136 WANG Nicolas 2% 25% 40% 25% 7% 1% -
137 BAUER Hank E. 1% 42% 40% 15% 3% - -
138 YANG Dylan 10% 32% 35% 18% 4% - -
139 SCHERER Max 3% 22% 47% 23% 4% - -
140 RAJAN Advait 9% 36% 36% 16% 3% - -
141 VO Minh Q. 12% 34% 34% 16% 4% - -
142 BERRIO Carter E. 1% 7% 22% 35% 26% 8% 1%
142 JEFFRY Nicholas B. 2% 14% 32% 32% 16% 3% -
144 KROON Lucas 8% 33% 37% 18% 4% - -
145 NG Jeremiah 2% 20% 39% 29% 9% 1% -
146 LI Yiwei 24% 40% 26% 8% 1% - -
147 LO Konnor 12% 33% 33% 16% 4% - -
148 LICHT Aaron H. 15% 36% 33% 14% 3% -
149 SOUTHWORTH Nathaniel 31% 43% 21% 4% - -
150 XU Andrew 8% 29% 36% 21% 6% 1% -
151 ZHOU Miles 1% 14% 32% 32% 16% 4% -
152 GLOZMAN Justin 4% 25% 37% 24% 8% 1% -
153 HOUTZ Jackson - 6% 23% 37% 26% 8% 1%
154 BARRA Emiliano 2% 19% 37% 29% 11% 2% -
155 RHEE Ethan N. 15% 36% 32% 13% 3% - -
155 HONG Steven 3% 20% 36% 29% 11% 2% -
157 YANG Duncan (BoTong) 2% 13% 30% 32% 17% 4% -
158 JAIN Aniket 65% 29% 5% - - - -
159 CHAN Aidan 1% 52% 37% 9% 1% - -
160 KUSHKOV Veniamin 2% 19% 36% 29% 12% 2% -
161 GAO Albert 5% 22% 35% 26% 10% 2% -
162 MURZYN III CJ 1% 11% 33% 35% 17% 4% -
163 BARBUTA Andrew 48% 39% 11% 1% - - -
164 TAO Jeffrey 15% 36% 32% 14% 3% - -
165 KORINTH Alexander J. 27% 51% 20% 2% - - -
166 GOLDIN Lucca 42% 45% 12% 1% - - -
167 CAISSE Simon B. 18% 38% 30% 12% 2% - -
168 LU Caleb Q. 17% 42% 30% 9% 1% -
169 REED Samuel J. 24% 41% 26% 8% 1% - -
170 CENTENO Zachary 80% 18% 1% - - - -
171 MCCARTHY Gabriel 4% 20% 35% 28% 11% 2% -
172 ZHANG Yankun 56% 35% 8% 1% - - -
172 KIM Evan 92% 7% - - - - -
174 LEITH Jack 23% 43% 26% 7% 1% -
175 HAO Anwen 19% 38% 30% 11% 2% - -
176 GAO Marcus 67% 29% 4% - - - -
176 MIYASAKI-CASTRO Masanobu 25% 41% 25% 8% 1% - -
176 KIM Ryan 52% 37% 10% 1% - - -
179 RYBKIN Jacob 46% 40% 12% 2% - - -
180 PI Alexander 30% 43% 21% 5% 1% - -
181 HERRERA aragon 82% 17% 1% - - - -
181 KANG Evan 61% 32% 7% 1% - - -
183 CHUA Jared 97% 3% - - - - -
184 LI Seth 96% 4% - - - - -
184 MATALIA Soham 98% 2% - - - - -
186 WU Maximus 26% 41% 24% 7% 1% - -

Explanation

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.