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.

November NAC

Y-14 Men's Foil

Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 2:00 PM

Fort Worth Convention Center - Fort Worth, TX, 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 BUDOVSKYI Borys - - 1% 6% 32% 61%
2 QIAN Jason H. - - - 1% 8% 41% 50%
3 WU Alber Y. - - 1% 5% 20% 41% 34%
3 LIU Ethan - 3% 18% 43% 35%
5 DERRICK Blake - - 1% 5% 22% 43% 29%
6 CHOI Ethan - - 1% 7% 27% 43% 23%
7 LIU Derek - - - 1% 8% 36% 55%
8 NGUYEN Martin - - - 4% 20% 42% 34%
9 XU Jia Bao (Bowen) - - - 1% 14% 86%
10 LING Eddie - - - 3% 18% 43% 36%
11 CORTRIGHT Skipper - - - 2% 13% 41% 44%
12 LEE Brendan - - - 5% 22% 43% 30%
13 FUKUDA Diego - - 1% 8% 28% 42% 21%
14 CHENG Ethan - 3% 18% 38% 31% 9%
15 GRIFFITH MCALLISTER Thomas - 1% 8% 27% 39% 21% 4%
16 RAJ Jay - - 4% 20% 37% 30% 9%
17 NICOLETTI Luca - - - 2% 16% 43% 39%
18 LO Preston - 1% 7% 25% 42% 24%
19 PARK Rion 1% 7% 26% 42% 24%
20 WONG Jackson - - 2% 11% 32% 39% 16%
21 CHOI Ethan - 2% 17% 35% 31% 13% 2%
22 LI Aaron - - 1% 10% 31% 41% 17%
23 SUAREZ Adrian - 2% 15% 35% 33% 13% 2%
24 ROZALSKI Eli - - 6% 22% 37% 27% 7%
25 TAN Aidan 2% 13% 34% 37% 14%
26 KIM Daniel Y. 1% 7% 24% 39% 26% 4%
27 WONG Evan - 2% 16% 37% 32% 11% 1%
28 LI Bradley - - 2% 12% 34% 38% 14%
29 PARRISH Evan - - 4% 20% 38% 30% 8%
30 TANG Alexander L. - 1% 5% 17% 34% 33% 11%
31 XU Andy P. - - 1% 10% 29% 40% 20%
32 DOELL Ethan - - 4% 19% 36% 31% 10%
33 YOON Junhyeok - 2% 17% 36% 31% 12% 2%
34 MARTIN Darius 2% 13% 31% 34% 18% 3%
35 YAO Bradley - - 1% 10% 34% 41% 14%
36 YU Jason - - - 4% 22% 51% 23%
37 LI Toby - 1% 9% 28% 38% 21% 4%
38 YI William - - 3% 16% 37% 34% 10%
39 MAO Lucas - 2% 10% 31% 40% 17%
40 BAE Eugene - 1% 5% 19% 37% 32% 7%
41 SENIC Lucas - - - 3% 18% 43% 36%
42 LU Kevin - 1% 9% 25% 36% 24% 5%
43 WANDJI Noah 1% 9% 25% 34% 23% 7% 1%
44 CHEN Ethan - 4% 18% 35% 31% 11%
45 JIMENEZ Naveen 14% 39% 34% 12% 1%
46 MAZAHERI Fletcher 1% 6% 22% 35% 26% 8% 1%
47 ZHAO Adam - - 4% 19% 38% 30% 7%
48 CHANG Jonathan - 1% 9% 29% 38% 20% 3%
49 CHEN Hanson - - 3% 15% 35% 36% 10%
50 LEE Christopher T. - - 1% 6% 25% 43% 26%
51 MORROW Brenden - - 1% 7% 24% 42% 27%
52 PALMA Nathan Anthony - 2% 11% 31% 36% 17% 3%
53 ZENG Rick - 4% 21% 37% 27% 9% 1%
53 RAUTUREAU Arthur 1% 7% 23% 34% 26% 9% 1%
55 SHENG Dalton - - 4% 18% 38% 31% 8%
56 ALLEN Henry G. - - 3% 14% 33% 36% 14%
57 RODRIGUEZ Tyler - 6% 27% 44% 22% 1%
58 GHEDINI Luca - 2% 16% 36% 34% 11%
59 RAUTUREAU Hugo 3% 20% 40% 30% 7%
60 PARKER Isaiah 1% 8% 23% 34% 25% 8% 1%
61 BERNARD Cohen - 11% 35% 36% 15% 3% -
62 CHOI Benjamin 1% 10% 30% 36% 19% 4% -
63 SHANNON Jack 11% 34% 36% 16% 3% -
64 TSAY Jordan R. 2% 15% 41% 34% 9% -
65 CHENG Logan - 3% 21% 44% 30% 2%
66 ARAVINDAKSHA Ayaan - 6% 26% 40% 23% 4% -
67 ZHANG Aaron - 3% 18% 37% 32% 10%
68 SISINNI Leonardo 3% 19% 37% 30% 10% 1%
69 ZHANG Jacob - 1% 12% 32% 35% 17% 3%
70 CHAN Joseph 1% 7% 25% 36% 24% 7% 1%
71 ZHOU Ryan - 7% 27% 37% 22% 5% -
72 LI Richard - 4% 21% 38% 28% 8% 1%
73 DESERANNO Leander - 1% 12% 33% 35% 16% 3%
74 GUTH Joseph - 3% 19% 38% 30% 9%
75 CHUANG Oscar 10% 33% 37% 17% 3%
76 NISHIHIRA Tyler 3% 34% 41% 18% 3% - -
77 LIU Josh 1% 8% 26% 36% 23% 6% -
78 TSOI Spencer 19% 41% 30% 9% 1% -
79 CHANG Eric Jonathan - 4% 20% 42% 27% 7% 1%
80 CHANG Jeremy 2% 17% 36% 31% 12% 2% -
81 CHEN Kyle P. - - 3% 20% 42% 29% 6%
82 WONG Jacob W. 2% 15% 38% 32% 12% 2% -
83 MASSIMINO Andrew - 7% 28% 39% 21% 5% -
84 LIU Yinhong 5% 20% 34% 28% 11% 2% -
85 FOY Grant 16% 46% 30% 7% 1% -
86 CHUN Dashel 2% 13% 30% 34% 17% 4% -
87 PARK William 5% 24% 38% 25% 7% 1% -
88 FEDELI Francesco 15% 38% 33% 12% 2%
89 CHONG Tristan 17% 37% 31% 12% 2% -
90 PARK Steve (Sangmin) 3% 17% 36% 32% 11% 1%
91 LE Jacob H. 1% 7% 24% 36% 25% 7%
92 SHEVCHENKO Kostiantyn 1% 7% 24% 36% 25% 7%
93 VADEN Oliver 3% 20% 40% 30% 7%
94 BAI Austin 4% 30% 40% 21% 5% - -
95 SIMONOV Timofey - 1% 7% 25% 39% 24% 5%
96 ZHONG Maxwell 1% 8% 28% 38% 20% 5% -
97 GERRISH William 1% 11% 31% 36% 17% 3%
98 KNIBBE Nathan 5% 28% 39% 22% 5% 1% -
99 MCKEE Calvin 17% 39% 31% 11% 2% - -
100 DHOKTE Neev 3% 17% 34% 31% 13% 2% -
101 FOGELSON Hugh 7% 26% 36% 23% 7% 1% -
102 DENG David 5% 22% 35% 26% 10% 2% -
103 CHEN Anson 14% 34% 33% 15% 4% - -
103 SUNDSTROM Wren 31% 42% 21% 5% 1% - -
105 CHO Xzander - 12% 36% 35% 14% 3% -
105 FRASER Rhys 14% 56% 25% 5% - - -
107 LEE Jayden J. 1% 10% 32% 36% 17% 4% -
108 KIM Gene - 28% 42% 23% 6% 1% -
109 TANG Royce 7% 26% 35% 23% 7% 1% -
110 PLUMMER Waylon - 8% 32% 39% 18% 3% -
110 XIE Yimo 7% 41% 37% 13% 2% - -
112 HUANG Chenghan 6% 28% 43% 20% 3% - -
113 LAO Kevin 21% 40% 29% 9% 1% -
114 YANG Charles 13% 37% 35% 13% 2%
114 ELKOUSY Zain al Din 4% 20% 37% 30% 9% 1%
117 KOE Beckett 15% 46% 30% 8% 1% -
118 BI Ryan 1% 7% 21% 33% 27% 10% 1%
119 ZHANG Lucas - 5% 25% 41% 24% 4% -
120 PARK David 6% 24% 35% 24% 8% 1% -
121 ABRAMKIN Tim 50% 38% 11% 1% - - -
122 ZHAO Nathan - 1% 10% 29% 37% 19% 3%
123 ONIK Ari N. 20% 41% 29% 9% 1% -
124 PE Noah 12% 43% 34% 10% 1% - -
125 ZHOU Shawn 27% 43% 24% 5% -
126 GE Felix Fei 1% 9% 28% 36% 21% 5% -
127 HARWOOD Gray 53% 38% 8% 1% - -
128 ZHENG GREGORY 22% 40% 28% 9% 1% - -
129 PAN Ethan 11% 35% 35% 16% 3% - -
130 LIANG Ethan 53% 39% 7% 1% - - -
131 LATORRE Leonardo 14% 34% 32% 15% 3% - -
132 FERNANDEZ Rumi 51% 40% 9% 1% - -
133 FANG Haoyu 1% 13% 39% 34% 12% 2% -
134 KRZYWON Dylan 25% 46% 24% 4% - - -
135 MIRON Ioachim 22% 42% 27% 7% 1% - -
136 YUE Jackson 2% 37% 41% 17% 3% - -
137 POPOKH Luca 28% 46% 22% 3% - - -
138 CHENG Mason 55% 37% 8% 1% - - -
139 MARISI Gabriel 12% 33% 34% 17% 4% -
140 ZHANG Andrew 22% 52% 22% 4% - - -
140 CHUN Zachary 71% 27% 2% - - - -
143 SUN Neo 85% 14% 1% - - - -
145 GOVSHTEYN Avi 90% 9% - - - - -
145 LAM Kirin 73% 25% 2% - - - -
147 KOLACKI Gabriel 71% 25% 3% - - - -
147 CHUN Alexander 98% 2% - - - - -

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.