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.

Take Action

Cobra Challenge SYC/RCC/Y8

Y-14 Men's Foil

Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:00 AM

Meadowlands Expo Center - Secaucus, NJ, 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 LEE Brendan - - - - 4% 26% 70%
2 XU Andy P. - - - 2% 13% 41% 44%
3 SENIC Lucas - - - 2% 12% 39% 47%
3 CHEN Hanson - - 4% 21% 44% 31%
5 YAO Bradley - - 1% 12% 41% 46%
6 ALLEN Henry G. - - - 2% 15% 45% 39%
6 LI Bradley - - - 2% 17% 46% 34%
8 TANG Alexander L. - - 2% 10% 31% 40% 16%
9 TAN Aidan - - - 2% 12% 38% 49%
10 WANG Rory - - 1% 9% 31% 44% 16%
11 SHENG Dalton - - - 3% 21% 48% 28%
12 ZHONG Maxwell - 1% 9% 31% 38% 18% 2%
13 ZHAO Adam - - - 1% 8% 38% 54%
14 PARRISH Evan - - - 2% 13% 42% 42%
15 GHEDINI Luca - - - 4% 20% 44% 33%
16 PARK Rion - - - 2% 12% 40% 46%
17 WONG Jackson - - - 1% 9% 37% 53%
18 GRIFFITH MCALLISTER thomas - - 1% 6% 22% 42% 30%
19 MAZAHERI Fletcher 1% 10% 28% 36% 20% 4%
20 CHENG Ethan - - - 3% 17% 42% 37%
21 SIMONOV Timofey - - 1% 7% 28% 44% 21%
21 GULCHIN Mark (Yerma) - - 1% 6% 22% 42% 29%
23 GERRISH William - - 5% 22% 41% 27% 6%
24 DOELL Ethan - - - 4% 18% 42% 36%
25 ZENG Rick - - 2% 13% 34% 38% 13%
26 HUA Aaron - 4% 17% 33% 31% 14% 2%
27 LIU Derek - - - - 5% 32% 63%
28 CHEN Kyle P. - - - 5% 25% 48% 22%
29 HAN Alexander - 3% 15% 33% 33% 14% 2%
30 JIMENEZ Naveen - 1% 11% 34% 39% 14%
31 PARK William - 1% 5% 22% 42% 26% 4%
32 CHANG Jonathan - - 2% 11% 33% 41% 13%
33 CHEN Ethan - - - 4% 17% 41% 38%
34 GE Felix Fei - 3% 16% 34% 33% 13% 1%
35 QIAN Zekai 3% 17% 34% 30% 13% 3% -
36 BAI Austin - 3% 16% 34% 33% 12% 1%
36 LU Jingyi - 1% 8% 25% 37% 24% 5%
38 HE Kyle - 2% 12% 35% 40% 12%
39 TWEMLOW Sacha - - 3% 17% 39% 33% 8%
40 ZHANG Lucas - 1% 11% 30% 36% 18% 3%
41 TANG Terry - 2% 10% 28% 36% 20% 3%
42 MO Ethan - 1% 11% 34% 39% 14% 2%
43 LU Alex - - 3% 14% 36% 38% 9%
44 CHO Xzander - 1% 9% 28% 40% 19% 3%
45 LU Nathan - 1% 6% 21% 36% 29% 8%
46 YANG Charles - 1% 5% 20% 37% 30% 8%
47 ONIK Ari N. 1% 8% 27% 38% 22% 4% -
48 HOU Gaven - 4% 16% 32% 32% 14% 2%
49 LI Lucas - 4% 16% 33% 32% 13% 2%
50 ZHAO Ryan 2% 25% 41% 25% 6% -
51 SHIN Noah 18% 39% 30% 11% 2% -
52 ZHAO Brian 2% 16% 34% 32% 14% 3% -
53 YUE Jackson 1% 6% 21% 34% 27% 10% 1%
54 CHANG Eric Jonathan 1% 6% 22% 35% 27% 9% 1%
55 WONG Jacob W. - 3% 15% 31% 33% 16% 2%
56 LI Allen - 3% 14% 32% 33% 15% 2%
57 SICAT Justin 2% 13% 30% 33% 17% 4% -
58 HOLMES Alexiy - 2% 10% 30% 38% 18% 2%
59 TOYOFUKU Ethan 4% 22% 39% 27% 8% 1% -
60 WU Isaac 26% 42% 24% 6% 1% - -
61 PAN Ethan 2% 13% 31% 32% 17% 4% -
62 TOOMRE Kai - 6% 26% 40% 24% 5%
63 PLUMMER Waylon - 2% 13% 32% 36% 16% 1%
64 FRASER Rhys 22% 42% 27% 8% 1% - -
65 ZHAO Nathan - - 1% 10% 34% 44% 10%
66 HARRA Alexander - 1% 8% 34% 41% 15% 2%
67 CHOI Benjamin - - 2% 11% 36% 40% 10%
68 MAO Lucas - - - 5% 24% 44% 27%
69 FANG Haoyu - 1% 9% 36% 39% 14% 1%
70 LEE Charles T - 6% 24% 37% 25% 7% 1%
71 FOGELSON Hugh 2% 13% 31% 34% 17% 4% -
72 ZHANG Gavin - 5% 21% 38% 28% 7% -
73 MARTIN Darius - 3% 14% 34% 36% 13%
74 KO Caleb - 1% 11% 34% 37% 15% 2%
75 YU William - 2% 15% 34% 33% 14% 2%
76 GRIGORIEV Michael 1% 9% 28% 36% 21% 5% -
77 LIANG Haojia 9% 32% 37% 18% 3% - -
77 ZHANG Ethan 3% 16% 36% 33% 11% 1% -
79 REN Ryan - 5% 22% 37% 27% 8% -
80 KOVACS Harrison 1% 16% 37% 32% 12% 2% -
81 KIM Gene 1% 8% 24% 35% 24% 8% 1%
82 KUO Phineas 1% 18% 37% 31% 11% 2% -
83 LEE Thomas 4% 20% 37% 29% 9% 1% -
83 ZHANG Hanru - 7% 27% 37% 23% 6% -
85 NABASSOUA Djibril 4% 19% 34% 29% 12% 2% -
86 BAKSHI Aman - 5% 23% 40% 25% 6% -
87 XIE Jicheng 1% 7% 23% 35% 25% 8% 1%
88 WANG Tiger 1% 12% 33% 37% 15% 2%
89 POLEBOYINA Amrit 15% 39% 33% 11% 1% -
90 MA Matthew 16% 39% 31% 11% 2% -
91 XU Nathan 4% 22% 39% 27% 7% 1%
92 CHEN kenneth 1% 13% 39% 34% 11% 1% -
93 QU Zhida (richard) - 5% 19% 33% 29% 12% 2%
94 TANG Royce - 5% 24% 37% 25% 8% 1%
95 GAO Andrew 2% 17% 36% 32% 11% 1% -
96 BRAIZINHA David 23% 50% 23% 4% - - -
97 OH Joshua 13% 38% 35% 12% 2% - -
98 KUANG Cyrus 2% 14% 31% 32% 16% 4% -
99 NOVIKOV Yann 1% 11% 39% 35% 12% 2% -
100 WANG Ancen 2% 13% 34% 35% 15% 2% -
101 WANG Luke 8% 29% 36% 21% 6% 1% -
102 TEH Tang-Ngu 23% 41% 27% 8% 1% - -
103 ZENG Albert 4% 29% 39% 22% 6% 1% -
104 HE Ryan 4% 21% 37% 28% 9% 1% -
105 SENANI Arjun - 4% 22% 42% 26% 5% -
106 DIAZ Gabriel 9% 32% 36% 18% 4% - -
107 KIAYIAS Alexander 5% 30% 46% 17% 2% - -
108 JAZWINSKI Ryan 1% 10% 27% 34% 21% 6% -
109 CHENG Logan - 2% 11% 30% 39% 19%
110 JIN Andy 2% 22% 42% 27% 7% 1%
111 SUN Henry 3% 18% 35% 31% 12% 2%
112 CHANG Jeremy - 4% 19% 36% 30% 10% 1%
113 ABRAMKIN Tim 13% 36% 34% 14% 3% - -
114 XIE Jayden 3% 19% 37% 29% 10% 1% -
115 MARTIRE Luca 5% 22% 35% 26% 10% 2% -
115 LI Jayden 9% 33% 39% 16% 3% - -
117 SHAW Eric 8% 29% 37% 21% 5% 1% -
118 GRIGORYAN Erik 27% 42% 24% 7% 1% - -
119 HUANG Jinyao 1% 9% 28% 37% 21% 4% -
120 KIM Ethan 51% 40% 8% 1% - - -
120 BHARDWAJ Ranbir 32% 42% 20% 5% 1% - -
122 ZHENG Christopher 9% 42% 35% 12% 2% - -
123 XU Joseph 20% 38% 29% 11% 2% - -
124 HUYNH Matthew 1% 7% 23% 36% 25% 8% 1%
125 ZHENG Austin 22% 44% 26% 7% 1% - -
126 SHAW Spencer 20% 41% 28% 9% 1% - -
127 KINGSLEY Griffin 3% 17% 35% 31% 13% 2% -
128 YOUM Tyson 66% 29% 4% - - - -
129 CHANG Xavier 24% 43% 25% 7% 1% - -
130 YANG Steve 5% 25% 39% 25% 6% 1% -
131 HUANG Anthony 15% 48% 31% 5% - - -
132 BRADFORD-WATT Ezra 17% 39% 32% 11% 1% - -
133 ZHANG Andrew 27% 43% 24% 5% - -
134 HU Daniel 13% 36% 35% 14% 2% - -
135 LIN Qianzhong 31% 44% 21% 4% - - -
136 GREULICH Nikolas 40% 40% 16% 3% - - -
137 SINCAVAGE Louis 76% 22% 2% - - -
138 HWANG Jacob 66% 29% 5% - - - -
139 KIM Daniel 43% 41% 14% 2% - - -
140 BO Aiden 78% 20% 2% - - - -
141 JOHN Meru 37% 41% 18% 4% - - -
141 SHI Luke 53% 39% 8% - - - -
143 CHANG Zane 23% 53% 21% 3% - - -
144 FRIEDMAN Marcus 43% 43% 12% 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.