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.

Capitol Clash SYC, RCC, Veteran ROC & Y8

Y-14 Men's Foil

Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:00 AM

National Harbor, MD - National Harbor, MD, 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 ZHANG Andy W. - - - 2% 12% 40% 46%
2 DESERANNO Jeidus - - - - 1% 19% 80%
3 BAS Liam - - - - 3% 26% 71%
3 ZHANG Nicholas Z. - - - - 2% 21% 76%
5 SINGH Dayaal - - - 2% 12% 40% 46%
5 FOGELSON Frederick J. - - - 4% 20% 44% 32%
7 HONDA Kazu Z. - - - 2% 14% 41% 43%
8 BAE Kevin - - - 3% 17% 47% 34%
9 LIANG Lixi (Henry) - - - - 6% 32% 61%
10 CHEN Andrew - - - 1% 10% 38% 51%
11 SONG Aiden S. - - - 1% 12% 49% 38%
12 BRUK Peter J. - - - 4% 20% 47% 29%
13 CHEN Allen - - - 1% 13% 41% 45%
14 YU Anders - - - 4% 23% 49% 24%
15 WU Alexander - - 3% 17% 39% 34% 8%
16 ZHAI Jeffrey - 1% 11% 33% 36% 16% 3%
17 ONIK Elijah T. - - - 1% 12% 44% 43%
18 YANG Luao - - - 3% 17% 42% 37%
19 FU Samuel Y. - - - 5% 23% 43% 28%
20 SHIN Joshua J. - - 5% 23% 41% 26% 4%
21 RUSADZE Nickolas - - - 1% 12% 49% 38%
21 GUO Sean 1% 7% 24% 35% 25% 7% 1%
21 SICHITIU Alexander - - 3% 16% 34% 35% 11%
24 CATINO Brennen - 1% 7% 27% 40% 23% 3%
25 DAI Jonathan T. - - - 4% 18% 41% 37%
26 FREEDMAN Samuel E. - - 3% 16% 39% 35% 7%
27 KWON Ethan - - 1% 8% 28% 43% 19%
28 SHA Yi Peng - - 5% 27% 48% 19%
29 TOLBA Abdelrahman - - 1% 8% 27% 41% 23%
30 DU Samuel R. - - 1% 9% 29% 41% 20%
31 LEE Aidan - - 1% 8% 29% 43% 19%
32 WILLIAMS Connor J. - 4% 19% 37% 30% 8% 1%
33 BING Charles - - - 5% 22% 44% 29%
34 MARX Oscar L. - - 2% 16% 44% 38%
35 KIM Yonjae - - 1% 5% 20% 41% 34%
36 CHENG Jonathan - - - 1% 8% 37% 54%
37 TORRES Treston - 4% 27% 42% 22% 4% -
38 ANTON Nathaniel - - 3% 19% 40% 31% 7%
39 LI Richard - - - 1% 10% 38% 52%
40 FORTUNE Alexander J. - 7% 29% 37% 21% 5% 1%
41 GONG Benjamin - 2% 14% 35% 34% 14% 2%
42 GOOR Julian - 1% 5% 20% 38% 29% 7%
43 GORBACHEV Alexander - 4% 16% 31% 31% 15% 2%
43 DOUGLAS Oscar M. - - 4% 18% 37% 32% 9%
45 TRAUGOT Owen G. - 3% 16% 35% 32% 13% 2%
45 CHIN Julian S. - - - 4% 19% 42% 35%
47 PAI Lakshan K. - 3% 13% 31% 34% 17% 3%
48 MOHAMED Murad - - 2% 14% 45% 35% 3%
49 WANG Jackson 1% 11% 30% 35% 18% 4% -
50 WU Jerry - - 2% 12% 33% 38% 15%
51 REEVES Liam - 4% 19% 36% 29% 10% 1%
52 ORR Spencer - 1% 5% 19% 37% 31% 8%
53 WONG Garrick G. - - 4% 19% 38% 30% 8%
54 MOHAMED Amir - 1% 12% 37% 36% 13% 1%
55 ORVANANOS Jorge - 1% 7% 24% 40% 26% 2%
56 CHEN Kyle P. - 2% 14% 36% 35% 13% 1%
57 DOCTOR Aidan L. - - 2% 12% 32% 38% 16%
58 PAE Jonathan L. - - 1% 5% 21% 42% 31%
59 KEE Andrew L. - 1% 5% 21% 40% 29% 5%
60 PALMA Matthew Dominic 2% 12% 31% 35% 17% 3% -
60 SONG Austin 3% 20% 44% 26% 7% 1% -
62 DRESSEL Jet - 7% 33% 44% 14% 1% -
63 BUCKLEY-JONES Henry C. 7% 35% 39% 16% 3% - -
64 TANG Owen S. - 1% 8% 27% 37% 22% 4%
65 DEGROOT Blake - 4% 18% 35% 31% 11% 1%
66 ZHANG Yun Isaac - - 1% 8% 28% 41% 21%
67 ZHEN Ethan - 5% 22% 36% 27% 9% 1%
68 TSAY Jeremy M. - - 1% 5% 21% 42% 31%
69 OH SEAN - - 2% 13% 34% 38% 11%
70 LI Yao (Liam) - 3% 16% 34% 32% 13% 2%
71 MARX Jackson L. - - 1% 13% 45% 37% 4%
72 JI Aidan Y. - 1% 7% 27% 41% 22% 2%
73 BERNARD Jack B. 11% 38% 37% 13% 2% < 1% -
74 LIU Eric Y. - 2% 11% 30% 36% 18% 3%
75 LEE Jacob J - 5% 22% 37% 27% 8% 1%
76 JIANG Owen - - 3% 18% 40% 31% 7%
77 GAO William - 2% 12% 33% 36% 15% 1%
78 MIALL Steven A. - - 3% 19% 39% 31% 8%
79 CULLIVAN Justice - 1% 9% 27% 37% 22% 4%
80 DESHMUKH Arjun - - 5% 25% 41% 24% 4%
81 SONG Leonardo T. - - 4% 20% 38% 29% 8%
81 BURGOS patrick 6% 29% 38% 21% 5% 1% -
83 XU Andy P. - 1% 8% 26% 40% 22% 3%
84 CANO Marcos E. - 4% 17% 35% 33% 11% 1%
85 TSIMIKLIS Yanni - 1% 11% 37% 38% 11% 1%
86 SYOMICHEV Gleb A. 1% 8% 29% 37% 20% 4% -
87 LIN Andy - - 6% 26% 41% 23% 4%
88 AUGUSTINE Aaron A. 1% 10% 30% 36% 19% 4% -
89 LI Jinghua E. 1% 13% 38% 38% 9% 1%
90 LI Matthew - - 5% 27% 50% 16% 1%
91 LIN Michael 1% 10% 30% 36% 19% 4% -
92 GU Andrew - 2% 14% 33% 34% 15% 2%
93 XU Jia Bao (Bowen) - - 3% 16% 36% 35% 10%
94 MILLER Aidan A. 2% 15% 35% 33% 13% 2% -
95 KNOEPFFLER Alex - - 4% 22% 40% 28% 5%
96 TIYA BIAYA K. - - 4% 18% 36% 33% 9%
96 LIN James G. - 2% 14% 33% 34% 15% 2%
98 QIU Daniel - 5% 26% 41% 23% 5% -
99 GEOGHEGAN Ronan - - 3% 16% 39% 34% 8%
100 BURBERRY Alan 17% 39% 31% 11% 2% - -
101 ORLOV Dmitriy - 1% 13% 37% 36% 12% 1%
102 HONG ISSAC - 2% 15% 35% 34% 12% 1%
103 KNIZHNIK David 14% 36% 33% 14% 3% - -
104 GISLER Benjamin B. - 2% 12% 38% 37% 11% 1%
105 GUO Justin - 7% 30% 45% 16% 2% -
106 XU Chi 1% 14% 37% 35% 11% 1% -
107 GUO Jacob - 5% 23% 40% 25% 6% -
108 DAVIDSON Elliot 2% 21% 44% 26% 6% 1% -
109 ALONSO Vinicius - 4% 18% 35% 31% 11% 1%
110 ROEVER Sean M. - 3% 26% 42% 24% 5% -
111 LONG Connor M. 4% 22% 37% 27% 9% 1% -
112 PO Oliver - 3% 17% 36% 32% 11% 1%
113 EMENHEISER Conrad 2% 14% 33% 34% 15% 3% -
114 ZHOU Leon - 10% 43% 35% 10% 1% -
115 TANG August L. 2% 14% 31% 32% 16% 4% -
115 MEJIA MATTHEW D. 1% 9% 26% 35% 23% 6% 1%
117 LIU Ethan 1% 6% 21% 35% 28% 10% 1%
118 WONG Ethan 2% 16% 41% 31% 9% 1% -
119 XIANG Derrick - - 5% 23% 42% 27% 3%
120 KLOTZ Isaiah 4% 39% 39% 15% 3% - -
121 GUO Cheng Jin Morris 22% 44% 28% 6% 1% - -
122 JIN Dennis H. 4% 24% 40% 24% 7% 1% -
123 YU Jason - 5% 22% 36% 27% 9% 1%
124 TANG Albert 19% 37% 30% 12% 2% - -
125 XIAO Benjamin 3% 18% 36% 30% 11% 2% -
126 KLYCZEK Andrew 4% 21% 37% 28% 9% 1% -
127 FRANK Amir 58% 34% 7% 1% - - -
128 LIU Zixian (Aaron) 3% 24% 40% 25% 7% 1% -
129 JONES Theodore M. 3% 17% 35% 31% 12% 2% -
130 QIAN Jason H. - 2% 13% 37% 35% 13% 1%
131 PAE Brian L. - - 4% 21% 40% 29% 5%
132 TSAO Lukas 3% 19% 36% 29% 11% 2% -
133 LUAN Tian - 3% 17% 36% 32% 11% 1%
133 ARCE Andrew W. 6% 45% 38% 10% 1% - -
135 LEE Jonah 3% 18% 35% 30% 12% 2% -
136 PLASTARAS Trey 5% 39% 40% 14% 2% - -
137 LIU Ryan 11% 47% 33% 8% 1% - -
137 LEE Lukas 1% 17% 42% 31% 8% 1% -
139 XU Ethan 2% 16% 35% 32% 12% 2% -
140 POIROT Max 5% 31% 44% 17% 3% - -
141 HUA Aiden 21% 47% 26% 6% 1% - -
142 PROMRAT Pete 12% 34% 35% 16% 3% - -
143 SEMAPAKDI-CHANG Kaiden 2% 14% 32% 32% 16% 3% -
144 ROSE Ben 17% 38% 32% 11% 2% - -
145 LEWIS Akhil 4% 27% 39% 23% 6% 1% -
146 SCHREIBER Samuel S. 17% 48% 28% 6% 1% - -
146 GOH William C. 6% 36% 39% 16% 3% - -
148 ZHUANG Chuanxuan 21% 48% 26% 5% - - -
149 ADAMS Cyrus 8% 31% 37% 19% 5% -
150 CHOO Christopher Y. 47% 40% 11% 1% - -
151 BERNABE Rafael 2% 20% 46% 28% 4% -
152 SANTOS Carlos R. 3% 23% 44% 24% 5% - -
153 QUINTERO Julian 48% 41% 10% 1% - - -
154 STONE Adam 4% 23% 46% 24% 4% - -
155 TSIMMERMAN Michael 19% 40% 30% 10% 2% - -
156 CHIN Ryan 7% 32% 43% 16% 2% - -
157 LAI Twayne 5% 25% 38% 25% 7% 1% -
158 TING Clement 84% 16% 1% - - - -
159 SLOUGH Sean 33% 42% 20% 5% - - -
160 WANG Auther 4% 23% 38% 26% 8% 1% -
161 HOGGARD Carson 8% 32% 37% 19% 5% - -
162 FECHTNER Max 1% 11% 29% 35% 19% 5% -
163 MCQUIDE elliot 40% 41% 16% 3% - - -
163 IVANENKO Alex 76% 22% 2% - - - -
165 PARK Joseph 9% 30% 37% 20% 5% - -
166 DECORLETO III Andrew (Tripp) J. 29% 47% 20% 3% - - -
167 FECHTNER Ezra M. 1% 18% 46% 30% 6% - -
168 HUANG Justin 37% 52% 10% 1% - - -
169 RAJPAL Alastair 19% 39% 29% 10% 2% - -
170 LEE Jacob 12% 40% 33% 12% 2% - -
171 HUANG Eythan 42% 41% 15% 3% - - -
172 WANG Winston 33% 47% 17% 3% - - -
173 LI Lianhao 57% 35% 7% 1% - - -
174 LEWIS Nikhil I. 40% 44% 14% 1% - - -
174 PAN Henry 39% 42% 16% 3% - - -
176 DE JAGER Robert 49% 41% 10% 1% - - -
176 DUSZA Zachery 16% 47% 29% 7% 1% - -
178 BALAKIRSKIY Gabriel 32% 47% 19% 2% - - -
178 BALDWIN Benjamin 67% 29% 4% - - - -
178 QUINN Nathan 82% 17% 1% - - - -
181 CAMPISI Joseph 49% 39% 10% 1% - - -
181 LAGASSE Jack T. 21% 40% 28% 10% 2% - -
181 ROBBINS Tusker F. 8% 60% 28% 4% - - -
184 KAN Edward 60% 34% 6% - - - -
184 YOUNG William 44% 47% 8% 1% - - -
186 RILEY Colin T. 56% 36% 7% - - - -
186 CHOI Eugene 78% 21% 2% - - - -
188 CHEN Junxuan 41% 43% 14% 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.