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.

October NAC

Cadet Men's Saber

Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 2:00 PM

America's Center Convention Complex - St. Louis, MO, 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 JI Cody Walter - - 1% 5% 21% 42% 31%
2 LUKASHENKO Darii - - - 1% 11% 39% 49%
3 DHINGRA Gian K. - - 1% 4% 18% 40% 37%
3 CHON Taylor A. - - 1% 6% 23% 42% 28%
5 MORRILL William - - - 3% 17% 42% 37%
6 SO Hananiah - - - 1% 9% 37% 52%
7 LINSKY Matthew - - - 1% 10% 41% 48%
8 GHAYALOD ansh - 2% 10% 26% 35% 22% 5%
9 LIANG Connor - - - - 2% 19% 79%
10 WU Mengke - - 3% 18% 42% 37%
11 SILBERZWEIG Jordan H. - - - - 4% 26% 70%
12 DENNER Maximilian P. - 2% 13% 33% 37% 14%
13 ERMAKOV Lev - - 4% 17% 36% 33% 10%
14 YANG Ziyi - - 2% 10% 28% 39% 21%
15 POPE Nico - - 1% 8% 32% 44% 15%
16 CHAN Matthew - - 3% 13% 30% 36% 17%
17 KIM Shaun M. - 1% 6% 22% 37% 27% 7%
18 TONG ZACHARY - - 3% 18% 43% 35%
19 HJERPE Wade H. - 5% 21% 36% 28% 9% 1%
20 BABAYEV Gabriel A. - - 2% 15% 37% 35% 11%
21 QIU Nathan - 2% 10% 27% 35% 21% 4%
22 XU William - 1% 6% 20% 35% 29% 9%
23 ZHOU Miles 1% 7% 25% 36% 24% 7% 1%
24 LINDHOLM Oliver S. - 1% 9% 32% 39% 17% 2%
25 TANN Justin - - 3% 14% 31% 36% 16%
26 HOUTZ Jackson - 5% 20% 38% 30% 8%
27 NAZLYMOV Andrei - - 6% 27% 43% 21% 3%
28 YUN Jaesun - - 2% 9% 27% 40% 22%
29 HONG Steven - 2% 12% 31% 35% 17% 3%
30 CHEN Leo - 2% 11% 28% 34% 20% 4%
31 HUANG Ethan F. - - 4% 18% 36% 32% 9%
32 PENG Bryan 4% 21% 38% 28% 9% 1%
33 GONZALEZ Emilio A. - 1% 6% 19% 34% 30% 10%
34 MICLAUS Justin 1% 12% 33% 36% 15% 2%
35 ZENG Noah - 1% 10% 29% 39% 19% 1%
36 JIANG Anthony - - 2% 10% 28% 39% 21%
37 LEE Aydan J. - 3% 18% 38% 30% 10% 1%
37 HO Kaden M. - - 3% 15% 34% 35% 13%
37 SKINNER Graham B. - - 1% 5% 22% 43% 29%
40 KOGAN Benjamin - 1% 7% 25% 38% 24% 5%
41 WOODWARD Connor - 1% 5% 21% 38% 29% 7%
42 MAKLIN Edward P. - - 3% 16% 36% 34% 10%
42 UEYAMA Ietetsu A. 1% 8% 23% 33% 25% 9% 1%
42 MCCARTHY Gabriel - 3% 15% 34% 33% 13% 2%
45 AVAKIAN Alec 1% 6% 23% 37% 26% 7%
46 DENG Andrew - - 3% 18% 39% 33% 7%
47 FERNANDEZ Rodrigo - - - 4% 19% 42% 35%
48 CHEONG Heonjun 1% 7% 25% 36% 24% 7% 1%
49 SHOMAN Zachary - - 4% 20% 38% 30% 7%
49 WANG Nicolas 1% 7% 25% 36% 24% 7% 1%
51 NOBLE Colin - - 3% 17% 38% 33% 9%
52 RIGHTLER Samuel - 1% 9% 27% 37% 21% 4%
53 LE Hayden - - - 4% 19% 43% 35%
54 BERRIO Carter E. - 1% 5% 18% 35% 32% 10%
54 BUCHMANN Finn D. - 2% 12% 31% 35% 17% 3%
56 YUN Jake - - 2% 12% 31% 38% 17%
57 DEPEW Spencer - 4% 26% 43% 22% 4% -
58 HOLZ Daniel - 1% 9% 30% 42% 18%
59 STONE Esmond A. - 1% 10% 29% 37% 20% 3%
60 HAN Daniel Y. - - 4% 17% 35% 33% 10%
61 OH Triton - 4% 20% 38% 30% 9% -
62 PIWOWAR Alex 3% 15% 31% 31% 16% 4% -
63 KOTOV Leonid - 6% 24% 37% 26% 7%
64 BERMAN Luca - 2% 11% 27% 34% 21% 5%
65 SHIRPAL Oleksandr - - 2% 11% 31% 39% 18%
66 OVERDECK Andrew - 1% 8% 26% 38% 22% 4%
67 ROSBERG Dashiell W. 1% 7% 21% 33% 26% 10% 1%
68 SINGH Angadh 1% 11% 30% 35% 19% 4% -
69 PATIL Aaryan A. 1% 6% 21% 34% 28% 10% 1%
70 SHOMAN Noah 1% 10% 30% 36% 18% 3%
71 DU Gavin J. - 2% 17% 38% 33% 9%
72 WILSON Jude - - 4% 19% 42% 35%
73 LIN Daniel - 8% 27% 37% 23% 5%
73 GUZZO Vito - 6% 24% 37% 26% 7%
75 CHIN Matthew W. - 1% 5% 23% 44% 28%
76 BULL Anderson 1% 6% 23% 38% 26% 6%
77 RESHEIDAT Malik - 3% 21% 40% 29% 7%
78 CHEONG Heonjae - 1% 8% 27% 39% 21% 3%
79 WANG Robert - 2% 13% 33% 36% 15% 1%
80 GAO Albert 1% 10% 25% 33% 22% 8% 1%
81 KROON Lucas 2% 13% 31% 33% 17% 4% -
82 WANG Eric Y. - - 1% 6% 24% 43% 26%
83 LIM William J. - 6% 25% 39% 24% 6% -
84 PAN Alex 23% 40% 27% 8% 1% - -
85 VARUKATTY-GAFOOR Sohil 3% 16% 35% 31% 13% 3% -
86 MIYASAKI-CASTRO Masanobu 6% 25% 36% 24% 8% 1% -
87 FLOT Tai A. - 4% 15% 31% 31% 15% 3%
87 VO Minh Q. 4% 20% 34% 27% 11% 2% -
89 LEE Justin 1% 7% 22% 33% 25% 10% 1%
90 HU Christopher 10% 34% 36% 16% 3% -
91 BONSELL Vance 5% 26% 38% 23% 6% 1%
92 BAE Jason I. - 6% 24% 37% 26% 7%
93 MARGULIES William - 7% 27% 40% 22% 4%
94 HONG Vincent Q. - - 5% 24% 43% 27%
95 WANG Charles - 6% 27% 40% 22% 4%
96 ZHU Charlie 6% 26% 39% 23% 6% 1% -
97 YANG Duncan (BoTong) - 1% 7% 22% 35% 27% 8%
98 XUE ALEXANDER - 1% 5% 20% 36% 29% 9%
99 HOUTZ Mitchell B. 6% 30% 39% 20% 5% - -
100 WU Wilmund 6% 24% 36% 24% 9% 1% -
101 CHEN Evan P. 6% 22% 33% 26% 11% 2% -
101 GLOZMAN Justin 2% 16% 35% 31% 13% 2% -
103 ZHENG Edward L. - 5% 21% 36% 28% 9% 1%
104 COLE Alexander 1% 6% 20% 34% 28% 11% 1%
105 JAWOROWSKI Matthew 1% 8% 24% 34% 24% 8% 1%
106 BEITEL Noah 3% 14% 31% 32% 16% 3% -
107 GREENBAUM Ian L. 1% 6% 20% 32% 28% 12% 2%
108 NG Jeremiah - 2% 11% 29% 36% 19% 4%
109 HUANG Connor 15% 35% 32% 14% 3% - -
109 ZHANG Derek - 5% 22% 37% 27% 8% 1%
111 MAY Griffin M. 2% 12% 29% 33% 19% 4% -
112 KUMAR Sachit 10% 35% 36% 16% 3% -
113 CADAMBI Roshan - 8% 27% 37% 23% 5%
114 KUSHKOV Veniamin 1% 10% 29% 37% 20% 3%
115 RHEE Ethan N. 3% 18% 36% 31% 11% 1%
115 EICHHORN Lukas H. 1% 8% 26% 38% 23% 4%
117 HOLZ William A. - 4% 17% 33% 31% 13% 1%
118 FERNANDEZ Liam 6% 26% 37% 24% 7% 1% -
119 GHENEA George Philipe - 3% 13% 29% 32% 18% 4%
120 BUKOWSKI Broghan J. 2% 16% 36% 32% 12% 2% -
121 CHEEMA Hyder - 1% 15% 38% 34% 11% 1%
122 ROBINSON William 3% 15% 32% 31% 15% 4% -
123 KIM Alexander M. - - 3% 16% 38% 35% 8%
124 GOLDMAN Noah R. 4% 18% 32% 29% 13% 3% -
125 CHTERENTAL Alex 6% 23% 34% 25% 10% 2% -
126 GUFFEY Christopher 46% 42% 10% 1% - -
127 SIMAK Joseph P. - 1% 8% 28% 41% 22%
128 REN James 2% 12% 29% 33% 19% 5% 1%
129 WEBER Mattias A. 11% 37% 36% 14% 2% - -
129 LO Konnor 1% 6% 24% 36% 24% 8% 1%
129 WONG Ryan 1% 8% 23% 33% 25% 9% 1%
132 YAN Leonard Z. 18% 53% 25% 4% - - -
133 DEKA Tanush 1% 19% 41% 29% 9% 1% -
134 ZHANG Jeffrey 3% 18% 36% 31% 11% 1%
135 GUAN Luke 5% 26% 38% 23% 6% 1%
136 ZHUANG Rayken 19% 41% 30% 9% 1% -
137 SU Landon - 2% 12% 30% 35% 17% 3%
138 TAO Jeffrey - 1% 9% 28% 37% 21% 4%
139 LIU Lawrence - 6% 32% 40% 19% 3% -
140 ROSS Erik 2% 13% 31% 33% 17% 4% -
141 SCHERER Max 4% 18% 32% 29% 14% 3% -
142 BEAULAC Stephane 2% 11% 27% 33% 20% 6% 1%
143 LIU Mingyang Ryan 14% 34% 32% 16% 4% 1% -
144 KUSHKOV Daniel 4% 20% 34% 28% 11% 2% -
145 LOPEZ Lucas M. 3% 21% 39% 28% 9% 1% -
146 VAUGHN Jason 1% 9% 30% 37% 19% 4% -
147 KALPATHY Rohit 1% 9% 29% 36% 20% 5% -
148 MUNGOVAN Matthew 15% 59% 22% 3% - - -
149 YANG Dylan 6% 25% 36% 24% 8% 1% -
150 HAN Edward 3% 28% 41% 23% 5% - -
151 SHAHZAD Azlan A. 26% 43% 25% 6% 1% - -
152 LU Caleb Q. 3% 19% 38% 30% 9% 1%
153 RAMANAN Govind 44% 40% 14% 2% - -
154 BROU Inkosi 2% 15% 37% 33% 11% 1%
155 ZHOU James Y. 29% 42% 22% 5% 1% - -
156 HUANG Maxwell H. 20% 38% 29% 11% 2% - -
157 ZHANG Ethan W. 11% 32% 34% 18% 5% 1% -
158 LANNAMAN Connor 9% 33% 39% 16% 3% - -
158 DAI Gary 37% 42% 18% 3% - - -
160 LAM Ethan 26% 41% 25% 7% 1% - -
161 FLITSANOV Macabee 20% 43% 27% 8% 1% - -
162 TURCK Caspar J. - 4% 16% 32% 31% 14% 2%
163 SHANKAR Karthik 10% 33% 35% 17% 4% - -
164 SUGIURA Samuel 13% 38% 33% 13% 2% - -
165 CHEN Lohen 5% 29% 40% 21% 5% 1% -
166 WANG Andy 4% 22% 38% 27% 8% 1% -
167 BELL III Alfred (Tripp) R. 11% 35% 36% 15% 3% - -
167 WU Richard - 9% 38% 38% 13% 2% -
167 GUO Thomas 27% 46% 22% 5% - - -
170 LIN Steve 24% 39% 26% 9% 2% - -
171 DUDNICK Christian 23% 50% 22% 4% - -
172 CHOW William T. 31% 43% 21% 5% - -
173 JORGESON Charlie 17% 42% 32% 8% 1% - -
174 BOSITA Carson 42% 41% 15% 3% - -
174 JESSE Mathew 20% 42% 29% 7% 1% -
176 WRUBEL Natan G. 38% 42% 17% 3% - - -
176 AN David 58% 34% 7% 1% - - -
176 LUHMAN Gabriel 30% 46% 20% 4% - - -
179 LEUNG Nathan 9% 33% 36% 18% 4% - -
179 PILLAI Jay K. 34% 43% 19% 4% - - -
179 VELTZ Tyler J. 76% 21% 2% - - - -
182 HUNG Samuel 35% 43% 18% 3% - -
183 KAPOOR Tanmay 32% 44% 19% 4% - - -
183 WILKERSON Jude 63% 34% 4% - - - -
185 STOLL Fuller 95% 5% - - - -
186 LEVY Jacob 48% 39% 12% 2% - - -
187 LIGH Checed 43% 41% 14% 2% - - -
188 ZHANG Yankun 37% 43% 17% 3% - - -
189 WANG HongXi 72% 26% 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.