Brandeis University - Waltham, MA, USA
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 | ||
1 | HANSEN Jonas B. | - | - | - | - | 10% | 89% |
2 | JONES Simon A. | - | - | - | 3% | 30% | 67% |
3 | JONES Tristan Kai | - | - | - | - | 26% | 74% |
3 | HONDOR Robert D. | - | - | 3% | 20% | 49% | 28% |
5 | YU Colin | - | - | 1% | 12% | 41% | 45% |
6 | MELCHER Jack H. | - | - | 4% | 20% | 44% | 33% |
6 | ZHANG William | - | 2% | 13% | 42% | 36% | 7% |
8 | FLECKENSTEIN Benjamin T. | - | 4% | 22% | 41% | 27% | 6% |
9 | YUROVCHAK Andrew T. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 42% | 42% |
10 | ZHAO corey | - | 1% | 9% | 33% | 42% | 16% |
11 | SANDERS Ian W. | - | - | 3% | 20% | 46% | 31% |
12 | MARCHANT Albert J. | - | - | 8% | 31% | 42% | 18% |
13 | GUI Runlin | 1% | 16% | 47% | 29% | 6% | - |
14 | SHAH Maximilian A. | - | 1% | 9% | 37% | 42% | 12% |
15 | GOHEL Dayus T. | - | 1% | 11% | 42% | 37% | 9% |
16 | DELAND Stuart R. | - | 2% | 14% | 37% | 37% | 10% |
17 | PRIHODKO Max | - | 2% | 14% | 39% | 39% | 6% |
18 | INSLER Ethan C. | - | - | 3% | 19% | 46% | 32% |
19 | LINSCOTT John J. | - | - | 5% | 22% | 44% | 29% |
20 | RICUTA Laurentiu Florentin | - | - | - | 7% | 70% | 23% |
21 | MACARTY Jordan T. | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 42% | 23% |
22 | GERAGHTY Michael P. | - | - | - | 3% | 24% | 73% |
23 | KIM Byung | - | 1% | 10% | 34% | 41% | 13% |
24 | DOELEMAN Zeno | - | - | 5% | 27% | 45% | 22% |
25 | BOYNTON Zachariah (Zach) G. | - | 2% | 14% | 37% | 37% | 10% |
26 | ECKERT Kevin M. | - | 4% | 26% | 41% | 24% | 4% |
26 | BELLIVEAU Raven C. | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 42% | 20% |
28 | BELLIVEAU Shane | 4% | 33% | 42% | 19% | 3% | - |
29 | SIMPSON Patrick | 4% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
30 | FRY Nicholas (Nico) J. | - | - | 6% | 27% | 44% | 22% |
31 | TORRES Gianni | 7% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 5% | - |
32 | FENG Du | 24% | 45% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
33 | HERMANSON David B. | - | 3% | 21% | 48% | 25% | 3% |
34 | CHOI Mason | - | - | 2% | 19% | 51% | 27% |
35 | EKE Frank | - | 1% | 8% | 39% | 43% | 10% |
36 | PHO Eric | - | - | 1% | 9% | 44% | 46% |
37 | CARPENTER Liam | - | - | 1% | 14% | 44% | 40% |
38 | ZUKOFSKY Zachary | 2% | 18% | 42% | 32% | 6% | - |
39 | ROUSE Brian G. | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 43% | 22% |
39 | CHAN Matthew | - | 1% | 8% | 30% | 42% | 20% |
41 | COLLYMORE Spencer T. | - | 1% | 8% | 33% | 46% | 12% |
42 | BELLIVEAU Emmett S. | 4% | 25% | 43% | 23% | 4% | - |
42 | SKAALAND Will | 3% | 18% | 37% | 32% | 10% | - |
44 | JIN Owen | - | - | 1% | 12% | 40% | 46% |
45 | HU Jansen T. | 8% | 30% | 37% | 20% | 5% | - |
46 | THORDARSON Paul (Thor) J. | - | 4% | 22% | 41% | 27% | 6% |
47 | RICHARD Owen | - | - | 4% | 26% | 48% | 21% |
48 | WYATT Seth | - | 2% | 22% | 44% | 27% | 5% |
49 | ANDERSON Brendan P. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 40% | 49% |
50 | ROLLO Emmett H. | - | 7% | 31% | 41% | 18% | 2% |
51 | JANKOWICH Alexander E. | 1% | 8% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 5% |
52 | WENGER Caleb | 3% | 34% | 48% | 14% | 1% | - |
53 | ZHANG William | 8% | 50% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - |
54 | LIU Shuang | 4% | 39% | 41% | 14% | 2% | - |
55 | ZHANG Zixian (Shawn) | 1% | 8% | 32% | 44% | 14% | 1% |
56 | MATEI Daniel | 1% | 16% | 42% | 35% | 6% | - |
57 | MELCHER Charles | 2% | 31% | 45% | 19% | 3% | - |
58 | MACNEILL Owen | 14% | 50% | 29% | 6% | - | - |
59 | SINGH Sahib | - | 5% | 24% | 39% | 26% | 5% |
60 | HOWARD Michael | 4% | 26% | 43% | 24% | 3% | - |
61 | LEVANDOWSKI Lakota | 6% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 6% | - |
62 | BEALS Alden | 10% | 36% | 40% | 13% | - | - |
63 | STEWART Robert | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 35% | 12% |
64 | LIU Jeremiah W. | 30% | 46% | 21% | 3% | - | - |
65 | SPRINGER Michael | - | 4% | 30% | 41% | 21% | 4% |
66 | LANGTON Sawyer | - | 3% | 28% | 44% | 22% | 3% |
67 | SANTOS Felipe | 2% | 14% | 41% | 40% | 3% | - |
67 | EANG Brynner | 19% | 45% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
69 | ALFAIATE Lucas | - | 2% | 14% | 36% | 37% | 11% |
69 | GRAYSON Joshua | 55% | 39% | 6% | - | - | - |
71 | GERSEN Jacob | 1% | 11% | 37% | 36% | 13% | 2% |
72 | HEKMAT Sina R. | - | 8% | 33% | 40% | 17% | 2% |
73 | SANTOS Antonio K. | 10% | 46% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
74 | KUBATIN Anton V. | 20% | 45% | 29% | 5% | - | - |
74 | NORTON Theo B. | 1% | 17% | 42% | 31% | 7% | - |
74 | XIE Brandon | 12% | 39% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - |
77 | SANTOS Francisco M. | 20% | 62% | 17% | 2% | - | - |
77 | BUSH Thomas | - | 2% | 19% | 44% | 30% | 5% |
79 | SHA Michael | 10% | 34% | 38% | 15% | 2% | - |
79 | OSTIGUY Cameron | 17% | 39% | 32% | 11% | 1% | - |
81 | ALUMBAUGH Jonathan J. | 1% | 13% | 39% | 36% | 11% | - |
82 | GACS Kalman J. | 4% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
83 | VALAYANNOPOULOS Nicolas | 15% | 51% | 28% | 6% | - | - |
84 | MILGRAM Aaron | 30% | 45% | 21% | 3% | - | - |
85 | LEVANDOWSKI Jim | - | 4% | 20% | 44% | 28% | 4% |
86 | BORGAL Cameron | 7% | 31% | 41% | 18% | 3% | - |
87 | NORTON Henry | 25% | 41% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
87 | REINEKE Alexander | 20% | 45% | 29% | 6% | - | - |
89 | KNIGHT Keith S. | 7% | 30% | 38% | 20% | 4% | - |
89 | PAHLAVI Kamran | - | 10% | 35% | 40% | 14% | 1% |
91 | FERREIRA Noah J. | - | 5% | 33% | 42% | 18% | 2% |
92 | SACCOMANNO Shelby | 66% | 31% | 3% | - | - | - |
93 | JIANG Ryan | 25% | 55% | 17% | 2% | - | - |
94 | SONG Troy | 2% | 26% | 43% | 24% | 5% | - |
95 | REINEKE Gerhard | 76% | 22% | 2% | - | - | - |
96 | GILCHRIST David C. | 21% | 46% | 28% | 5% | - | - |
97 | PETROV Niki A. | 27% | 46% | 24% | 4% | - | - |
98 | SENERTH Ian J. | 1% | 7% | 27% | 43% | 22% | - |
98 | ROSENBLUM Addison J. | 64% | 33% | 3% | - | - | - |
100 | THOMPSON Ian | 31% | 44% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
101 | ZHANG Roland | 61% | 33% | 5% | - | - | - |
101 | MASSE Jack | 69% | 28% | 3% | - | - | - |
103 | STEIN Philip | 64% | 32% | 4% | - | - | - |
104 | RITTERSHAUS Bryce | 75% | 22% | 2% | - | - | - |
104 | ZOU Xianyang | 55% | 37% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
106 | GREELEY Shawn | 16% | 46% | 32% | 6% | - | - |
106 | TEREB Daniel | 84% | 15% | 1% | - | - | - |
108 | BUTTS Brendan | 74% | 24% | 3% | - | - | - |
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.