Mission Fencing Center - Rocky Point, NY, USA
Explore the probability of achieving at least a certain number of victories in the pool 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 | KANG evan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 44% |
2 | WANG Daniel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 54% | 17% |
3 | MEHAN Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 77% |
3 | NG Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 51% | 14% | 1% |
5 | LIN Maxim | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 30% | |
6 | LEE Andrew | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 52% | 15% | |
7 | PEREIRA Beckham | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 22% | 4% |
8 | LIU Kevin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 24% | |
9 | NARDINI Nathanael P. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 31% | 6% |
10 | KIM Ethan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 20% |
11 | CLARK Aram | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 42% | |
12 | ALAVE Kyle | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 55% | 16% |
13 | WANG Max | 100% | 99% | 88% | 59% | 24% | 4% | |
14 | LEUNG Ian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 38% | 8% |
15 | URSU Marcel T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 29% |
16 | PINTO Marcus | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 44% | 14% | 2% |
17 | LOO Jason | 100% | 100% | 96% | 72% | 32% | 7% | - |
18 | LIN Philip T. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 45% | 11% | |
18 | NOVOSYOLOK Zachary | 100% | 100% | 94% | 57% | 17% | 2% | |
20 | BIVIJI Adam | 100% | 73% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - | |
21 | OH Aster | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 18% | |
22 | SARWAHI Viraat | 100% | 99% | 86% | 50% | 15% | 2% | - |
23 | CHAMBERS Miles | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 40% | 7% |
24 | RAJMOHAN Arya | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 37% | 8% | - |
25 | PORTER Dupree | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 54% | 18% | 2% |
26 | KIETLINSKI Samuel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 52% | 12% | |
27 | BIVIJI Ali | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 55% | 16% | |
28 | DOSTAL Maximilian | 100% | 91% | 55% | 17% | 3% | - | |
29 | DAI Zihou | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 33% | 5% |
30 | MEYERSON Jacob | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 36% | 3% |
31 | WELSTEAD Nicholas | 100% | 97% | 79% | 45% | 15% | 2% | |
32 | MEDVINSKY Daniel | 100% | 100% | 98% | 79% | 35% | 5% | |
33 | FADEL Alexander | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 78% | 43% | 11% |
34 | LEVIN Jacob | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 35% | 10% | 1% |
35 | SHAPIRO Simon | 100% | 91% | 55% | 18% | 3% | - | |
36 | KUSHKOV Michael | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 17% | 2% | |
37 | TAYCHER Aaron | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 39% | 10% | 1% |
38 | LIN Justin | 100% | 54% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
39 | GREMILLION Obadiah | 100% | 94% | 69% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - |
39 | CHENG Sawyer | 100% | 95% | 71% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - |
41 | LIEBOWITZ Carson | 100% | 88% | 51% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
42 | BAI Evan | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 21% | 3% | |
43 | SO Morgan | 100% | 96% | 73% | 34% | 8% | 1% | |
44 | KAPLLANI Beckam | 100% | 74% | 15% | 1% | - | - | |
45 | NIEJADLIK Samuel | 100% | 97% | 73% | 31% | 6% | - | |
46 | TUNIK Joshuah | 100% | 77% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
47 | FOUX Jonathan | 100% | 71% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
48 | SUN Stephen | 100% | 83% | 38% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
49 | EPLETT Nicholas | 100% | 61% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
50 | MEHTA Krish | 100% | 75% | 23% | 3% | - | - | - |
51 | SONG Aidan | 100% | 73% | 28% | 5% | - | - | |
52 | LAMTAN Christoffer | 100% | 59% | 18% | 3% | - | - | |
53 | DANIELS William | 100% | 42% | 4% | - | - | - | |
54 | MIAO Heqi | 100% | 99% | 91% | 59% | 20% | 3% | - |
54 | MARTINSON Torm | 100% | 94% | 69% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
56 | CHANG Timothy | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 13% | 2% | |
57 | SO Dylan | 100% | 90% | 57% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
57 | SO Peyton | 100% | 52% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
59 | SHEYNZON Benjamin | 100% | 97% | 80% | 44% | 12% | 1% | - |
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.