Division I and Parafencing Nat'l Championships & April NAC

Div I Men's Foil

Friday, April 22, 2022 at 8:00 AM

Charlotte, NC, 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 ITKIN Nick (Nikita) B. - - - - 2% 21% 77%
2 LOUIE Bryce - - - 2% 13% 39% 46%
3 MASSIALAS Alexander C. - - - - 3% 22% 75%
3 MACHOVEC Andrew C. - - 3% 13% 31% 36% 16%
5 CHEN Allen 1% 6% 22% 37% 27% 7%
6 LI Brandon H. - - - 3% 17% 41% 38%
7 KUMBLA Sidarth - - - - 2% 21% 76%
8 MATHIEU Adam - - - - 3% 25% 72%
9 MEINHARDT Gerek L. - - - - 4% 26% 70%
9 KELLY William J. - 1% 6% 19% 33% 30% 11%
11 CHEN James P. - - - 4% 20% 43% 32%
12 KUMBLA Samarth - 1% 9% 26% 36% 23% 5%
13 CHAMLEY-WATSON Miles C. - - - 2% 14% 43% 41%
14 LI Richard - 4% 18% 35% 32% 11%
15 SHIN Philip D. - - 2% 13% 32% 37% 16%
16 HUTH Mitchell 1% 7% 21% 33% 27% 11% 2%
17 YANG Luao - 2% 10% 26% 35% 22% 5%
18 ZHANG Andy W. 1% 5% 19% 32% 29% 13% 2%
19 SCHENCK Koen M. 2% 13% 33% 35% 16% 3% -
20 JANG Jaewon 1% 6% 20% 34% 29% 11% 1%
21 AUGUSTINE Ethan A. - 2% 12% 32% 35% 16% 2%
22 GASSNER Ethan I. - - 2% 10% 30% 39% 18%
23 SULLIVAN Jackson R. 1% 6% 20% 34% 28% 11% 1%
24 OLIVARES Marcello G. - - 1% 4% 19% 41% 35%
25 GOOR Julian 7% 26% 37% 23% 6% 1% -
26 SNYTSHEUVEL John Evan (Evan) - 3% 14% 30% 33% 16% 3%
27 DANIEL Ashton - - 2% 11% 29% 38% 20%
28 YU Eric W. - 1% 5% 22% 38% 27% 6%
29 MURUHIN Yaroslav 21% 39% 28% 10% 2% - -
30 GRIFFIN John O. - 3% 16% 34% 34% 12%
31 JOSEPH Dominic (Dom) 5% 24% 36% 25% 9% 2% -
32 CHEN Andrew - 5% 18% 35% 31% 10% 1%
33 OURSLER Jack - 4% 18% 36% 31% 10%
34 UM Ethan A. - 2% 11% 27% 35% 21% 4%
35 SONG Leonardo T. 3% 16% 34% 31% 13% 3% -
36 ZHANG Daniel D. - - 2% 10% 28% 39% 21%
37 BALL James T. 5% 22% 36% 27% 9% 1% -
38 KASI Sanjay - 2% 10% 26% 35% 22% 5%
39 KIM Brandon J. - 4% 16% 32% 32% 14% 2%
40 STANLEY Mason B. - 4% 17% 34% 32% 12% 1%
41 HOSSFELD Finn E. - - 1% 7% 28% 45% 19%
42 KAO Castor T. - 2% 12% 30% 37% 17% 1%
42 DU Samuel R. 10% 32% 35% 18% 4% - -
44 BAS Liam - 3% 14% 32% 34% 15% 1%
45 LIANG Lixi (Henry) 1% 7% 25% 37% 25% 6%
46 BOURTIS James S. - - - 4% 18% 41% 37%
47 RUSADZE Nickolas 6% 24% 35% 24% 8% 1% -
48 LEE Benjamin H. - 1% 7% 24% 38% 25% 5%
49 KIM Nicholas W. - 2% 11% 26% 34% 22% 5%
50 SINGH Dayaal - 5% 20% 35% 29% 10% 1%
51 GRAHAM Roy J. - 6% 21% 35% 27% 9% 1%
52 DESERANNO Jeidus - 1% 8% 25% 37% 24% 5%
53 JEON Caleb A. - 4% 18% 36% 31% 10% 1%
53 LEE Aidan 8% 28% 37% 21% 5% 1% -
55 BAE Kevin 3% 17% 33% 30% 13% 3% -
56 DICKSON Farr R. 1% 9% 24% 34% 24% 8% 1%
57 LIU Niles J. - 6% 20% 34% 27% 11% 2%
58 GRIFFITH JACK 1% 7% 22% 34% 26% 9% 1%
59 WELCH Kyle J. - 3% 16% 34% 34% 13%
60 GROSSMAN SMISEK Spencer E. 1% 8% 25% 35% 23% 7% 1%
61 FREEDMAN Samuel E. 8% 31% 38% 19% 4% - -
62 LI Raphael C. 3% 18% 37% 31% 11% 1% -
63 PRILUTSKY David B. - 1% 7% 25% 41% 25% 2%
64 ZHANG Henry C. 3% 14% 29% 31% 18% 5% 1%
65 KWON Ethan - 1% 8% 24% 35% 25% 6%
66 BURKE Spencer W. - 3% 14% 31% 33% 16% 3%
67 HOWARD Michael 26% 42% 25% 7% 1% - -
68 CHEN Earnest P. - - 1% 6% 23% 41% 29%
69 SHAFAIE Kaveh - 2% 10% 26% 34% 22% 6%
70 LIN Dashiell 6% 23% 34% 25% 10% 2% -
71 KATAYAMA Kevin - 2% 11% 31% 37% 17% 1%
72 XIAO Ethan J. - 1% 8% 27% 41% 22% 2%
73 KO Brian J. - 4% 14% 29% 32% 17% 4%
74 ZHAI Jeffrey 10% 32% 35% 18% 5% 1% -
75 ZHENG Alan H. 1% 10% 29% 35% 20% 5% -
76 BINDER Zachary (Zach) B. - - 2% 12% 33% 38% 15%
77 WOO Christian 13% 36% 33% 14% 3% - -
78 NDIAYE Edriss G. - - 2% 12% 31% 38% 17%
79 DAVIS Christopher M. 33% 42% 20% 5% 1% -
80 KIM Yonjae 9% 31% 36% 19% 4% -
81 WU Alexander 2% 14% 30% 32% 17% 4% -
82 LI Owen 6% 23% 34% 25% 9% 2% -
83 BING Charles 6% 27% 38% 22% 6% 1% -
84 LO Conrad - 1% 5% 19% 37% 31% 8%
85 SUNG Chang-Han S. 14% 35% 33% 15% 3% - -
86 CULLIVAN Justice 2% 14% 32% 34% 16% 3% -
87 ZHAO Jason L. 5% 22% 34% 26% 10% 2% -
88 YI Stephen K. 3% 15% 31% 32% 16% 3% -
89 FUKUDA Renzo K. 1% 7% 23% 35% 26% 8% -
90 BRUK Peter J. 3% 15% 33% 33% 14% 2% -
91 WU Jerry Z. 44% 40% 14% 2% - - -
92 VOGLER Justin K. 1% 8% 25% 34% 23% 8% 1%
92 ONIK Elijah T. 1% 9% 26% 34% 22% 6% 1%
94 KAISER Hans Z. - 2% 11% 31% 38% 18% 1%
95 JIANG Owen 31% 42% 22% 5% 1% -
96 XIAO Enoch A. - 1% 5% 19% 37% 30% 9%
97 BANERJEE ANUP 3% 16% 32% 31% 15% 4% -
98 HUTH Jacob 2% 14% 32% 34% 16% 3% -
99 JAIN Aditya 3% 16% 33% 31% 14% 2% -
99 SIU Aiden 8% 31% 37% 19% 4% - -
101 IVERSON Shane D. - 2% 10% 26% 35% 22% 6%
101 PELOSKY Zack B. 2% 12% 30% 33% 18% 5% -
103 FOGELSON Frederick J. 9% 28% 35% 21% 7% 1% -
104 ZELTSER Lawrence M. 12% 36% 34% 14% 3% - -
105 CHIN Julian S. 14% 34% 33% 16% 4% - -
106 LIU Justin - 3% 14% 30% 33% 17% 3%
107 AYUPOV Ilya - 5% 19% 33% 29% 12% 2%
107 TSIMIKLIS Yanni 21% 40% 28% 9% 1% - -
109 REALS Alden D. 2% 10% 26% 32% 22% 7% 1%
110 HOOSHI Jayden C. 4% 18% 33% 29% 13% 3% -
111 ZENG Lucas H. 1% 8% 26% 36% 23% 5%
112 DAI Jonathan T. 2% 15% 32% 32% 15% 3% -
113 CHENG Matthew S. 8% 28% 36% 21% 6% 1% -
114 GRASS Andrew E. 1% 8% 24% 34% 25% 8% 1%
115 SONG Aiden S. 3% 17% 35% 31% 12% 2% -
116 SADOVSKY Leor B. 11% 35% 35% 15% 3% - -
117 YU Vinni - 2% 11% 29% 38% 19% 2%
117 LEE Jacob J 18% 38% 30% 11% 2% - -
119 GIRALDO Pablo E. 6% 23% 35% 26% 9% 2% -
120 WYMAN Julian 24% 40% 26% 8% 1% - -
121 MARTINEZ Donavyn E. 1% 5% 18% 33% 30% 12% 1%
122 KIM Ryan Y. 34% 43% 19% 3% - - -
123 YU Anders 6% 24% 35% 25% 9% 1% -
124 DORAN Wesley C. 10% 35% 37% 15% 3% - -
125 AHN Jun 6% 24% 35% 25% 9% 1% -
126 FU Samuel Y. 14% 34% 32% 16% 4% 1% -
127 ELWOOD Sebastian F. 35% 42% 18% 4% - - -
128 LAURICELLA Douglas 9% 28% 35% 21% 7% 1% -
129 COELHO Cristiano P. 11% 31% 34% 18% 5% 1% -
130 DIERKS Kian 10% 35% 35% 16% 3% -
130 MITCHELL Philip D. 3% 17% 35% 31% 13% 2%
132 HOBSON Aaron K. 17% 36% 31% 13% 3% - -
132 LUH Ethan K. 17% 38% 31% 12% 2% - -
134 GAO William 18% 38% 30% 11% 2% - -
135 TSAY Jeremy M. 18% 37% 30% 12% 2% - -
135 LI Eric 12% 31% 33% 18% 5% 1% -
135 JI Aidan Y. 30% 42% 22% 5% 1% - -
138 OH SEAN 28% 43% 23% 6% 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.