Suffern, NY - Suffern, NY, 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 | 6 | ||
1 | YU Colin | - | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 43% | 26% |
2 | CHA Russell W. | - | - | 4% | 15% | 32% | 34% | 14% |
3 | ELLIS Yehia S. | - | - | 4% | 16% | 33% | 34% | 13% |
3 | YOON Nathan | 1% | 9% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 5% | |
5 | SJOSTEDT Jacob H. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 40% | 16% |
6 | ZHANG YuJian | - | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 36% | 14% |
7 | BEKKER Mitchel | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 13% | |
8 | STUSNICK Hunter | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 41% | 27% | |
9 | ZAFFT Maximo S. | - | 1% | 4% | 17% | 34% | 32% | 12% |
10 | KUMAR Anitya | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 30% | 9% | |
11 | YUROVCHAK Andrew T. | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 38% | 17% | |
12 | JACKSON Anthony I. | 3% | 16% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 2% | |
13 | TABLEMAN Doug S. | - | - | 4% | 17% | 36% | 33% | 10% |
14 | MARCHANT Albert J. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 7% | |
15 | MUNROE Shane | 2% | 15% | 36% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - |
16 | GLAZ Nicholas S. | - | 1% | 5% | 18% | 33% | 32% | 12% |
17 | LIU Jack | 8% | 28% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% | |
18 | GONZALEZ TABORDA William Eulogio | - | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 37% | 16% |
19 | SPANO Gideon S. | 1% | 8% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
20 | O'HARA Keegan J. | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 32% | 8% | |
21 | LUKANYUK Lorence | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | |
22 | WISNIEWSKI Bart | 5% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
23 | INFINITO Christopher E. | - | 1% | 11% | 33% | 37% | 16% | 2% |
24 | TAE William G. | - | 1% | 10% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 4% |
25 | BEACH Nicholas | 1% | 7% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 1% |
26 | BORATIN Daniel I. | 2% | 12% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 3% | |
27 | LAVENSTEIN Kinley V. | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
28 | LIBSON Tazman | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 5% |
29 | STEVENS James F. | - | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
30 | KIM Juni C. | - | - | 3% | 17% | 42% | 38% | |
31 | PHO Eric | 3% | 15% | 32% | 33% | 15% | 3% | |
32 | O’DEA Anthony | 5% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% | |
33 | MACKIN Samuel | 4% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 9% | 1% | |
34 | BUSH Thomas | 1% | 6% | 22% | 37% | 28% | 8% | |
35 | KOKENGE Clark | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 7% |
36 | GANA Jr Jorge M. | - | 5% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
37 | RODE Damian E. | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
38 | SOOMRO Adam A. | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
39 | RHYU Kozmo | - | 3% | 15% | 30% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
40 | ROBITZSKI Daniel A. | 1% | 11% | 31% | 36% | 17% | 2% | |
41 | WIEDERHORN ethan | 10% | 31% | 36% | 19% | 4% | - | |
42 | NABAVI Matthew R. | 8% | 28% | 37% | 22% | 5% | - | |
43 | LEE Daniel Y. | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 35% | 14% | |
44 | DOLMETSCH Max | 4% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% | |
45 | KANG Michael H. | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 42% | 28% | |
46 | DIAS-LALCACA Kieran P. | 8% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 7% | 1% | |
47 | HE Lawrence | 14% | 37% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - | |
48 | O'BRIEN Timothy S. | 29% | 41% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
49 | PAHLAVI Kamran | 26% | 46% | 23% | 5% | - | - | - |
50 | LEVY Jeffrey M. | 2% | 11% | 28% | 33% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
51 | BURKE Cyril | 2% | 13% | 31% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
52 | HA ETHAN | 28% | 47% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
53 | DYER Ian E. | 8% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | |
54 | WANG Eric S | 24% | 42% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | |
54 | SIDDIQUI HUMZA K. | 14% | 36% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | |
56 | CONNELL Jay | 17% | 37% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - | |
57 | TONG Chihao | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | |
58 | RYAN Joshua P. | 2% | 16% | 45% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
59 | HANRATTY Liam | 6% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 2% | - |
60 | LAI Coby | 13% | 33% | 33% | 16% | 4% | 1% | - |
61 | PATENAUDE Kameron | 21% | 41% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - | |
62 | BINDAS Odinn A. | 30% | 45% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
63 | CHOW Maxwell | 48% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
64 | CAFASSO martin | 23% | 43% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
65 | ROUSE Joseph (Joe) T. | 9% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 6% | 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.