Boston Fencing Club ROC

Div I-A Men's Épée

Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 8:00 AM

Boston Fencing Club - Boston, MA, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 HANSEN Jonas B. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 82%
2 LONCAR Luka E. 100% 100% 100% 99% 89% 50%
3 MACARTY Jordan T. 100% 100% 98% 80% 31% 4%
3 WU Joseph 100% 100% 100% 99% 91% 50%
5 MECHKOV Iliya 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 65%
6 JIN Owen 100% 100% 100% 98% 86% 54% 17%
7 SIVAKUMAR Ajit 100% 100% 100% 99% 88% 53% 11%
8 BELLIVEAU Raven C. 100% 100% 98% 77% 36% 8% 1%
9 CHONG christopher 100% 100% 100% 91% 58% 15%
10 RICUTA Laurentiu Florentin 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 74% 27%
11 PAPAVASSILIOU Christos 100% 100% 100% 93% 68% 30% 6%
12 GAO Daniel 100% 100% 100% 95% 69% 19%
13 YUROVCHAK Andrew T. 100% 100% 100% 96% 72% 25%
14 PARK Brian 100% 100% 96% 74% 34% 6% -
15 CHOI Mason 100% 100% 94% 67% 20% 2%
16 GOHEL Dayus T. 100% 100% 100% 96% 71% 21%
17 MUNLIN Donovan 100% 100% 100% 98% 86% 47%
18 LAI Aedin 100% 99% 82% 41% 10% 1%
19 ZHAO Corey 100% 99% 90% 60% 23% 4%
20 MELCHER Jack H. 100% 100% 100% 97% 77% 31%
21 STUSNICK Hunter 100% 100% 100% 99% 91% 55%
22 DOSS David A. 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 51%
23 EKE Frank 100% 100% 99% 87% 50% 13% 1%
24 JONES Simon A. 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 91% 54%
25 MCCOMISKEY Aiden J. 100% 100% 99% 90% 62% 26% 5%
26 MAHESH Tarun 100% 97% 79% 40% 9% 1%
27 ROLLO Emmett H. 100% 96% 71% 26% 3% -
28 JOSLIN Tyler 100% 95% 55% 15% 1% -
29 MISHIMA Torata 100% 100% 99% 90% 63% 26% 5%
30 WHELAN Thomas (Tony) 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 76% 31%
31 LANGTON Sawyer 100% 100% 98% 80% 44% 14% 2%
32 SPRINGER Michael 100% 100% 94% 69% 28% 3%
33 MORSE Tyler 100% 100% 99% 86% 48% 10%
33 PAHLAVI Kamran 100% 97% 77% 38% 9% 1%
35 COLLYMORE Spencer T. 100% 100% 100% 99% 88% 51% 6%
36 ROUSE Brian G. 100% 100% 98% 82% 46% 12% 1%
37 WEI HUNTER 100% 100% 93% 65% 26% 4% -
38 DEPOMMIER Remi 100% 100% 99% 90% 61% 20%
39 YU Colin 100% 100% 100% 99% 90% 48%
39 SHAH Maximilian A. 100% 100% 97% 80% 42% 8%
39 WU Jonathan 100% 99% 86% 54% 18% 2%
42 FOLEY Kevin 100% 100% 96% 77% 38% 6%
43 SAVORETTI Francesco 100% 94% 61% 23% 4% -
44 SKAALAND Will 100% 99% 87% 46% 11% 1%
45 ZHANG William 100% 100% 97% 71% 29% 5% -
46 RYAN Joshua P. 100% 98% 84% 47% 13% 1% -
47 OLIVERIUS Joseph W. 100% 100% 97% 81% 45% 11%
48 SCHULZE Ethan 100% 99% 91% 62% 23% 2%
49 HARE John R. 100% 95% 60% 19% 3% -
50 SONN Rohan 100% 99% 86% 46% 10% 1%
51 PRIHODKO Max 100% 100% 94% 65% 23% 3%
52 YU Hunter 100% 76% 25% 3% - -
53 FENG Du 100% 66% 22% 3% - -
54 WIBERG IV Hugo W. 100% 99% 93% 67% 27% 3%
55 SHEN Max 100% 100% 95% 71% 31% 6% -
56 BADEA Christian 100% 77% 31% 6% - - -
57 OSTIGUY Cameron 100% 66% 23% 4% - -
58 BOYNTON Zachariah (Zach) G. 100% 100% 92% 66% 28% 5%
59 ZOU Xianyang 100% 57% 11% - - -
60 SIMPSON Patrick 100% 100% 93% 64% 24% 3%
61 WADE Grayson 100% 96% 75% 36% 8% 1%
62 ZHANG Zixian (Shawn) 100% 75% 31% 6% 1% -
63 DONG Bryan 100% 53% 12% 1% - -
64 GUI Runlin 100% 100% 97% 78% 38% 7% -
65 CHOI Aleksey 100% 91% 59% 21% 4% -
66 DANG Timmy 100% 89% 55% 18% 2% -
67 SONG Troy 100% 84% 43% 11% 1% -
68 CHALLAGULLA Manu 100% 80% 37% 9% 1% -
69 FU Ethan 100% 84% 35% 6% - -
70 LIU Jeremiah W. 100% 25% 2% - - -
71 XIE Brandon 100% 40% 7% 1% - -
72 SANTOS Felipe 100% 99% 87% 48% 11% 1%
73 HU Jansen T. 100% 92% 50% 10% 1% -
74 MARINI Davide 100% 83% 26% 4% - - -
75 EANG Brynner 100% 55% 12% 1% - - -
76 QI Terry 100% 65% 20% 3% - - -
77 VALAYANNOPOULOS Nicolas 100% 76% 25% 4% - - -
78 MASSE Jack 100% 16% - - - - -
79 ROSENBLUM Addison J. 100% 21% 2% - - -
79 JIANG Ryan 100% 56% 13% 1% - -
81 BENCZE Kristof 100% 32% 2% - - - -
82 WANG Justin 100% 90% 21% 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.