American Challenge South ROC/RJCC/RYC

Div I-A Men's Épée

Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 3:00 PM

Orange County Convention Center - Hall WD1 - Orlando, FL, 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 GORIUNOV IVAN A. 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 85% 45%
2 SCHEMBRI MCCORD Kruz T. 100% 100% 100% 98% 84% 36%
3 LEE Seungwon 100% 100% 99% 94% 73% 37% 8%
3 SHIN Sung (Andy) 100% 100% 100% 99% 90% 54%
5 OLIVERIUS Joseph W. 100% 100% 100% 97% 83% 43%
6 ALVIOR Joshua Aethan B. 100% 100% 100% 99% 94% 71% 28%
7 HUTTO Joshua 100% 100% 94% 72% 35% 9% 1%
8 MOORE Jeremy S. 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 63%
9 HE Lawrence 100% 100% 100% 99% 89% 57% 17%
10 WU Byron 100% 100% 100% 95% 76% 40% 10%
11 JELEV Mario I. 100% 100% 100% 96% 72% 17%
12 TREBON Hayden 100% 100% 100% 97% 80% 44% 11%
13 KIM Dylan J. 100% 100% 100% 98% 86% 54% 16%
14 BRETON Jayden 100% 100% 99% 89% 57% 20% 2%
15 LEADBETTER Gordon 100% 97% 81% 46% 15% 2% -
16 VACCARO Dominick J. 100% 99% 92% 65% 25% 5% -
17 LOGUE Ethan D. 100% 100% 100% 99% 90% 61% 20%
17 LEONE III Charles D. 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 63% 20%
19 PINERO Jose J. 100% 100% 99% 95% 77% 41% 9%
20 ZHU Eric 100% 95% 72% 36% 10% 1%
21 MCDANIELS Jeremy 100% 100% 100% 97% 82% 41%
22 THAYER Bryce 100% 100% 100% 97% 83% 49% 14%
23 PAN Tristan 100% 97% 77% 34% 8% 1% -
24 CHENG Thomas 100% 100% 100% 98% 86% 51% 13%
25 CHAWLA Armaan 100% 100% 96% 75% 34% 5%
26 MODULLA Yathin 100% 96% 76% 38% 10% 1%
27 ROMERO KURI Carlos Alexander 100% 97% 77% 38% 8% 1%
28 SCHARF Ryan 100% 100% 96% 77% 37% 9% 1%
29 WOLFE Alex 100% 100% 99% 90% 61% 24% 4%
30 ELLINGTON Keegan A. 100% 100% 100% 97% 84% 51% 14%
31 TOUSSAINT Semaj 100% 87% 50% 15% 2% -
32 HERNÁNDEZ Leandros 100% 98% 82% 45% 14% 2% -
33 DAVIS Jonah 100% 95% 69% 31% 8% 1% -
34 JACKSON James 100% 100% 99% 92% 66% 27% 4%
35 LEWIS Jared 100% 100% 100% 99% 89% 57% 17%
36 WAGMAN Robert S. 100% 100% 94% 71% 30% 4%
37 HARR Carver 100% 100% 98% 79% 42% 11% 1%
38 HANDBERG Paul 100% 100% 100% 99% 91% 60% 19%
39 KOSSMANN Alexander 100% 100% 99% 89% 63% 27% 5%
40 GUAN Nathan 100% 100% 99% 90% 62% 25% 4%
41 DAN Rex 100% 91% 53% 16% 2% - -
42 DESTEFANO Julius 100% 100% 100% 95% 76% 39% 9%
43 IRWIN Peter 100% 100% 96% 78% 40% 8%
44 OTTO Nathaniel B. 100% 93% 63% 25% 5% -
44 KYPRAIOS Nicholas 100% 100% 100% 95% 72% 27%
46 WANG Tristan 100% 98% 83% 42% 7% -
47 FANG Hanning 100% 99% 87% 50% 16% 2% -
48 VALES Keyan 100% 99% 89% 61% 25% 4%
49 PETROV Niki A. 100% 68% 22% 3% - -
50 NALLAMSHETTY Ayan 100% 97% 82% 48% 15% 2%
51 DIVERIS Joseph 100% 91% 61% 24% 5% -
52 CUI Jack 100% 78% 36% 8% 1% -
53 FREY Wayne N. 100% 100% 100% 97% 82% 45% 10%
54 ZHOU Chuangming 100% 100% 97% 81% 47% 15% 2%
55 SAKO Ayrton J. 100% 98% 86% 53% 19% 3% -
56 MARIN Lucas 100% 98% 86% 54% 18% 2%
57 XIE Brandon 100% 68% 23% 3% - -
58 GROSSE Michael 100% 97% 76% 34% 5% -
59 HU Robert J. 100% 65% 23% 4% - -
60 DILLE Brice 100% 98% 84% 47% 12% 1%
61 HAN Ethan 100% 96% 70% 30% 6% 1% -
62 MONTALVO Jose J. 100% 98% 84% 46% 13% 2% -
63 LIN Kason 100% 76% 30% 6% - -
64 FULLERTON Joshua D. 100% 86% 52% 18% 3% -
65 MCFARLAND John G. 100% 90% 53% 17% 3% - -
66 ALI Adam 100% 100% 98% 80% 43% 12% 1%
67 MIA Raj 100% 53% 9% 1% - - -
68 LIU Dylan Y. 100% 79% 33% 6% - -
69 RIGGINS James 100% 77% 27% 4% - - -
70 FREEMAN Zachary 100% 92% 48% 13% 2% - -
71 HE Lingyun Matthew 100% 60% 18% 3% - - -
72 RASSEL John 100% 49% 12% 2% - - -
73 SHILOV Maxim 100% 63% 19% 2% - - -
74 DINKINS Adam 100% 70% 18% 2% - - -
75 WANG Clayton 100% 94% 66% 27% 5% -
76 WOLF Christopher 100% 64% 22% 4% - - -
76 YANAMANDRA Sidhansh 100% 94% 57% 19% 3% - -
78 CULLEN Reilly 100% 29% 3% - - - -
79 TURNER Dillon 100% 54% 14% 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.