Suffern, NY - Suffern, 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 | SZAPARY Tristan B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 65% |
| 2 | MERCHANT Reza H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 27% |
| 3 | BASOK Daniel | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 24% | 4% |
| 3 | SHENG Patrick Y. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 56% | 23% | 4% |
| 5 | MARAKOV Allen B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 17% |
| 6 | POLKOVSKY Dylan S. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 16% | 2% |
| 7 | PAVLENISHVILI David G. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 41% | 10% | |
| 8 | ZHANG YuJian | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 36% | 8% | |
| 9 | DOUGLAS Colin F. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
| 10 | WOLF Myles J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 52% | 16% |
| 11 | KIM Juni C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 15% |
| 12 | MUFEL Andrew | 100% | 100% | 90% | 58% | 20% | 3% | - |
| 13 | ZARETSKY Daniel A. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 36% | 11% | 1% |
| 14 | KANG Michael H. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 52% | 15% | |
| 15 | RA Jr. Daniel M. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 86% | 60% | 27% | 5% |
| 16 | MCDERMOTT Brian | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 22% | 3% |
| 17 | KOKENGE Clark | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 51% | 16% |
| 18 | PAOLINI Nathan R. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 17% | |
| 19 | ZHENG Hagen | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 37% | 10% |
| 20 | INSLER Gabriel C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 38% | 9% |
| 21 | SLAVINSKIY Alan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 57% | 18% | |
| 22 | RODE Damian E. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 24% | 4% |
| 23 | KRAVIT Connor B. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 60% | 24% | 4% |
| 24 | SPANO Gideon S. | 100% | 100% | 93% | 69% | 31% | 7% | - |
| 25 | MORSE Tyler | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 38% | 12% | 2% |
| 26 | MARRAN Erik R. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 32% | 9% | 1% |
| 27 | BAKER Kevin G. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 52% | 18% | 2% |
| 28 | SHINE Peter C. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 29 | CHARRON Jack H. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 39% | 11% | 1% |
| 30 | GIBSON Nowell L. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 55% | 22% | 4% |
| 30 | MOGILEVICH Michael | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 34% | 10% | 1% |
| 32 | CHILANA Savitoz (Savi) | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 35% | 10% | 1% |
| 34 | INSLER Ethan C. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 52% | 19% | 3% | |
| 35 | SMITH Nicholas S. | 100% | 93% | 65% | 28% | 6% | 1% | |
| 36 | DIAS-LALCACA Kieran P. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 37 | LAVENSTEIN Kinley V. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
| 38 | RODELL Hunter C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 24% | 2% |
| 39 | KRENZ Michal A. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 41% | 14% | 2% |
| 40 | MAROOTIAN Alex S. | 100% | 97% | 80% | 49% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 41 | CHOUDHARY Grisham | 100% | 79% | 39% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 42 | LUKANYUK Lorence | 100% | 93% | 65% | 28% | 6% | 1% | |
| 43 | SHAH Maximilian A. | 100% | 91% | 62% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 45 | LI Brian | 100% | 90% | 54% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 46 | SIDDIQUI Humza K. | 100% | 77% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 47 | SOOMRO Adam A. | 100% | 94% | 70% | 33% | 8% | 1% | |
| 48 | FENWICK Luke A. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 32% | 8% | 1% | |
| 49 | MARCHANT Albert J. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 59% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
| 50 | SKIFFINGTON Sam | 100% | 74% | 34% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 51 | LAI Coby | 100% | 85% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 51 | LI Jeffrey | 100% | 90% | 61% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 51 | SAMMS-HAY Cameron | 100% | 79% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 54 | COX Gavin V. | 100% | 95% | 73% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 57 | TONG Chihao | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 39% | 13% | 2% |
| 58 | MISHIMA Torata | 100% | 98% | 80% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 59 | WANG Eric S | 100% | 71% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 60 | JENNINGS Adin | 100% | 72% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 61 | ZHANG Franklin | 100% | 31% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
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.