Boston Fencing Club - Boston, MA, 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 | JUDD Mehta J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 74% | 17% |
| 2 | LI Arvin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 70% | 32% | 6% |
| 3 | MCLEAN Miles K. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 48% | |
| 3 | DAVIDSON Elliot | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 47% | |
| 5 | LEE Brendan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 58% | |
| 6 | XU Andy P. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 6% |
| 7 | MILLER Aidan A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 33% | |
| 8 | WOODTHORPE Michael G. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 56% | 13% | |
| 9 | POPESCU Tudor | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 11% |
| 10 | CHESSA Giovanni | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 54% | 15% | |
| 11 | SYOMICHEV Gleb A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 23% | |
| 12 | LIU Derek | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 32% | |
| 13 | CHENG Ethan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 93% | 60% | 15% | |
| 14 | XU Ethan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 39% | 7% | |
| 15 | ZHUANG Chuanxuan | 100% | 97% | 79% | 41% | 10% | 1% | |
| 16 | LAO Kevin | 100% | 95% | 47% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 17 | KHANDELWAL Jay | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 68% |
| 18 | AMRANI David | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 10% | |
| 19 | KLYCZEK Andrew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 23% |
| 20 | GARDINER Luke J. | 100% | 97% | 80% | 46% | 14% | 1% | |
| 21 | LACHAPELLE Cole | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 21% | 3% | |
| 22 | LI Aaron | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 27% | |
| 23 | LIGH Thomas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 42% | 9% |
| 24 | DENG Kenny | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 19% | 2% | - |
| 25 | LU Howen | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 6% |
| 26 | LOZADA Gabriel G. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 55% | 19% | 3% | |
| 27 | YU Stephen | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 21% | 2% | |
| 28 | SURESH Rohan | 100% | 93% | 65% | 29% | 6% | - | |
| 29 | DJONOUMA Toyohm | 100% | 96% | 73% | 33% | 7% | - | |
| 30 | YANG Dylan | 100% | 66% | 20% | 3% | - | - | |
| 31 | WERWA Griffith | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 24% | 4% |
| 32 | TANG xianchi | 100% | 91% | 58% | 20% | 3% | - | |
| 33 | GALLER Dave | 100% | 99% | 89% | 55% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 34 | VO Jonathan | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 35 | SATTAR Dylan | 100% | 92% | 57% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 36 | CHUA Kirby | 100% | 98% | 82% | 40% | 8% | 1% | |
| 37 | CHENG Austyn | 100% | 73% | 26% | 4% | - | - | |
| 38 | WILBERT Matt | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 51% | 14% | |
| 39 | CROWDER Andrew E. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 52% | 18% | 3% |
| 40 | CANEDO James | 100% | 95% | 73% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 41 | HO Jor Sam | 100% | 94% | 63% | 23% | 4% | - | - |
| 42 | BISHOP Henry | 100% | 88% | 51% | 16% | 2% | - | |
| 43 | GE Daniel | 100% | 90% | 49% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 44 | FENG Michael | 100% | 72% | 28% | 5% | - | - | |
| 45 | RIPA Joseph K. | 100% | 69% | 26% | 5% | - | - | |
| 46 | WANG Rory | 100% | 94% | 66% | 27% | 5% | - | |
| 47 | SOLOPOULOS James | 100% | 84% | 39% | 7% | - | - | |
| 48 | HARRIS Noah | 100% | 99% | 90% | 55% | 14% | 1% | |
| 49 | MASTRONARDI Joseph M. | 100% | 88% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - | |
| 50 | ABANILLA Luke | 100% | 95% | 74% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 51 | RUPP Keegan E. | 100% | 100% | 91% | 59% | 18% | 2% | - |
| 52 | TAM Kyle | 100% | 59% | 15% | 1% | - | - | |
| 53 | EBERMAN Henry | 100% | 92% | 63% | 26% | 5% | - | |
| 54 | PILIPSKI Aiden | 100% | 36% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 55 | DANGELO Connor | 100% | 20% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 55 | BROGAN Kevin | 100% | 79% | 39% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 57 | LI Kevin | 100% | 39% | 6% | - | - | - | |
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.