Boston Fencing Club - Boston, MA, 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 | JOSLIN Tyler | - | 2% | 17% | 40% | 33% | 7% | |
2 | OSTIGUY Cameron | - | - | 4% | 15% | 32% | 34% | 14% |
3 | DEPOMMIER Remi | - | - | 1% | 4% | 19% | 41% | 35% |
3 | BEALS Alden | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 5% |
5 | REDDY Arya | 1% | 7% | 25% | 36% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
6 | JENNINGS Adin | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 43% | 26% | |
7 | BOYNTON Zachariah (Zach) G. | - | - | - | 5% | 30% | 65% | |
8 | CHALLAGULLA Manu | - | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 4% |
9 | DALY Conor | - | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 35% | 13% |
10 | ZOU Xianyang | 3% | 14% | 31% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
11 | BOGUSLAVSKY Daniel | - | - | 2% | 14% | 42% | 43% | |
12 | GRAYSON Joshua | 4% | 22% | 39% | 28% | 7% | - | |
13 | CHOI Aleksey | - | 4% | 20% | 38% | 30% | 8% | |
14 | ZHANG Zixian (Shawn) | - | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 39% | 19% |
15 | TORRES Gianni | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 6% |
16 | MRAK Michael R. | - | - | 5% | 23% | 43% | 29% | |
17 | MATEI Daniel | - | - | 2% | 9% | 27% | 39% | 23% |
18 | VALAYANNOPOULOS Nicolas | - | 1% | 16% | 40% | 33% | 9% | |
19 | CAFASSO Martin | - | 2% | 13% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 3% |
20 | XIE Brandon | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 4% |
21 | KUBATIN Anton V. | - | 3% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 4% |
22 | THOMPSON Ian | 1% | 10% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
23 | MACNEILL Owen | 1% | 7% | 22% | 33% | 26% | 10% | 1% |
24 | LIU Jeremiah W. | 2% | 14% | 34% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - |
25 | SANTOS Felipe | - | 1% | 12% | 36% | 38% | 12% | |
26 | DJONOUMA Toyohm | - | 8% | 29% | 39% | 20% | 4% | |
27 | SONG Troy | 1% | 13% | 39% | 35% | 12% | 1% | |
28 | PAPSUN Benjamin J. | - | 5% | 32% | 41% | 19% | 3% | |
29 | PAN Anthony | 19% | 40% | 30% | 10% | 1% | - | |
30 | GERSEN Jacob | - | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 39% | 18% |
31 | HARE John R. | - | 6% | 26% | 39% | 24% | 5% | |
32 | WANG Justin | 1% | 11% | 33% | 37% | 16% | 2% | |
33 | MARSHALL William L. | - | - | 4% | 22% | 44% | 29% | |
34 | MASSE Jack | 15% | 42% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - | |
35 | QUINLAN Sean | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 40% | 16% | |
36 | MARINI Davide | 4% | 33% | 40% | 19% | 4% | - | |
37 | JIANG Ryan | - | 4% | 17% | 32% | 31% | 14% | 2% |
38 | FENG Du | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 4% |
39 | DOWD Peter L. | 50% | 37% | 11% | 2% | - | - | - |
40 | FROLICH Grant | 2% | 10% | 26% | 32% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
41 | PEDERSEN Christopher C. | - | 2% | 18% | 41% | 32% | 7% | |
42 | NORTON Theo B. | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 37% | 7% | |
43 | KOPPENHEFFER Rowan | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
44 | SCHIAVONE Oreste | 1% | 6% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 2% |
45 | EANG Brynner | 2% | 12% | 27% | 32% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
46 | WU Chi Kuan | 30% | 45% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
47 | URQUHART Grant | 10% | 32% | 37% | 18% | 3% | - | |
48 | MELCHER Charles | 1% | 11% | 32% | 37% | 17% | 3% | |
49 | RITTERSHAUS Bryce | 13% | 48% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - | |
50 | FEINBERG James Y. | 31% | 54% | 14% | 1% | - | - | |
51 | BUTTS Brendan | 38% | 43% | 16% | 3% | - | - | |
52 | HU Robert J. | 2% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
53 | MCMILLAN Jackson V. | 22% | 39% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
54 | JACKSON Nicholas | 5% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
55 | PETERSEN Zachary | 6% | 29% | 37% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
56 | KIRSCH Adam J. | 3% | 16% | 32% | 30% | 15% | 4% | - |
57 | KELLEY Hayden | 27% | 46% | 22% | 5% | - | - | - |
58 | MILES Ronald D. | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 5% |
59 | ROSENBLUM Addison J. | 44% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
60 | SAULSBERRY Saliim | 51% | 43% | 6% | - | - | - | |
60 | GAO "George" Xiaojiang | 7% | 28% | 38% | 22% | 5% | - | |
62 | MILLSON Daniel | 1% | 9% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
63 | LI Ray | 79% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - | |
64 | CHENG Bingyi | 20% | 38% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
65 | WHITE Aidan | 61% | 34% | 5% | - | - | - |
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.