Parsippany, NJ - Parsippany, NJ, 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 | KAMBESELES Peter G. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 42% |
| 2 | CANDREVA Hunter R. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 35% | 9% | 1% |
| 3 | MARAKOV Allen B. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 49% | 11% | |
| 3 | ROGAK Benjamin A. | 100% | 84% | 47% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 5 | KANG Michael H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 36% |
| 6 | POLKOVSKY Dylan S. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 58% | 23% | 4% | |
| 7 | PAVLENISHVILI David G. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 47% | 13% | |
| 8 | SLAVINSKIY Alan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 26% | |
| 9 | PAOLINI Nathan R. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 37% | 8% | |
| 10 | HOLST Eric | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 24% | 4% | |
| 11 | MOTIR Lucas D. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 60% | 25% | 5% | |
| 12 | SHENG Patrick Y. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 22% | 3% |
| 13 | PLECHAVICIUS Daniel | 100% | 63% | 22% | 4% | - | - | |
| 14 | ZHANG Matthew | 100% | 96% | 74% | 38% | 11% | 1% | |
| 15 | RODELL Hunter C. | 100% | 81% | 41% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 16 | LEVY Jeffrey M. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 32% | 6% | |
| 17 | HAO Jerry | 100% | 100% | 100% | 93% | 68% | 28% | 3% |
| 18 | KIM Juni C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 30% | |
| 19 | ANDREEV Arthur | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 21% | |
| 20 | RITCHIE Patrick Q. | 100% | 90% | 56% | 20% | 4% | - | |
| 21 | KAMBESELES Jack M. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 19% | |
| 22 | KOKENGE Clark | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 14% | |
| 23 | HANXU Richard A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 49% | 14% |
| 24 | INSLER Gabriel C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 13% |
| 25 | DOLGONOS Mark | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 31% | 6% | |
| 26 | SMITH Nicholas S. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 29% | 6% | |
| 27 | KIM William M. | 100% | 82% | 39% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 28 | BORATIN Daniel I. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 18% | 2% | |
| 29 | CHAUDHRY Rafay | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 44% | 12% | |
| 30 | KRENZ Michal A. | 100% | 83% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 31 | ROSEBORO Brian R. | 100% | 97% | 78% | 41% | 12% | 1% | |
| 32 | BAKER Kevin G. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 64% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 33 | GIBSON Nowell L. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 55% | 21% | 3% |
| 34 | MAAS Sean H. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 49% | 17% | 2% |
| 35 | MOYSE Alexander S. | 100% | 90% | 51% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 36 | LUKANYUK Lorence | 100% | 100% | 94% | 74% | 38% | 9% | |
| 37 | DIAS-LALCACA Kieran P. | 100% | 98% | 88% | 62% | 29% | 8% | 1% |
| 38 | ELAMURUGAN Kavin | 100% | 100% | 96% | 71% | 32% | 7% | 1% |
| 39 | GANA Jr Jorge M. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 16% | 2% | |
| 40 | SUICO Zachary Emanuel O. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 41% | 8% | |
| 41 | NOSSA Alec | 100% | 85% | 46% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 42 | WANG William M. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 25% | 6% | - |
| 43 | BANKULLA Nihal R. | 100% | 86% | 51% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 43 | PARK Brian | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 35% | 9% | 1% |
| 45 | KUMAR Anitya | 100% | 95% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 46 | SOOMRO Adam A. | 100% | 99% | 87% | 50% | 14% | 1% | |
| 47 | CHEUNG Liyan | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 27% | 4% | |
| 48 | AWWAD Basel | 100% | 94% | 68% | 29% | 5% | - | |
| 49 | ZHU Jasper | 100% | 57% | 16% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 51 | HU Matthew | 100% | 96% | 77% | 43% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 51 | LIU Frank | 100% | 88% | 54% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 53 | BEYRICH Henry J. | 100% | 87% | 55% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 54 | MATINHO Jameson | 100% | 73% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 55 | CHEN Austin | 100% | 63% | 17% | 1% | - | - | |
| 56 | INSLER Ethan C. | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 22% | 4% | |
| 57 | SPANO Gideon S. | 100% | 92% | 60% | 23% | 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.