ROCKLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE - Suffern, NY, 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 | KUGLER Luke | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 5% |
| 2 | DURKIN Hudson | - | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 44% | 26% |
| 3 | LIU Adam | 1% | 5% | 18% | 31% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
| 3 | MEN Junda | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 43% | 22% | |
| 5 | SONG Troy | - | - | 3% | 13% | 32% | 36% | 15% |
| 6 | RATUSHNYI Georgii | - | - | 3% | 13% | 32% | 37% | 15% |
| 7 | SINGLETON Aman | 1% | 9% | 31% | 38% | 18% | 3% | |
| 8 | KIM Henry | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 9 | ATKINS Levi H. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 40% | 19% |
| 10 | LI Jade | 2% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% | < 1% |
| 11 | ROLAND Mackinley | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 36% | 16% | 2% |
| 12 | CHEN Jayden | 1% | 13% | 35% | 35% | 13% | 2% | |
| 13 | CAO Ray | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 32% | 12% | 2% |
| 14 | NILSEN Mark | 1% | 10% | 28% | 34% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 15 | ZENG Andrew | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 20% |
| 16 | DOUBOV Andrew | 2% | 11% | 27% | 33% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
| 17 | DEGRUCCIO Johnny | 4% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 18 | XIA Dashan | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 43% | 23% | |
| 19 | SEOW Daniel | - | 4% | 16% | 31% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
| 20 | WONG Maximus | - | 1% | 5% | 18% | 34% | 31% | 11% |
| 21 | FEINBERG James Y. | 1% | 9% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
| 22 | GLUSHKOV David | 11% | 34% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 23 | SCHAUER Oliver | - | 3% | 15% | 31% | 34% | 15% | 1% |
| 24 | FENG Shang | - | 4% | 15% | 30% | 31% | 17% | 4% |
| 25 | ZOGRAFOS Nicholas | 11% | 40% | 35% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 26 | KOPPENHEFFER Rowan | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 6% |
| 27 | NAKAS Levent | - | - | < 1% | 1% | 8% | 35% | 56% |
| 28 | LI Morgan | 5% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 29 | MARIN Ayan N. | 20% | 39% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 30 | KRAUSS Judah | 10% | 30% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 31 | LI Ray | 7% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 32 | WANG-SONG Evan | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
| 33 | OCONNOR Paul | 16% | 36% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 34 | NOVOJILOV Daniel | 4% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 35 | KANG Brandon | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 5% | - |
| 36 | NORMILE Nicholas | 2% | 11% | 27% | 32% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
| 37 | TESFAYE Elias | 24% | 39% | 26% | 9% | 2% | - | - |
| 38 | NOOL Alexander | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 39 | BARATY Teagan | 48% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - | - | |
| 40 | AHMED Mohsen | 16% | 39% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 41 | FOGEL Jake | 15% | 36% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
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.