ROCKLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE - 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 | KUGLER Luke | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 61% | 26% | 5% |
| 2 | DURKIN Hudson | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 70% | 26% |
| 3 | LIU Adam | 100% | 99% | 94% | 76% | 44% | 16% | 2% |
| 3 | MEN Junda | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 22% | |
| 5 | SONG Troy | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 52% | 15% |
| 6 | RATUSHNYI Georgii | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 52% | 15% |
| 7 | SINGLETON Aman | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 21% | 3% | |
| 8 | KIM Henry | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 40% | 12% | 1% |
| 9 | ATKINS Levi H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 19% |
| 10 | LI Jade | 100% | 98% | 83% | 51% | 19% | 3% | < 1% |
| 11 | ROLAND Mackinley | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 18% | 2% |
| 12 | CHEN Jayden | 100% | 99% | 85% | 50% | 15% | 2% | |
| 13 | CAO Ray | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 46% | 14% | 2% |
| 14 | NILSEN Mark | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
| 15 | ZENG Andrew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 20% |
| 16 | DOUBOV Andrew | 100% | 98% | 88% | 61% | 28% | 8% | 1% |
| 17 | DEGRUCCIO Johnny | 100% | 96% | 75% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 18 | XIA Dashan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 23% | |
| 19 | SEOW Daniel | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 48% | 18% | 3% |
| 20 | WONG Maximus | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 76% | 42% | 11% |
| 21 | FEINBERG James Y. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 28% | 7% | 1% |
| 22 | GLUSHKOV David | 100% | 89% | 55% | 19% | 3% | - | - |
| 23 | SCHAUER Oliver | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 51% | 17% | 1% |
| 24 | FENG Shang | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 51% | 20% | 4% |
| 25 | ZOGRAFOS Nicholas | 100% | 89% | 48% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 26 | KOPPENHEFFER Rowan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 6% |
| 27 | NAKAS Levent | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 56% |
| 28 | LI Morgan | 100% | 95% | 72% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 29 | MARIN Ayan N. | 100% | 80% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 30 | KRAUSS Judah | 100% | 90% | 61% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 31 | LI Ray | 100% | 93% | 66% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 32 | WANG-SONG Evan | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 38% | 10% | 1% |
| 33 | OCONNOR Paul | 100% | 84% | 49% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 34 | NOVOJILOV Daniel | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 35 | KANG Brandon | 100% | 98% | 85% | 56% | 23% | 5% | - |
| 36 | NORMILE Nicholas | 100% | 98% | 87% | 61% | 29% | 8% | 1% |
| 37 | TESFAYE Elias | 100% | 76% | 37% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 38 | NOOL Alexander | 100% | 86% | 51% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 39 | BARATY Teagan | 100% | 52% | 12% | 1% | - | - | |
| 40 | AHMED Mohsen | 100% | 84% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 41 | FOGEL Jake | 100% | 85% | 49% | 17% | 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.