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 | MEHAN Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 44% |
2 | ANAND Rohan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 50% |
3 | BRANDT Jaden | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 39% |
3 | LIN Maxim | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 62% | 21% |
5 | BERA Enzo | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 43% |
6 | CARRINGTON IV William T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 27% |
7 | ATWOOD Griffin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 56% | 15% | |
8 | SAGE Sebastian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 59% | 15% |
9 | LIU Kevin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 47% | |
10 | HUANG Alex F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% |
11 | NGUYEN Anthony | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 30% |
12 | BUIKEVICH Ihnat | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 68% | 23% |
13 | LAUB William | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 6% | - |
14 | CLARK Aram | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 43% | |
15 | BONETTI Brayden | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 48% | 11% | |
16 | ANAND Rishab | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 37% | |
17 | URSU Marcel T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 42% |
18 | OH Aster | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 34% | 6% |
19 | CHUNG Connor | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 57% | 17% |
20 | PEREIRA Beckham | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 46% | 14% | 2% |
21 | OLOUGHLIN Quin | 100% | 86% | 50% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
22 | AO Christopher | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 30% | 4% |
23 | ALLARDYCE Graham | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 34% | 7% |
24 | NAYAK Surin K. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 55% | 18% | 1% |
25 | LEE Andrew | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 42% | 9% | |
26 | TSAO Oliver | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 46% | 9% | |
27 | PINTO Marcus | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 24% | |
28 | LEE Griffin | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 26% | 6% | - |
29 | DE SIENA Salvatore | 100% | 96% | 79% | 45% | 15% | 2% | - |
30 | SAKAYEDA Jacob | 100% | 100% | 91% | 63% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
31 | VAHABZADEH Jake R. | 100% | 88% | 55% | 20% | 4% | - | |
32 | SASSI Ilyas | 100% | 99% | 87% | 56% | 20% | 3% | - |
33 | MATTOO Deven | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 35% | 9% | 1% |
34 | WITCZAK Mateus | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 18% | 1% |
35 | MONTALVO Matthew | 100% | 99% | 87% | 55% | 20% | 3% | - |
36 | VILEMAITIS Tadas | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 21% | 3% | |
37 | BROENING-CHAI Jonas | 100% | 100% | 93% | 67% | 27% | 4% | |
38 | ALLARDYCE Lachlan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 28% | |
39 | TANG Shu Hon | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 18% |
40 | SHINCHUK Daniel | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 37% | 10% | 1% |
41 | WAXLER Ryan | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 41% | 10% | 1% |
42 | AYDOGDU Hakan | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
43 | LIGH Checed | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 38% | 9% | 1% |
44 | WONG Caleb W. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 29% | 6% | - |
45 | DEELY Hartigan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 52% | 15% | 2% |
46 | GOMEZ Emilio | 100% | 86% | 48% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
47 | NOTOPRADONO Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 57% | 15% | |
48 | ZHANG Ray | 100% | 96% | 77% | 42% | 13% | 1% | |
49 | PORTER Dupree | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 59% | 19% | 2% |
50 | PRIEUR Christian F. | 100% | 97% | 80% | 44% | 12% | 1% | |
51 | BALE Atman | 100% | 96% | 68% | 26% | 5% | - | |
52 | WELSTEAD Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 39% | 9% | |
53 | CHANG Timothy | 100% | 93% | 59% | 19% | 3% | - | |
54 | TSAO Alister | 100% | 71% | 29% | 6% | 1% | - | |
55 | GERTSBERG Eli | 100% | 99% | 87% | 54% | 19% | 3% | - |
56 | UEMOTO Ken | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 64% | 27% | 3% |
57 | CHEN Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 49% | 13% |
58 | SHAH Sohan | 100% | 86% | 48% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
59 | ONG Dylan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 18% | 2% |
60 | KIM Daehwan(Benjamin) | 100% | 96% | 76% | 38% | 10% | 1% | |
61 | SHAPIRO Simon | 100% | 97% | 70% | 29% | 5% | - | |
62 | JIANG Terence | 100% | 64% | 19% | 2% | - | - | - |
63 | VOHRA Ekam | 100% | 74% | 24% | 3% | - | - | - |
64 | TSATSAS Andreas | 100% | 96% | 77% | 44% | 16% | 3% | - |
65 | BHANDARE Niev | 100% | 86% | 48% | 14% | 2% | - | |
66 | LIU Andrew | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 39% | 11% | 1% |
67 | MARTINSON Torm | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 24% | 3% | |
68 | KENNEDY Tomás | 100% | 82% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | |
69 | MAGITSKY Isaac | 100% | 89% | 54% | 17% | 2% | - | |
70 | GORDON Samuel | 100% | 91% | 58% | 21% | 4% | - | |
70 | CRAWFORD William | 100% | 82% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - | |
72 | DIGIACOMO Dennis G. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 56% | 18% | 2% | - |
73 | SARWAHI Viraat | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 28% | 5% | - |
74 | JAIN Karanvir | 100% | 93% | 66% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - |
75 | CAREY Sam | 100% | 96% | 73% | 28% | 5% | - | - |
76 | CHEA Caden | 100% | 89% | 55% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
76 | HU Jayden | 100% | 93% | 66% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - |
78 | SHINCHUK Jacob | 100% | 90% | 52% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
78 | PATEL Arush | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 39% | 9% | 1% |
80 | TAYCHER Aaron | 100% | 95% | 66% | 24% | 4% | - | |
81 | MIR Alexander | 100% | 88% | 52% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
82 | PAVLENISHVILI Luke | 100% | 80% | 38% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
83 | MILLET Etienne | 100% | 50% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
84 | CUSSON William | 100% | 81% | 42% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
85 | MADHAVAN Arjun | 100% | 93% | 62% | 24% | 5% | - | - |
86 | SHEYNZON Benjamin | 100% | 44% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
87 | FARBER Jake | 100% | 36% | 6% | - | - | - | |
88 | SUH Leo | 100% | 84% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
89 | LOSQUADRO Joseph | 100% | 62% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
89 | TSAI Kai-An | 100% | 96% | 74% | 36% | 8% | 1% | - |
91 | TUNIK Joshuah | 100% | 89% | 49% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
92 | GRAVES Connor | 100% | 57% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
93 | BUDAEV Artem | 100% | 66% | 22% | 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.