November NAC

Y-14 Men's Foil

Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 2:00 PM

Milwaukee, WI - Milwaukee, WI, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 KIM Nicholas W. - - - 2% 12% 39% 46%
2 ZHANG Andy W. - - 1% 8% 29% 41% 20%
3 LI Raphael C. - 4% 16% 31% 31% 15% 3%
3 SCHEMBRI MCCORD Kruz T. - - 1% 8% 30% 42% 19%
5 WONG Adam L. - - - 3% 16% 42% 39%
6 LIANG Lixi (Henry) - - - 4% 21% 43% 31%
7 COSTELLO Chaissen F. - 1% 8% 25% 37% 24% 6%
8 CHEN Allen - - 3% 17% 35% 33% 11%
9 BAE Kevin - 2% 10% 27% 35% 21% 5%
10 BAS Liam - 5% 19% 36% 31% 9%
11 CHIN Julian S. - 3% 16% 37% 35% 8%
12 DAI Jonathan T. - - 4% 18% 37% 32% 8%
13 PELOSKY Zack B. - - 2% 12% 31% 37% 17%
14 SINGH Dayaal - - 1% 9% 32% 41% 17%
15 ZELTSER Lawrence M. - 5% 17% 32% 30% 14% 2%
16 LIN Dashiell - 1% 8% 23% 35% 25% 7%
17 HOOSHI Dylan M. - - - 3% 17% 42% 38%
18 YANG Luao - - 1% 6% 25% 44% 24%
19 HUTH Mitchell - - 4% 16% 33% 33% 13%
20 CHENG Jonathan - - 3% 15% 34% 34% 13%
21 CHEN Andrew - - 3% 14% 32% 35% 15%
22 FUKUDA Alessio R. - - 2% 14% 36% 37% 12%
23 BING Charles - 3% 14% 29% 32% 17% 4%
24 JEON Caleb A. - 2% 10% 29% 39% 20%
25 KIM Yonjae - - 3% 17% 36% 33% 11%
26 WU Nicholas - 1% 6% 20% 34% 30% 10%
27 GOOR Julian 1% 11% 30% 35% 18% 3%
28 FUKUDA Renzo K. - 2% 14% 35% 35% 13%
29 TSAY Jeremy M. - 2% 14% 35% 36% 13%
30 SICHITIU Alexander - 2% 11% 30% 37% 18% 3%
31 DU Samuel R. - 2% 12% 28% 33% 20% 5%
32 HOBSON Aaron K. 6% 26% 35% 23% 8% 1% -
33 BANERJEE ANUP - - 1% 9% 33% 41% 16%
33 PAE Jonathan L. - 1% 10% 29% 36% 20% 4%
35 BURKE Spencer W. - - 2% 11% 33% 39% 16%
36 OH Jonathan - 1% 7% 22% 36% 27% 7%
37 FU Samuel Y. - 4% 17% 32% 30% 14% 2%
38 FOGELSON Frederick J. - - 3% 17% 38% 32% 9%
39 SONG Aiden S. - 1% 6% 20% 34% 29% 10%
40 DANKAR Neel 1% 7% 23% 33% 25% 9% 1%
41 CHOI Samuel - 6% 23% 37% 26% 7% -
42 HONDA Kazu Z. - - 2% 11% 29% 38% 19%
42 MURRAY Maximo - 1% 6% 22% 38% 28% 6%
44 KIM Tei D. - - 1% 8% 26% 40% 24%
45 BRUK Peter J. - - 3% 14% 35% 36% 11%
46 ZHANG Nicholas Z. - - 1% 8% 35% 56%
47 YU Anders - 2% 9% 25% 34% 24% 6%
48 HOOSHI Jayden C. - - 1% 6% 25% 44% 25%
49 NUNNINK Phillip W. - 2% 10% 25% 34% 23% 6%
50 OROSZLAN Daniel - 7% 25% 35% 24% 8% 1%
51 LUH Ethan K. 1% 8% 27% 36% 22% 6% -
52 DOUGLAS Oscar M. - 2% 11% 29% 36% 18% 3%
53 KAO Castor T. - 1% 9% 26% 36% 22% 5%
54 WU Jerry 1% 6% 21% 33% 26% 10% 2%
55 MUSHER Benjamin J. - 1% 6% 21% 36% 28% 8%
56 LI Owen - 4% 16% 31% 31% 15% 3%
57 ANTON Nathaniel 7% 27% 38% 23% 5% -
58 ONIK Elijah T. - 1% 8% 24% 34% 25% 7%
59 FREEDMAN Samuel E. - 3% 15% 33% 32% 14% 2%
60 SONG Leonardo T. - 3% 17% 34% 32% 12% 1%
61 CHIRASHNYA Adam - 9% 28% 35% 21% 6% 1%
62 RUSADZE Nickolas - 1% 6% 21% 36% 29% 9%
63 GODZHIK Zachary 1% 7% 22% 33% 26% 10% 2%
64 LOVIN Vlad 24% 41% 26% 8% 1% -
65 DESERANNO Jeidus - - - - 4% 29% 66%
66 LI Richard - - 5% 18% 34% 31% 11%
67 MURUHIN Yaroslav - 4% 15% 30% 32% 16% 3%
68 BRETON Louis 4% 28% 39% 23% 6% 1% -
69 KIM Derek A. 9% 41% 36% 13% 2% -
70 REYES Omar - 7% 27% 38% 22% 5%
71 KWON Ethan - 4% 20% 34% 29% 11% 2%
72 WU Jerry Z. 3% 17% 32% 30% 14% 3% -
73 MENG Zhaoyi 2% 13% 32% 33% 16% 4% -
74 WANG Andrew - 5% 21% 37% 27% 9% 1%
75 AHN Jun - 6% 23% 37% 26% 7% -
76 CANO Marcos E. 1% 15% 36% 33% 13% 2% -
76 ZHENG zhe 7% 35% 39% 16% 2% - -
78 MCLAUGHLIN Lloyd I. 2% 14% 30% 32% 17% 4% -
79 NG Eben S. - 2% 13% 32% 35% 15% 2%
79 KEE Andrew L. - 3% 13% 29% 33% 18% 4%
81 MILLER Aidan A. 4% 23% 38% 26% 8% 1% -
82 ZHANG Yun Isaac - 1% 9% 27% 36% 22% 5%
83 SAGE Michael J. 1% 13% 34% 34% 15% 3% -
84 NAGER Noah - 2% 13% 31% 34% 17% 3%
85 ZHAI Jeffrey 1% 11% 33% 36% 16% 3% -
86 CHEN Wilson 6% 23% 35% 25% 9% 2% -
87 MARX Oscar L. - - 5% 20% 39% 31% 5%
87 GAO William 23% 43% 26% 7% 1% - -
89 AIBEL Hudson J. 1% 8% 28% 38% 20% 4% -
90 HAN Lawrence 10% 32% 37% 18% 3% -
91 DORAN Wesley C. 2% 12% 31% 34% 17% 3%
92 HORSLEY Alexander - 3% 18% 38% 32% 9%
93 HOSKERI Anik S. 1% 13% 34% 34% 15% 3% -
94 PAE Brian L. 1% 10% 33% 35% 17% 4% -
95 GORBACHEV Alexander - 9% 28% 35% 21% 6% 1%
96 DESHMUKH Arjun - 7% 24% 36% 24% 8% 1%
97 PALMA Matthew Dominic 19% 46% 27% 7% 1% - -
98 KNOEPFFLER Alex - 6% 25% 37% 24% 7% 1%
99 MARTIN IV Elmer D. 2% 17% 38% 31% 11% 2% -
100 DIERKS Kian 1% 6% 22% 36% 27% 8% 1%
101 ACHILOV Sayid 4% 24% 42% 25% 5% 1% -
102 CATINO Brennen 1% 7% 25% 36% 24% 7% 1%
102 OH SEAN - 3% 15% 30% 32% 16% 3%
104 FLYNN Ian 6% 23% 35% 25% 9% 2% -
105 GRAHAM Roy J. - - 1% 7% 26% 42% 25%
105 FINLEY Dylan 36% 41% 18% 4% 1% - -
107 KUO Evan 10% 31% 36% 18% 4% - -
108 DOCTOR Aidan L. - 3% 15% 32% 32% 15% 3%
109 ROSS III Paul D. 43% 42% 13% 2% - - -
110 LAKE Wyatt J. 2% 18% 37% 30% 11% 2% -
111 LOVE Aaron 5% 21% 34% 27% 11% 2% -
112 DRESSEL Jet 66% 30% 4% - - -
113 ELKOUSY Laith H. 18% 39% 31% 11% 1% -
114 LIU Eric Y. 12% 35% 34% 15% 3% -
115 LI Matthew 5% 37% 38% 16% 3% - -
116 REEVES Liam 1% 10% 32% 39% 16% 3% -
117 FORTUNE Alexander J. 17% 40% 31% 10% 2% - -
118 ORVANANOS Jorge 3% 17% 32% 30% 14% 3% -
119 XIANG Derrick 10% 35% 36% 16% 4% - -
119 BERNABE Rafael 55% 36% 8% 1% - - -
121 LI Avery Peihong 1% 14% 35% 33% 14% 2% -
122 GONG Benjamin 1% 8% 27% 37% 22% 5% -
123 WONG Antonio 7% 25% 35% 23% 8% 1% -
124 LI Ryan Z. 15% 37% 33% 13% 2% - -
125 SANTOS Carlos R. 45% 42% 12% 1% - - -
126 CULLIVAN Justice 1% 10% 32% 37% 17% 3% -
127 GUO Cheng Jin Morris 24% 43% 26% 6% 1% - -
128 TAN Christien 32% 41% 21% 5% 1% - -
129 LIU Jacob B. 12% 37% 34% 14% 3% - -
130 POLONSKI Anthony 15% 43% 31% 9% 1% - -
131 ORONOWICZ Jakub 14% 36% 34% 14% 3% - -
132 GUERRA Gabriel H. 4% 21% 37% 29% 9% 1%
133 WHITE Austin M. 10% 30% 34% 19% 5% 1% -
134 JI Aidan Y. 23% 39% 27% 9% 2% - -
135 SEEDS Edward T. 25% 44% 24% 6% 1% - -
135 DE COQUET Maximilian 73% 24% 3% - - - -
137 TANG Owen S. 5% 22% 35% 26% 10% 2% -
138 RUBIN Max 37% 42% 17% 3% - - -
138 KIM Adrian 40% 41% 15% 3% - - -
138 MCKINLEY Luke 73% 24% 3% - - - -
141 FINNEY Lorenz 20% 38% 29% 11% 2% - -
142 KOKKER Thomas 53% 38% 9% 1% - - -
143 WAKEHAM Paul 86% 13% 1% - - - -
143 WAKEHAM Timothy 68% 28% 4% - - - -

Explanation

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.