Madison, NJ - Madison, 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 | CHIN Ethan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 79% | 47% | 14% |
2 | KAMBESELES Peter G. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 40% |
3 | BEKKER Mitchel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 13% |
3 | CHA Russell W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 21% |
5 | KOKENGE Clark | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 38% | 9% |
6 | RODE Damian E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 62% | 19% |
7 | MORSE Tyler | 100% | 100% | 99% | 85% | 46% | 10% | |
8 | INSLER Gabriel C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 60% | 20% |
9 | DING Phillip C. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 30% | 6% | |
10 | BHATNAGAR Nishay V. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 29% |
11 | LUKANYUK Lorence | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 16% | 2% |
12 | KRONROD Tal | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 40% | 9% |
13 | KAMBESELES Jack M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 52% | 15% |
14 | DIXON Samuel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 76% | 42% | 11% |
15 | KING Cameron | 100% | 100% | 93% | 61% | 20% | 2% | |
16 | SHENG Patrick Y. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 22% | |
17 | SMITH Nicholas S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 42% | 9% |
18 | MCDERMOTT Brian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 58% | 19% |
19 | LIEF Isaac R. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 59% | 25% | 6% | 1% |
20 | GANA Jr Jorge M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 34% | 7% |
21 | WIEDERHORN Ethan | 100% | 94% | 66% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
22 | FERREIRA Noah J. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 19% | 2% |
23 | LAVENSTEIN Kinley V. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 45% | 10% | |
24 | MARCHANT Albert J. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 32% | 6% | |
25 | RICHARD Owen | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 49% | 13% | |
26 | INSLER Ethan C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 37% | 9% |
27 | SPANO Gideon S. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 66% | 32% | 7% |
28 | WHELAN Thomas (Tony) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 33% | |
29 | DYER Ian E. | 100% | 86% | 48% | 15% | 2% | - | |
30 | WISNIEWSKI Bart | 100% | 98% | 79% | 39% | 9% | 1% | |
31 | JIN Owen | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 6% | - |
32 | KWAN Hall Gi | 100% | 76% | 32% | 6% | - | - | |
33 | ZHENG Hagen | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 28% | |
34 | GLAZ Nicholas S. | 100% | 99% | 86% | 55% | 21% | 3% | |
35 | FELDMAN Jaemin | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 29% | 5% | |
36 | PANARIN Nicholas (Nick) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 36% |
37 | ZHANG YuJian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 51% | 15% |
38 | GUI Runlin | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
39 | MOYSE Alexander S. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 57% | 21% | 3% | |
40 | WU Joseph | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 26% | 7% | 1% |
41 | JIN Alexander | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 23% | 4% |
42 | GROSSMAN August | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 62% | 28% | 6% |
43 | LIU Jack | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 30% | 7% | 1% |
44 | DIAS-LALCACA Kieran P. | 100% | 97% | 82% | 52% | 22% | 5% | - |
45 | SOOMRO Adam A. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 21% | 3% |
46 | MCCOMISKEY Aiden J. | 100% | 97% | 82% | 51% | 20% | 4% | - |
47 | WANG Eric S | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 22% | 5% | - |
48 | YUROVCHAK Andrew T. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 19% | |
49 | LIBSON Tazman | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 41% | 8% | |
50 | GOHEL Dayus T. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 19% | 3% | |
51 | LANGTON Sawyer | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 21% | 3% |
51 | COLLYMORE Spencer T. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 29% | 5% |
53 | SAM Kory | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 25% | 5% | - |
54 | MAGDA Daniel | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 19% | 3% | - |
55 | FENWICK Luke A. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 13% | 1% |
56 | URQUILLA Marc | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 39% | 12% | 2% |
57 | BAZURO Andrew | 100% | 91% | 62% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
58 | STOREY Joseph P. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 30% | |
59 | BHATNAGAR Ayan | 100% | 83% | 42% | 11% | 1% | - | |
60 | DIXON Thomas | 100% | 98% | 83% | 49% | 17% | 3% | - |
61 | SHAH Maximilian A. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
62 | TONG Chihao | 100% | 81% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - | |
63 | WADE Grayson | 100% | 78% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - | |
64 | CONNORS Jacob | 100% | 54% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
65 | MUNROE Shane | 100% | 97% | 80% | 45% | 14% | 2% | |
66 | ZARETSKY Daniel A. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 6% | |
67 | TUCKER Owen J. | 100% | 87% | 52% | 18% | 3% | - | |
68 | ZHAO Luhan | 100% | 96% | 70% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - |
69 | PAK Charles | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 52% | 18% | 3% |
70 | HONG James | 100% | 77% | 38% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
71 | CHEUNG Liyan | 100% | 98% | 83% | 50% | 19% | 4% | - |
72 | PRAKASH Nikhil | 100% | 54% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
73 | BARSEMIAN Alexander | 100% | 85% | 45% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
74 | PARK Frederick | 100% | 93% | 64% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - |
75 | ZHENG Christopher | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 18% | 3% | - |
76 | MAAS Sean H. | 100% | 92% | 62% | 25% | 5% | - | |
77 | LI Jeffrey | 100% | 83% | 45% | 13% | 2% | - | |
78 | LEE Alexander | 100% | 64% | 19% | 2% | - | - | |
79 | SIDDIQUI Humza K. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 17% | 2% |
80 | SIMPSON Patrick | 100% | 96% | 74% | 37% | 11% | 1% | - |
81 | SKIFFINGTON Sam | 100% | 93% | 66% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - |
82 | CHOW Maxwell | 100% | 84% | 49% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
83 | ROLLO Emmett H. | 100% | 93% | 69% | 34% | 10% | 2% | - |
84 | BLANCHARD Jonah | 100% | 76% | 26% | 4% | - | - | - |
85 | COTAJ Andrew | 100% | 85% | 42% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
86 | DWYER Michael | 100% | 79% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
87 | LI Brian | 100% | 85% | 47% | 15% | 2% | - | |
88 | KUMAR Aidan | 100% | 94% | 66% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
89 | LACY Hayden | 100% | 78% | 37% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
90 | LONCAR Luka E. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 22% | 5% | - |
91 | PRADHAN Aryan | 100% | 47% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
92 | KHAN Ahmer S. | 100% | 83% | 40% | 7% | - | - | |
93 | KHAN Raaid | 100% | 80% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
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.