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 | LI Brandon H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 46% |
| 2 | EMMER Chase T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 66% |
| 3 | DOBBINS Evan W. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 25% | 4% |
| 3 | TAQI Ahmad F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 15% |
| 5 | MA Alexander | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 33% | 6% |
| 6 | BINDER Zachary (Zach) B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 39% |
| 7 | YU Vinni | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 19% | |
| 8 | KIM Nicholas W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 40% | 10% |
| 9 | SHAFAIE Kaveh | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 93% | 60% |
| 10 | SHAFAIE Ali | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 20% |
| 11 | LUTAR Lucas N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 32% |
| 12 | BATRAK Alexander | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 17% | 3% |
| 13 | KASI Sanjay | 100% | 100% | 100% | 92% | 62% | 19% | 2% |
| 14 | JOHNSON Aidan J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 42% |
| 15 | ZHAO Jason L. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 40% | 11% | 1% |
| 16 | JANG Jaewon | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 39% | 7% |
| 17 | LIU Niles J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 41% |
| 18 | DING Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 52% | 19% | 3% |
| 19 | SINGH Dayaal | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 50% | 12% | |
| 20 | SULLIVAN Jackson R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 54% | 9% |
| 21 | AUGUSTINE Ethan A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 31% | 6% |
| 22 | PRINCE Nicholas J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 42% | 9% |
| 23 | LEUNG Wai Chi Ethan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 23% |
| 24 | HEWES Thomas G. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 46% | 14% | 2% |
| 25 | CHIN Jason Y. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 56% | 21% | 3% |
| 26 | CHENG Thomas C. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 39% | 9% | |
| 27 | HARTMARK Anders | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 42% | 7% |
| 28 | ZHANG Henry C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 23% | 3% |
| 29 | CHENG Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 29% | 6% |
| 30 | LOCKWOOD Owen | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 40% | 9% |
| 31 | WU Alexander | 100% | 100% | 100% | 92% | 65% | 27% | 5% |
| 32 | LAUN Drew P. | 100% | 94% | 70% | 32% | 7% | 1% | |
| 33 | GROSSMAN SMISEK Spencer E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 51% | 15% |
| 34 | COSTELLO Chaissen F. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 35 | BADRIGIAN William H. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 21% | 3% | |
| 36 | HOOSHI Dylan M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 36% | 7% |
| 37 | KAO Castor T. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 83% | 48% | 15% | 2% |
| 38 | YEROKHIN Michael N. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 55% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 38 | LIANG Lixi (Henry) | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 30% | 5% |
| 40 | BRANDT-OGMAN Adlai | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 70% | 28% | 3% |
| 41 | MANGE Nathan | 100% | 100% | 93% | 69% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 42 | ADLER David R. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 23% | 3% |
| 43 | REZNICK Nicholas J. | 100% | 98% | 77% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 44 | MARSHALL Ian | 100% | 99% | 79% | 41% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 45 | CRALEY Thomas M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 82% | 45% | 14% | 2% |
| 46 | RECHLER Logan | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 18% | 3% | |
| 47 | ONIK Elijah T. | 100% | 91% | 63% | 28% | 7% | 1% | |
| 48 | RITCHIE Luke W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 40% | |
| 49 | WANG Michael | 100% | 99% | 89% | 51% | 14% | 1% | - |
| 50 | TUMMINGS C.J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 46% | 12% |
| 50 | HU Robin | 100% | 99% | 81% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 52 | DOCTOR Aidan L. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 30% | 7% | 1% |
| 53 | SERCK-HANSSEN Peter E. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 12% | 1% |
| 54 | BAE Kevin | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 55 | KAZA Nitish | 100% | 97% | 71% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 56 | LIAO Alex J. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 71% | 28% | 4% | - |
| 57 | HERGERT Benito | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 23% | 4% |
| 58 | VANNI Filippo A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 24% | 3% |
| 58 | DU Samuel R. | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 19% | 3% | - |
| 60 | KWON Ethan | 100% | 99% | 85% | 49% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 61 | ZELTSER Lawrence M. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 50% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 62 | GALLUCCI Charles John | 100% | 99% | 71% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 63 | CAI Oliver K. | 100% | 84% | 43% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 64 | ORTIZ Zachary M. | 100% | 100% | 92% | 63% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 65 | GU Jeffrey | 100% | 92% | 65% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 66 | JOHNSON Cooper A. | 100% | 81% | 35% | 7% | - | - | - |
| 67 | CORTIZAS John (Jack) | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 34% | 7% | - |
| 68 | NAGER Noah | 100% | 90% | 59% | 24% | 5% | - | |
| 69 | CHAN Tyler | 100% | 97% | 80% | 41% | 11% | 1% | |
| 70 | LE Vyn A. | 100% | 91% | 58% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 71 | WU Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 95% | 72% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
| 72 | BOOTSMA Shane-Anson | 100% | 76% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 73 | SANTULLI Tristan | 100% | 82% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 74 | STURGIS Zachary C. | 100% | 84% | 22% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 75 | AHN Jun | 100% | 90% | 60% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 76 | KULKARNI Ansh A. | 100% | 93% | 66% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 77 | ZHAO Jesse | 100% | 87% | 50% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 78 | DAUM Charlie | 100% | 67% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 79 | ZHONG Guoren | 100% | 85% | 41% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 80 | MCLENDON Diego | 100% | 43% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
| 81 | CHAMBERS Thomas J. | 100% | 71% | 27% | 5% | - | - | |
| 82 | WANG Alex L. | 100% | 80% | 26% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 83 | BERGER Cameron D. | 100% | 64% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 83 | BOUSSY Luciano | 100% | 15% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 85 | VENKATESH Aditya | 100% | 11% | - | - | - | - | - |
| 86 | WANG Gerald Y. | 100% | 67% | 24% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 87 | SCHOFIELD Benjamin J. | 100% | 22% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 87 | XU Mathu Yang | 100% | 24% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 89 | JUSTUS Benjamin | 100% | 7% | - | - | - | - | - |
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.