Dominican University New York - Orangeburg, NY, USA
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 | WU Jonathan | - | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 42% | 31% |
| 2 | WU Joseph | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 36% | 55% |
| 3 | HE Lawrence | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 40% | 46% |
| 3 | PARK Frederick | - | - | 3% | 13% | 34% | 37% | 13% |
| 5 | SERAFIN Ben | - | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 35% | 14% |
| 6 | LAI Boden | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 5% |
| 7 | SUN Jason | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 9% |
| 8 | CHEN Jun Ho | 1% | 11% | 35% | 38% | 14% | 1% | |
| 9 | KNOX James | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 39% | 50% |
| 10 | KIM Juni C. | - | - | - | 4% | 27% | 69% | |
| 11 | ROLLO Emmett H. | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 33% | 15% | 2% |
| 12 | SCAPICCHIO Stephen | - | 6% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
| 13 | NESTERCZUK Maddox W. | 5% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 14 | TUMIBAY Noah C. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 41% | 24% |
| 15 | TRULL A.J. | 1% | 11% | 35% | 38% | 14% | 1% | |
| 16 | ZOU Xianyang (Max) | 3% | 16% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 17 | LONGSTREET Jeffrey | - | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 35% | 12% |
| 18 | LAI Aedin | - | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 36% | 9% |
| 19 | JUN Jaywu | - | - | 2% | 10% | 31% | 40% | 17% |
| 20 | LEE Noah | - | - | 4% | 19% | 44% | 33% | |
| 21 | WU Marcus | - | 5% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
| 22 | SUN Jeffery | - | 6% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 7% | 1% |
| 23 | HU Robert J. | 1% | 7% | 25% | 37% | 23% | 6% | - |
| 24 | PARK Nicholas | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 9% |
| 25 | SUN James H. | 2% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 26 | KIM Tei D. | - | 2% | 11% | 32% | 39% | 16% | |
| 27 | DURKIN Tristan E. | 2% | 17% | 37% | 32% | 11% | 1% | |
| 28 | XIE Brandon | - | 3% | 17% | 36% | 32% | 11% | 1% |
| 29 | WU Colin | 5% | 23% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 30 | CHATZIKALFAS Dimitris E. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 34% | 41% | 12% |
| 31 | ZHANG Roland | 18% | 38% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 32 | GRAYSON Joshua | 4% | 26% | 39% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 33 | SIMPSON Patrick | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 39% | 26% | 4% |
| 34 | MAO Benjamin | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 7% |
| 35 | SVERDLOV Seth | - | 2% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
| 36 | ZHAO kuncheng | 5% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 7% | 1% | |
| 37 | DUSSEAU Maddax | 2% | 16% | 36% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 38 | KRISHNAN Skanda | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 38 | LEIBOWITZ Ryan | 5% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 40 | WONG King-Yee | 5% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 41 | THAKUR Om S. | - | 2% | 16% | 41% | 35% | 5% | |
| 42 | HOROWITZ Logan | 34% | 46% | 17% | 2% | - | - | |
| 43 | SANTOS Antonio K. | 1% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
| 44 | NGUYEN Damien | 2% | 13% | 33% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 45 | DEGENHARDT Zenji | 40% | 42% | 15% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 46 | SIYANKO Joshua | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 8% |
| 47 | REPIC Oliver | 8% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 48 | BAILEY David | 11% | 40% | 36% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 49 | MEN Junda | 18% | 38% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 50 | TANG Charles | 24% | 46% | 24% | 5% | - | - | |
| 51 | RIVERA Louis | 13% | 34% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 52 | BLANCO Sebastian | 6% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 53 | STELTENKAMP Neal | 15% | 39% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 54 | PETROV Niki A. | 1% | 10% | 30% | 36% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 55 | HOWARD Jackson | 27% | 41% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 56 | CHOU Benson | 10% | 31% | 35% | 18% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 57 | SANTOS Francisco M. | 2% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 58 | SARIDAKIS Ioannis Thanos | 34% | 44% | 19% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 58 | MA Wilson | 11% | 37% | 36% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 60 | BENTAHA Averroes | 10% | 36% | 36% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 61 | JIANG Alex | 58% | 34% | 7% | 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.