Madison, NJ - Madison, NJ, 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 | TALAAT Mohamed | - | 2% | 15% | 35% | 33% | 13% | 2% |
| 2 | MICHELL Bailey | - | - | 1% | 10% | 37% | 52% | |
| 3 | MILGRAM Nathan A. | 2% | 10% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 3 | WU Mengke | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 36% | 16% | 2% |
| 5 | BRAR Sanjeet | - | 3% | 13% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 4% |
| 6 | KURTZFREILICH Jake A. | 1% | 5% | 17% | 30% | 29% | 15% | 3% |
| 7 | MOSKOWITZ Mason C. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 39% | 22% |
| 8 | YEN Preston | - | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 35% | 16% |
| 9 | KIM-COGAN Ryan | - | - | 4% | 17% | 37% | 34% | 9% |
| 10 | TANG Albert | - | 4% | 21% | 41% | 29% | 5% | |
| 11 | CHAMBERS Amir E. | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 40% | 44% |
| 12 | BERMAN Luca | - | - | 2% | 12% | 35% | 40% | 11% |
| 13 | LASORSA Matthew | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 39% | 19% |
| 14 | MARGULIES William | 2% | 16% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 15 | YUAN Kevin | - | 3% | 21% | 39% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
| 16 | FISK Ethan | 5% | 26% | 39% | 24% | 6% | - | |
| 17 | GILES Jeremy M. | - | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 42% | 31% |
| 18 | BUKOWSKI Bronson | - | - | 2% | 13% | 41% | 44% | |
| 19 | TSUNG David | 1% | 4% | 16% | 29% | 30% | 16% | 4% |
| 20 | HO Kaden M. | - | 3% | 16% | 32% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
| 21 | GOEBEL Alex J. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 30% | 45% | 16% |
| 22 | TRAVAGLIONE Conor D. | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 41% | 42% |
| 23 | WOLIN Zachary | - | 4% | 17% | 37% | 33% | 9% | |
| 24 | CHON Taylor A. | - | 1% | 8% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 8% |
| 25 | ZHOU Miles | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 37% | 18% | 3% |
| 26 | XU William | - | 5% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 27 | LEE Jude H. | 3% | 20% | 39% | 29% | 8% | 1% | |
| 28 | HOEY-WASOW Henry | 3% | 16% | 31% | 30% | 15% | 4% | - |
| 29 | SPOSATO Andrew P. | 3% | 22% | 38% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 30 | HUANG Ethan F. | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 5% |
| 31 | DENG Andrew | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 33% | 15% | 2% |
| 32 | HONG Vincent Q. | - | 5% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
| 33 | CLYMER Lucas Y. | - | 5% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 34 | ANGKATAVANICH Owen | 8% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 35 | CLAWSON Amzie | 5% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 36 | CHENG Kyle | 1% | 12% | 31% | 34% | 18% | 5% | - |
| 37 | TOPF Karl B. | - | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 3% |
| 38 | DIPIETRO Christopher J. | 3% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 39 | TISHININ Alexander D. | 1% | 8% | 28% | 39% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 40 | PANDEY Neil | 9% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 41 | SANDERS Samuel B. | 1% | 13% | 33% | 33% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 42 | ZATZ Ben Z. | 36% | 42% | 18% | 4% | - | - | |
| 43 | SANFILIPPO-SCHERER Alexander G. | 3% | 18% | 36% | 31% | 10% | 1% | |
| 44 | MALATESTA Michael | 9% | 30% | 37% | 20% | 4% | - | |
| 45 | NOBLE Colin | 2% | 10% | 25% | 32% | 22% | 8% | 1% |
| 46 | SHAO Peter | 15% | 37% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 47 | RODE Leon J. | - | 2% | 9% | 25% | 34% | 24% | 6% |
| 48 | KREGER Evan | 7% | 28% | 37% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 49 | DREITLEIN Eric | 19% | 45% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 50 | HUANG Tyler T. | 3% | 19% | 37% | 30% | 10% | 1% | |
| 51 | SIRAGUSA Chris | 5% | 24% | 40% | 25% | 6% | - | |
| 52 | SWITALA Dylan F. | 10% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 53 | EPSTEIN Oliver D. | 11% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 54 | HU Andrew | 1% | 9% | 25% | 33% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 55 | GRYCIUK Koby | 27% | 46% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 56 | BLEYMAN David | 13% | 32% | 32% | 17% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 57 | TEVEBAUGH Andrew | 1% | 9% | 24% | 33% | 23% | 9% | 1% |
| 58 | LAMHAOUAR Ryan | 16% | 39% | 33% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 59 | MOULTON Ian | 47% | 42% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 60 | BUCCINO George | 41% | 40% | 15% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 60 | XIAO Ethan | 73% | 24% | 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.