Rockland Community College, Eugene Levy Field House - Suffern, NY, 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 | LEE Aidan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 71% | 14% | |
| 2 | HASSAN Mohamed H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 92% | 48% | |
| 3 | KIM Nicholas W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 72% |
| 3 | DAI Jonathan T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 44% |
| 5 | STANLEY Mason B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 64% |
| 6 | COSTELLO Chaissen F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 74% | 28% | |
| 7 | BELLUOMO David C. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 35% | 8% | |
| 8 | PYO Michael M. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 20% | 3% |
| 9 | LIN James G. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 44% | 14% | 2% |
| 10 | CHEN Earnest P. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 71% | |
| 11 | MOHAMED Murad | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 5% |
| 12 | LEE Chris | 100% | 99% | 88% | 59% | 24% | 4% | |
| 13 | BAE Kevin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 25% |
| 14 | MOHAMED Amir | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 30% | 4% |
| 15 | ZOBEL Eric H. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 25% | |
| 16 | HOOSHI Jayden C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 49% | 14% |
| 17 | KIM Yonjae | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 29% |
| 18 | BING Charles | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 22% | |
| 19 | ZHAI Jeffrey | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 38% | |
| 20 | LIANG Lixi (Henry) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 49% |
| 21 | GAO William | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 53% | 18% | 2% |
| 22 | SIMA Congyu Josh | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 42% | 8% | |
| 23 | KENNARD M Henry B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 73% | 24% | |
| 24 | AUGUSTINE Aaron A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 22% | 2% |
| 25 | ELWOOD Sebastian F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 45% | 8% |
| 25 | AHN Jun | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 15% |
| 27 | HOOSHI Dylan M. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 79% | 28% | 3% | |
| 28 | KEE Andrew L. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 12% | 2% |
| 29 | SAMORA Jose G. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 51% | 13% |
| 30 | LIU Kovi | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 33% | 7% |
| 31 | LEE Jacob | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 29% | 6% | |
| 32 | TRAUGOT Owen G. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 23% | 4% | |
| 33 | ORLOV Dmitriy | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 32% | 7% | < 1% |
| 34 | KITAGAWA Eric S. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 42% | 11% | 1% |
| 35 | PO Oliver | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 57% | 21% | 3% |
| 36 | HE Xiangrui | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 47% | 14% | 2% |
| 37 | ZELTSER Lawrence M. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 71% | 29% | 4% | |
| 37 | TAHOUN Mostafa | 100% | 97% | 80% | 45% | 15% | 2% | |
| 39 | JOSEPH Willem | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 18% | |
| 40 | GAO Payton | 100% | 54% | 15% | 2% | < 1% | - | - |
| 41 | WANG mason | 100% | 97% | 82% | 51% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 42 | ZHEN Ethan | 100% | 97% | 74% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 43 | LANG Dong Lin | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 23% | 4% | |
| 44 | QIAN Jason H. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 33% | 9% | 1% | |
| 45 | HU Robin | 100% | 99% | 86% | 53% | 17% | 2% | |
| 45 | PAN Henry | 100% | 97% | 78% | 36% | 8% | 1% | |
| 47 | LI Eric | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 40% | 10% | |
| 48 | DOBBINS Evan W. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 68% | 24% | |
| 49 | SONG Bryan | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 12% | 1% | |
| 49 | LI Arvin | 100% | 98% | 80% | 38% | 6% | - | |
| 51 | MATSAKH Philip | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 52 | HAN Changhee | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 44% | 13% | 1% |
| 53 | TANG Albert | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 32% | 7% | - |
| 54 | ABDELGAWAD Abdelrahman | 100% | 99% | 77% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 55 | KNIZHNIK David | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 48% | 11% | |
| 56 | LI Matthew | 100% | 98% | 78% | 25% | 3% | - | |
| 56 | SHEN jinjie | 100% | 90% | 52% | 14% | 1% | - | |
| 58 | FINLEY Dylan | 100% | 99% | 87% | 53% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 59 | BADLANI Dev | 100% | 100% | 93% | 64% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 60 | XU Ethan | 100% | 92% | 54% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 61 | MUNDAHL Brandon D. | 100% | 93% | 68% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 62 | LEE Eugene | 100% | 84% | 37% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 63 | YULDASHEV Timur | 100% | 93% | 60% | 20% | 3% | - | |
| 64 | TANG August L. | 100% | 77% | 38% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 65 | LU Howen | 100% | 87% | 51% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 66 | LIGOS Alex M. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 67 | WANG Winston | 100% | 97% | 80% | 46% | 15% | 2% | |
| 68 | STURGIS Zachary C. | 100% | 49% | 11% | 1% | - | - | |
| 69 | TSAO Lukas | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 45% | 12% | 1% |
| 70 | WANG Rory | 100% | 70% | 26% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 71 | HUANG Eythan | 100% | 97% | 77% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 72 | LANGEN Carter M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 28% | 5% |
| 73 | LEE Jonah | 100% | 97% | 75% | 32% | 4% | - | |
| 74 | SONG Noel | 100% | 94% | 62% | 21% | 3% | - | |
| 75 | AMRANI David | 100% | 32% | 3% | - | - | - | |
| 76 | YAO Bradley | 100% | 82% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 77 | LEVY Jacob | 100% | 99% | 55% | 16% | 2% | - | - |
| 78 | SYOMICHEV Gleb A. | 100% | 94% | 70% | 36% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 79 | KALIPERSAD Neil A. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 80 | XU Xinhao ( Sonny) | 100% | 72% | 28% | 5% | - | - | |
| 81 | POPE Alexander | 100% | 50% | 11% | 1% | - | - | |
| 81 | TANG xianchi | 100% | 52% | 12% | 1% | - | - | |
| 81 | LUM-DEBONO Alex | 100% | 86% | 30% | 3% | - | - | |
| 84 | GUO Justin | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 85 | SRINIVASAN Vedant | 100% | 70% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 86 | GALLER Dave | 100% | 78% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 87 | YAP Nathan | 100% | 92% | 66% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 88 | ZHUANG Chuanxuan | 100% | 73% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 89 | MANLAPAZ Jan Vincent | 100% | 4% | - | - | - | - | - |
| 90 | YANG Dylan | 100% | 13% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 91 | GRANADOS Luis | 100% | 37% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
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.