Rockland Community College, Eugene Levy Field House - Suffern, 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 | SHOMAN Zachary | - | - | - | 5% | 22% | 43% | 30% |
2 | HUANG Ethan F. | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 41% | 43% |
3 | MARGULIES William | - | - | 3% | 18% | 45% | 33% | |
3 | CHTERENTAL Alex | - | - | 2% | 14% | 40% | 43% | |
5 | SHOMAN Noah | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 43% | 26% | |
6 | SLASTIN Andrew | - | - | - | 3% | 20% | 46% | 30% |
7 | DENG Andrew | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 26% |
8 | DOLAN Charles R. | - | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 33% | 11% |
9 | LIU Lawrence | - | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 3% |
10 | PAN Alex | - | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 42% | 23% |
11 | TENG Matthew | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 6% |
12 | MICLAUS Justin | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 38% | 51% |
13 | KILGALLEN William | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 42% | 21% | 3% |
14 | KANG evan R. | - | 1% | 11% | 31% | 36% | 17% | 3% |
15 | MEDVEDEV Michail D. | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 36% | 22% | 5% |
16 | LUTHRA Arjun | - | 1% | 11% | 32% | 40% | 15% | |
17 | ZHOU Miles | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 32% | 11% |
18 | HAN Daniel Y. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 34% | 43% | 12% |
18 | TRUDNOS Allen | - | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 42% | 30% |
20 | STAMIS Kyle | - | 5% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
21 | FIGUEREDO Adrian | - | - | 1% | 11% | 39% | 48% | |
22 | ENGEL Peter | 1% | 11% | 33% | 36% | 16% | 2% | |
23 | GLOZMAN Justin | - | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 35% | 14% |
24 | LIU Mingyang Ryan | - | - | 6% | 26% | 40% | 23% | 4% |
25 | GUFFEY Christopher | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 33% | 15% | 2% |
26 | HONG Steven | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 42% | 21% | |
27 | BROU Inkosi | 1% | 9% | 30% | 38% | 19% | 3% | |
28 | LOPEZ Lucas M. | 1% | 8% | 28% | 39% | 21% | 4% | |
29 | DOWNEY Baran | 1% | 9% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 3% | |
30 | OH Triton | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 41% | 18% | |
31 | WEN Edward | - | 1% | 25% | 42% | 25% | 6% | - |
32 | SHAH Sajan | 1% | 11% | 31% | 34% | 18% | 4% | - |
33 | HUANG Alex F. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 34% | 36% | 13% |
34 | HUANG Connor | 1% | 7% | 28% | 40% | 22% | 3% | |
35 | KIM-COGAN Ryan | - | - | 3% | 15% | 36% | 35% | 11% |
36 | HO Kaden M. | - | - | - | 5% | 24% | 45% | 25% |
37 | MCCARTHY Gabriel | - | - | 5% | 23% | 47% | 25% | |
38 | NGUYEN Anthony | 1% | 12% | 32% | 36% | 17% | 3% | |
39 | PANDEY Neil | - | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 38% | 17% |
40 | KIM ELIJAH | - | 2% | 12% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 4% |
41 | WANG Weiyun | 1% | 14% | 37% | 34% | 12% | 2% | - |
42 | FANG Eason | 9% | 42% | 37% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
43 | KESSLER Josh | 7% | 35% | 38% | 17% | 3% | - | |
43 | GONG Jerry | - | 7% | 28% | 39% | 21% | 4% | |
45 | MATTOO Surya | 3% | 17% | 36% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - |
45 | NG Jeremiah | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 8% |
47 | NG Jonathan | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% |
48 | POSY Daniel | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 1% |
49 | XU Justin | 27% | 44% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
50 | TASIKAS Stylianos | - | 5% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
51 | FALCON-KORB Mathis | 3% | 21% | 41% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - |
52 | KUSHKOV Daniel | - | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 34% | 12% |
52 | CHEN Jonathan | - | 8% | 31% | 40% | 18% | 3% | - |
54 | LIU Kevin | 1% | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
55 | LAU Justin Y. | 1% | 15% | 37% | 33% | 12% | 2% | |
56 | WU Richard | 3% | 19% | 37% | 30% | 10% | 1% | |
56 | SAVOY Luca | 1% | 7% | 27% | 39% | 23% | 4% | |
58 | FIELDS Matthew S. | - | - | 4% | 20% | 39% | 31% | 7% |
59 | TIAGI Daniel | 1% | 11% | 36% | 37% | 14% | 2% | - |
60 | BOULAIS Andrew D. | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
61 | KAPOOR Tanmay | 14% | 42% | 32% | 10% | 1% | - | |
62 | PERRON Robert | - | 6% | 27% | 40% | 21% | 4% | - |
63 | SHIPITSIN Alexander | 5% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
64 | BUCK Maximilian | 53% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
65 | FREDRICK Jameer | 2% | 15% | 34% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - |
66 | EYBELMAN Ariel | 4% | 22% | 39% | 28% | 7% | 1% | |
67 | KIM Matthew | - | - | 2% | 11% | 31% | 39% | 17% |
68 | BONDARENCO Vlad | - | 2% | 19% | 39% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
69 | BERA Enzo | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 40% | 18% | 2% |
70 | FELDMAN Drew | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
71 | HUANG Tom | - | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% |
72 | KESSLER Nathan | 3% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
73 | LIGH Checed | 32% | 42% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
74 | BODKIN Jake M. | 6% | 27% | 39% | 23% | 5% | - | |
75 | CHENG Hong | 2% | 17% | 36% | 32% | 12% | 1% | |
76 | CHEN Evan P. | - | - | 4% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 12% |
76 | PIWOWAR Alex | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 3% |
78 | CHEN Samuel | 7% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
79 | EDELMAN Seth A. | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 37% | 18% | 3% |
80 | MARGULIS Jared | 20% | 38% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
81 | WAGNER Calvin | 13% | 44% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
82 | KUMAR Arjun | 6% | 31% | 38% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
83 | PARRA Rodrigo | 64% | 34% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
84 | ZHOU Grant | 18% | 43% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | |
85 | KIM Theodore | 44% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - | - | |
86 | COURTIN Frederic | 34% | 43% | 19% | 4% | - | - | |
87 | ZHAO Lucas | 5% | 26% | 39% | 24% | 5% | - | |
88 | DELISSER Matthew | 51% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
89 | DESAUTELS Connor | 5% | 42% | 39% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
90 | TIAGI George | 9% | 36% | 36% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
91 | WANG Yufei | 26% | 61% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
92 | BARROWS Hunter | 52% | 39% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
93 | SADHU Neiyam | 49% | 38% | 11% | 2% | - | - | |
94 | HENDERSON Jack | 58% | 34% | 7% | 1% | - | - | |
95 | POLESHUCK KINEL Gil | 35% | 44% | 18% | 3% | - | - | |
96 | KMETA-SUAREZ Graysen | 66% | 29% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
96 | DRZEWICZEWSKI Sean | 11% | 44% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
98 | FARAON Paulus | 20% | 42% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
98 | SUN Benjamin | 54% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
100 | KUPER Tristan | 79% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
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.