New Jersey City University - John Moore Athletic Center - Jersey City, 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 | AKYAMAC Bora | - | - | - | 1% | 6% | 32% | 62% |
| 2 | ZHAO Adam | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 41% | 43% |
| 3 | BRAIZINHA Thomas | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 39% | 21% | |
| 3 | SRINIVASAN Vedant | - | 1% | 6% | 27% | 46% | 20% | |
| 5 | GULCHIN Mark (Yerma) | - | - | 1% | 9% | 37% | 53% | |
| 6 | BAKSHI Aman | 2% | 13% | 33% | 35% | 15% | 2% | |
| 7 | CHEN Ethan | - | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 41% | 31% |
| 8 | HARRA Alexander | - | 4% | 22% | 41% | 28% | 5% | |
| 9 | RIPA Joseph K. | - | 5% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 9% | 1% |
| 10 | ONIK Ari N. | 1% | 5% | 19% | 33% | 29% | 11% | 1% |
| 11 | JIMENEZ Naveen | - | 1% | 4% | 17% | 35% | 34% | 9% |
| 12 | SIMONOV Timofey | - | 1% | 7% | 30% | 44% | 19% | |
| 13 | ZENG Rick | - | - | 4% | 18% | 42% | 37% | |
| 14 | BAI Brian | 1% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 3% | |
| 15 | XU Nathan | 6% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% | |
| 16 | MARTIN Mason | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 2% | |
| 17 | TANG Terry | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 41% | 40% |
| 18 | MO Ethan | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 34% | 12% | |
| 19 | JURMAN Therin | 1% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 5% | |
| 20 | TOOMRE Kai | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 38% | 17% | |
| 21 | LEE Charles T | - | 5% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
| 22 | BAI Austin | 3% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | |
| 23 | DIAZ Gabriel | 22% | 41% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 24 | JAZWINSKI Ryan | - | 7% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 5% | |
| 25 | WOODCOCK Henry | 6% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 1% | |
| 26 | BHAN Amar | 9% | 34% | 39% | 16% | 2% | - | |
| 27 | REN Ryan | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 4% |
| 28 | CHEN kenneth | 12% | 33% | 34% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 29 | KRZYWON Dylan | 11% | 32% | 35% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 30 | KO Caleb | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 39% | 29% | 4% |
| 31 | POLEPALI Vinil | 3% | 19% | 37% | 29% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 32 | PERLMAN Taiyo | 2% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 33 | CHO Xzander | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 40% | 23% | |
| 34 | WONG Jacob W. | - | 5% | 23% | 41% | 26% | 4% | |
| 35 | GECKELER James | - | 4% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 15% | 3% |
| 36 | TANG Royce | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 30% | 9% | |
| 37 | CHENG Austyn | 2% | 14% | 32% | 33% | 16% | 3% | |
| 38 | CHUNG Ian | 6% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 39 | DHANOA Kian | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 40 | WIDOFF-WOODSON Jackson Leroi | 7% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 41 | XIE Jicheng | 3% | 19% | 39% | 29% | 8% | 1% | |
| 42 | BOURGUIGNAT James | 20% | 42% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 43 | QIAN Zekai | 2% | 24% | 42% | 26% | 6% | - | |
| 44 | HELMY Richard | 2% | 24% | 42% | 26% | 6% | - | |
| 45 | KOVACS Harrison | 4% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% | |
| 46 | SION Andrew | 1% | 8% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
| 47 | POLEBOYINA Amrit | 3% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 48 | SHIN Noah | 11% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 49 | MIRCHANDANI Aditya | 3% | 15% | 31% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 50 | SUNDSTROM Wren | 12% | 33% | 33% | 17% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 51 | PECK Quinn | 1% | 12% | 32% | 35% | 17% | 3% | |
| 52 | HOLLIS Sean | 11% | 31% | 34% | 18% | 5% | - | |
| 53 | XU Brian | 65% | 30% | 5% | - | - | - | |
| 54 | ZHAO Ryan | 3% | 25% | 40% | 25% | 7% | 1% | |
| 55 | MCCARTHY Hudson | 3% | 22% | 39% | 27% | 8% | 1% | |
| 56 | KUO Phineas | - | 5% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
| 57 | BRAIZINHA David | 23% | 41% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 58 | LIEN Alexander | 1% | 14% | 33% | 32% | 15% | 4% | - |
| 59 | STARKIE Kitteridge | 3% | 20% | 40% | 29% | 7% | - | |
| 60 | FRIEDMAN Marcus | 35% | 42% | 19% | 4% | - | - | |
| 61 | RAO Arnav | 4% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 1% | |
| 62 | DA SILVA Jamie | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 63 | CHANG Ian | 75% | 23% | 2% | - | - | - | |
| 64 | STEVENS Dylan | 1% | 11% | 29% | 35% | 19% | 4% | - |
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.