Brandeis University - Boston, MA, 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 | GRAHAM Roy J. | - | - | - | - | 7% | 40% | 53% |
| 2 | DAI Jonathan T. | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 39% | 50% |
| 3 | ZHANG Daniel D. | - | - | - | - | 1% | 17% | 82% |
| 3 | LI Richard | - | - | - | - | 3% | 27% | 70% |
| 5 | HOLMES Stuart S. | - | - | - | - | 5% | 39% | 56% |
| 6 | LI Eric | - | - | 1% | 14% | 39% | 35% | 10% |
| 7 | KNIZHNIK David | - | - | 5% | 24% | 44% | 27% | |
| 8 | LI Arvin | - | 1% | 13% | 37% | 36% | 12% | 1% |
| 9 | COSTELLO Chaissen F. | - | - | - | - | 7% | 50% | 42% |
| 9 | TAHOUN Mostafa | - | - | 5% | 23% | 42% | 25% | 4% |
| 11 | KWON Ethan | - | - | - | 3% | 29% | 68% | |
| 12 | KAO Castor T. | - | - | - | - | 3% | 36% | 60% |
| 13 | ZOBEL Eric H. | - | - | - | - | 7% | 49% | 44% |
| 14 | WU Alexander | - | - | - | 2% | 17% | 56% | 25% |
| 15 | SIMA Congyu Josh | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 41% | 16% | |
| 16 | GONG Benjamin | - | - | 2% | 12% | 37% | 43% | 8% |
| 17 | ADLER David R. | - | - | - | 5% | 26% | 46% | 22% |
| 18 | HOOSHI JAYDEN C. | - | - | - | 2% | 17% | 45% | 36% |
| 19 | ZHAI Jeffrey | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 46% | 42% |
| 20 | SHA Yi Peng | - | - | - | 1% | 23% | 53% | 22% |
| 21 | HOOSHI DYLAN M. | - | - | - | 1% | 12% | 60% | 27% |
| 22 | SONG Noel | - | 4% | 19% | 39% | 30% | 7% | - |
| 23 | LIU Derek | - | - | 5% | 33% | 41% | 18% | 3% |
| 24 | MAGIDSON Gabriel | - | - | 7% | 30% | 46% | 16% | |
| 25 | JIANG Owen | - | - | 6% | 32% | 50% | 11% | |
| 26 | SULLIVAN Jackson R. | - | - | 1% | 11% | 45% | 44% | |
| 27 | WELCH Kyle J. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 41% | 49% | |
| 28 | DOBBINS Evan W. | - | - | - | 7% | 29% | 43% | 21% |
| 29 | HE Xiangrui | - | 1% | 10% | 33% | 39% | 16% | 2% |
| 30 | GUPTA Varun | - | 1% | 15% | 44% | 34% | 6% | - |
| 31 | ACHILOV Sayid | - | - | 6% | 26% | 42% | 23% | 2% |
| 32 | MIALL Steven A. | - | - | 5% | 27% | 44% | 23% | |
| 33 | LIN Michael | - | 1% | 9% | 33% | 41% | 16% | |
| 34 | LIN James G. | - | - | - | 5% | 26% | 46% | 23% |
| 35 | XIAO Bowen | 2% | 18% | 45% | 28% | 7% | 1% | |
| 36 | DAVIDSON Elliot | - | - | 6% | 31% | 51% | 11% | 1% |
| 37 | JI Aidan Y. | - | - | 1% | 11% | 52% | 32% | 5% |
| 38 | SHIN Joshua J. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 38% | 37% | 9% |
| 39 | JACOVINO Jonathan S. | - | 3% | 15% | 37% | 34% | 11% | 1% |
| 40 | LI Ayren | 1% | 8% | 29% | 40% | 21% | 2% | - |
| 41 | LIGH Thomas | 1% | 10% | 35% | 38% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 42 | SHAO Eric | 3% | 32% | 44% | 19% | 2% | - | |
| 43 | BING Charles | - | - | 2% | 18% | 51% | 28% | |
| 44 | WANG Mason | - | 7% | 36% | 42% | 13% | 1% | |
| 45 | DEGREMONT Henri S. | - | 3% | 22% | 46% | 25% | 4% | |
| 46 | MILLER Aidan A. | 2% | 19% | 46% | 28% | 5% | - | |
| 47 | ASCIONED'ELIA Adam I. | 1% | 13% | 39% | 37% | 10% | 1% | |
| 48 | BARTRAM Carter H. | - | 4% | 19% | 39% | 31% | 8% | |
| 49 | TSAI Max W. | - | 3% | 19% | 41% | 29% | 7% | 1% |
| 50 | TEMPLE Jackson | - | - | 1% | 9% | 32% | 41% | 18% |
| 51 | CHOI Mason | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 41% | 20% | 1% |
| 52 | XU Ethan | - | 5% | 30% | 48% | 16% | 1% | - |
| 53 | GAO William | - | 1% | 10% | 35% | 40% | 14% | |
| 54 | PITERBARG Maxim | 1% | 9% | 39% | 40% | 11% | 1% | |
| 55 | AMRANI David | - | 17% | 48% | 30% | 5% | - | - |
| 56 | CHREKY Jacob D. | - | 5% | 27% | 41% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 56 | ZHENG Harrison | 3% | 23% | 44% | 27% | 3% | - | - |
| 58 | MENG Zhaoyi | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 33% | 10% | 1% |
| 59 | GARDINER Luke J. | 4% | 51% | 37% | 8% | - | - | - |
| 60 | BOUSSY Luciano | 6% | 35% | 48% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 61 | FENG Michael | 25% | 50% | 21% | 3% | - | - | |
| 62 | LUM-DEBONO Alex | 2% | 23% | 44% | 26% | 4% | - | |
| 63 | SURESH Rohan | 28% | 53% | 18% | 2% | - | - | |
| 64 | DJONOUMA Toyohm | 41% | 45% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
| 65 | CHENG Ethan | 1% | 8% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 4% | - |
| 65 | MCQUIDE Elliot | 23% | 54% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 67 | YANG Dylan | 30% | 44% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 68 | CHUA Kirby | 6% | 30% | 42% | 20% | 2% | - | - |
| 69 | LOZADA Gabriel G. | 32% | 44% | 20% | 4% | - | - | |
| 70 | BALDWIN Benjamin | 26% | 43% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 71 | CURTIS William K. | 1% | 35% | 44% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 72 | WILBERT Matt | 1% | 9% | 30% | 40% | 19% | 1% | - |
| 73 | ZHUANG Chuanxuan | 14% | 36% | 34% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 74 | LAO Kevin | 32% | 49% | 17% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 75 | LI Aaron | 1% | 10% | 38% | 37% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 76 | WANG Rory | 15% | 41% | 32% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 77 | GE Daniel | 37% | 49% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
| 78 | HO Jor Sam | 76% | 22% | 2% | - | - | - | |
| 79 | WOHLERS Casey | 13% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 80 | KONG Luculentus X. | 4% | 23% | 40% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 81 | WOHLERS Trevor | 5% | 28% | 44% | 22% | 2% | - | - |
| 82 | CUTLER Andrew | 1% | 16% | 49% | 28% | 5% | - | - |
| 83 | TANG Albert | - | 1% | 11% | 40% | 40% | 8% | - |
| 84 | ARRISON Alexandrew C. | 19% | 43% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 85 | YEE Michael | 2% | 15% | 37% | 34% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 86 | SHAMBARGER Graham | 29% | 48% | 21% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 87 | WILSON Samuel S. | 14% | 37% | 34% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 88 | BISHOP Henry | 43% | 45% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 89 | MUNDAHL Brandon D. | - | 20% | 45% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 90 | TIBBETTS Justin | 56% | 38% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 91 | HORAK Peter C. | 32% | 48% | 18% | 2% | - | - | |
| 92 | TAM Kyle | 37% | 50% | 13% | - | - | - | - |
| 93 | WOODTHORPE Michael G. | 6% | 28% | 41% | 20% | 4% | - | |
| 94 | DENG Kenny | 30% | 51% | 16% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 95 | VO Jonathan | 48% | 43% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
| 96 | COFFIN Carleton | 36% | 47% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 97 | HARRIS Noah | 19% | 43% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 97 | HOWARD Fox | 53% | 38% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 99 | BERETICH Brian | 95% | 5% | - | - | - | - | - |
| 100 | ANDERSON Maxwell | 88% | 11% | - | - | - | - | - |
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.