Fairfax Challenge SYC

Y-12 Men's Foil

Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:30 AM

Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center - Miami, FL, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 EMMER Chase T. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 77%
2 JANG Jaewon 100% 100% 100% 99% 90% 58% 17%
3 LOUIE Timothy J. 100% 100% 100% 99% 88% 53% 14%
3 GROSSMAN SMISEK Spencer 100% 100% 100% 97% 82% 44% 10%
5 BAUMSTEIN Nicholas I. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 53%
6 GILBERT-GOLDSTEIN Avery E. 100% 100% 98% 85% 51% 13%
7 AUGUSTINE Ethan A. 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 90% 54%
8 LAURICELLA Douglas 100% 100% 96% 79% 46% 14% 1%
9 KASI Sanjay 100% 100% 100% 97% 76% 26% 2%
10 CHEN Andrew 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 82% 37%
11 CHEN Allen 100% 99% 92% 63% 24% 4% -
12 PELOSKY Zack B. 100% 96% 71% 31% 7% 1%
13 WILLIAMS Connor J. 100% 98% 87% 60% 26% 6% -
14 SINGH Dayaal 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 62% 15%
15 ZELJKOVIC Dusan 100% 100% 96% 72% 27% 4%
16 STANLEY Mason B. 100% 100% 99% 90% 61% 24% 4%
17 ZHANG Andy W. 100% 100% 100% 97% 84% 50% 13%
18 REALS Alden D. 100% 100% 100% 98% 85% 53% 16%
19 YU Vinni 100% 99% 94% 73% 40% 12% 2%
19 GRAHAM Roy J. 100% 100% 100% 99% 91% 59% 10%
21 BOBROW Logan 100% 99% 92% 66% 30% 7% < 1%
22 FU Samuel Y. 100% 100% 100% 99% 93% 68% 25%
23 KIM Nicholas W. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 70%
24 REZNICK Nicholas J. 100% 100% 99% 93% 60% 16% 1%
26 LEE Chris 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 67% 26%
27 SCHEMBRI MCCORD Kruz 100% 100% 100% 97% 80% 42% 7%
28 ROBINSON Keegan B. 100% 90% 59% 23% 5% -
29 LIANG Lixi (Henry) 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 66% 21%
30 ZHANG Henry C. 100% 100% 96% 82% 53% 22% 4%
31 PAE Jonathan L. 100% 100% 97% 81% 44% 11% 1%
32 SHA Yi Peng 100% 95% 67% 27% 5% - -
33 HORSLEY Alexander 100% 100% 99% 92% 59% 14%
34 YEROKHIN Michael N. 100% 100% 100% 98% 84% 42%
35 TIAN Aaron C. 100% 99% 90% 58% 19% 3% -
36 WEN George C. 100% 100% 97% 80% 42% 9% 1%
37 PAE Brian L. 100% 100% 100% 95% 76% 35% 3%
38 LYUTIKOV Yegor 100% 97% 76% 38% 10% 1%
39 FEDONCHIK Henry J. 100% 95% 74% 37% 9% 1%
40 MCCORD Clark 100% 83% 44% 13% 2% -
41 ORVANANOS Jorge 100% 100% 98% 84% 48% 10%
42 KAO Castor T. 100% 100% 94% 69% 29% 4%
43 LE Vyn A. 100% 86% 44% 12% 1% - -
44 PYO Michael M. 100% 98% 86% 55% 21% 4% -
45 KIM Edward J. 100% 99% 90% 63% 27% 6% -
46 ONIK Elijah T. 100% 92% 66% 32% 9% 1% -
47 TOLBA Abdelrahman 100% 100% 96% 78% 44% 13% 1%
48 SURINGA William J. 100% 91% 53% 15% 2% - -
49 DAI Jonathan T. 100% 100% 99% 92% 64% 19%
50 OH Sean 100% 97% 74% 33% 7% -
51 GU Andrew 100% 100% 96% 77% 40% 10% 1%
53 FURST Matthew C. 100% 88% 50% 15% 2% - -
54 ZELTSER Lawrence M. 100% 94% 66% 22% 2% - -
55 FOGELSON Frederick J. 100% 98% 85% 52% 17% 2% -
56 CASTRO Gabriel D. 100% 99% 94% 77% 46% 17% 3%
57 YAN Edward Tianshuo 100% 98% 86% 51% 15% 1% -
58 KITAGAWA Eric S. 100% 89% 59% 25% 6% 1% -
59 DOCTOR Aidan L. 100% 100% 98% 89% 65% 30% 6%
60 TAKLE Douglas 100% 98% 84% 51% 18% 3% -
61 ANTON Nathaniel 100% 100% 98% 89% 59% 20%
62 ZHAO Dylan L. 100% 81% 41% 11% 1% - -
63 SONG Leonardo T. 100% 75% 24% 2% - - -
64 LIU Eric Y. 100% 74% 28% 5% - - -
65 KALIPERSAD Neil A. 100% 100% 99% 92% 52% 12% 1%
66 BELLUOMO David C. 100% 81% 36% 8% 1% - -
68 LONG Connor M. 100% 99% 89% 60% 21% 3% -
68 MITCHELL Philip D. 100% 95% 70% 33% 8% 1% -
70 MAK Jeff 100% 87% 53% 19% 4% - -
71 KEE Andrew L. 100% 98% 84% 51% 17% 2% -
73 FOTENOS Noah T. 100% 96% 77% 42% 13% 2% -
74 TRUBETSKI David 100% 95% 73% 38% 11% 2% -
75 ALONSOZANA Andrew G. 100% 94% 70% 34% 9% 1% -
76 BROWN Cullen 100% 86% 41% 9% 1% - -
77 SCHLOSSNAGLE Christopher 100% 88% 52% 17% 3% - -
78 SANDOVAL Connor 100% 81% 37% 8% 1% - -
79 KIM Alexander M. 100% 81% 38% 7% 1% -
80 BING Charles 100% 100% 98% 86% 52% 17% 2%
81 GASIOROWSKI Devin G. 100% 90% 49% 12% 1% -
81 KULKARNI Ansh A. 100% 66% 18% 2% - -
83 KAST Quinn J. 100% 91% 61% 25% 5% 1% -
83 WONG Ethan 100% 91% 42% 9% 1% - -
86 YU Jonathan J. 100% 84% 48% 17% 3% - -
87 TAYLOR Andrew K. 100% 88% 51% 14% 2% - -
87 GAO William 100% 76% 30% 6% 1% - -

Explanation

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.