Floyd Little Athletic Center - New Haven, CT, 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 | LI Richard | - | - | - | - | 4% | 28% | 68% |
| 2 | LIANG Lixi (Henry) | - | - | - | - | 4% | 27% | 69% |
| 3 | HOOSHI Jayden C. | - | - | - | - | 2% | 25% | 73% |
| 3 | MOHAMED Amir | - | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 43% | 22% |
| 5 | ELWOOD Sebastian F. | - | - | - | 4% | 23% | 44% | 28% |
| 6 | SHIN Joshua J. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 32% | 41% | 16% |
| 7 | LIN James G. | - | - | - | 4% | 26% | 48% | 22% |
| 8 | RUSADZE Nickolas | - | - | - | - | 4% | 29% | 67% |
| 9 | AUGUSTINE Aaron A. | - | - | 6% | 24% | 41% | 25% | 3% |
| 10 | COSTELLO Chaissen F. | - | - | - | 4% | 27% | 52% | 16% |
| 11 | ZHAI Jeffrey | - | - | - | 3% | 20% | 47% | 29% |
| 12 | JIANG Owen | - | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 44% | 22% |
| 13 | ROSE Ben | - | - | 1% | 5% | 23% | 43% | 29% |
| 14 | KAO Castor T. | - | - | - | - | 5% | 35% | 60% |
| 15 | PO Oliver | - | - | 4% | 21% | 46% | 29% | |
| 16 | LI Arvin | - | - | 6% | 27% | 47% | 18% | 2% |
| 17 | DAI Jonathan T. | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 36% | 55% |
| 18 | LI Eric | - | - | - | 1% | 7% | 35% | 57% |
| 18 | YAO Bradley | - | 5% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 6% | < 1% |
| 20 | AHN Jun | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 45% | 39% |
| 21 | LANG Dong Lin | - | - | 5% | 21% | 38% | 28% | 7% |
| 21 | DAVIDSON Elliot | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 9% |
| 23 | GARCIA Sebastian R. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 42% | 24% |
| 24 | YOON Dylan | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 20% | 4% |
| 25 | HE Xiangrui | - | - | - | 5% | 31% | 53% | 11% |
| 26 | SIMA Congyu Josh | - | - | 2% | 15% | 42% | 36% | 5% |
| 27 | LEE Jonah | - | - | 3% | 20% | 45% | 27% | 5% |
| 28 | GAO William | - | - | 5% | 25% | 46% | 24% | |
| 29 | LEWIS Akhil | - | - | - | 3% | 19% | 46% | 32% |
| 30 | MATSAKH Philip | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 41% | 21% | 2% |
| 31 | SONG Noel | - | - | 6% | 30% | 40% | 19% | 3% |
| 32 | ZHEN Ethan | - | 2% | 15% | 38% | 34% | 10% | 1% |
| 33 | TANG Albert | - | - | 4% | 21% | 42% | 28% | 5% |
| 34 | AKYAMAC Bora | - | - | 6% | 27% | 47% | 18% | 1% |
| 35 | DOCTOR Aidan L. | - | - | 3% | 20% | 44% | 29% | 4% |
| 36 | PITERBARG Maxim | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 32% | 10% | 1% |
| 37 | XU Andy P. | - | 4% | 26% | 43% | 23% | 4% | |
| 38 | LEE Brendan | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 36% | 20% | 4% |
| 39 | RADOSLAVOV Ivan-Asen | - | 4% | 33% | 43% | 17% | 2% | - |
| 40 | WANG Mason | - | - | 5% | 26% | 41% | 23% | 4% |
| 41 | FEDONCHIK Henry J. | - | - | 3% | 17% | 39% | 32% | 8% |
| 42 | XU Ethan | - | 2% | 15% | 36% | 34% | 12% | 1% |
| 43 | KOVACS Wyatt | 1% | 10% | 39% | 37% | 12% | 1% | |
| 44 | LI Aaron | - | 3% | 15% | 36% | 34% | 12% | 1% |
| 44 | GAO Payton | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 32% | 10% | 1% |
| 46 | LEE Eugene | 1% | 18% | 41% | 30% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 47 | MILLER Aidan A. | - | 2% | 15% | 37% | 34% | 12% | 1% |
| 48 | CHENG Ethan | - | 8% | 30% | 40% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 49 | BRAIZINHA Thomas | 3% | 35% | 43% | 17% | 2% | - | - |
| 50 | KONG Luculentus X. | 1% | 21% | 44% | 28% | 6% | - | - |
| 50 | VISHAWADIA Jaimin | 3% | 29% | 42% | 21% | 5% | - | - |
| 52 | FENG Michael | 12% | 35% | 34% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 53 | KALIPERSAD Neil A. | 1% | 9% | 32% | 39% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 54 | LI Allen | 7% | 29% | 39% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 55 | SHAPIRO Leon | 2% | 15% | 40% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 56 | WONG Jackson | - | 8% | 33% | 42% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 57 | WUN Jonathan | 10% | 38% | 36% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 58 | TAHOUN Mostafa | - | - | 3% | 16% | 40% | 34% | 7% |
| 59 | HOLCOMB Cedric | 3% | 26% | 43% | 24% | 4% | - | - |
| 60 | LIU Derek | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 6% |
| 61 | LEE Jacob | - | - | 3% | 17% | 39% | 35% | 6% |
| 62 | NICOLL William | 1% | 14% | 38% | 34% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 63 | CHO Xzander | 1% | 15% | 39% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 64 | BAI Brian | 21% | 46% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 65 | GUO Justin | - | - | 2% | 15% | 38% | 37% | 8% |
| 66 | YAP Nathan | - | 5% | 27% | 44% | 20% | 3% | - |
| 67 | MAGALONG William | 5% | 37% | 40% | 16% | 2% | - | - |
| 68 | ZHUANG Chuanxuan | 4% | 30% | 44% | 19% | 3% | - | - |
| 69 | NICOLL James | 2% | 32% | 48% | 16% | 2% | - | - |
| 69 | LI Ayren | - | 3% | 30% | 44% | 20% | 3% | - |
| 69 | TANG Terry | 3% | 21% | 42% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 72 | GREENLEAF Paul | 1% | 20% | 41% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 73 | YANG Dylan | 2% | 24% | 43% | 26% | 5% | - | - |
| 74 | CHEN Kyle P. | 1% | 12% | 34% | 35% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 75 | TAM Kyle | 58% | 37% | 5% | - | - | - | |
| 76 | LIGOS alex M. | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
| 77 | JURMAN Therin | 5% | 36% | 42% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 78 | PEDERSEN Charles | 34% | 44% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 79 | RIPA Joseph K. | 29% | 50% | 18% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 80 | XU Brian | 79% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 81 | LAO Kevin | 47% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 82 | SABATINO Patrick | 42% | 50% | 8% | - | - | - | - |
| 83 | WOODCOCK Henry | 3% | 41% | 43% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 84 | ARCE Andrew W. | 10% | 35% | 37% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 85 | SURESH Rohan | 19% | 53% | 23% | 4% | - | - | |
| 86 | MCENTEE Owen | 70% | 26% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
| 87 | CAZENEUVE Louis | 31% | 45% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 88 | BRATTAIN Trey | 86% | 14% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 89 | GECKELER James | 36% | 45% | 17% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 90 | MASTROPAOLO Jonah W. | 3% | 34% | 42% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 91 | TESSMAN Henry | 78% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 92 | ABRAMKIN Tim | 67% | 29% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 92 | STAFFORD Gareth | 71% | 26% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
| 92 | CHAMORRO Ricardo | 13% | 56% | 25% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 95 | BRENNAN Connor | 13% | 42% | 33% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 95 | TRAUB William | 44% | 50% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
| 97 | WILSON Eric | 83% | 16% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
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.