Hackensack, NJ - Hackensack, NJ, USA
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 | HANSEN Jonas B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 63% |
| 2 | SZAPARY Tristan B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 34% | |
| 3 | JONES Simon A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 79% | 46% | 13% |
| 3 | DOLGONOS Mark | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 13% | |
| 5 | ZUCKER Noah L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 39% |
| 6 | SAITOC Tudor | 100% | 99% | 90% | 58% | 20% | 3% | |
| 7 | MARAKOV Allen B. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 26% | |
| 8 | RA Jr. Daniel M. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 37% | 8% | |
| 9 | FAUBERT Andy C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 74% | 31% | |
| 10 | CHIN Ethan | 100% | 98% | 83% | 52% | 20% | 3% | |
| 11 | INSLER Gabriel C. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 54% | 16% | |
| 12 | LAFVING Brandon | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 52% | 14% | |
| 13 | KIM William M. | 100% | 97% | 80% | 46% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 14 | HERGERT Earl | 100% | 98% | 84% | 48% | 14% | 2% | |
| 15 | MORSE Tyler | 100% | 95% | 74% | 39% | 11% | 1% | |
| 16 | BEDOR William J. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 47% | 16% | 2% |
| 17 | MIRANDA Matteo | 100% | 97% | 77% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 18 | KOKENGE Clark | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 18% | 2% | |
| 19 | YU Colin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 38% | |
| 20 | SLAVINSKIY Alan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 40% | 6% |
| 21 | KIM Juni C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 55% | 14% | |
| 22 | TABLEMAN Doug S. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 25% | 4% | |
| 23 | SHORT Salim (Sal) A. | 100% | 92% | 62% | 26% | 6% | - | |
| 24 | PAVLENISHVILI David G. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 64% | 29% | 6% |
| 25 | PHO Eric | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 31% | 7% | 1% |
| 26 | STUSNICK Hunter | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 51% | 14% | |
| 27 | MERCHANT Reza H. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 39% | 8% | |
| 28 | SHENG Patrick Y. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 56% | 20% | 3% | |
| 29 | DIXON Samuel | 100% | 95% | 72% | 36% | 10% | 1% | |
| 30 | O’DEA Anthony | 100% | 90% | 61% | 26% | 6% | 1% | |
| 31 | LAVENSTEIN Kinley V. | 100% | 92% | 62% | 25% | 5% | - | |
| 32 | JONES Chinua C. | 100% | 99% | 87% | 56% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 33 | CULLEN Daniel F. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 48% | 16% | 2% |
| 34 | CHA Russell W. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 33% | 7% | |
| 34 | HE Lawrence | 100% | 71% | 26% | 5% | - | - | |
| 36 | RHYU Kozmo | 100% | 97% | 81% | 47% | 15% | 2% | |
| 37 | BEKKER Mitchel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 29% | 5% |
| 38 | SIDDIQUI HUMZA K. | 100% | 96% | 73% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 39 | SMITH Nicholas S. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 60% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
| 40 | WISNIEWSKI Bart | 100% | 70% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 41 | OLIVERIUS Joseph W. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 16% | 2% | |
| 42 | LAI Coby | 100% | 41% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
| 43 | INSLER Ethan C. | 100% | 97% | 79% | 45% | 14% | 2% | |
| 44 | KANG Michael H. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 16% | 1% |
| 45 | CONNELL Jay | 100% | 93% | 65% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 46 | HA Daniel | 100% | 61% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 47 | ROBITZSKI Daniel A. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 21% | 3% | |
| 48 | TORDO Garrett | 100% | 95% | 65% | 26% | 5% | - | |
| 49 | GLAZ Nicholas S. | 100% | 80% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 50 | WANG Eric S | 100% | 74% | 28% | 5% | 1% | - | |
| 51 | SHAH Maximilian A. | 100% | 61% | 18% | 2% | - | - | |
| 52 | GOHEL Dayus T. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 53 | EKE Frank | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 46% | 17% | 3% |
| 54 | HERMANSON David B. | 100% | 57% | 18% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 55 | MUN Chur-Yong | 100% | 52% | 13% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 56 | ZHANG Matthew | 100% | 98% | 83% | 49% | 16% | 2% | |
| 57 | MACKIN Samuel | 100% | 85% | 44% | 11% | 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.