Boston Fencing Club - 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 | WU Joseph | - | - | - | 3% | 25% | 71% | |
2 | HONDOR Robert D. | - | - | - | 2% | 32% | 66% | |
3 | HANSEN Jonas B. | - | - | - | - | 10% | 89% | |
3 | MACARTY Jordan T. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 46% | 39% | |
5 | YU Colin | - | - | 1% | 11% | 40% | 48% | |
6 | WANG Justin | - | 6% | 25% | 42% | 25% | 2% | |
7 | ZHANG William | - | - | 7% | 31% | 49% | 12% | |
8 | JIANG Ryan | - | 5% | 21% | 37% | 29% | 8% | |
9 | GAO Daniel | - | - | 1% | 9% | 39% | 51% | |
10 | ROLLO Emmett H. | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 36% | 7% | |
11 | LAVENSTEIN Kinley V. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 52% | 37% | |
12 | BELLIVEAU Emmett S. | - | 5% | 21% | 40% | 30% | 4% | |
13 | MELCHER Jack H. | - | - | - | 4% | 27% | 69% | |
14 | MACZIK Adam W. | - | - | - | 2% | 19% | 79% | |
15 | STELTENKAMP Neal | 4% | 29% | 41% | 21% | 4% | - | |
16 | WANG zhixing (Daniel) | - | 2% | 16% | 39% | 37% | 5% | |
17 | LAI Boden | - | - | 2% | 15% | 42% | 41% | |
18 | DOYON - VERDON Gabriel | - | - | 3% | 19% | 46% | 32% | |
19 | ZHAO Corey | - | - | - | 7% | 47% | 46% | |
20 | WANG Xiangdong | 1% | 14% | 38% | 33% | 12% | 2% | - |
21 | SHA Michael | - | 1% | 11% | 36% | 41% | 10% | |
22 | BELLIVEAU Raven C. | - | - | 1% | 14% | 62% | 23% | |
23 | LAI Aedin | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 44% | 22% | |
24 | SAVORETTI Francesco | - | 2% | 20% | 49% | 28% | 1% | |
25 | WU Jonathan | - | - | - | 2% | 16% | 44% | 37% |
26 | ALFAIATE Lucas | - | - | - | 6% | 33% | 60% | |
27 | ZHANG Roland | 3% | 34% | 43% | 18% | 3% | - | |
28 | GOON Tristan Yang | 12% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | |
29 | SANTOS Antonio K. | 2% | 16% | 39% | 33% | 10% | 1% | |
30 | MACNEILL Owen | 3% | 25% | 41% | 25% | 5% | - | |
31 | MCDERMOTT Brian | - | 1% | 9% | 33% | 43% | 15% | |
32 | WILSON Ian G. | 3% | 31% | 43% | 20% | 3% | - | |
33 | COLLYMORE Spencer T. | - | - | 2% | 15% | 43% | 39% | |
33 | BEALS Alden | - | 3% | 17% | 36% | 33% | 11% | |
35 | DOYON - VERDON William | - | - | 1% | 8% | 37% | 54% | |
36 | SANTOS Felipe | - | 8% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 4% | |
37 | ZEBROSE Cordell B. | - | - | 6% | 26% | 45% | 24% | |
38 | PLOTNICHENKO Vsevolod | - | - | 4% | 23% | 45% | 28% | |
39 | XIE Brandon | - | 11% | 37% | 39% | 12% | 1% | |
40 | GREGORY Abram | - | 4% | 21% | 42% | 28% | 5% | |
41 | SONG Troy | 1% | 17% | 41% | 33% | 9% | - | |
42 | BARNHART William C. | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 5% |
43 | BELLIVEAU Shane | - | 1% | 11% | 32% | 37% | 16% | 2% |
44 | SANTOS Francisco M. | - | 8% | 37% | 40% | 14% | 1% | |
45 | MASSE Jack | 29% | 42% | 23% | 5% | 1% | - | |
46 | DURKIN Tristan E. | 1% | 7% | 29% | 42% | 20% | 1% | |
47 | CRONIN Darragh J. | - | 1% | 9% | 34% | 43% | 12% | |
48 | CHEN Allen | 6% | 32% | 46% | 15% | 1% | - | |
49 | MCMILLAN Jackson V. | 2% | 22% | 43% | 27% | 6% | - | |
50 | MORI Seneca | 10% | 36% | 40% | 13% | 1% | - | |
51 | XIA Dashan | - | 5% | 29% | 44% | 20% | 2% | |
52 | QUINLAN Sean | - | 4% | 23% | 39% | 27% | 7% | |
53 | HE Xiangrui | 5% | 31% | 41% | 19% | 3% | - | |
54 | MEN Junda | - | 5% | 22% | 40% | 28% | 6% | |
55 | ZHANG William | 1% | 10% | 34% | 38% | 15% | 2% | |
55 | HU Anton | - | 10% | 33% | 38% | 17% | 3% | |
57 | HU Robert J. | - | 2% | 14% | 38% | 37% | 10% | |
58 | HU Andrew | 2% | 17% | 49% | 27% | 4% | - | |
59 | CAFASSO Martin | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 3% |
60 | BRASSARD Calvin | 4% | 26% | 42% | 23% | 5% | - | |
61 | KELLEY Hayden | 7% | 37% | 40% | 15% | 2% | - | |
62 | CAMBIAS Robert I. | 7% | 35% | 39% | 16% | 3% | - | |
63 | STEVENSON Ryan | 1% | 13% | 39% | 40% | 6% | - | |
64 | MCCALL Aidan | 5% | 31% | 42% | 19% | 3% | - | |
65 | WHITE Aidan | 51% | 38% | 10% | 1% | < 1% | - | |
66 | WU Chi Kuan | 57% | 35% | 7% | 1% | - | - | |
67 | LIU Jeremiah W. | 3% | 19% | 38% | 31% | 9% | 1% | |
68 | YIN Chujun | 59% | 34% | 6% | < 1% | - | - | |
69 | TORRES Gianni | - | 5% | 28% | 53% | 13% | 1% | |
70 | ZELIN Sam J. | 1% | 11% | 46% | 36% | 7% | - | |
71 | BUSH Thomas | - | 1% | 12% | 44% | 41% | 2% | |
72 | DOWD Peter L. | 14% | 41% | 35% | 9% | - | - | |
73 | FERREIRA Noah J. | - | 1% | 13% | 38% | 40% | 7% | |
74 | PAN Anthony | 37% | 49% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
75 | MARTONE Matt L. | - | 6% | 28% | 42% | 21% | 3% | |
76 | MULLARKEY Edward (Ed) | - | 6% | 32% | 46% | 15% | 1% | |
77 | DURKIN Hudson | 2% | 12% | 33% | 37% | 15% | 1% | |
78 | BRUEGGEMANN Max | 3% | 32% | 41% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
79 | GOON Sin Tong | 8% | 45% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - | |
80 | HERRICK Michael | 4% | 23% | 39% | 27% | 7% | 1% | |
81 | WANG Zhenhai | 76% | 21% | 2% | - | - | - | |
82 | SENERTH Ian J. | 2% | 20% | 41% | 29% | 7% | - | |
83 | ZHOU Anping | 23% | 49% | 25% | 3% | - | - | |
83 | SULKIS Adam | 70% | 28% | 3% | - | - | - | |
85 | RITTERSHAUS Bryce | 3% | 19% | 39% | 30% | 8% | - | |
86 | KAIN Brad | 8% | 32% | 39% | 18% | 3% | - | |
87 | ROUSE Joseph (Joe) T. | 1% | 13% | 38% | 36% | 11% | 1% | |
88 | LI Ray | 70% | 27% | 3% | - | - | - | |
88 | FENG Haozhen | 7% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 6% | 1% | |
90 | PESSIN Nadav | 61% | 32% | 6% | 1% | - | - | |
91 | ZHANG Wei | 8% | 32% | 39% | 18% | 3% | - | |
92 | LIN Yufei | 34% | 48% | 16% | 2% | - | - | |
93 | KIM Nathan | 14% | 55% | 26% | 4% | - | - | |
93 | SEILS Aether | 64% | 31% | 5% | - | - | - | |
95 | HE Yurui | 80% | 18% | 1% | - | - | - | |
96 | KOURE Andrew C. | 10% | 39% | 36% | 13% | 2% | - | |
97 | WOLFORD Benjamin | 46% | 44% | 9% | 1% | - | - | |
98 | MARINI Davide | 6% | 34% | 42% | 16% | 2% | - | |
99 | ROSENBLUM Addison J. | 39% | 46% | 14% | 1% | - | - | |
99 | YAO Jack | 33% | 45% | 19% | 3% | - | - | |
101 | GAO "George" Xiaojiang | 36% | 49% | 14% | 1% | - | - | |
101 | ZHANG Franklin | 7% | 30% | 38% | 20% | 4% | - | |
103 | MASSE Dean | 80% | 18% | 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.