Rockland Community College, Eugene Levy Field House - Suffern, NY, 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 | MIDYANY Ryan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 51% |
| 2 | LUO Alexander | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 28% |
| 3 | CHEN Daniel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 96% | 80% | 48% | 14% |
| 3 | SZCZAPA Lukas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 53% | 16% |
| 5 | CHIANG William | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 33% | 9% | 1% |
| 6 | KATS Brandon | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 35% | 10% | 1% |
| 7 | YU David | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 30% | 7% | - |
| 8 | FOGEL Jake | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 51% | 18% | 3% |
| 9 | TSIEN Richard | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 56% | 22% | 3% |
| 10 | NG Nico | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 49% | 18% | 3% |
| 11 | LEE Harrison | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 67% | 33% | 8% |
| 12 | ZHAO Brandon | 100% | 100% | 94% | 75% | 42% | 14% | 2% |
| 13 | SHAPIRO Samuel | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 36% | 11% | 1% |
| 14 | BRESLAV Asher | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 35% | 10% | 1% |
| 15 | ZHENG Jason | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 50% | 18% | 3% |
| 16 | BHANDARE Veer | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 37% | 11% | 1% |
| 17 | ARMSTRONG Payson | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 61% | 22% |
| 18 | NOOL Alexander | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 27% |
| 19 | CHO Adrian | 100% | 91% | 62% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 20 | MASKIN Mikhail | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 49% | 15% | 1% |
| 21 | WANG Marcus | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 26% | 6% | - |
| 22 | KOIVUNEN Sean | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 54% | 17% |
| 23 | HENNESSY Levon | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 23% | 5% | - |
| 24 | ZHANG Shuhao | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 25 | GRANT Aidan | 100% | 98% | 84% | 55% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
| 26 | CHEN Evan | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 50% | 19% | 3% |
| 27 | HONG Ethen | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 14% | 1% |
| 28 | MA Brendon | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 23% | 3% |
| 29 | SMITH Theo | 100% | 95% | 70% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 30 | FRIZZELL Kai | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 33% | 7% |
| 31 | DAI Jason | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 42% | 13% | 2% |
| 32 | VASILEV Victor | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 37% | 9% |
| 33 | WITHERELL Logan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 34% | 8% |
| 34 | DANILOV Artur | 100% | 100% | 94% | 74% | 38% | 10% | 1% |
| 34 | CHEN Cameron | 100% | 96% | 78% | 45% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 36 | NOOL Aaron | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 31% | 9% | 1% |
| 37 | LEE Ryan | 100% | 81% | 44% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 38 | CAVALLARO Sebastian | 100% | 97% | 81% | 49% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 39 | SHI Evan | 100% | 90% | 61% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 40 | GAO Ryan | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 41 | DAND Zahin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 25% | 3% |
| 42 | SI Anderson | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 63% | 28% | 6% |
| 43 | SHAO Mason | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 26% | 6% | 1% |
| 44 | GARRETSON Luke | 100% | 96% | 76% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 45 | ROBINSON Blake | 100% | 60% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 46 | ZHAO Xinkai | 100% | 99% | 90% | 54% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 47 | GROVER Aditya | 100% | 70% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 48 | RUDIGER George | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 40% | 10% | 1% |
| 49 | YAO Irvine | 100% | 90% | 61% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 50 | MALLAKIS Efstathios | 100% | 93% | 68% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 51 | YOON Jonathan | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 28% | 6% | - |
| 52 | KIM Louie | 100% | 64% | 23% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 53 | MUELLER Travis | 100% | 51% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 54 | DINIC Pavle | 100% | 83% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 54 | DAVIS Zane | 100% | 58% | 18% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 56 | LI Nolan | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 24% | 5% | - |
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.