Rockland Community College Eugine Levy Fieldhouse - Suffern, NY, 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 | KUSHKOV Daniel | - | - | - | 1% | 7% | 35% | 58% |
| 2 | BERA Enzo | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 42% | 41% |
| 3 | TSAO Oliver | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 41% | 23% | |
| 3 | BADUSHOV Anton | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 36% | 22% | 5% |
| 5 | SUBA Lucas | - | - | 4% | 21% | 39% | 29% | 7% |
| 6 | LIN Philip T. | - | - | 2% | 12% | 33% | 40% | 14% |
| 7 | WITCZAK Mateus | - | - | 5% | 21% | 38% | 29% | 7% |
| 8 | BRANDT Jaden | - | - | 4% | 20% | 42% | 34% | |
| 9 | NGUYEN Anthony | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 19% |
| 10 | BALE ATMAN | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 7% |
| 11 | LIU Kevin | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 37% | 52% |
| 12 | PAVLENISHVILI Luke | 8% | 32% | 38% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 13 | SHINCHUK Daniel | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 36% | 20% | 3% |
| 14 | WANG Weiyun | - | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 34% | 10% |
| 15 | WONG Caleb W. | 2% | 14% | 33% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 16 | SADHU Neiyam | 3% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 13% | 2% | |
| 17 | BROENING-CHAI Jonas | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 4% |
| 18 | PRIEUR Christian F. | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 37% | 21% | 4% |
| 19 | WEISS Toby | 13% | 35% | 34% | 15% | 3% | < 1% | - |
| 20 | SCHIMEL Luke | 1% | 8% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 21 | SAGE Sebastian | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 11% |
| 22 | MUNJULURI ruhaan | 15% | 36% | 33% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 23 | PORTER Dupree | 5% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 8% | 1% | |
| 24 | LEE Andrew | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 35% |
| 25 | BAHK Caleb | 2% | 14% | 34% | 34% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 26 | DOMINIQUE Remson | - | - | 2% | 13% | 35% | 40% | 10% |
| 27 | RIDKY Sam | - | - | - | 5% | 22% | 43% | 30% |
| 28 | AO Christopher | - | 1% | 9% | 31% | 37% | 18% | 3% |
| 29 | CLARK Gabriel | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 9% | |
| 30 | LOO Jason | 1% | 9% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 31 | LIM Brandon | - | 5% | 19% | 36% | 31% | 9% | |
| 32 | KENNEDY Tomás | - | 5% | 21% | 38% | 28% | 7% | - |
| 33 | CLARK Aram | - | - | - | 5% | 22% | 43% | 29% |
| 34 | CHEN Ryan | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 34% | 14% | 2% |
| 35 | LIGH Checed | - | 5% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 1% |
| 36 | LAMTAN Christoffer | 2% | 14% | 32% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 37 | KOGAN Yelisey L. | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
| 38 | ONG Dylan | 4% | 23% | 39% | 26% | 8% | 1% | |
| 39 | ZHANG Ray | 11% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | |
| 40 | SUN Andrew | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 32% | 11% | 1% |
| 41 | JI Johnson | 10% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 42 | WASCO Andrew | 13% | 35% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 43 | LIU Andrew | - | 5% | 19% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
| 43 | ZWAKA Jonas | 13% | 38% | 35% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 45 | SHINCHUK Jacob | 6% | 29% | 40% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 46 | JIANG Terence | 17% | 38% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 47 | BAI Evan | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 31% | 9% | |
| 48 | NADGIR Jaiden | 38% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | |
| 49 | HO Nathaniel | 1% | 11% | 30% | 34% | 19% | 5% | - |
| 50 | REILLY Xavier | 15% | 38% | 33% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 51 | KRAYTMAN Matthew | 12% | 32% | 34% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 52 | FIROOZI Sam | 42% | 41% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 53 | JAIN Karanvir | 18% | 41% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 54 | ROYCHOUDHURY Aniket | 21% | 43% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 55 | CHIEN Nolan | 12% | 34% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 56 | VAHABZADEH Jake R. | 14% | 37% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 57 | FLETCHER Logan | 8% | 31% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 58 | NIEBERGALL Jaxson | 28% | 44% | 22% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 59 | ANSARI Umayr | 35% | 42% | 19% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 60 | GAO Kai | 17% | 39% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 61 | PATEL Kiran | 4% | 30% | 44% | 19% | 3% | - | - |
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.