Rockland Community College - 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 | MO Ethan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 39% |
| 2 | CHENG Logan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 68% |
| 3 | JAZWINSKI Ryan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 13% |
| 3 | ZHANG Hanru | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 31% |
| 5 | XU Nathan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 23% |
| 6 | JIN Andy | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 26% |
| 7 | LU Jingyi | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 35% |
| 8 | NOVIKOV Yann | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 39% | 9% |
| 9 | ZHAI Derrick | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 60% | 21% |
| 10 | HOU Gaven | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 29% |
| 11 | XIAN kevin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 58% |
| 12 | HUANG Jinyao | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 61% | 23% | 3% |
| 13 | KINGSLEY Griffin | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 18% | |
| 14 | PAN Howard Haoran | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 32% | 6% |
| 15 | OH Joshua | 100% | 99% | 88% | 62% | 28% | 7% | 1% |
| 16 | GRIGORIEV Michael | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 28% |
| 17 | WU Wallace | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 60% |
| 18 | SIU Max | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 32% | 5% |
| 19 | KOVACS Harrison | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 62% | 26% | 4% |
| 20 | WANG Luke | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 39% | 9% | |
| 21 | WANG Ancen | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 32% | 7% | - |
| 22 | ZHENG Austin | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 34% | 7% | - |
| 23 | BEYDOUN Sam | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 49% | 17% | 2% |
| 24 | REN Ryan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 54% | 11% |
| 25 | CHEN kenneth | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 42% | 10% |
| 26 | BRILLANTES Luke | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 55% | 22% | 3% |
| 27 | SHOU Raymond | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 17% | 2% |
| 27 | FAN Ze Lin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 54% |
| 29 | LI Jayden | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 27% | 6% | - |
| 30 | ULYSSE Jacob | 100% | 98% | 83% | 52% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 31 | KIM Daniel | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 38% | 10% | 1% |
| 32 | ZHANG Ethan | 100% | 99% | 89% | 64% | 32% | 9% | 1% |
| 33 | SU Aiden | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 40% | 13% | 2% |
| 34 | GUGALA Frank | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 35 | WU Alexander | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 36 | AYYAGARI Abhiram | 100% | 98% | 83% | 52% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 37 | ZHANG Ethan | 100% | 98% | 84% | 54% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 38 | MA Matthew | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 20% | 2% |
| 39 | KEEGAN Cole | 100% | 96% | 79% | 48% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 40 | BRAIZINHA David | 100% | 97% | 79% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 40 | HUANG Marcus | 100% | 70% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 42 | HAN Jiaren | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 44% | 12% | 1% |
| 43 | YANG David H. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 44 | LIU Ryan | 100% | 99% | 85% | 51% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 45 | CHOI Hunter | 100% | 100% | 90% | 62% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
| 46 | HU Daniel | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 47 | ZHAO David | 100% | 93% | 68% | 33% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 48 | KAYE Ben | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 41% | 10% | 1% |
| 49 | LIN Qianzhong | 100% | 98% | 81% | 46% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 50 | XIA Vincent | 100% | 98% | 82% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 51 | SAMUEL Lucas | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 20% | 3% |
| 52 | ZHANG Aaron | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 46% | 16% | 2% |
| 53 | LEE Aeden | 100% | 95% | 71% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 54 | BAS Jonathan | 100% | 95% | 74% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 55 | XIA Philip | 100% | 98% | 83% | 48% | 16% | 2% | |
| 56 | CAO Joshua | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 37% | 8% | |
| 57 | VENAFRO Tristan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 34% | 4% |
| 58 | JABLOKOV Roman | 100% | 95% | 74% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 59 | AHMAD Uzayr | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 42% | 12% | 1% |
| 60 | HUANG Dalynn | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 33% | 9% | 1% |
| 61 | SHEN Lucas | 100% | 97% | 81% | 50% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 62 | YOUM Tyson | 100% | 72% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 63 | RAJAT Rivaan | 100% | 91% | 57% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
| 64 | KIM Albert | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 18% | 2% |
| 65 | ARORA Maximilian Andras A. | 100% | 96% | 78% | 46% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 66 | HU Michael | 100% | 96% | 79% | 48% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 67 | HUYNH Kaleb | 100% | 98% | 87% | 55% | 20% | 3% | - |
| 68 | MOON Nicolas | 100% | 80% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 69 | ZHONG Kingsley | 100% | 96% | 76% | 40% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 70 | SONG Enoch | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 36% | 11% | 1% |
| 71 | DOBRENKO Matthew | 100% | 97% | 79% | 44% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 72 | CHONG Cooper | 100% | 61% | 19% | 3% | - | - | |
| 73 | SPERBER Miles | 100% | 92% | 59% | 22% | 4% | - | |
| 74 | ROTH Adam | 100% | 82% | 44% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 75 | ROPER Griffin | 100% | 77% | 38% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 76 | CONVERSO-PARSONS Alexander | 100% | 97% | 78% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 77 | LIU jeremy | 100% | 92% | 66% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 77 | CAO Jeremy | 100% | 98% | 88% | 62% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
| 79 | SUJITH Shaan | 100% | 100% | 93% | 67% | 27% | 5% | - |
| 80 | POLEBOYINA Aarav | 100% | 22% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 81 | SIN TaeHwan | 100% | 67% | 23% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 82 | LEE Kyle | 100% | 91% | 64% | 30% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 83 | JIANG Ethan | 100% | 53% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 84 | YANG Luca | 100% | 100% | 92% | 65% | 29% | 7% | 1% |
| 85 | EHIEMERE Ikemba | 100% | 77% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 86 | RAY Callum | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 34% | 10% | 1% |
| 87 | FANG Ryan | 100% | 81% | 36% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 88 | CERVANTES Luke | 100% | 99% | 85% | 44% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 89 | MCCORMICK Chase | 100% | 82% | 43% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 90 | ROTH Gavin | 100% | 96% | 77% | 43% | 15% | 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.