Brandeis University - 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 | SANDERS Ian W. | - | - | - | 6% | 33% | 60% | |
| 2 | WU Joseph | - | - | - | 4% | 32% | 63% | |
| 3 | YU Colin | - | - | - | 3% | 31% | 66% | |
| 3 | WHELAN Thomas (Tony) | - | - | - | 9% | 46% | 45% | |
| 5 | MATTIS George | - | - | 1% | 10% | 48% | 42% | |
| 6 | DOELEMAN Zeno | - | - | 2% | 18% | 46% | 34% | |
| 7 | WANG Justin | - | 4% | 17% | 36% | 33% | 10% | |
| 8 | SVERDLOV Seth | - | 1% | 6% | 27% | 44% | 22% | |
| 9 | LONCAR Luka E. | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 36% | 56% |
| 10 | PRIHODKO Max | - | - | 2% | 15% | 43% | 39% | |
| 11 | MALENFANT Vincent | - | - | 1% | 7% | 33% | 59% | |
| 12 | GAO Daniel | - | - | - | - | 2% | 26% | 72% |
| 13 | SETO Jing | 2% | 13% | 31% | 33% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 14 | FAICCO Joseph | - | 4% | 15% | 32% | 33% | 15% | 2% |
| 15 | ZEBROSE Cordell B. | - | - | 4% | 30% | 51% | 14% | |
| 16 | SHA Michael | - | 1% | 11% | 36% | 40% | 12% | |
| 17 | JIN Owen | - | - | 2% | 16% | 44% | 38% | |
| 18 | XIA Dashan | - | 2% | 14% | 35% | 36% | 12% | |
| 19 | MELCHER Jack H. | - | - | - | - | 1% | 18% | 81% |
| 20 | SONG Changze | 11% | 31% | 34% | 19% | 5% | 1% | < 1% |
| 21 | LAI Coby | - | - | 3% | 21% | 41% | 29% | 6% |
| 22 | ZUCKER Noah L. | - | - | 1% | 13% | 43% | 43% | |
| 23 | TRULL A.J. | - | - | 5% | 27% | 44% | 23% | |
| 24 | CHEN Allen | 3% | 51% | 38% | 8% | < 1% | - | |
| 25 | ZHANG William | - | - | 3% | 20% | 46% | 32% | |
| 26 | FLECKENSTEIN Benjamin T. | - | 1% | 8% | 31% | 43% | 18% | |
| 27 | ZHAO corey | - | - | 4% | 27% | 47% | 21% | |
| 28 | ZHAO Zidong | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 34% | 12% | 1% |
| 29 | SONG Troy | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 5% |
| 30 | DELAND Stuart R. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 35% | 46% | 9% |
| 31 | WU Jonathan | - | 1% | 13% | 40% | 38% | 7% | |
| 32 | ROGAK Benjamin A. | - | - | 1% | 11% | 53% | 35% | |
| 33 | MAZZOLI Julio C. | - | - | - | 4% | 21% | 45% | 30% |
| 34 | GOHEL Dayus T. | - | - | - | 1% | 6% | 30% | 64% |
| 34 | LAI Aedin | - | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 42% | 29% |
| 36 | YU Samuel | - | 4% | 23% | 42% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 37 | GREGORY Abram | - | - | 5% | 26% | 50% | 19% | |
| 38 | JIANG Ryan | - | 1% | 11% | 36% | 39% | 13% | |
| 39 | BURNHAM Charlie E. | - | 3% | 19% | 43% | 30% | 5% | |
| 40 | ECKERT Kevin M. | - | 1% | 7% | 30% | 49% | 13% | |
| 41 | XIE Brandon | 1% | 9% | 32% | 42% | 15% | 1% | |
| 42 | ZHANG Dinghao | 8% | 47% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 43 | SENERTH Ian J. | 2% | 14% | 38% | 37% | 9% | 1% | |
| 44 | PAYNE Massimo | - | 4% | 19% | 38% | 30% | 8% | |
| 45 | SPRINGER Michael | - | - | 5% | 25% | 45% | 25% | |
| 46 | FENG Du | 2% | 19% | 39% | 30% | 9% | 1% | |
| 47 | HE Xiangrui | - | 1% | 9% | 32% | 39% | 18% | 2% |
| 48 | ROWLAND Hudson G. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 44% | 23% |
| 49 | ZHANG Shawn | - | - | 4% | 18% | 36% | 32% | 9% |
| 50 | BELLIVEAU Raven C. | - | - | 5% | 28% | 50% | 17% | |
| 51 | FEINBERG James Y. | 16% | 40% | 33% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 52 | HOWLETT Daniel | 7% | 29% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - | |
| 53 | RICHARD Owen | - | - | 1% | 12% | 51% | 37% | |
| 54 | PRIHODKO Andrew | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 42% | 28% | |
| 55 | KOEPPEL Levi E. | 1% | 7% | 23% | 34% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
| 56 | CHALLAGULLA Manu | 1% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 6% | - |
| 57 | HU Robert J. | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 17% | 2% |
| 57 | HELMY Richard | 2% | 15% | 35% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 59 | JACOVINO Jonathan S. | - | 6% | 33% | 47% | 13% | 1% | |
| 60 | JENNINGS Adin | - | 4% | 20% | 41% | 29% | 6% | |
| 61 | ZOGRAFOS Nicholas | 24% | 49% | 24% | 3% | - | - | |
| 62 | RUSSELL Edward | 1% | 15% | 42% | 33% | 9% | 1% | |
| 63 | BELLIVEAU Emmett S. | 1% | 9% | 30% | 39% | 19% | 2% | |
| 64 | WENGER Caleb | 1% | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
| 65 | GLUSHKOV David | 24% | 54% | 19% | 3% | < 1% | - | |
| 66 | PAN Anthony | 2% | 18% | 42% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 67 | SMITH Troy H. | 1% | 10% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 3% | |
| 68 | RITTERSHAUS Bryce | 7% | 31% | 41% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 69 | BEALS Alden | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 42% | 23% | |
| 70 | MACARTY Jordan T. | - | 1% | 10% | 35% | 41% | 14% | |
| 71 | BAJAJ Nakul | 5% | 35% | 45% | 13% | 1% | - | |
| 72 | ZELIN Sam J. | - | 19% | 51% | 27% | 2% | - | |
| 73 | LIU Jeremiah W. | 2% | 16% | 39% | 33% | 9% | 1% | |
| 74 | GAO "George" Xiaojiang | 15% | 41% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 75 | BRUEGGEMANN Max | 12% | 37% | 34% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 76 | HOWARD Jackson | 3% | 18% | 36% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 77 | YIN Chujun | 9% | 42% | 40% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 78 | MCMILLAN Jackson V. | 9% | 35% | 40% | 15% | 1% | - | |
| 79 | MONTESI Eric | - | 3% | 21% | 43% | 28% | 5% | |
| 80 | ZOU Xianyang (Max) | - | 6% | 25% | 41% | 25% | 3% | |
| 81 | RADZIKOWSKI Sam | 31% | 44% | 21% | 4% | - | - | |
| 82 | TORRES Gianni | 6% | 32% | 45% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 83 | PLOTNICHENKO Vsevolod | - | 5% | 24% | 42% | 25% | 4% | |
| 84 | SANTOS Felipe | - | 8% | 37% | 39% | 14% | 2% | |
| 85 | DJONOUMA Toyohm | 6% | 31% | 43% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 86 | PALLADINO Ben T. | 3% | 18% | 36% | 31% | 11% | 1% | |
| 87 | GACS Kalman J. | - | 3% | 22% | 49% | 24% | 2% | |
| 88 | SHONEMAN Sam | 4% | 26% | 40% | 24% | 6% | - | |
| 89 | PETERSEN Zachary | 12% | 39% | 36% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 90 | DOWD Peter L. | 24% | 45% | 26% | 5% | - | - | |
| 91 | ALVES PEREIRA Francisco Xavier | 10% | 33% | 38% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 92 | MASSE Jack | 13% | 45% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 93 | THORDARSON Paul (Thor) J. | - | 1% | 11% | 42% | 36% | 9% | |
| 94 | BRADSHAW Carter | 2% | 13% | 34% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 95 | SANCHEZ-BUSTOS Anasazi | 8% | 31% | 37% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 96 | TRAN Spencer | - | 1% | 10% | 34% | 40% | 14% | 1% |
| 97 | KUBATIN Anton V. | 6% | 23% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 98 | HANCOCK Lloyd D. | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 1% |
| 99 | SCHWARTZ-HINDS Andrew | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 100 | ORESKOVIC Olivier | 12% | 37% | 37% | 13% | 1% | - | |
| 101 | LIBERT Zachariah | 6% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 6% | 1% | |
| 102 | HU Jansen T. | 3% | 25% | 45% | 23% | 4% | - | |
| 103 | PEZZINO Matthew | 17% | 41% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 104 | NALLICHERI Ayaan | 32% | 44% | 21% | 3% | - | - | |
| 105 | WANG Zhenhai | 17% | 40% | 32% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 106 | STEIN Philip | 36% | 46% | 16% | 2% | - | - | |
| 107 | KIM Nathan | 23% | 43% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 108 | CARLETON Matt | 7% | 29% | 38% | 21% | 5% | - | |
| 109 | MARSHALL William L. | 15% | 43% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 109 | HILLEGEIST Ash | 4% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% | |
| 111 | THOMPSON Ian | 9% | 33% | 38% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 112 | MORI Seneca | 6% | 26% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 113 | REELS Eric J. | 5% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 114 | SHAPIRO Natan | 44% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 115 | MECHREFE Anthony | 22% | 48% | 25% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 116 | LI Ray | 38% | 43% | 16% | 2% | - | - | |
| 117 | REINEKE Alexander | 38% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | |
| 118 | BELLIVEAU Shane | 2% | 10% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 6% | - |
| 119 | REINEKE Gerhard | 59% | 34% | 7% | 1% | - | - | |
| 119 | STELTENKAMP Neal | 3% | 17% | 38% | 34% | 8% | - | |
| 119 | HERRICK Michael | 42% | 43% | 14% | 2% | - | - | |
| 122 | WHITE Aidan | 70% | 27% | 3% | - | - | - | |
| 123 | MASSE Dean | 92% | 8% | - | - | - | - | |
| 124 | BUISINE Sebastien | 55% | 37% | 8% | - | - | - | |
| 125 | LIN Yufei | 29% | 42% | 23% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 126 | BUISINE Aurelien | 62% | 32% | 5% | - | - | - | |
| 127 | MACKENZIE Delaney | 6% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 6% | - | - |
| 128 | KAIN Brad | 16% | 42% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 129 | KOPPENHEFFER Rowan | 13% | 40% | 36% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 129 | SEILS Aether | 55% | 39% | 6% | - | - | - | |
| 131 | PETE Landon | 26% | 44% | 24% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 131 | LONADIER Robert | 39% | 44% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
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.