2019 USA Fencing Anaheim SJCC Tournament

Junior Men's Foil

Friday, March 15, 2019 at 8:30 AM

Anaheim , CA - Anaheim, CA, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 HODGES Carter F. - - - - 3% 23% 75%
2 VOGLER Justin K. - - 2% 11% 30% 39% 18%
3 PRILUTSKY David B. - - - 4% 18% 41% 37%
3 YANG Andy H. - 1% 8% 26% 38% 24% 4%
5 OURSLER Jack - - 3% 12% 31% 37% 17%
6 KIM Nicholas W. - - 2% 10% 30% 42% 16%
7 DICKSON Farr R. - - 1% 8% 31% 42% 18%
8 HAMILTON Bogdan A. - - 5% 20% 36% 30% 9%
9 LEE Benjamin H. - - 1% 8% 26% 40% 24%
10 MAURER Ned (John) E. - 1% 5% 19% 37% 30% 9%
11 CHENG Thomas C. - 1% 8% 24% 36% 25% 6%
12 KO Brian J. - 4% 17% 34% 31% 12% 2%
13 SOHN Christopher - - 2% 9% 26% 39% 25%
14 LEVY Jacob M. - - 1% 9% 31% 43% 17%
15 RITCHIE Luke W. - 4% 17% 33% 31% 13% 2%
16 FORTNER Lance R. - 5% 21% 35% 27% 10% 1%
17 GRIFFIN John O. - - - 1% 8% 37% 54%
18 MARTINEZ Donavyn E. - - 2% 10% 29% 39% 19%
19 BARLETTA Joseph 1% 6% 20% 33% 28% 11% 2%
20 UM Ethan A. - - 4% 18% 36% 32% 10%
21 BAE Junnie 1% 16% 34% 31% 14% 3% -
22 CHEN Ziyuan - - - 3% 18% 44% 34%
23 FERNANDES Zain - 5% 22% 38% 28% 8% -
24 WONG Anthony M. - 1% 7% 25% 40% 24% 2%
25 BLUTT Emerson B. - 1% 9% 25% 36% 23% 6%
26 NAGIMOV Marsel - - 2% 15% 38% 35% 11%
27 FARQUHARSON Cole 1% 5% 18% 32% 30% 14% 2%
28 THAI William 3% 17% 34% 31% 13% 2%
29 SLEDESKI Andrew - 6% 27% 41% 22% 5% -
30 HU Oliver W. - 1% 6% 22% 36% 28% 8%
31 BHARATHI Bhrugu S. 2% 11% 28% 33% 20% 6% 1%
32 GIRALDO Pablo E. 2% 12% 28% 32% 20% 6% 1%
33 IRVINE Jonathan J. - - 2% 12% 31% 38% 17%
33 LIU Justin - - - 1% 9% 35% 55%
35 BERMENDER Cameron - - 1% 9% 27% 40% 22%
36 PARK Luke J. - - 3% 12% 31% 37% 16%
37 BESSIRE Nolan S. - - 1% 7% 24% 41% 27%
38 LA ROSA Federico - - 3% 16% 35% 34% 12%
39 ZUSIN Zachary W. - - 2% 10% 29% 39% 20%
40 LEE Nathaniel J. 2% 13% 30% 32% 17% 5% -
41 LIN Richard W. - 3% 16% 34% 33% 14% 2%
42 SPEVAK Alexander - 1% 6% 20% 35% 29% 9%
43 LEE Daniel C. - 5% 19% 35% 30% 9%
44 GRUBER Samuel T. - - - 4% 19% 43% 34%
45 CHOI Ethan L. - 4% 19% 35% 30% 11% 2%
46 KIM Brandon J. - 5% 21% 35% 27% 10% 1%
47 DAVIS Christopher M. 4% 24% 41% 25% 6% 1% -
48 PETER Griffin - 1% 11% 32% 37% 16% 2%
49 ROMANOV Michael - 1% 5% 19% 35% 30% 10%
50 KUMBLA Samarth 2% 12% 28% 32% 20% 6% 1%
51 KIM Isaiah G. 6% 24% 36% 25% 8% 1% -
52 CHIN Jason Y. - 3% 13% 32% 36% 16%
53 CURLEY Sebastian D. 4% 19% 35% 29% 12% 2%
54 XIAO Ethan J. - - 1% 8% 27% 41% 22%
55 SHIH William 1% 8% 24% 34% 24% 8% 1%
56 HO Ryan J. 1% 7% 24% 34% 25% 8% 1%
57 LIMA Kevin M. - 4% 19% 35% 29% 11% 1%
58 HOOSHI Dylan M. - 1% 5% 18% 35% 31% 11%
59 SONG Aiden S. - - 1% 6% 28% 43% 22%
60 ZHANG Luke T. 3% 17% 35% 31% 12% 2% -
61 FUKUDA Alessio R. 1% 7% 23% 35% 26% 8% 1%
62 STANLEY Mason B. 1% 9% 25% 34% 23% 8% 1%
63 HSIUNG Richie 13% 35% 33% 15% 3% - -
64 HAN Andersen Y. 4% 28% 40% 22% 6% 1% -
65 URODOVSKIKH Evan - 2% 14% 34% 35% 14% 1%
66 GRANT Lachlan K. - 1% 6% 22% 36% 28% 8%
67 YU Vinni - - 4% 16% 34% 34% 12%
68 KIM Aaron J. 6% 38% 40% 14% 2% - -
69 JEON Caleb A. - 4% 18% 34% 31% 12% 2%
70 ZENG Lucas H. - - 3% 13% 31% 37% 17%
71 NGUYEN Jett - - 5% 20% 36% 30% 9%
72 XIAO Enoch A. - 1% 11% 29% 36% 19% 4%
73 WHARTON Zachary 22% 40% 27% 9% 2% - -
74 CHOI Eric Y. 1% 6% 23% 36% 26% 8% 1%
75 OH Samuel H. - 3% 15% 33% 32% 14% 2%
76 VASILIEV Sacha M. - 2% 10% 26% 35% 22% 5%
77 WU Albert - 5% 18% 33% 30% 12% 2%
78 PAEK Alex J. - 4% 15% 31% 32% 16% 3%
79 PICKERING Owen D. - - 5% 20% 36% 30% 9%
80 FREEDMAN Samuel E. 6% 23% 35% 25% 9% 1% -
81 XIAO Anthony 3% 18% 34% 29% 13% 3% -
82 MARTOS Jimmy 3% 17% 35% 30% 12% 2% -
83 OH Jonathan 1% 12% 34% 34% 16% 3% -
84 MOHAMED Yaseen 3% 20% 38% 28% 10% 1% -
85 CATLIN Adam 1% 12% 32% 34% 17% 4% -
86 SHERMAN Marco J. - 4% 16% 32% 32% 14% 2%
87 KO Tyler B. 6% 34% 38% 18% 4% - -
88 KELLY William J. - 4% 19% 34% 30% 12% 2%
88 TSAY Jeremy M. - 2% 14% 34% 35% 14% 1%
90 CARTER Lucas M. - 4% 17% 34% 32% 12% 1%
91 WANG Andrew 3% 29% 40% 22% 6% 1% -
92 LIN Dashiell - 5% 22% 39% 27% 7% -
93 NGUYEN Nish - 2% 13% 36% 35% 12% 1%
94 MAO Connor 3% 17% 33% 30% 13% 3% -
95 HONG Daniel - - 4% 17% 38% 33% 8%
95 DESHMUKH Ayush 2% 24% 41% 26% 7% 1% -
97 LI Raphael C. 4% 18% 34% 29% 12% 2% -
98 MILLER Trent D. 9% 30% 36% 19% 5% 1% -
99 LAO Scott E. 5% 22% 35% 26% 9% 2% -
100 FUKUDA Renzo K. 1% 11% 29% 34% 19% 5% 1%
101 MURUHIN Yaroslav 4% 32% 40% 20% 5% 1% -
102 LUNA Emilio 18% 40% 30% 10% 2% - -
102 CHAN Anthony 5% 21% 34% 27% 11% 2% -
104 ZHENG Alan H. - 4% 18% 33% 30% 13% 2%
104 TSANG Matthew K. 2% 11% 28% 34% 20% 5% 1%
106 MA Andrew 9% 29% 35% 20% 6% 1% -
107 SONG Dylan S. 6% 22% 34% 26% 10% 2% -
108 LI Nicholas X 9% 30% 35% 20% 6% 1% -
109 HO Justin 1% 16% 36% 32% 12% 2% -
110 CHENG Matthew S. 25% 41% 25% 8% 1% -
111 FU Samuel Y. 3% 16% 34% 32% 14% 2%
112 JAYASEKARA Hiran H. 2% 12% 27% 32% 20% 6% 1%
113 CHIN Julian S. 1% 15% 35% 32% 14% 3% -
114 YU Anders 4% 21% 34% 27% 11% 2% -
115 UPTON Michael 4% 22% 37% 26% 9% 1% -
116 WONG NICHOLAS A. 2% 20% 42% 29% 7% 1% -
117 MURRAY Maximo 1% 10% 29% 36% 19% 4% -
118 ATHOW Nelson 26% 46% 24% 4% - - -
119 PHAM-CHANG Duke A. 25% 43% 25% 7% 1% - -
120 GOLDADE Luke A. 45% 39% 13% 2% - - -
120 BANERJEE ANUP - 4% 18% 35% 30% 12% 2%
120 STRUGAR Marcus A. 1% 10% 26% 33% 22% 7% 1%
123 XIAO EDWARD 5% 28% 38% 22% 6% 1% -
124 LUH Ethan K. 15% 36% 32% 14% 3% - -
125 MILLER Duncan R. 17% 37% 31% 13% 3% - -
126 SWEENEY Quinn 28% 45% 22% 4% - - -
127 WU Conrad J. 23% 40% 27% 9% 1% - -
128 MCCOSH Evin M. 38% 42% 17% 3% - - -
129 JEFFERY Jakob 74% 23% 3% - - - -
130 KIM Jackson 21% 38% 28% 11% 2% - -
131 JORDON Kaleb W. 24% 40% 26% 9% 2% - -
132 NEWHARD Noah A. 2% 11% 29% 35% 19% 4% -
133 MURATA Akitoshi D. 67% 28% 4% - - - -
134 KIM BANSEOK 65% 30% 5% - - - -
135 DUBOEF Mason 67% 28% 5% - - - -
135 FINLEY Dylan 52% 37% 10% 1% - - -
137 WOMACH Tristan 82% 17% 1% - - - -
138 LAHAUG Ethan R. 68% 28% 4% - - - -
139 LI Ryan Z. 70% 26% 3% - - - -

Explanation

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.