Rockland Community College, Eugene Levy Field House - 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 | DUKO Phillip | - | - | 2% | 11% | 33% | 39% | 15% |
| 2 | ANDERSON Riley | - | - | - | 4% | 18% | 43% | 35% |
| 3 | XIE Brandon | - | - | - | 4% | 21% | 43% | 31% |
| 3 | RIM Eugene | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 3% |
| 5 | MCDONNELL Nathaniel | - | - | 4% | 20% | 37% | 30% | 9% |
| 6 | BORATGIS Christopher J. | - | - | - | 7% | 36% | 43% | 13% |
| 7 | CHEN Edward | 1% | 12% | 31% | 35% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 8 | SONG Changze | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 5% |
| 9 | NABAVI Matthew R. | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 45% | 45% |
| 10 | JENNINGS Adin | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 51% | 32% |
| 11 | HOWELL Liam | - | 10% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 12 | ANAFI Ari | - | - | 2% | 12% | 33% | 39% | 13% |
| 13 | YU Samuel | - | 2% | 12% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 4% |
| 14 | SOLARZ Arthur | 2% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 15 | NGO-D'ANDRE Nicolas | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 30% | 9% |
| 16 | PAUL Max A. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 38% | 20% |
| 17 | NILSEN Mark | 10% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 18 | CHEN YiHeng | 1% | 11% | 31% | 37% | 18% | 3% | |
| 19 | SOLBERG Aiden | - | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 43% | 21% |
| 20 | TOMASZEWSKI Joshua | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 32% | 10% | 1% |
| 21 | CHU Brandon A. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 39% | 23% |
| 22 | CAFASSO Martin | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 8% |
| 23 | SNYDER Michael T. | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 19% | |
| 24 | RVACHEV Michael | 1% | 8% | 24% | 33% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
| 25 | NG Nico | 2% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 26 | SMITH Troy H. | - | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 42% | 30% |
| 27 | LEE Anton | 1% | 10% | 25% | 33% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
| 28 | O'HARROW Tristan C. | - | 5% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 8% | |
| 29 | GU Eric | 11% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 30 | MORI Seneca | 13% | 38% | 35% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 31 | WHEELER Jackson | 11% | 37% | 38% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 32 | NOOL Alexander | 6% | 24% | 35% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 33 | WANG-SONG Evan | 1% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 34 | LIU Jeremiah W. | - | 4% | 16% | 31% | 31% | 14% | 2% |
| 35 | LEE Wyatt | 2% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 36 | MILINKOVIC Maksim | 1% | 10% | 28% | 36% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 37 | DOWD Peter L. | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 4% |
| 38 | XIE Andrew J. | 1% | 5% | 18% | 31% | 30% | 14% | 2% |
| 39 | TESFAYE Elias | 18% | 41% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 40 | CUMMINGS Owen | 1% | 10% | 29% | 37% | 20% | 3% | - |
| 41 | HELMY Richard | 1% | 6% | 19% | 32% | 28% | 12% | 2% |
| 42 | DAGLI Sai | 4% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 43 | SAWASDIKOSOL Sansana | - | 1% | 4% | 17% | 33% | 33% | 13% |
| 44 | LIN Yufei | 12% | 32% | 33% | 17% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 45 | LI Ryan | 10% | 34% | 36% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 46 | KIRSCH Adam J. | 28% | 43% | 23% | 5% | 1% | - | |
| 47 | ALEXANDER Christopher | - | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 3% |
| 48 | ZANELLI Ben | 2% | 11% | 27% | 33% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
| 49 | SUN Lucas | 7% | 25% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 50 | YU David | 8% | 29% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - | - |
| 51 | LEE Henry | 2% | 30% | 40% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 52 | FREY Wayne N. | - | 4% | 20% | 38% | 29% | 8% | |
| 53 | SCHAUER Oliver | 7% | 26% | 34% | 23% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 54 | LIN Junyi | 1% | 8% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
| 55 | HENNESSY Levon | 29% | 44% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 55 | BELCHAMBER Eric | 5% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 57 | KIM Samuel | 25% | 40% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 58 | LAW Oliver | 35% | 43% | 19% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 59 | LEE Kevin | 2% | 14% | 34% | 33% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 60 | CHANG Ian | 8% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - | - |
| 61 | LONADIER Robert | 53% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 62 | WELCH Sebastian | 86% | 14% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
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.