New Haven, CT - New Haven, CT, 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 | SHENG Patrick Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 19% |
| 2 | MARCHANT Albert J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 34% | 8% |
| 3 | MOTIR Lucas D. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 27% |
| 3 | KUMAR Anitya | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 20% |
| 5 | MCDERMOTT Brian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 19% |
| 6 | KRONROD Tal | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 74% | 41% | 11% |
| 7 | HERMANSON David B. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 29% | 6% | - |
| 8 | CRONIN Darragh J. | 100% | 94% | 72% | 38% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 9 | YUROVCHAK Andrew T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 36% |
| 10 | LESPERANCE Lucas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 75% | 33% |
| 11 | LANGTON Sawyer | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 6% |
| 12 | BURNHAM Charlie E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 40% | 10% |
| 13 | HE Lawrence | 100% | 100% | 94% | 72% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 14 | LEHR William D. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 37% | 8% |
| 15 | JIN Owen | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 55% | 21% | 3% |
| 16 | WYATT Seth | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 37% | 10% | 1% |
| 17 | WIEDERHORN ethan | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 18 | LIEF Isaac R. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 42% | 13% | 2% |
| 19 | GLAZ Nicholas S. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 41% | 11% |
| 20 | SHAH Maximilian A. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 41% | 13% | 2% |
| 21 | ALFAIATE Lucas | 100% | 100% | 94% | 75% | 42% | 12% | 1% |
| 22 | DYER Ian E. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 23 | HANRATTY Liam | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 33% | 9% | 1% |
| 24 | HOWELL Thomas A. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 75% | 42% | 14% | 2% |
| 25 | BELLIVEAU Raven C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 47% | 12% |
| 26 | COLLYMORE Spencer T. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 66% | 31% | 7% |
| 27 | SINGH Laekhram | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 28% | 6% | 1% |
| 28 | FENWICK Luke A. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 50% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 29 | LIU Jack | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 41% | 13% | 2% |
| 30 | MARICI Ryan | 100% | 96% | 76% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 31 | GROSSMAN August | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 36% | 11% | 1% |
| 32 | SMEDLEY Drew N. | 100% | 65% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 33 | MARKHAM Jimmy | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 61% | 24% | 4% |
| 34 | LUKANYUK Lorence | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 70% | 35% | 8% |
| 35 | TROAKE Henry R. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 60% | 26% | 6% | 1% |
| 36 | LAI Coby | 100% | 94% | 71% | 36% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 37 | SIMPSON Patrick | 100% | 90% | 61% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 37 | MAGDA Daniel | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 6% | - |
| 39 | DOUGLAS Colin F. | 100% | 98% | 83% | 52% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 40 | MATEI Daniel | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 34% | 9% | 1% |
| 41 | COTAJ Andrew | 100% | 73% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 42 | WU Joseph | 100% | 100% | 94% | 67% | 30% | 7% | 1% |
| 43 | RICHARD Owen | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 50% | 12% |
| 44 | PAGE Duncan | 100% | 91% | 60% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 45 | FERREIRA Noah J. | 100% | 99% | 86% | 55% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 46 | PATENAUDE Kameron | 100% | 96% | 72% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 47 | BENINI Alexander J. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
| 48 | MORTON William | 100% | 79% | 41% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 49 | BAZURO Andrew | 100% | 87% | 55% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 50 | CONNORS Jacob | 100% | 54% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 51 | GIRARDI Brian | 100% | 79% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 52 | SKIFFINGTON Sam | 100% | 94% | 68% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 53 | ROLLO Emmett H. | 100% | 90% | 51% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 54 | GRUMMER Ryan | 100% | 87% | 48% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 55 | ROWE Jason | 100% | 75% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 56 | HERBERT Harrison | 100% | 84% | 48% | 17% | 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.