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 | EKE Frank | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 72% | 26% | |
| 2 | LEE Noah | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 58% |
| 3 | COLLYMORE Spencer T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 31% |
| 3 | GALLANT Antoine | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 27% |
| 5 | WU Joseph | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 19% |
| 6 | JUN Jaywu | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 49% | 12% |
| 7 | SALERNO Gaetano | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 37% | 8% |
| 8 | SHAH Maximilian A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 59% | 20% |
| 9 | PRIHODKO Max | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 58% | 24% | 5% |
| 10 | CHATZIKALFAS Dimitris E. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 72% | 38% | 9% |
| 11 | HE Lawrence | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 45% | 10% |
| 12 | PIERANUNZI IV Wills | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 23% | |
| 13 | LANGTON Sawyer | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 25% |
| 14 | KOKENGE Reid | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 37% | 6% |
| 15 | DYER Ian E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 45% | 10% |
| 16 | PLOTNICHENKO Vsevolod | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 26% | 4% |
| 17 | PAHLAVI Kamran | 100% | 100% | 94% | 74% | 40% | 12% | 2% |
| 18 | KATS Dylan G. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 60% | 18% |
| 19 | CHOI Mason | 100% | 100% | 94% | 68% | 31% | 7% | 1% |
| 20 | SKAALAND Will | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 39% | 12% | 1% |
| 21 | JOSLIN Tyler | 100% | 98% | 86% | 59% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
| 22 | ROLLO Emmett H. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 67% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 22 | KHALITOV Alexander | 100% | 98% | 85% | 51% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 24 | FLECKENSTEIN Benjamin T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 46% | 11% |
| 24 | SKORUPAN Grant | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 34% | 7% |
| 26 | ROYTBURD Samuel | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 27 | KARAMANIAN Nicholas | 100% | 94% | 65% | 25% | 4% | - | |
| 28 | BORODITSKY Ethan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 55% | 15% |
| 29 | PAVATE Rishi | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 55% | 21% | 4% |
| 30 | SUN Jason | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 23% | 4% | - |
| 31 | SUN Jeffery | 100% | 85% | 48% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 32 | GONG Haixiang | 100% | 89% | 57% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 33 | SACCOMANNO Shelby | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 26% | 6% | - |
| 34 | FRASSETTO Marcus A. | 100% | 85% | 48% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 35 | BHATIA Rahil | 100% | 98% | 85% | 56% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
| 36 | WALCH Logan | 100% | 96% | 73% | 31% | 5% | - | |
| 37 | CHANG Benjamin | 100% | 59% | 17% | 2% | - | - | |
| 38 | CHENESKI Brady | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 17% | 3% | |
| 39 | BEALS Alden | 100% | 64% | 21% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 40 | ZHANG William | 100% | 94% | 66% | 27% | 5% | - | - |
| 41 | KUBATIN Anton V. | 100% | 64% | 17% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 42 | ZHAO corey | 100% | 95% | 74% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 43 | BELLIVEAU Emmett S. | 100% | 96% | 76% | 42% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 44 | SOSNICK Samuel | 100% | 73% | 25% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 45 | AMELOT Alexander | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 46 | GAO Daniel | 100% | 81% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 47 | ZHANG Zixian (Shawn) | 100% | 95% | 72% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 48 | OTTO Nathaniel B. | 100% | 98% | 83% | 41% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 48 | XIE Brandon | 100% | 99% | 87% | 51% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 50 | WU Jonathan | 100% | 85% | 46% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 51 | MORTIMER Gavin | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 52 | LAI Aiden | 100% | 77% | 27% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 53 | RIPA Joseph K. | 100% | 83% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 54 | JACKSON Nicholas | 100% | 92% | 64% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 55 | CAETANO Joshua | 100% | 85% | 48% | 16% | 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.