New Haven, CT - New Haven, CT, 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 | CHO Brandon | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 36% | 53% |
| 2 | MENSAH Kennedy C | - | - | 3% | 12% | 29% | 37% | 19% |
| 3 | CZAHA Balint | - | - | 1% | 9% | 36% | 54% | |
| 3 | KOGAN Benjamin | - | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 39% | 15% |
| 5 | YEN Preston | - | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 42% | 33% |
| 6 | ELIN Adam E. | 3% | 15% | 30% | 31% | 17% | 5% | < 1% |
| 7 | MAHONEY Colin M. | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 44% | 33% |
| 8 | HAN Daniel Y. | 2% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 9 | GINIS Nathan | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 38% | 53% |
| 10 | MICHNA Colin P. | - | 6% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 11 | PETRAMALE Samuel J. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 39% | 19% |
| 12 | ALKEMPER Tristan H. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 41% | 25% |
| 13 | DA GRACA Aidan | - | - | 4% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 11% |
| 14 | CLYMER Lucas Y. | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 6% |
| 15 | MARGULIES William | 1% | 12% | 36% | 37% | 14% | 1% | |
| 16 | HONG Vincent Q. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 28% | 49% | 17% |
| 17 | SPOSATO Andrew P. | - | 5% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 14% | 2% |
| 18 | KASPER Aaron | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 19 | ATEFI Daniel | - | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 41% | 34% |
| 20 | FIELDS Matthew S. | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 4% |
| 21 | OVERDECK Andrew | 2% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 19% | 5% | - |
| 22 | BELEV Nicholas | 2% | 11% | 26% | 33% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
| 23 | EDELMAN Seth A. | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 36% | 19% | 4% |
| 24 | LO Alexander | 4% | 18% | 32% | 28% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 25 | LAMHAOUAR Ryan | 17% | 36% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
| 26 | HUANG Alexander C. | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 4% |
| 27 | TREJO Oliver | 3% | 15% | 31% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 28 | PIWOWAR Alex | 1% | 9% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 6% | - |
| 29 | HUANG Tyler T. | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 17% | 3% |
| 30 | ZHENG Edward L. | - | 2% | 12% | 29% | 34% | 18% | 3% |
| 31 | GINSBURG Daniel | 35% | 42% | 19% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 32 | DOLAN Charles R. | 2% | 14% | 35% | 34% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 33 | BIDWELL Ryder | 6% | 22% | 33% | 25% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 34 | DOLSKI Jack | - | 6% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 6% | - |
| 35 | FARDELLA Angelo | 3% | 17% | 33% | 30% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 36 | DEISBOECK Maximilian S. | - | 5% | 25% | 41% | 24% | 4% | |
| 37 | HONG Justin | 2% | 15% | 34% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 38 | MCCARTHY Gabriel | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 11% | 1% |
| 39 | GRYCIUK Koby | 3% | 18% | 36% | 31% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 40 | HUANG Connor | 2% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 41 | ZHUANG Rayken | 6% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 42 | MACKINNON Henry | 3% | 14% | 29% | 31% | 18% | 6% | 1% |
| 43 | KESSLER Josh | 5% | 27% | 39% | 23% | 6% | - | - |
| 44 | WONG Ryan | - | 4% | 21% | 41% | 29% | 5% | |
| 45 | ANGKATAVANICH Owen | 2% | 13% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 6% | 1% |
| 46 | DUNAL Daniel | 25% | 41% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 47 | ZHANG Yankun | 5% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 48 | SHTEIN Yan | 1% | 7% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
| 49 | BURDAN Gabriel | 15% | 46% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 50 | RENNER Henry | 1% | 11% | 32% | 36% | 17% | 2% | - |
| 51 | SHI Erick | 12% | 37% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 52 | MORALES Jonathan | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 52 | BOVE Roman | 2% | 13% | 32% | 33% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 54 | OWENS Harrison J. | 3% | 15% | 29% | 31% | 17% | 5% | 1% |
| 55 | WU Max | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 56 | ELLIS John (Jack) | 12% | 38% | 35% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 57 | GILBERT Spencer E. | 38% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 58 | GOLDMAN Noah R. | 5% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 59 | HUANG Ian | 1% | 7% | 22% | 33% | 26% | 10% | 1% |
| 60 | BRIDGES Benjamin | 7% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 61 | SUSSMAN Jamie | 49% | 40% | 10% | 1% | - | - | |
| 62 | BERG Patrick | 48% | 38% | 12% | 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.