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 | ZHENG Edward L. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 40% | 23% |
2 | SHIRPAL Oleksandr | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 39% | 51% |
3 | SHOMAN Zachary | - | - | - | - | 4% | 27% | 69% |
3 | OH Triton | - | - | 3% | 20% | 46% | 31% | |
5 | SHOMAN Noah | - | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 41% | 29% |
6 | MCCARTHY Gabriel | - | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 40% | 22% |
7 | BERA Enzo | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 25% | |
8 | BAE Jason I. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 38% | 51% | |
9 | BABAYEV Gabriel A. | - | - | 4% | 18% | 38% | 31% | 9% |
10 | WANG Robert | - | - | 3% | 19% | 43% | 34% | |
11 | KESSLER Nathan | 3% | 15% | 31% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
12 | PENG Bryan | - | - | 5% | 30% | 46% | 19% | |
13 | IDRISSI Idris | - | 1% | 10% | 38% | 39% | 12% | |
14 | LIN Philip T. | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 8% |
15 | ZHAO Lucas | - | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 43% | 27% |
16 | PEREIRA Beckham | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 13% | 2% |
17 | CHENG Cody | - | 5% | 21% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
18 | LEMPERT Adam | - | 1% | 6% | 27% | 44% | 19% | 2% |
19 | EYBELMAN Ariel | 5% | 25% | 39% | 24% | 6% | - | |
20 | ALLARDYCE Lachlan | - | 5% | 23% | 40% | 27% | 5% | |
21 | WANG Oscar | 16% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | |
22 | BROU Inkosi | - | - | 3% | 17% | 38% | 36% | 6% |
23 | PARKER Benjamin D. | 5% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 11% | 2% | - |
24 | SAHAY Kenji | 2% | 14% | 33% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - |
25 | VARUKATTY-GAFOOR Sohil | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 36% | 11% | |
26 | ALLARDYCE Graham | 2% | 11% | 27% | 33% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
27 | KIM Ethan | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 30% | 9% |
28 | GRIMM Benjamin | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 4% |
29 | TVERSKOY Sam | 29% | 44% | 22% | 5% | - | - | |
30 | PRIMUS Nazir | 1% | 7% | 26% | 40% | 23% | 3% | |
31 | GONG Jerry | 3% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
32 | CARROLL Charles | 8% | 30% | 36% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
33 | WITCZAK Mateus | 1% | 8% | 27% | 39% | 21% | 4% | - |
34 | FRANCOIS Alexander C. | 4% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 3% | - |
35 | LEE Andrew | 1% | 12% | 31% | 34% | 18% | 4% | - |
36 | SHINCHUK Daniel | - | 3% | 15% | 36% | 35% | 11% | |
37 | LORIN Ike | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 3% |
38 | YANG Michael | - | - | 3% | 15% | 36% | 36% | 10% |
39 | TSAO Oliver | 3% | 19% | 38% | 30% | 9% | 1% | |
40 | CUSUMANO Neal | 27% | 42% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | |
41 | SUBRAMANIAM Oliver C. | 5% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% | |
42 | BAUMEL David | 21% | 48% | 27% | 4% | - | - | |
43 | ATWOOD Griffin | 3% | 16% | 32% | 30% | 15% | 4% | - |
43 | KLETTER Max | 5% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - |
45 | BRANDT Jaden | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
46 | KANG evan | 1% | 5% | 19% | 32% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
47 | SAKMANN Sebastian | 1% | 5% | 18% | 33% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
48 | WONG Caleb W. | 3% | 17% | 37% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - |
49 | ADAMS Rhys | 1% | 10% | 29% | 37% | 20% | 3% | - |
50 | SUGIURA Samuel | 2% | 16% | 35% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - |
51 | DESANTIS Benjamin | 19% | 40% | 30% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
52 | OH Aster | - | 6% | 25% | 40% | 24% | 5% | |
53 | BAUMEL Zachary | 13% | 35% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | |
54 | SINGER Marcus | 9% | 36% | 42% | 11% | 1% | - | |
55 | LIU Alexander | 14% | 36% | 34% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
56 | LIU Ryan | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
57 | DA GRACA Tyler | 2% | 13% | 31% | 35% | 17% | 3% | |
58 | CHANG Yuyang | 20% | 38% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
59 | TAI Roebling | 29% | 45% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
60 | MUNGOVAN Matthew | 33% | 46% | 19% | 2% | - | - | |
61 | VORONOVICH Aleksei | 39% | 42% | 16% | 3% | - | - | - |
61 | LEVI D'ANCONA Leone | 3% | 23% | 39% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - |
63 | MCWHORTER Alden | 8% | 45% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - | |
64 | DIGIACOMO Dennis G. | 16% | 40% | 32% | 11% | 1% | - | |
65 | TIAGI George | 48% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
66 | MILLAR Matlock | 8% | 34% | 38% | 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.