Capitol Clash SYC & RCC with Non-Regional Veteran and Y8

Y-12 Men's Foil

Friday, February 1, 2019 at 1:00 PM

National Harbor, MD - National Harbor, MD, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 CHENG Jonathan 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 89% 50%
2 DESERANNO Jeidus 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 55%
3 LEE Joshua 100% 100% 100% 99% 89% 57% 14%
3 SOSNOV David 100% 100% 100% 96% 81% 48% 14%
5 BAS Liam 100% 100% 100% 99% 93% 61% 14%
5 LIANG Lixi (Henry) 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 80% 39%
7 PELOSKY Zack B. 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 67% 26%
7 SCHEMBRI MCCORD Kruz T. 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 91% 53%
9 BRUK Peter J. 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 66% 23%
10 KIM Tei D. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 64%
11 GRAHAM Roy J. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 72%
12 KEE Andrew L. 100% 100% 99% 91% 55% 13%
13 YANG Luao 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 87% 46%
14 ZHANG Yun Isaac 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 73% 20%
15 LI Richard 100% 100% 100% 99% 95% 73% 30%
16 MARX Oscar L. 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 90% 51%
17 PAE Jonathan L. 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 81% 35%
18 DOCTOR Aidan L. 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 85% 45%
19 TOLBA Abdelrahman 100% 100% 99% 90% 67% 31% 6%
20 GONG Benjamin 100% 100% 99% 94% 73% 35% 6%
21 WONG Garrick G. 100% 100% 100% 98% 87% 53% 14%
22 MARX Jackson L. 100% 100% 99% 93% 70% 33% 6%
23 AHN Jun 100% 100% 100% 100% 93% 59% 15%
24 ZHEN Ethan 100% 100% 100% 94% 64% 18% 2%
24 ZHAI Jeffrey 100% 100% 100% 97% 76% 26% 2%
26 DAI Jonathan T. 100% 100% 100% 97% 83% 46% 9%
27 ORVANANOS Jorge 100% 100% 100% 95% 72% 30% 5%
28 GOOR Julian 100% 100% 97% 85% 56% 22% 3%
29 HONG ISSAC 100% 100% 96% 79% 45% 14% 2%
30 ORR Spencer 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 63% 13%
31 KIM Yonjae 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 79% 39%
32 GEOGHEGAN Ronan 100% 100% 100% 96% 77% 34% 5%
33 JIANG Owen 100% 100% 100% 98% 86% 50% 11%
34 ANTON Nathaniel 100% 100% 100% 98% 83% 42% 7%
35 GUO Sean 100% 99% 92% 66% 31% 7% 1%
36 YAN Edward Tianshuo 100% 100% 94% 71% 34% 8% 1%
37 GORBACHEV Alexander 100% 100% 99% 89% 47% 7%
38 OH SEAN 100% 100% 100% 96% 75% 28%
39 PAE Brian L. 100% 100% 98% 88% 60% 23% 3%
40 DOUGLAS Oscar M. 100% 100% 100% 98% 82% 42% 7%
41 LIN James G. 100% 100% 99% 92% 66% 25% 3%
42 REEVES Liam 100% 100% 99% 94% 68% 25% 3%
43 DESHMUKH Arjun 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 89% 49%
44 TAHOUN Mostafa 100% 97% 75% 36% 9% 1% -
45 CATINO Brennen 100% 100% 99% 93% 66% 23% 2%
46 WECHSLER Jacob 100% 98% 82% 45% 13% 2% -
47 LIU Eric Y. 100% 88% 52% 17% 2% -
48 WONG Adrian 100% 100% 99% 95% 73% 28%
49 TSIMIKLIS Yanni 100% 95% 70% 32% 7% -
50 ZHANG Evan 100% 100% 94% 72% 34% 8% 1%
51 MENG Zhaoyi 100% 92% 64% 29% 8% 1% -
52 WU Alexander 100% 100% 94% 74% 40% 11% 1%
53 QIU Daniel 100% 99% 88% 59% 24% 5% -
54 LI Yao (Liam) 100% 100% 99% 87% 53% 15% 2%
55 PALMA Matthew Dominic 100% 100% 91% 57% 19% 3% -
56 LI Jinghua E. 100% 100% 91% 61% 21% 3% -
57 VIANNA Guilherme 100% 97% 71% 29% 5% - -
58 BASOK Nikita 100% 100% 94% 70% 27% 4% -
59 CULLIVAN Justice 100% 90% 58% 22% 4% -
60 GUO Justin 100% 94% 72% 37% 11% 2% -
61 TRAUGOT Owen G. 100% 99% 90% 60% 22% 3% -
62 GAO William 100% 95% 69% 28% 5% - -
63 SEMAPAKDI-CHANG Kaiden 100% 94% 69% 33% 9% 1% -
64 SHAO Eric 100% 100% 94% 63% 19% 2% -
65 CEDERQUIST zachary 100% 100% 98% 87% 56% 20% 2%
66 PO Oliver 100% 100% 98% 86% 55% 19% 3%
67 CANO Marcos E. 100% 100% 96% 80% 50% 18% 3%
68 CHEN Charlie Tian-You 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 55% 13%
69 JI Aidan Y. 100% 100% 96% 75% 32% 6% -
70 TIYA BIAYA K. 100% 100% 98% 87% 59% 24% 4%
71 SONG Austin 100% 98% 80% 40% 10% 1% -
72 XU Jia Bao (Bowen) 100% 100% 100% 98% 85% 52% 15%
73 TANG August L. 100% 100% 95% 78% 44% 14% 2%
74 YU Jason 100% 100% 100% 95% 75% 35% 4%
75 KALIPERSAD Neil A. 100% 97% 79% 42% 11% 1% -
76 LI Matthew 100% 100% 94% 67% 28% 5% -
77 TIKHAEV Alexander 100% 95% 66% 23% 2% - -
78 ELWOOD Sebastian F. 100% 100% 100% 98% 83% 41%
79 AUGUSTINE Aaron A. 100% 90% 53% 14% 2% -
80 TORRES Treston 100% 98% 84% 50% 17% 2% -
81 LEWIS Akhil 100% 91% 57% 20% 4% - -
82 LEE Jacob 100% 99% 91% 67% 32% 8% 1%
83 BADLANI Dev 100% 74% 27% 5% - - -
84 XU Ethan 100% 100% 96% 67% 19% 2% -
85 TANG Albert 100% 93% 66% 29% 7% 1% -
85 LIU Ryan 100% 63% 19% 2% - - -
87 ZHOU Leon 100% 93% 63% 25% 5% - -
88 CHIN Ryan 100% 99% 84% 38% 6% - -
89 ZHANG Alex 100% 90% 50% 12% 1% - -
90 QIAN Jason H. 100% 100% 94% 72% 34% 8% -
91 OTTO Nathaniel B. 100% 84% 47% 14% 2% - -
92 XIAO Benjamin 100% 100% 96% 77% 35% 7% -
93 KOKE Matthew C. 100% 74% 21% 2% - - -
94 KNIZHNIK David 100% 62% 18% 2% - -
95 SANTOS Carlos R. 100% 85% 42% 8% 1% -
96 LEE Lukas 100% 96% 73% 33% 7% 1% -
97 UHRMACHER Idris 100% 78% 36% 8% 1% - -
98 KLOTZ Isaiah 100% 94% 62% 21% 3% - -
99 BERNARD Jack B. 100% 70% 29% 7% 1% - -
100 SOLDATOV Faddey 100% 94% 63% 20% 2% - -
101 HIGGIN Matthew 100% 79% 31% 4% - - -
102 LIN Michael 100% 99% 92% 68% 32% 8% 1%
103 METTAPALLI Tarun 100% 97% 59% 19% 3% - -
104 QUINTERO Julian 100% 71% 24% 3% - - -
105 WANG mason 100% 95% 65% 20% 2% - -
106 DECORLETO III Andrew (Tripp) J. 100% 65% 17% 2% - - -
107 LEWIS Nikhil I. 100% 60% 15% 1% - - -
108 ROBBINS Tusker F. 100% 94% 73% 39% 13% 2% -
109 WONG Jackson 100% 74% 33% 8% 1% - -
110 CLICK Aiden 100% 39% 6% - - - -
111 LI Aaron 100% 89% 57% 20% 3% -
112 LEBHAR Viktor 100% 85% 47% 14% 2% - -
113 PERSINGER Charles B. 100% 84% 41% 9% 1% - -
114 MAIER Finn 100% 77% 34% 7% 1% - -
115 CHO Ethan H. 100% 97% 80% 48% 18% 3% -
115 CHOO Christopher Y. 100% 54% 15% 2% - - -
115 BALAKIRSKIY Gabriel 100% 54% 11% 1% - - -
115 HUANG Eythan 100% 44% 8% - - - -
115 SI Kevin 100% 85% 34% 6% - - -
120 ORLOV Dmitriy 100% 90% 54% 19% 4% - -
121 BURGOS Jacob R. 100% 80% 39% 10% 1% - -
121 SANDHU LERNER Armaan S. 100% 12% - - - - -
123 XU Dinghui Ryan 100% 88% 54% 20% 4% - -
124 QUINN Nathan 100% 82% 45% 15% 3% - -

Explanation

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.