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

Cadet Men's Saber

Friday, February 1, 2019 at 1:30 PM

National Harbor, MD - National Harbor, MD, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 BENAVRAM Lev C. - - - 3% 16% 41% 39%
2 SHI Andrew - - 2% 9% 28% 40% 21%
3 SILBERZWEIG Jordan H. - - - 2% 16% 49% 33%
3 LEE Kyle - - - 3% 17% 43% 37%
5 ESCUETA Tony V. - 2% 10% 25% 33% 23% 7%
6 HARLEY Colby A. - - 2% 12% 33% 37% 15%
7 SINGER Carson - - 2% 14% 36% 36% 12%
8 LILOV Neil - - - 2% 19% 47% 32%
9 HAMMER Peter A. - 1% 6% 22% 36% 28% 8%
10 CHEN Brian - - - 3% 17% 43% 37%
11 ROPER Evan C. - 1% 6% 21% 36% 28% 8%
12 FRISHMAN Ethan J. - 1% 7% 22% 35% 27% 8%
13 YAO Jonathan - - - 4% 19% 41% 36%
13 CHAN Matthew - - - 6% 25% 43% 26%
15 CHO Brandon - 4% 16% 31% 31% 14% 2%
16 LASORSA Matthew - 4% 15% 29% 32% 17% 4%
17 CHAMBERS Amir E. - - 3% 19% 40% 31% 7%
18 LUKASHENKO Darii - 1% 5% 18% 34% 32% 11%
19 CHIN Matthew W. - 1% 9% 33% 38% 17% 3%
20 PARK Collin D. - 1% 8% 24% 36% 25% 6%
21 TRAVERS Samir T. 1% 8% 24% 34% 24% 8% 1%
22 LEMPERT Levy A. 1% 7% 24% 36% 24% 7% 1%
23 LIN William - 1% 5% 20% 36% 30% 9%
24 NG Jonathan H. - - 2% 13% 36% 38% 12%
25 LUO ZIRUI - 1% 13% 44% 34% 8% 1%
26 JEAN Noe T. - - 3% 14% 32% 35% 14%
27 KIM Avery J. - - 5% 21% 39% 29% 7%
28 LU Timothy - 2% 11% 29% 36% 19% 4%
29 BUERGENTHAL Aaron P. - 1% 5% 20% 37% 29% 8%
30 DENNER Maximilian P. - - 4% 21% 39% 29% 7%
31 GILMORE Thomas W. - - 1% 8% 30% 42% 19%
32 BERMAN Luca - 4% 18% 34% 30% 12% 1%
33 CZYZEWSKI Konrad R. - 1% 5% 18% 34% 31% 11%
34 BUKOWSKI Bronson - - 3% 14% 33% 36% 13%
35 BECKER Matheus - 2% 12% 28% 33% 19% 4%
36 ZHOU Justin - - 5% 29% 45% 18% 2%
37 ZHOU Kevin - 4% 17% 31% 31% 14% 2%
38 GRASS James D. 1% 10% 27% 34% 21% 6% 1%
39 GINIS Nathan 1% 8% 25% 36% 23% 6% 1%
40 LU Caleb Q. 10% 35% 39% 15% 2% - -
41 ALTIRS Alexander 4% 19% 34% 28% 12% 3% -
42 BERRIO Carter E. - 1% 9% 32% 37% 17% 3%
43 KENNEDY Liam A. - - 3% 16% 38% 35% 9%
44 CHEONG Heonjae - 4% 16% 30% 31% 16% 3%
45 ALKEMPER Tristan H. - 4% 20% 40% 28% 8% 1%
46 HARGENRADER Kailen A. - 3% 14% 30% 33% 17% 3%
47 PAN Andrew W. - - 3% 13% 31% 37% 17%
48 TONG ZACHARY 1% 7% 23% 36% 25% 8% 1%
49 LEONARD Cole - - 4% 21% 41% 28% 6%
50 HONG Vincent Q. 6% 29% 38% 20% 5% 1% -
51 JARAMILLO Tobias L. - 2% 13% 30% 34% 18% 4%
52 CONINE Tanner C. - 3% 17% 40% 31% 9% 1%
53 MADDALONE Thomas - 5% 19% 33% 29% 12% 2%
54 YOU Jaden 19% 51% 25% 4% - - -
55 SAINT-PIERRE-MENARD Colin 7% 26% 36% 23% 7% 1% -
56 REN Richard 39% 41% 17% 3% - - -
57 JOHNSTON Bennett S. 2% 15% 35% 32% 13% 3% -
58 HUANG Ethan F. 3% 20% 36% 28% 11% 2% -
59 CHEN Oscar 3% 16% 33% 31% 14% 3% -
61 ZHOU Aeres Z. 20% 41% 29% 9% 1% - -
62 XUE ALEXANDER 4% 20% 34% 28% 11% 2% -
63 MOOREHEAD Patrick 7% 27% 36% 22% 7% 1% -
64 DEISBOECK Maximilian S. 2% 12% 30% 34% 18% 4% -
65 GOLD Jackson 3% 16% 31% 31% 16% 4% -
66 JOHNSON Langston C. - - 3% 13% 32% 37% 15%
67 WRIGHT Athan 9% 28% 35% 21% 7% 1% -
68 HWANG Ryan C. 17% 42% 31% 9% 1% - -
69 DU Gavin J. 7% 24% 33% 24% 10% 2% -
70 HOUSE Jackson T. 3% 21% 37% 27% 10% 2% -
71 LINDHOLM Oliver S. 3% 21% 36% 27% 10% 2% -
72 COX Luis E. 11% 41% 37% 10% 1% - -
73 BLECKNER Noah 22% 45% 28% 5% - - -
74 CRISAFULLI Francesco R. 8% 27% 36% 22% 6% 1% -
75 FORT David 4% 46% 37% 11% 2% - -
76 COSGROVE Connor R. 9% 28% 34% 21% 7% 1% -
77 BONSELL Vance 20% 38% 29% 11% 2% - -
79 YOUNG Sean 2% 20% 53% 22% 3% - -
80 GHENEA George Philipe 17% 37% 31% 13% 3% - -
81 MOLINARO Lawrence 8% 37% 36% 15% 3% - -
82 SHEN Christopher 19% 40% 29% 10% 2% - -
83 CHAVES Matthew J. 12% 43% 35% 9% 1% - -
84 SHTEYN Mark 5% 21% 33% 26% 11% 2% -
85 WOODWARD Connor 3% 18% 35% 30% 11% 2% -
86 BURNS Jackson P. 46% 39% 13% 2% - - -
87 GREENBAUM Ian L. 7% 25% 35% 24% 8% 1% -
88 COREY Michael A. 37% 44% 17% 2% - - -
89 BELEV Nicholas 22% 49% 24% 4% - - -
91 BOWMAN James 80% 18% 1% - - - -

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.