Boston Fencing Club - Boston, MA, 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 | CHIANG William | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 38% | 20% | |
2 | CHEN Tianjun | - | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 42% | 32% |
3 | ZHENG Jason | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 43% | 29% | |
3 | LANE Sawyer | 4% | 16% | 31% | 30% | 15% | 4% | - |
5 | CHEN Evan | - | - | 1% | 5% | 21% | 42% | 32% |
6 | TANG Luke | - | 1% | 4% | 15% | 31% | 34% | 15% |
7 | LEE Harrison | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 37% | 18% | |
8 | DING Charlie | 15% | 35% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - | |
9 | CHEN Daniel | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 11% |
10 | CHEN Jayden A | 6% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 5% | < 1% | |
11 | ROFINO Samuel | 6% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% | |
12 | FANG Charlie | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 41% | 26% |
13 | YU George | 5% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 9% | 1% | |
14 | CHO Adrian | 1% | 9% | 30% | 40% | 19% | 1% | |
15 | MALLAKIS Efstathios | 3% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
16 | CHEN Hayden | 10% | 30% | 35% | 19% | 5% | 1% | |
17 | HOREMIOTIS Bennett | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 5% | |
18 | LAI Jayden | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 6% |
19 | DAI Jason | 2% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 17% | 3% | |
20 | DIMOV Daniel | - | - | 4% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 11% |
21 | RICK Dylan | 16% | 37% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
22 | LITVINOVSKY Benjamin | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 34% | 16% | 2% |
23 | NOVAK Luke | 2% | 12% | 31% | 35% | 17% | 3% | |
24 | WILLIAMS Gavin | 14% | 38% | 35% | 12% | 1% | - | |
25 | BURDICK Elijah | 1% | 8% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 7% | |
26 | SCHLUBACH Jasper | 3% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 15% | 3% | - |
27 | GUJJA Rishabh | - | 1% | 4% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 10% |
28 | PINCIROLI Tommaso | 8% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 7% | 1% | |
29 | SMITH Theo | 2% | 11% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 5% | |
30 | SHI Evan | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% | |
31 | QI Bryan | 3% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 2% | |
32 | YOON Jonathan | 6% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 10% | 1% | |
33 | DANA Miles | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
34 | LI Jayden | 10% | 30% | 35% | 20% | 5% | 1% | |
35 | CAVALLARO Sebastian | 15% | 39% | 34% | 11% | 1% | - | |
36 | LANDMAN Martin | 13% | 33% | 34% | 16% | 4% | - | |
37 | LEE Jack | 1% | 9% | 23% | 32% | 24% | 9% | 1% |
38 | KESELMAN Ron | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
39 | LIU Kyle | 2% | 12% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 5% | - |
40 | RICHARDSON Matthew | 15% | 38% | 33% | 12% | 2% | - | |
41 | CHALLAMEL Hadrien | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 7% | |
42 | IVANOV Andrew | - | 5% | 18% | 34% | 32% | 11% | |
43 | ALIMI Mousa | - | - | 3% | 21% | 49% | 27% | |
44 | SARKAR Aum | - | 1% | 12% | 35% | 39% | 13% | |
45 | ZOU Grant | 4% | 17% | 31% | 30% | 15% | 4% | - |
46 | CAVALLARO Xavier | 2% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 5% | - |
47 | JIN Derek | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 12% | 2% | - |
48 | ZINCHUK Yuri | 4% | 20% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | |
49 | KLOTS Theo | 4% | 20% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | |
50 | MURPHY CHANCOGNE Quentin | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 34% | 11% | |
51 | EFFEL Samuel | - | < 1% | 4% | 26% | 46% | 25% | |
52 | LI Nolan | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 4% | |
52 | SCOGGIN Charles | 20% | 39% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - | |
54 | TAN Wyatt | 12% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | |
55 | YU MAXIMILIAN | 4% | 18% | 32% | 29% | 14% | 3% | - |
56 | GREGORY Milo | 22% | 39% | 28% | 9% | 2% | - | - |
57 | GOOD Adam | 29% | 41% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
58 | ZHANG Jacob | 8% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
59 | SCHELTZ Owen | 1% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
60 | MILLER Brodrick | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
61 | YADAV Aarav | 2% | 12% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 4% | |
62 | TANG Jake | 5% | 20% | 32% | 27% | 13% | 3% | - |
63 | SON Joshua | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
64 | LOGINOV Iurii | 4% | 19% | 37% | 30% | 9% | 1% |
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.