Tufts University - Medford, MA, USA
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 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ||
1 | NAGIMOV Marsel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 98% | 93% | 84% | 69% | 49% | 29% | 14% | 5% | 1% | - | ||
2 | ONIK Elijah | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 98% | 94% | 84% | 70% | 52% | 33% | 18% | 8% | 3% | 1% | < 1% | - | - | - | - | ||
3 | KUMBLA Samarth | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 95% | 89% | 77% | 60% | 41% | 23% | 10% | 3% | 1% | - |
4 | KAO Castor | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 95% | 88% | 75% | 58% | 39% | 23% | 11% | 4% | 1% | - | - | - | - | |
5 | CHEN Andrew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 97% | 91% | 81% | 65% | 46% | 27% | 13% | 5% | 1% | - | - | |
7 | BANERJEE Anup | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 94% | 86% | 72% | 53% | 35% | 19% | 9% | 3% | 1% | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
8 | YU Vinni | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 95% | 88% | 76% | 59% | 40% | 24% | 12% | 5% | 2% | - | - | - | - | - | |
9 | YANG Adam | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 88% | 74% | 56% | 37% | 21% | 10% | 4% | 1% | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
10 | ZHANG Henry | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 98% | 94% | 86% | 72% | 55% | 36% | 20% | 9% | 4% | 1% | - | - | - | - | - |
12 | KIM Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 94% | 86% | 72% | 53% | 34% | 18% | 8% | 3% | 1% | - | - | - | |||
13 | ZHANG Daniel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 90% | 72% | 46% | 21% | 6% | 1% | ||||||||||
14 | BINDER Zach | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 79% | 55% | 28% | 9% | 1% | |||||||||||
15 | YEROKHIN Michael | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 73% | 50% | 26% | 10% | 3% | 1% | - | - | |||||||
16 | WONG Adam | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 88% | 68% | 42% | 19% | 6% | 1% | - | |||||||||||
17 | BARTEL Jacob | 100% | 98% | 89% | 67% | 39% | 17% | 6% | 1% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
18 | ZHANG Andy | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 74% | 48% | 23% | 7% | 1% | |||||||||||
19 | KWON Ethan | 100% | 99% | 93% | 77% | 52% | 26% | 9% | 2% | - | - | ||||||||||||
20 | NUNNINK Phillip | 100% | 91% | 66% | 35% | 13% | 4% | 1% | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||
21 | HU Oliver | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 92% | 77% | 53% | 29% | 11% | 3% | - | - | ||||||||||
22 | SULLIVAN Jack | 100% | 94% | 67% | 29% | 6% | - | ||||||||||||||||
23 | CHEN James | 100% | 98% | 86% | 52% | 15% | |||||||||||||||||
24 | XIAO Enoch | 100% | 97% | 78% | 41% | 10% | |||||||||||||||||
25 | CHENG Matthew | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 53% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | |||||||||||||
26 | BELLUOMO David | 100% | 94% | 65% | 27% | 6% | - | ||||||||||||||||
27 | LEE Jacob | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 81% | 56% | 27% | 8% | 1% | ||||||||||||
28 | DICKSON Farr | 100% | 80% | 39% | 10% | 1% | |||||||||||||||||
29 | KO Christian | 100% | 81% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | ||||||||||||||||
32 | COSTELLO Chaissen | 100% | 95% | 72% | 36% | 10% | 1% | ||||||||||||||||
34 | GOBBO Alexander | 100% | 93% | 62% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||
35 | CAPRA Ethan | 100% | 64% | 23% | 5% | 1% | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||
36 | PROSOLI Lovro | 100% | 99% | 86% | 50% | 10% | |||||||||||||||||
37 | FORTUNE Alex | 100% | 83% | 30% | 2% | ||||||||||||||||||
38 | SMITH Grant | 100% | 84% | 35% | 2% | ||||||||||||||||||
39 | WADLEY Brendan | 100% | 52% | 10% | - | ||||||||||||||||||
40 | LIN Richard | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 20% | |||||||||||||||||
41 | LIU Niles | 100% | 100% | 97% | 72% | ||||||||||||||||||
42 | TRAUGOT Brady | 100% | 68% | 23% | 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.