Secaucus, NJ - Secaucus, NJ, 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 | ||
1 | DENNER Lysander H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 72% | 27% |
2 | HARRIS Alex K. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 70% | 22% |
3 | DENNER Maximilian P. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 59% | 20% | 3% | |
3 | PAN Jerry | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 53% | 14% |
5 | MORREALE John | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 29% | |
6 | YANG Richard | 100% | 99% | 91% | 69% | 36% | 11% | 1% |
7 | LEVIN Mark A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 22% |
8 | LIN William | 100% | 99% | 90% | 66% | 32% | 9% | 1% |
9 | SILBERZWEIG Jordan H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 73% |
10 | PAN Jack (Yuxiang) | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 33% | 6% | |
11 | CHIEN Phillip L. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 44% | 11% | |
12 | WUN William | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 66% | 31% | 7% |
13 | NG Jonathan H. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 22% | 3% |
14 | JUN Ryan | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 19% | 3% | - |
15 | HUANG Eric | 100% | 98% | 83% | 51% | 17% | 2% | |
16 | CHAMBERS Amir E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 20% |
17 | KIM Avery J. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 15% | |
18 | LILOV Neil | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 29% | |
19 | YAO Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 13% |
20 | MOSKOWITZ Mason C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 32% | 7% |
21 | WALKER Robert Connor | 100% | 89% | 57% | 23% | 5% | 1% | - |
22 | LUO ZiRui | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 32% | 7% |
23 | GREENE Alexander J. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 45% | 11% | |
24 | SIMAK Joseph P. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 34% | 10% | 1% |
25 | LASORSA Matthew | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 49% | 15% | 2% |
26 | LEONARD Cole | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 41% | 14% | 2% |
27 | EPSTEIN Henry N. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 46% | 16% | 2% |
28 | MOSZCZYNSKI Adam | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 20% | |
29 | SUBBIAH Prashanth V. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 24% | 4% | |
30 | JEAN Noe T. | 100% | 97% | 83% | 52% | 20% | 3% | |
31 | MAHONEY Colin M. | 100% | 96% | 77% | 43% | 14% | 2% | |
32 | ALKEMPER Tristan H. | 100% | 99% | 85% | 48% | 14% | 2% | |
33 | TAKEMARU Leo | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 21% | |
34 | MORRILL Justin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 29% | 5% |
35 | GINIS Nathan | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 33% | 7% | |
36 | CHO Sungmin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 60% | 21% |
37 | STRONG Jr James S. | 100% | 98% | 88% | 63% | 31% | 9% | 1% |
38 | CHO Brandon | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 78% | 44% | 12% |
39 | LUKASHENKO Darii | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 24% | 4% |
40 | CZYZEWSKI Konrad R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 45% | 11% |
41 | KUSHKOV Veniamin | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 24% | 5% | - |
41 | SAINT-PIERRE-MENARD Colin | 100% | 92% | 67% | 34% | 11% | 2% | - |
43 | KEEFE Duncan | 100% | 98% | 83% | 51% | 18% | 3% | - |
44 | JI Cody Walter | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 42% | 10% | |
45 | PARKHURST Jr Michael | 100% | 96% | 75% | 39% | 11% | 1% | |
46 | PAN Andrew W. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 22% | |
46 | HARGENRADER Kailen A. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 35% | 7% | |
48 | MURTHY Mukund | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 29% | 5% | |
49 | LAU Jeremy Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 46% | 11% |
50 | SZEWCZYK Thomas D. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 17% | 1% |
51 | ALTIRS Alexander | 100% | 92% | 55% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
52 | PETRAMALE Samuel J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 20% |
53 | HUANG Tyler T. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 66% | 25% | 4% | - |
54 | CHAN Daniel | 100% | 96% | 76% | 42% | 13% | 2% | |
55 | SANFILIPPO-SCHERER Alexander G. | 100% | 92% | 65% | 29% | 7% | 1% | |
56 | MORRILL William | 100% | 100% | 88% | 56% | 20% | 3% | |
57 | LINSKY Matthew | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 17% | 2% | |
58 | ZHOU Kevin | 100% | 98% | 84% | 46% | 13% | 1% | |
59 | HUANG Ian | 100% | 71% | 26% | 4% | - | - | |
60 | VON TULGANBURG Cameron C. | 100% | 93% | 56% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
61 | WOLFE-MCGUIRE George T. | 100% | 98% | 83% | 50% | 19% | 4% | - |
62 | ZHOU Miles | 100% | 86% | 51% | 17% | 3% | - | |
63 | BOURGHOL Matthew | 100% | 92% | 65% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - |
64 | LIU Kelly | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 16% | 1% |
65 | CHAN Alexander S. | 100% | 97% | 80% | 46% | 16% | 3% | - |
66 | TONG Zachary | 100% | 99% | 87% | 55% | 19% | 3% | - |
67 | GREENE Cameron J. | 100% | 94% | 66% | 29% | 7% | 1% | |
68 | LEE Justin | 100% | 98% | 83% | 49% | 17% | 3% | - |
69 | HAQ Kamran R. | 100% | 94% | 68% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
70 | LU Caleb Q. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 57% | 21% | 4% | - |
71 | WU Wilmund | 100% | 88% | 49% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
72 | HO Kaden M. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
73 | EDELMAN Seth A. | 100% | 90% | 61% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
74 | MICHNA Colin P. | 100% | 93% | 66% | 30% | 7% | 1% | |
75 | TANG Albert | 100% | 80% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - | |
76 | NAZLYMOV Andrei | 100% | 95% | 72% | 37% | 11% | 1% | |
77 | GORMAN Liam | 100% | 76% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - | |
78 | HAN Daniel Y. | 100% | 61% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
79 | REN Richard | 100% | 99% | 88% | 59% | 25% | 5% | - |
80 | CHANG Yufeng | 100% | 93% | 66% | 27% | 5% | - | - |
81 | HUANG Ethan F. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 42% | 14% | 2% |
83 | HONG Vincent Q. | 100% | 86% | 51% | 18% | 3% | - | |
84 | LEDERER Justin W. | 100% | 96% | 71% | 29% | 5% | - | |
85 | COOK Aidan J. | 100% | 55% | 13% | 1% | - | - | - |
85 | REDA Myles | 100% | 87% | 44% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
87 | CHENG Kyle | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 53% | 21% | 4% |
88 | GEORGE Daniel | 100% | 42% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
89 | MARTINEZ Justin | 100% | 76% | 32% | 6% | 1% | - | |
90 | SPOSATO Andrew P. | 100% | 63% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
91 | SPRINGER Patrick | 100% | 16% | 1% | - | - | - | |
92 | CHEN Ethan | 100% | 82% | 45% | 15% | 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.