American Challenge SYC/RJCC

Y-14 Men's Épée

Friday, April 18, 2025 at 12:30 PM

Rockland Community College, Eugene Levy Field House - Suffern, NY, 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 XIA Dashan - - - - 3% 25% 72%
2 MEHROTRA Neel - - - 2% 13% 42% 44%
3 VYSOTSKIY Evan - - - 3% 17% 41% 38%
3 IPPOLITO-JOHN Matteo - - 3% 16% 35% 34% 12%
5 GUMEDELLI Mohnish - - 1% 6% 23% 42% 28%
6 LEE DoWon - - - 1% 9% 39% 51%
7 PARKE Nathaniel - 1% 8% 26% 41% 24%
8 MIDYANY Ryan - - 2% 11% 29% 38% 20%
9 LEE Anton - - 1% 8% 29% 45% 17%
10 AHMED Mohsen - - - 1% 8% 35% 56%
11 WANG Devin - 2% 16% 38% 35% 8%
12 NORMILE Nicholas - - - - 2% 24% 74%
13 HSU Joshua - - 1% 6% 24% 44% 26%
14 LI Jade - - 2% 14% 38% 39% 6%
15 YI Nathan - - 1% 5% 22% 43% 29%
16 LI Ryan 1% 7% 25% 37% 24% 5%
17 KIM Gene - - - - 5% 31% 63%
18 TRAN Spencer - - - 1% 9% 36% 54%
19 MA YIXING (Tiger) - - 1% 7% 31% 51% 10%
20 KIM Remington - 2% 15% 36% 36% 12%
21 KABA Elias - 1% 8% 27% 42% 22%
22 CHEN Zhengyang (Allen) - - - - 5% 30% 64%
23 KIM Henry - - - - 1% 18% 81%
24 MIDYANY Evan - - - 1% 11% 41% 46%
25 YAKHNIS Seth - 2% 13% 32% 36% 15% 1%
26 LIDSKY Phineas - - 1% 10% 38% 50%
27 DODIN Daniel M. - - 6% 30% 51% 13%
28 CHEN Edward - 1% 5% 21% 39% 29% 5%
29 KHERSONSKY Robert - 2% 14% 34% 35% 14% 2%
30 GUNDUBOGULA Saket 2% 12% 29% 34% 19% 4%
31 SONG Aidan - 1% 6% 20% 35% 29% 9%
32 BRESLAV Asher 16% 39% 32% 11% 2% - -
33 ZHANG Marcus - - 1% 10% 37% 41% 10%
34 ADDYSON Aidan - 2% 12% 31% 36% 16% 2%
35 GU Eric 1% 8% 27% 39% 21% 4% -
36 MEDISETTI Arjun - 4% 16% 33% 33% 13% 1%
37 MOSLEY Wally - 1% 9% 28% 38% 21% 3%
38 AU Joshua 1% 10% 26% 33% 22% 7% 1%
39 BHANDARE Veer - 5% 23% 38% 26% 7% 1%
40 HE Bronto - 1% 8% 24% 37% 25% 5%
41 CORBIN Bennett - - - 3% 29% 67%
42 SATISHKUMAR Pranav 2% 11% 28% 35% 20% 4%
43 KROPP Wesley - 1% 9% 28% 41% 20%
44 CRESPO Nathaniel Justus - 1% 6% 25% 43% 25%
44 SZCZAPA Lukas - 2% 12% 30% 38% 18%
46 SHAFFER Tyler 1% 9% 32% 43% 15% 1%
47 ZHANG Jonathan - - 2% 15% 43% 34% 7%
48 LI Terence - 1% 9% 28% 39% 20% 3%
49 MOZZER Nolan - 6% 23% 37% 26% 8% 1%
50 PUTHOFF Henry 2% 14% 33% 34% 14% 2% -
50 CAO Gavin - 1% 6% 23% 39% 27% 4%
52 JAZWINSKI Ryan 1% 7% 27% 39% 22% 4% -
53 WU Matthew - 3% 16% 34% 32% 13% 2%
54 BATISTA Julian - 4% 20% 36% 29% 9% 1%
55 CHEN Evan - 7% 28% 39% 21% 4%
56 WANG Eason 4% 19% 34% 29% 12% 2%
57 NG Nico - 2% 12% 30% 36% 18% 2%
58 HELMY Richard - - 2% 12% 34% 40% 12%
59 WANG Marcus - 2% 11% 32% 39% 15% 1%
60 KIM Doyun 2% 15% 34% 32% 14% 3% -
61 WEISELBERG Mark - 9% 29% 36% 20% 4% -
62 LIN John 1% 7% 24% 38% 25% 5% -
63 ROBERTS Arthur 1% 11% 30% 36% 19% 4% -
64 CAFASSO Alexander - 6% 26% 39% 24% 5%
65 LIU Adam - - - 1% 8% 36% 54%
66 MOSTOVOY philip - - 2% 11% 32% 39% 15%
67 CHEN Jayden - - 1% 6% 25% 45% 25%
68 ZHAI Junqi - 1% 6% 22% 39% 28% 4%
69 ZHENG Jason - 2% 12% 30% 36% 18% 1%
70 HAN Keyi 1% 5% 17% 32% 30% 13% 2%
71 DAI Jason 2% 15% 35% 33% 12% 1% -
72 ROBINSON Garrett 6% 25% 37% 25% 7% 1%
73 MANSFIELD Hunter - 4% 19% 36% 31% 9%
74 MA Joseph 3% 22% 39% 27% 8% 1% -
75 MILINKOVIC Maksim - 1% 6% 23% 40% 26% 4%
75 SOLARZ Arthur - - 4% 18% 38% 33% 7%
77 CHEN Cameron 10% 30% 34% 19% 6% 1% -
78 YU David 2% 15% 32% 32% 15% 3% -
79 ROBINSON Blake 26% 42% 25% 6% 1% - -
80 LI Jayden 4% 24% 41% 25% 5% - -
81 QI Bryan 23% 40% 27% 9% 1% - -
82 ZHANG Shuhao 15% 36% 32% 14% 3% - -
83 TSIEN Richard - 3% 17% 35% 32% 12% 1%
84 GILMORE Noah 5% 22% 37% 27% 9% 1%
85 MCCABE Kian 3% 22% 42% 27% 6% -
86 GAO Ryan 12% 38% 37% 12% 1% -
87 LEE Elijah 4% 21% 36% 28% 9% 1%
88 CUELLAR Markus - 6% 27% 41% 22% 3%
89 BOBORIS Dimitrios 15% 45% 30% 8% 1% -
90 KIM Julian - 2% 10% 28% 36% 20% 3%
91 CHO Adrian 2% 14% 33% 34% 15% 2% -
91 CHEN Hayden 27% 45% 23% 5% - - -
91 CHAU Collin 1% 9% 28% 36% 20% 5% -
94 LEE Harrison 1% 7% 24% 37% 25% 6% -
95 FENG Xinmin 5% 23% 36% 26% 9% 1% -
95 YAZDANFAR Marius 4% 19% 37% 29% 10% 1% -
97 HONG Ethen 7% 24% 34% 24% 9% 2% -
98 SHAO Mason 9% 32% 37% 18% 4% - -
99 CHAN Tyler 1% 9% 28% 37% 20% 4% -
100 NOOL Alexander - 4% 17% 34% 31% 12% 2%
101 TOMPA Paul 16% 39% 32% 12% 2% - -
102 SHEN Alaric - - 6% 37% 42% 14% 1%
103 ARMSTRONG Payson - 8% 28% 37% 22% 5% -
103 WU Jiachen 6% 24% 34% 25% 9% 2% -
103 TANG Colin 2% 15% 38% 32% 11% 1% -
106 TONG Anson Tin Hang 17% 38% 31% 11% 2% - -
107 KESELMAN Ron 13% 38% 35% 12% 1% - -
108 MA Brendon 3% 18% 36% 31% 11% 2% -
109 FRIZZELL Kai 5% 32% 41% 19% 3% -
110 JEPP Michael 11% 33% 36% 17% 4% -
111 CHEN Jayden A 16% 36% 31% 13% 3% -
112 TOPRANI Valmik 5% 22% 35% 27% 9% 1%
113 CHIANG William 9% 30% 37% 20% 5% -
114 LI Tyrese 62% 32% 6% - - -
115 NOOL Aaron 2% 11% 29% 35% 20% 4% -
116 WITHERELL Logan 8% 34% 38% 17% 3% - -
117 SMITH Theo 2% 17% 38% 33% 9% 1% -
118 WHITE Jackson - 5% 21% 37% 27% 8% -
119 DUDKA Ivan 3% 16% 34% 32% 13% 2% -
120 KHAHAM Samuel 43% 41% 14% 2% - - -
121 LAI Jayden 13% 38% 34% 13% 2% - -
122 CIANCHETTA David 12% 35% 35% 15% 3% - -
123 HOLBROOK Silas 9% 30% 35% 20% 5% 1% -
124 YOON Jonathan 24% 43% 26% 6% 1% - -
125 MELUCCI Jonathan 4% 21% 36% 28% 9% 1% -
126 ZHANG yinuo 21% 42% 27% 8% 1% - -
127 SHAPIRO Samuel 16% 37% 32% 13% 2% -
128 CAVALLARO Sebastian 29% 43% 22% 5% 1% - -
129 KIM Louie 27% 45% 24% 4% - -
130 MILLER Xavier 24% 42% 26% 7% 1% -
131 ROFINO Samuel 5% 24% 38% 25% 7% 1% -
132 CHEN Daniel 5% 22% 36% 26% 9% 1% -
133 ZHAO Brandon 12% 35% 35% 15% 3% - -
134 MILLER Balthazar 32% 42% 21% 5% - - -
135 JIANG Aidan 22% 41% 28% 8% 1% - -
136 YOO Lucas 3% 18% 39% 30% 9% 1% -
137 LANE Sawyer 30% 46% 20% 4% - - -
138 TANG Luke 4% 24% 40% 24% 6% 1% -
138 DIRUGGIERO Myles 28% 47% 21% 4% - - -
140 YU George 30% 44% 21% 4% - - -
141 DIXON Miles 26% 42% 25% 6% 1% - -
142 BOXER Eishan 5% 21% 35% 27% 11% 2% -
143 DING Charlie 19% 42% 29% 8% 1% - -
144 CHALLAMEL Hadrien 14% 40% 35% 10% 1% -
145 LEE Ryan 51% 39% 9% 1% - -
146 DINIC Pavle 32% 44% 20% 4% - - -
146 FISHER Derek 72% 25% 3% - - - -
148 HUEMMER James 20% 43% 28% 8% 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.