AFM Open Senior Mixed Epee Tournament

Senior Mixed Épée

Sunday, May 25, 2025 at 9:00 AM

Academy of Fencing Masters - Sunnyvale, CA, 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 LUCENAY Jean Michel - - - 5% 23% 44% 28%
2 YAMASAKI Kyle - - - - 3% 26% 71%
3 MENEGOLI Lorenzo - - 1% 10% 43% 46%
3 LI Yunji (Rain) - - 2% 15% 38% 36% 9%
5 KHAYAT Ziad - - - 2% 23% 50% 25%
6 ALVAREZ Ian - - - 6% 28% 44% 21%
7 WU Steven - 3% 14% 32% 34% 15% 2%
8 CHEW Aedan 5% 26% 42% 24% 3% -
9 HEDGES Philip - - - 1% 10% 38% 51%
10 ZHENG Haoran - - - 3% 28% 59% 11%
11 GUIRAUDET Alistair - 2% 19% 41% 31% 7% -
12 COHEN Benjamin - - - 6% 27% 44% 22%
13 TANG Mingyuan - 1% 5% 19% 35% 31% 10%
14 SOULAIRE Tom - - - 5% 31% 64%
15 JAIN Samyak 1% 10% 30% 38% 18% 2%
16 PERALTA Christian - - 5% 21% 40% 29% 5%
17 GALLAGHER PELLETIER Samuel - - - - 7% 44% 48%
17 LI Ethan - - 1% 6% 23% 43% 28%
19 HEPLER Sarah 3% 18% 35% 30% 12% 2% < 1%
20 YU Austin 1% 7% 27% 42% 23%
21 ELLOWAY William - - 4% 21% 44% 30%
22 MCLAREN Mason 19% 42% 30% 8% 1% -
23 LAI Amanda 11% 33% 36% 17% 3% -
24 NICHOLSON Dimitri - - 3% 21% 50% 25%
25 CHANG Andrew 3% 20% 39% 30% 8%
26 KOFMAN David - 1% 14% 38% 35% 11% 1%
27 ELZAYN Hadi - - - 4% 18% 41% 36%
28 TAGKOPOULOS Pagkratios 1% 10% 29% 34% 20% 5% -
29 WONG Preston - 1% 9% 26% 37% 23% 4%
30 ONG Jee Ken - - 3% 15% 34% 35% 14%
31 PIVOVAROV Lucas 4% 21% 41% 29% 5% -
32 GACIOCH Noah 1% 15% 37% 33% 12% 2% -
33 CHEN Bailey - 1% 7% 29% 43% 19% 1%
34 WYATT Seth - - - 4% 24% 49% 23%
35 WANG Jessie - 1% 16% 40% 32% 10% 1%
36 ROCK Matt - 2% 12% 31% 35% 17% 3%
37 WANG Devin - 4% 25% 46% 24% 1% -
38 FUNG Shaun 5% 41% 45% 8% < 1% - -
39 SRIKANTH Hariharan 32% 44% 20% 4% - -
40 SIM Ian 1% 10% 33% 41% 13% 1%
41 MENG QINGTAO 1% 9% 27% 36% 22% 5%
42 ZANKOWSKI Brendan - 1% 9% 26% 37% 23% 5%
43 XU Jessica - 9% 32% 37% 18% 4% -
44 TONG Samuel - - 4% 19% 41% 33% 2%
45 QIAO James 9% 35% 39% 15% 2% - -
45 HANSEN Kira - - 2% 16% 39% 33% 9%
47 XU Celina 1% 17% 62% 18% 2% - -
48 HSU Joshua 1% 8% 27% 39% 22% 4% -
49 MOLLINIER Angel 2% 10% 25% 32% 23% 8% 1%
50 GANESH Maxen 20% 42% 29% 8% 1%
51 KIM Ian - 7% 28% 42% 19% 4% -
52 CHAKRABORTY Zorian 10% 35% 39% 14% 2% -
53 MEINHOLD Li - - < 1% 5% 36% 59%
54 YOUNG Quentin 5% 24% 38% 26% 7% -
55 RUFANOV Maxim 13% 39% 36% 12% 1% -
56 LOUIE Joseph 2% 13% 32% 34% 16% 3%
57 WICKBOLDT Eric - - 3% 20% 56% 21%
57 LIN Isabel 18% 38% 31% 11% 2% -
59 XIE HanZhang 4% 26% 42% 23% 4% -
60 SALISTRA Emilia 4% 18% 32% 29% 14% 3% -
61 SIRBU Dan - 2% 18% 40% 32% 8% -
61 HAMILTON Travis 5% 26% 43% 22% 4% - -
63 LIU Max 31% 44% 21% 4% - - -
64 FICKLIN Ryan 1% 10% 30% 37% 19% 3% -
65 WHEELER Mark - - 1% 12% 38% 38% 12%
66 JARIN-LIPSCHITZ Laura 4% 20% 38% 29% 9% 1%
67 GUO Woody 3% 27% 41% 23% 6% 1% -
68 SIU Phoeland 20% 39% 29% 10% 2% - -
69 DILEEP Roshan 1% 11% 56% 28% 4% - -
70 SU Samuel 2% 12% 30% 34% 18% 4% -
71 CHANG Heidi 3% 17% 32% 30% 14% 3% -
72 POPOVICI Alina - 5% 24% 40% 26% 5% -
73 HEDGES Lucas 20% 42% 29% 8% 1%
74 KOUTSOUKOS James 2% 14% 34% 35% 14% 1%
75 BUENAVENTURA Camden 22% 41% 28% 9% 1% - -
76 LI Sean 38% 44% 16% 2% - - -
77 JAQUISH Zoey 5% 31% 43% 18% 3% - -
78 SCHOR Elisabeth 24% 43% 26% 7% 1% - -
79 ZHANG Luqi 9% 34% 39% 16% 2% - -
80 CHI Kai-Hung 8% 28% 35% 21% 6% 1% -
81 ZHONG Louie - 4% 16% 32% 31% 14% 2%
82 BECK Brian - 1% 13% 43% 40% 3% -
82 BALUCAN Caelus 17% 45% 31% 7% 1% - -
84 OR Anson 12% 76% 11% - - - -
85 TEJADA-ANDERSON Emmanuel 43% 49% 8% - - - -
86 LI Grayson 22% 43% 28% 6% - -
87 HOFMAN Haejung 11% 45% 34% 10% 1% -
88 LIU Yichen 2% 13% 35% 38% 13%
89 SMITH Marissa 61% 34% 4% - - - -
89 CLARKE Elliot 7% 48% 38% 7% - - -
91 CHIEM Karen 27% 42% 24% 7% 1% - -
91 NAZARENKO Olena 28% 47% 21% 4% - - -

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.