Brandeis University - Waltham, 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 | ||
1 | SZCZAPA Lukas | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 23% | |
2 | BENNETT Nathaniel | 100% | 92% | 64% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - |
3 | BYRON Max | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 32% | 5% | |
3 | BURNHAM Mark | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 15% | |
5 | OSBORN Reuben | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 27% |
6 | ROBINSON Garrett | 100% | 99% | 88% | 56% | 17% | 1% | |
7 | JHA Adarsh | 100% | 91% | 55% | 17% | 2% | - | |
8 | MOSHIER Calvin | 100% | 90% | 56% | 19% | 3% | - | |
9 | WARD Kofi | 100% | 100% | 97% | 86% | 60% | 27% | 5% |
10 | RAMIREZ CARDONA Sebastian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 77% | |
11 | BRESLAV Asher | 100% | 96% | 72% | 32% | 6% | - | |
12 | YELIZAROV Vladislav | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 51% | |
13 | HANNA Alexander | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 17% | 2% | |
14 | SPAGONE Avery | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 45% | |
15 | WARD Carrington R. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 48% | 13% | |
16 | DU Yifan | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 46% | 17% | 3% |
17 | NGUYEN Trung | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 47% | 17% | 3% |
18 | SPALDING Elihu | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 68% | 15% | |
19 | LIBERT Zachariah | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 45% | 11% | |
20 | MASSE Dean | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 25% | 5% | |
21 | MITSCH Aubrey | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 44% | 14% | 2% |
22 | MANITT Philip | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 25% | 2% | |
23 | PESSIN Nadav | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 15% | |
24 | ASHLEY Logan | 100% | 100% | 94% | 70% | 30% | 5% | |
25 | STEIN Philip | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 21% | |
26 | HOWLETT Daniel | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 45% | 9% | |
27 | JESSER Daxton | 100% | 66% | 22% | 4% | - | - | |
28 | BUMPUS Isaias | 100% | 96% | 76% | 40% | 12% | 1% | |
29 | PIERINI Noah | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 29% | 6% | |
30 | HOLCOMB Liam | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 34% | 8% | |
31 | BEAULIEU Edmund | 100% | 81% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - | |
32 | DIXON Miles | 100% | 69% | 26% | 5% | - | - | |
33 | GU Eric | 100% | 95% | 74% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - |
34 | PEZZINO Matthew | 100% | 99% | 87% | 54% | 17% | 1% | |
35 | CHAVES Evan | 100% | 97% | 78% | 43% | 13% | 2% | |
36 | HEISLER Maxfield | 100% | 96% | 76% | 38% | 10% | 1% | |
37 | LAW Oliver | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 18% | 3% | |
38 | NIXON-PERONI Micah | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 22% | 4% | |
39 | DOLLARHITE Tommy | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 21% | 1% | |
40 | BENNETT Nathan | 100% | 94% | 68% | 31% | 8% | 1% | |
41 | SONPAL Winslow | 100% | 90% | 61% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
42 | KOEFERL Miles | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 26% | 6% | 1% |
43 | HAN Nathan | 100% | 97% | 79% | 47% | 16% | 2% | |
44 | BARNES Kieron | 100% | 81% | 43% | 14% | 2% | - | |
45 | BUISINE Aurelien | 100% | 99% | 88% | 60% | 25% | 4% | |
46 | JAMES Lewis I. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 12% | |
47 | CONNER James | 100% | 74% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - | |
48 | CHAN Tyler | 100% | 97% | 76% | 36% | 8% | - | |
49 | BAGAM Abhiram | 100% | 75% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | |
50 | SONG Ryan | 100% | 99% | 95% | 78% | 47% | 17% | 3% |
51 | BERLET Bobby F. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 79% | 49% | 19% | 3% |
52 | BARRETT Jon | 100% | 69% | 26% | 5% | - | - | |
53 | PANAS Mason | 100% | 93% | 64% | 25% | 4% | - | |
54 | WITHERELL Logan | 100% | 95% | 71% | 33% | 7% | 1% | |
55 | COHEN David A. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 62% | 28% | 6% |
56 | BUISINE Sebastien | 100% | 93% | 68% | 34% | 10% | 2% | - |
57 | CHEN Mao Long | 100% | 88% | 58% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
58 | CUFF Joe | 100% | 89% | 56% | 20% | 3% | - | |
59 | TARDIFF Seth | 100% | 88% | 51% | 17% | 3% | - | |
60 | MORRIS Samuel | 100% | 99% | 76% | 35% | 8% | 1% | |
61 | RICHARDS Jack | 100% | 57% | 16% | 2% | - | - | |
62 | GROSSO-SIEBECKER Toren | 100% | 97% | 73% | 29% | 4% | - |
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.