Nick Itkin Cup SYC

Y-12 Men's Épée

Saturday, December 6, 2025 at 1:00 PM

Palm Springs Convention Center - Palm Springs, CA, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 MOSLEY Wally 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 85% 46%
2 KHUSHRAJ Rohan 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 86% 46%
3 LEE Leo 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 78% 34%
3 TIAN Dylan 100% 100% 100% 98% 86% 51% 11%
5 LU Ian 100% 100% 100% 98% 89% 59% 20%
5 DU Evan 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 76%
7 LEE Lucas 100% 100% 100% 99% 95% 75% 33%
8 SUN Jiarui (Jerry) 100% 100% 99% 93% 72% 36% 8%
9 WONG Kyle 100% 100% 99% 90% 61% 18%
10 DING Max 100% 100% 100% 99% 95% 74% 32%
11 LI Vance 100% 100% 99% 95% 78% 43% 11%
12 ROBERTS Arthur 100% 100% 100% 98% 85% 49% 11%
13 RAU Shogun 100% 100% 100% 95% 73% 30%
14 YOO Lucas 100% 100% 99% 92% 70% 35% 8%
15 JIN JETFAN 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 82% 40%
16 ELARDO Griffin 100% 99% 91% 66% 30% 8% 1%
17 ZHAO Luke 100% 100% 96% 79% 44% 13% 1%
18 BEN-YOSEPH Rafael 100% 100% 99% 93% 70% 33% 6%
19 WU Nathan 100% 100% 100% 99% 94% 72% 30%
20 GUO Jonathan 100% 100% 97% 84% 54% 20% 3%
21 LIU William 100% 92% 66% 31% 9% 1% -
22 PINCHUK Spencer 100% 99% 88% 60% 26% 6% 1%
23 FONG Ethan 100% 91% 56% 19% 3% -
24 CHI Zachary 100% 98% 85% 53% 18% 3% -
25 LIU Yihong 100% 100% 100% 97% 83% 49% 14%
26 HAN Alex 100% 99% 93% 70% 35% 9% -
27 JU Shang 100% 100% 99% 91% 66% 29% 5%
27 LI Connor 100% 97% 78% 39% 10% 1%
29 HUA Nolan 100% 100% 98% 87% 61% 27% 5%
30 BOROVIKOV Alexander 100% 100% 98% 86% 57% 22% 3%
31 YIM Antonio 100% 100% 95% 78% 46% 15% 2%
32 FU Benjamin 100% 100% 99% 94% 71% 31% 5%
33 KIM Hayden 100% 100% 99% 91% 65% 25% 3%
34 LI Stephen 100% 100% 100% 99% 89% 60% 18%
35 SHIH Derek 100% 100% 94% 75% 40% 11% 1%
36 LIN Bryan 100% 100% 100% 96% 80% 47% 13%
37 YOON Ian 100% 98% 88% 62% 29% 8% 1%
38 LAU Jesse 100% 94% 66% 29% 7% 1% -
39 CHU Clayton 100% 100% 96% 80% 47% 16% 2%
39 PARK Sean 100% 94% 72% 38% 12% 2% -
39 DEMIRCHIAN Edward 100% 97% 79% 44% 15% 3% -
42 LI nathan zeting 100% 90% 55% 17% 2% - -
43 CHANG Ephram 100% 100% 98% 87% 57% 21% 3%
44 LEE Daniel 100% 94% 67% 29% 6% 1% -
45 AKKARA Skyler 100% 87% 53% 19% 4% - -
46 ZHANG Jenson 100% 99% 89% 64% 31% 8% 1%
47 YUN Mason 100% 100% 98% 85% 53% 19% 3%
47 YIM Benjamin 100% 100% 98% 87% 59% 24% 4%
49 KONG Dean 100% 97% 79% 44% 14% 2% -
50 LEUNG Joon 100% 100% 95% 77% 43% 12% 1%
51 YANG Rony 100% 98% 80% 43% 12% 2% -
52 SZETO Jonathan 100% 88% 57% 23% 5% 1% -
53 LEE Connor 100% 90% 55% 19% 3% - -
54 LI Kingston 100% 99% 88% 56% 19% 2%
55 LI John 100% 100% 96% 78% 44% 14% 2%
56 LIU Aiden 100% 99% 90% 65% 32% 8% 1%
57 LIU Victor 100% 86% 52% 20% 4% - -
58 TENG Eric 100% 98% 83% 49% 17% 3% -
58 KOU Logan 100% 63% 21% 4% - - -
60 SI Alexander 100% 95% 72% 35% 10% 1% -
61 REN Mark 100% 100% 98% 89% 62% 26% 4%
62 JI Dylan 100% 92% 59% 21% 4% - -
63 BUSH Andrew 100% 97% 83% 52% 21% 4% -
64 DUCOURNAU Enzo 100% 99% 87% 53% 18% 3% -
65 LI Ethan 100% 97% 78% 41% 12% 2% -
66 NISHIOKA Hiro 100% 90% 59% 22% 4% - -
67 HONG Eason 100% 97% 81% 48% 17% 3% -
68 DING Daniel 100% 100% 98% 87% 60% 27% 5%
69 SHI Ethan 100% 95% 71% 35% 10% 1% -
70 LU Mark 100% 71% 29% 6% 1% - -
71 COLLET Camden 100% 98% 88% 63% 31% 9% 1%
72 WANG Alexander 100% 58% 17% 2% - -
73 HAO Hardy 100% 74% 33% 8% 1% - -
74 REED Andrew 100% 82% 44% 13% 2% - -
75 XUE Jason 100% 96% 73% 36% 10% 1% -
76 BALDWIN Liam 100% 89% 56% 21% 4% - -
77 YANG Mikey 100% 91% 60% 22% 4% - -
78 DOLEZAL Grayson 100% 89% 57% 22% 5% 1% -
79 ZHANG Jason 100% 100% 91% 62% 25% 5% -
79 LEE Zeo 100% 55% 15% 2% - - -
81 THORSON Urban 100% 77% 36% 9% 1% - -
82 DAI Greyson 100% 58% 17% 3% - - -
83 LASCH Thomas 100% 52% 14% 2% - - -

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.