Manalapan, NJ - Manalapan, NJ, USA
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 | MERCHANT Reza H. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 40% | 18% |
| 2 | ANDREEV Arthur | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 42% | 29% | |
| 3 | BAKER Kevin G. | 1% | 8% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 5% | |
| 3 | LEIGH David A. | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 34% | 12% | |
| 5 | KANG Michael H. | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 32% | 11% |
| 6 | KUMAR Anitya | 1% | 8% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 5% | |
| 7 | ZHANG Matthew | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 9% | |
| 8 | KOKENGE Clark | 1% | 8% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 4% | |
| 9 | CHIN Ethan | - | 3% | 13% | 32% | 35% | 15% | 2% |
| 10 | KIM Juni C. | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 42% | 39% |
| 11 | MARAKOV Allen B. | - | - | 4% | 20% | 42% | 33% | |
| 12 | CHA Russell W. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 36% | 16% |
| 13 | RA Jr. Daniel M. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 39% | 21% |
| 14 | INSLER Ethan C. | 2% | 12% | 32% | 35% | 17% | 3% | |
| 15 | PAVLENISHVILI David G. | - | 2% | 13% | 33% | 37% | 15% | |
| 16 | ZHANG YuJian | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 38% | 16% | |
| 17 | DIXON Samuel | - | 6% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 6% | |
| 18 | SLAVINSKIY Alan | - | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 33% | 10% |
| 19 | LUKANYUK Lorence | 1% | 5% | 19% | 32% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
| 20 | KIM William M. | 5% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 21 | LIU Frank | 17% | 39% | 31% | 10% | 2% | - | |
| 22 | GANA Jr Jorge M. | 2% | 14% | 34% | 34% | 14% | 2% | |
| 23 | YUROVCHAK Andrew T. | - | 4% | 17% | 36% | 32% | 10% | |
| 24 | SJOSTEDT Jacob H. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 13% |
| 25 | SUICO Zachary Emanuel O. | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 39% | 18% | |
| 26 | POLKOVSKY Dylan S. | - | 2% | 13% | 33% | 37% | 15% | |
| 27 | MARCHANT Albert J. | - | 2% | 12% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 4% |
| 28 | LAVENSTEIN Kinley V. | - | 3% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
| 29 | MACKIN Samuel | 1% | 7% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
| 30 | MORSE Tyler | 1% | 10% | 31% | 36% | 18% | 3% | |
| 31 | SMITH Nicholas S. | - | 5% | 21% | 38% | 29% | 7% | |
| 32 | JIN Alexander | 15% | 37% | 32% | 13% | 3% | - | |
| 33 | MAAS Sean H. | 13% | 38% | 34% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 34 | INSLER Gabriel C. | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 41% | 21% | |
| 35 | HE Lawrence | 17% | 40% | 31% | 10% | 2% | - | |
| 36 | DOLMETSCH Max | 1% | 6% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 7% | 1% |
| 37 | FERREIRA Noah J. | - | 4% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 14% | 2% |
| 38 | PERSAUD Daivik | 4% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 39 | KAMBESELES Jack M. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 35% | 37% | 11% |
| 40 | TUCKER Owen J. | 20% | 42% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 41 | GOHEL Dayus T. | 2% | 16% | 35% | 32% | 13% | 2% | |
| 42 | BEKKER Mitchel | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 36% | 14% | |
| 43 | WISNIEWSKI Bart | 25% | 43% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 44 | MCDERMOTT Brian | - | 6% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 6% | |
| 45 | SHENG Patrick Y. | 1% | 7% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 5% | |
| 46 | FELDMAN Jaemin | - | 4% | 22% | 40% | 26% | 7% | 1% |
| 47 | DIAS-LALCACA Kieran P. | 1% | 10% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 5% | 1% |
| 48 | HONG James | 26% | 42% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 49 | CHEUNG Liyan | 4% | 23% | 39% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 50 | WHITEHURST JJ | 5% | 26% | 37% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 51 | WANG Eric S | 7% | 25% | 34% | 24% | 8% | 2% | - |
| 52 | SOOMRO Adam A. | 2% | 14% | 35% | 34% | 14% | 2% | |
| 53 | TONG Chihao | 22% | 41% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 54 | REYES Vincent | 15% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 55 | LI Jeffrey | 23% | 42% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 56 | WU Joseph | 14% | 47% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 57 | LAI Coby | 14% | 35% | 32% | 15% | 4% | - | - |
| 58 | LEE Jonathan | 40% | 40% | 16% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 59 | LIU Jack | 19% | 41% | 30% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 60 | DIXON Thomas | 32% | 43% | 20% | 4% | - | - | |
| 60 | CONNELL Jay | 7% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 6% | 1% | |
| 62 | WADE Grayson | 29% | 44% | 22% | 5% | - | - | |
| 63 | KERN Joseph | 13% | 36% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 64 | CHERUKURI Harshil | 26% | 42% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
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.