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 | ZUSIN Zachary W. | - | - | - | - | 5% | 29% | 65% |
| 2 | LUTAR Lucas N. | - | < 1% | - | 1% | 7% | 33% | 59% |
| 3 | PETER Griffin | - | 4% | 18% | 36% | 32% | 11% | |
| 3 | LIANG Lixi (Henry) | - | 2% | 14% | 34% | 36% | 14% | |
| 5 | JOHNSON Aidan J. | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 35% | 56% |
| 6 | DING Jonathan | - | - | 6% | 24% | 40% | 27% | 4% |
| 7 | DU Samuel R. | 1% | 5% | 21% | 37% | 29% | 8% | |
| 8 | VANNI Filippo A. | - | 6% | 24% | 37% | 26% | 7% | |
| 9 | MCCLAIN Bryce C. | - | 2% | 14% | 37% | 36% | 12% | |
| 10 | KATAYAMA Kevin | - | - | - | - | 5% | 32% | 63% |
| 11 | ZHANG Henry C. | - | - | 1% | 11% | 37% | 42% | 9% |
| 12 | ANDREWS Nathan J. | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 44% | 26% | |
| 13 | LEE Daniel C. | - | 5% | 21% | 37% | 29% | 9% | |
| 14 | CRALEY Thomas M. | - | 3% | 21% | 39% | 28% | 7% | |
| 15 | KIM Tei D. | - | 1% | 12% | 34% | 38% | 15% | |
| 16 | SCHULTES Evans | - | 8% | 27% | 37% | 23% | 5% | |
| 17 | MATHEWS Rocco J. | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 3% |
| 18 | MONTALVO-ZOTTER Gabriel M. | 11% | 32% | 35% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 19 | KAO Castor T. | - | 9% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 5% | |
| 20 | LAURICELLA Douglas | - | 8% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 5% | |
| 21 | YU Vinni | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 42% | 19% | |
| 22 | XIAO Anthony | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | - |
| 23 | LIU Eric P. | 1% | 8% | 28% | 39% | 21% | 4% | |
| 24 | JOSEPH Dominic (Dom) | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 4% |
| 25 | ZELTSER Lawrence M. | - | 2% | 17% | 37% | 32% | 11% | 1% |
| 26 | SELENDY Maximilian (Max) A. | 8% | 28% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 27 | KAZA Nitish | 1% | 8% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 7% | - |
| 28 | LOCKWOOD Owen | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 34% | |
| 29 | LE Vyn A. | 8% | 29% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - | |
| 30 | FU Samuel Y. | 1% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 17% | 3% | |
| 31 | REZNICK Nicholas J. | 4% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% | |
| 32 | KWON Ethan | 7% | 35% | 39% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 33 | BREIER Matthew F. | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 36% | 17% | 2% |
| 34 | FRITZ Ayden R. | 3% | 22% | 42% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 35 | AHN Jun | 9% | 29% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - | |
| 36 | LIN Richard W. | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 42% | 27% | |
| 37 | GOGUEN-COMPAGNONI Nicholas | 2% | 17% | 38% | 31% | 10% | 1% | |
| 38 | ORTIZ Zachary M. | - | 2% | 18% | 38% | 32% | 9% | |
| 39 | PETERS Nathan M. | 1% | 7% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 6% | |
| 40 | BAS Liam | 3% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% | |
| 41 | LIU Kevin B. | 1% | 6% | 22% | 37% | 28% | 7% | |
| 42 | WU Jerry | - | 2% | 16% | 36% | 34% | 12% | 1% |
| 43 | BALL James T. | - | 5% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
| 44 | SHIKHMAN Robert | - | 2% | 16% | 41% | 32% | 8% | - |
| 45 | MILLER Trent D. | - | 6% | 28% | 39% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 46 | IVARSSON Oliver | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 47 | ABDELGAWAD Abdelrahman | 15% | 36% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 47 | DESOLA Aidan J. | 12% | 34% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 49 | WALOR Owen T. | 55% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
| 50 | ECK Nathaniel | 3% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 51 | KIZHNER Fillip | 50% | 37% | 11% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 52 | MCLENDON Diego | 56% | 37% | 7% | - | - | - | - |
| 53 | BOOTSMA Shane-Anson | 22% | 52% | 21% | 4% | - | - | |
| 54 | HU Robin | 6% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 8% | 1% | |
| 55 | ZHAO Jesse | 57% | 35% | 7% | 1% | - | - | |
| 56 | BAE Kevin | - | 1% | 10% | 33% | 39% | 15% | 1% |
| 57 | WANG Gerald Y. | 4% | 44% | 37% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 58 | TAHOUN Mostafa | 20% | 39% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 59 | BAO Wenyuan | 52% | 40% | 7% | 1% | - | - | |
| 60 | MACRAE Harrison A. | 3% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 61 | BING Charles | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 5% | |
| 62 | ARANA Massimo | 84% | 15% | 1% | - | - | - | |
| 63 | QI Steve | 12% | 44% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 64 | RADTKE Jakob | 86% | 14% | 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.