MAPLEWOOD, NJ - MAPLEWOOD, NJ, 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 | WOODS Jack H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 54% |
| 2 | YANG Adam | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 20% |
| 3 | HU Oliver W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 28% |
| 3 | VANNI Filippo A. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 41% | 9% | |
| 5 | WU Albert | 100% | 100% | 92% | 66% | 28% | 5% | |
| 6 | RECHLER Logan | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 42% | 10% | |
| 7 | LIANG Lixi (Henry) | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 56% | 16% | |
| 8 | BALL James T. | 100% | 98% | 79% | 42% | 12% | 1% | |
| 9 | LEUNG Wai Chi Ethan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 28% |
| 10 | SCHULTES Evans | 100% | 100% | 93% | 68% | 30% | 6% | |
| 11 | JIMENEZ Diran | 100% | 100% | 96% | 74% | 33% | 6% | |
| 12 | BAE Kevin | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 48% | 17% | 2% |
| 13 | YEROKHIN Michael N. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 17% | 1% |
| 14 | COSTELLO Chaissen F. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 51% | 19% | 3% |
| 15 | BAS Liam | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 17% | 2% | |
| 16 | SHIKHMAN Robert | 100% | 99% | 87% | 56% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 17 | AUGUSTINE Ethan A. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 15% | |
| 18 | LIAO Alex J. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 19 | LOCKWOOD Owen | 100% | 100% | 100% | 93% | 66% | 23% | |
| 20 | KIM Tei D. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 44% | 11% | |
| 21 | HOOSHI Dylan M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 33% | |
| 22 | DU Samuel R. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 27% | 5% | |
| 23 | WU Jerry | 100% | 100% | 94% | 75% | 42% | 14% | 2% |
| 24 | LUTAR Lucas N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 72% |
| 25 | VASILIEV Sacha M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 47% | 9% |
| 26 | MATHEWS Rocco J. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 40% | 10% | 1% |
| 27 | GOGUEN-COMPAGNONI Nicholas | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 31% | 6% | |
| 28 | O'BRIEN Jack K. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 45% | 12% | |
| 29 | REZNICK Nicholas J. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 30 | DING Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 47% | 14% | 1% |
| 31 | WEINKOPF William O. | 100% | 96% | 71% | 32% | 8% | 1% | |
| 32 | ANTON Nathaniel | 100% | 98% | 82% | 50% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 33 | KAO Castor T. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 25% | 2% |
| 34 | MACRAE Harrison A. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 57% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 35 | ORTIZ Zachary M. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 45% | 12% | |
| 36 | GALLUCCI Charles John | 100% | 93% | 62% | 24% | 5% | - | |
| 37 | KAZA Nitish | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 17% | 2% | - |
| 38 | AHN Jun | 100% | 97% | 80% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 39 | BREIER Matthew F. | 100% | 100% | 92% | 60% | 21% | 3% | |
| 39 | KIM Yonjae | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 45% | 11% | |
| 41 | LE Vyn A. | 100% | 93% | 45% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 42 | DEGREMONT Henri S. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 45% | 12% | |
| 43 | NAGER Noah | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 29% | 6% | - |
| 44 | ECK Nathaniel | 100% | 84% | 42% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 45 | ALLAMPALLAM Maanav V. | 100% | 95% | 65% | 26% | 5% | - | - |
| 46 | ZELTSER Lawrence M. | 100% | 99% | 77% | 38% | 10% | 1% | |
| 47 | MENG Zhaoyi | 100% | 90% | 54% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 48 | BOOTSMA Shane-Anson | 100% | 60% | 18% | 3% | - | - | |
| 49 | ZHAO Jesse | 100% | 60% | 19% | 3% | - | - | |
| 50 | VAZQUEZ Sebastian A. | 100% | 53% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 51 | WERWA Griffith | 100% | 65% | 24% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 52 | DESOLA Aidan J. | 100% | 92% | 57% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 53 | SCHENCK Koen M. | 100% | 99% | 86% | 52% | 17% | 2% | |
| 54 | SHREM Samuel G. | 100% | 19% | 2% | - | - | - | |
| 55 | BURNS Andrew | 100% | 39% | 7% | 1% | - | - | |
| 56 | ARANA Massimo | 100% | 22% | 2% | - | - | - | |
| 57 | OUYANG Matt J. | 100% | 74% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 57 | ZHANG Zixuan "Mark" | 100% | 42% | 8% | 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.