Manalapan, NJ - Manalapan, 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 | VANNI Filippo A. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 16% | |
| 2 | JANG Jaewon | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 46% | 13% |
| 3 | ZHANG Henry C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 70% | 36% | 9% |
| 3 | PYO Michael M. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 49% | 18% | 3% |
| 5 | ANDREWS Nathan J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 76% | 34% |
| 6 | FU Samuel Y. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 6% |
| 7 | SCHULTES Evans | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 45% | 14% | 2% |
| 8 | BUERGIN Aidan | 100% | 93% | 67% | 30% | 7% | 1% | |
| 9 | LIANG Lixi (Henry) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 65% | 25% |
| 10 | AUGUSTINE Ethan A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 30% |
| 11 | DOBBINS Evan W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 51% | 15% |
| 12 | PETERS Nathan M. | 100% | 96% | 80% | 49% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 13 | KOECK Tomas E. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 75% | 38% | 9% |
| 14 | ZHOU TIMMY | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 34% | 7% |
| 15 | KAO Castor T. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 17% | |
| 16 | GEE Brandon | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 52% | 16% |
| 17 | PETER Griffin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 27% |
| 18 | HERGERT Benito | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 23% | 4% |
| 19 | BAE Kevin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 25% | 4% |
| 20 | REGE Advaith | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 48% | 14% |
| 20 | DING Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 34% | 7% |
| 22 | MILLER Trent D. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 76% | 38% | 9% | 1% |
| 23 | CRALEY Thomas M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 36% | 8% |
| 24 | CHAN Tyler | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 52% | 20% | 3% |
| 25 | OUELLETTE David M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 42% | 11% |
| 26 | ZELTSER Lawrence M. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 25% | 4% | |
| 27 | LEE Daniel C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 48% | 13% |
| 28 | SERCK-HANSSEN Peter E. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 69% | 37% | 11% | 2% |
| 29 | DU Samuel R. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 43% | 15% | 2% |
| 30 | ZELJKOVIC Dusan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 4% |
| 31 | HU Robin | 100% | 99% | 88% | 62% | 29% | 7% | 1% |
| 32 | KEE Andrew L. | 100% | 97% | 78% | 41% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 33 | KWON Ethan | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 43% | 14% | 2% |
| 34 | HOOSHI Dylan M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 23% |
| 35 | GOGUEN-COMPAGNONI Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 13% | 2% |
| 36 | DESOLA Aidan J. | 100% | 91% | 61% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 37 | SHA Yi Peng | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 37 | MAGIDSON Gabriel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 74% | 40% | 10% |
| 39 | SANTULLI Tristan | 100% | 93% | 68% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 39 | JAUME Andrei | 100% | 100% | 95% | 69% | 28% | 5% | - |
| 41 | MONGRELLA III John A. | 100% | 89% | 56% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 41 | BOOTSMA Shane-Anson | 100% | 77% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 43 | GUPTA Varun | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 23% | 5% | 1% |
| 44 | BING Charles | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 53% | 21% | 4% |
| 45 | STRAYER Andrew | 100% | 95% | 73% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 46 | DAUM Charlie | 100% | 84% | 47% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 47 | CAI Oliver K. | 100% | 88% | 53% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 48 | TIAN Aaron C. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 65% | 32% | 9% | 1% |
| 49 | YEROKHIN Michael N. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 70% | 34% | 9% | 1% |
| 50 | REZNICK Nicholas J. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 42% | 13% | 2% |
| 51 | ZHANG Bill | 100% | 57% | 16% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 52 | AHN Jun | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 23% | 5% | - |
| 52 | VAZQUEZ Sebastian A. | 100% | 90% | 54% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 52 | TORRES Treston | 100% | 80% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 55 | WANG Michael | 100% | 100% | 96% | 73% | 33% | 7% | - |
| 56 | PAULSON Connor M. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 23% | 5% | - |
| 57 | JUDD Mehta J. | 100% | 95% | 69% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 58 | MULLIGAN Timothy (Tim) D. | 100% | 88% | 43% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 59 | MENG Zhaoyi | 100% | 86% | 46% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 60 | GISLER Benjamin B. | 100% | 84% | 48% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 61 | DEEB Adam | 100% | 81% | 43% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 62 | DESANDO Michael R. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 36% | 11% | 1% |
| 63 | ORTIZ Zachary M. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 79% | 49% | 19% | 3% |
| 64 | TAHOUN Mostafa | 100% | 86% | 53% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 65 | LE Vyn A. | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 66 | HILMER Michael | 100% | 74% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 67 | ARANA Massimo | 100% | 56% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 68 | XU Mathu Yang | 100% | 32% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 69 | WOLF Vanya | 100% | 66% | 21% | 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.