THRUST WINTER RYC/RJCC

Y-14 Men's Saber

Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 12:00 PM

Suffern, NY - Suffern, NY, 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 ERACHSHAW Cyrus P. 100% 100% 100% 99% 90% 60% 18%
2 DENG Andrew 100% 100% 99% 90% 61% 20%
3 SHOMAN Zachary 100% 100% 100% 99% 94% 70% 26%
3 WONG Ryan 100% 100% 97% 83% 50% 16% 2%
5 HUANG Ethan F. 100% 100% 100% 98% 84% 43%
6 SHTEYN Mark 100% 100% 100% 98% 89% 60% 20%
7 KASPER Aaron 100% 97% 81% 47% 16% 2%
8 MARGULIES William 100% 100% 98% 87% 61% 27% 5%
9 FLOT Tai A. 100% 100% 100% 98% 85% 53% 15%
10 SPOSATO Andrew P. 100% 100% 99% 93% 74% 41% 11%
11 SHOMAN Noah 100% 100% 97% 84% 53% 20% 3%
12 HO Kaden M. 100% 100% 100% 94% 71% 26%
13 OH Triton 100% 100% 100% 96% 82% 52% 16%
14 SANDERS Samuel B. 100% 100% 97% 86% 58% 24% 4%
15 MOULTON Ian 100% 95% 63% 24% 5% 1% -
16 ZHENG Edward L. 100% 100% 97% 83% 50% 15%
17 WEBER Mattias A. 100% 100% 99% 92% 63% 21% 3%
18 WANG Charles 100% 100% 100% 99% 93% 71% 28%
19 CHAUDHURI Eeshaan A. 100% 99% 91% 69% 36% 12% 2%
20 HUANG Alexander C. 100% 100% 99% 92% 63% 20%
21 WAXLER Seth B. 100% 100% 99% 90% 60% 19%
22 BERMAN Luca 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 83% 39%
23 NG Jeremiah 100% 100% 100% 98% 88% 60% 21%
24 WANG Robert 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 68% 22%
25 KUSHKOV Daniel 100% 100% 94% 73% 38% 12% 1%
26 BREKHMAN Eric 100% 98% 83% 51% 18% 3%
27 MEDVEDEV Michail D. 100% 99% 91% 60% 22% 3%
28 GILSON Lucas B. 100% 100% 95% 73% 32% 6%
29 HAN Daniel Y. 100% 98% 87% 60% 27% 7% 1%
30 GOLDMAN Noah R. 100% 99% 91% 70% 38% 12% 2%
31 SAVOY Luca 100% 100% 97% 80% 45% 14% 2%
32 CHAN Austin 100% 98% 81% 40% 10% 1% -
33 CLYMER Lucas Y. 100% 100% 100% 96% 80% 45% 11%
34 ZHANG Yankun 100% 95% 70% 32% 8% 1% -
35 LIU Mingyang Ryan 100% 99% 94% 76% 43% 14% 2%
36 GIZERSKY Jared 100% 100% 100% 96% 80% 46% 12%
37 LUTHRA Arjun 100% 100% 100% 98% 85% 52% 15%
38 DOLAN Charles R. 100% 100% 97% 75% 33% 5%
39 HUANG Tom 100% 100% 94% 67% 27% 4%
40 LEONARD Charles 100% 94% 71% 35% 9% 1%
41 SHTEIN Yan 100% 100% 97% 74% 32% 5%
42 CHTERENTAL Alex 100% 100% 99% 88% 60% 24% 4%
43 ZHU Shao 100% 99% 90% 67% 35% 11% 1%
44 PENG Bryan 100% 100% 97% 82% 50% 17% 2%
45 RODE Leon J. 100% 100% 99% 93% 70% 33% 7%
46 ALTIRS Giorgio 100% 100% 96% 72% 29% 5% -
47 SHIPITSIN Alexander 100% 100% 98% 87% 54% 17% 2%
48 CHO Winston 100% 99% 95% 78% 48% 18% 3%
49 SANDHU Arjan 100% 96% 78% 45% 16% 3% -
50 WU Hunter 100% 93% 67% 33% 10% 2% -
51 KESSLER Josh 100% 94% 59% 19% 3% -
52 WU Wilmund 100% 100% 95% 76% 40% 10%
53 CAMPO Alexander P. 100% 90% 30% 4% - -
54 CHUANG Tristan 100% 100% 97% 74% 32% 5%
55 LAU Justin Y. 100% 99% 85% 50% 17% 3% -
56 PERRON Robert 100% 99% 88% 49% 13% 1% -
56 YURT Vehbi 100% 75% 20% 2% - - -
58 KOGAN Nikita 100% 100% 95% 76% 40% 12% 1%
59 TANG Charles 100% 87% 53% 20% 4% - -
60 DEPEW Spencer 100% 78% 39% 11% 2% -
61 SEN David 100% 40% 7% 1% - -
62 HUROWITZ Max 100% 96% 79% 47% 18% 4% -
63 SUGIURA Samuel 100% 91% 63% 29% 9% 1% -
64 GOLD Carter 100% 24% 2% - - -
65 VARUKATTY-GAFOOR Sohil 100% 100% 93% 70% 35% 10% 1%
66 KNUDSEN Matthew S. 100% 73% 29% 6% 1% - -
66 TIAGI Daniel 100% 93% 68% 33% 9% 1% -
68 FREDRICK Jameer 100% 99% 85% 54% 20% 4% -
69 PILAT Matthew J. 100% 80% 34% 7% 1% -
70 TIAGI George 100% 58% 14% 2% - -
71 DAI William 100% 50% 12% 1% - - -
72 STOLPER Max 100% 72% 23% 3% - - -
73 EYBELMAN Ariel 100% 97% 79% 46% 16% 3% -
74 CHO Blake 100% 97% 73% 30% 6% -
75 POSY Daniel 100% 89% 58% 24% 6% 1% -
76 NAYAK Surin K. 100% 96% 70% 31% 7% 1% -
77 CHENG Hong 100% 34% 5% - - - -
78 KESSLER Nathan 100% 94% 73% 40% 14% 3% -
79 MUNGOVAN Matthew 100% 39% 7% 1% - - -
80 DONALDSON Christopher 100% 54% 12% 1% - - -

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.