Cobra Challenge SYC-RCC

Cadet Men's Saber

Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 11:30 AM

Meadowlands Expo Center - Secaucus, NJ, 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 LEE Aydan J. 100% 100% 98% 88% 62% 29% 6%
2 ZHANG Ethan W. 100% 98% 85% 54% 21% 4% -
3 WANG Robert 100% 100% 99% 92% 70% 35% 7%
3 CHEN Evan P. 100% 100% 99% 93% 71% 35% 7%
5 HU Christopher 100% 100% 99% 93% 71% 32% 4%
6 SHOMAN Noah 100% 100% 100% 96% 80% 47% 13%
7 SHOMAN Zachary 100% 100% 100% 98% 83% 42%
8 PANDEY Neil 100% 100% 100% 93% 60% 17%
9 HUANG Ethan F. 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 87% 48%
10 BABAYEV Gabriel A. 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 78% 37%
11 LUTHRA Arjun 100% 100% 100% 96% 78% 40% 8%
12 ZHANG Derek 100% 100% 99% 92% 67% 25%
13 DENG Andrew 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 68% 25%
14 FLOT Tai A. 100% 100% 100% 98% 89% 61% 22%
15 SPOSATO Andrew P. 100% 100% 99% 92% 70% 35% 8%
16 VARUKATTY-GAFOOR Sohil 100% 100% 96% 79% 46% 15% 2%
17 MICLAUS Justin 100% 100% 100% 99% 93% 72% 31%
18 CADAMBI Roshan 100% 100% 100% 99% 85% 40%
19 OH Triton 100% 100% 98% 89% 63% 28% 5%
20 KWALWASSER Eric 100% 100% 100% 96% 77% 38% 6%
21 LIN Steve 100% 99% 86% 54% 21% 4% -
22 CHAUDHURI Eeshaan A. 100% 100% 97% 83% 53% 20% 3%
23 TURCK Caspar J. 100% 100% 99% 88% 55% 13%
24 SHTEYN Mark 100% 100% 99% 94% 76% 41% 10%
25 LIU Mingyang Ryan 100% 100% 96% 80% 49% 18% 3%
25 GLOZMAN Justin 100% 100% 98% 89% 62% 26% 5%
27 POSY Daniel 100% 99% 90% 64% 30% 8% 1%
28 ZHOU Miles 100% 100% 100% 97% 84% 51% 14%
29 NOURELDIN Gabriel 100% 100% 100% 98% 87% 57% 17%
30 EPSTEIN Oliver D. 100% 99% 91% 63% 25% 5% -
31 FELDMAN Drew 100% 99% 88% 59% 24% 5% -
32 SHIPITSIN Alexander 100% 98% 86% 56% 23% 5% 1%
33 KUSHKOV Veniamin 100% 100% 98% 89% 59% 19%
34 MARGULIES William 100% 100% 99% 96% 80% 47% 14%
35 PERRON Robert 100% 92% 59% 22% 4% -
36 ANTHONY Devyn V. 100% 100% 99% 89% 60% 20%
37 KIM Matthew 100% 100% 97% 81% 46% 12%
38 ENGEL Peter 100% 99% 90% 65% 31% 8% 1%
39 GILSON Lucas B. 100% 100% 98% 88% 62% 28% 5%
40 KUSHKOV Daniel 100% 100% 100% 96% 79% 44% 9%
41 WAXLER Seth B. 100% 100% 100% 96% 79% 41% 9%
42 SHIRPAL Oleksandr 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 90% 54%
43 WU Richard 100% 99% 92% 69% 35% 10% 1%
44 GAUVEY Kieran 100% 98% 82% 48% 17% 3% -
45 ZHOU James Y. 100% 94% 71% 36% 10% 1% -
46 PRIMUS Nazir 100% 100% 97% 86% 60% 27% 5%
47 UH Daniel 100% 96% 76% 40% 12% 2% -
48 WANG Nicolas 100% 100% 100% 97% 75% 25%
49 HUANG Tom 100% 98% 78% 38% 9% 1%
50 GONZALEZ Emilio A. 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 76% 32%
51 SHI Erick 100% 98% 85% 56% 23% 5% -
52 HUNG Samuel 100% 97% 81% 47% 14% 2% -
53 WRUBEL Natan G. 100% 93% 65% 27% 6% - -
54 HUANG Alex F. 100% 100% 100% 99% 92% 67% 25%
54 GONG Jerry 100% 99% 93% 72% 38% 11% 1%
56 ZHUANG Rayken 100% 99% 84% 51% 18% 3% -
57 WU Wilmund 100% 100% 95% 80% 49% 19% 3%
58 PAN Alex 100% 91% 60% 23% 4% -
59 KOVACH Jonah F. 100% 100% 95% 74% 36% 8%
60 DEPEW Spencer 100% 98% 82% 46% 14% 2%
61 STERN Tobias 100% 94% 71% 36% 11% 2% -
62 LEONARD Charles 100% 98% 82% 47% 15% 2%
62 SU Landon 100% 99% 93% 68% 30% 6%
64 RAMIREZ Mateo 100% 61% 17% 2% - -
65 WILSON Jude 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 71%
66 VENU Ram 100% 89% 57% 23% 5% < 1% -
67 COLE Alexander 100% 100% 100% 96% 69% 23%
68 VOSS Jeffer 100% 86% 49% 15% 2% -
69 ROBERTS Justin C. 100% 100% 100% 95% 65% 20%
70 ZHENG Edward L. 100% 100% 100% 98% 88% 60% 21%
71 SHAHZAD Azlan A. 100% 92% 65% 31% 9% 1% -
72 BREKHMAN Eric 100% 100% 97% 85% 55% 21% 3%
73 MCCARTHY Gabriel 100% 100% 99% 91% 64% 23%
74 GERSTMANN Max T. 100% 100% 97% 75% 28% 4%
75 COUNTS Nicholas 100% 92% 58% 16% 2% -
76 LIN Felix 100% 92% 36% 5% - -
77 LI Yao (Liam) 100% 97% 81% 47% 16% 3% -
78 FREDRICK Jameer 100% 92% 64% 29% 8% 1% -
79 LIU Lawrence 100% 99% 94% 75% 41% 13% 1%
79 OKEEFE Mitchell 100% 100% 95% 76% 42% 11% 1%
81 VAUGHN Jason 100% 99% 93% 71% 36% 10% 1%
82 KESSLER Nathan 100% 92% 64% 28% 7% 1% -
83 SUGIURA Samuel 100% 99% 91% 67% 32% 8% 1%
84 TSAO Oliver 100% 89% 56% 21% 4% - -
85 WEBER Mattias A. 100% 100% 96% 80% 49% 18% 2%
86 JORGESON Charlie 100% 98% 77% 25% 3% -
87 FLITSANOV Macabee 100% 89% 56% 21% 4% -
87 SINGH Angadh 100% 99% 93% 69% 32% 6%
89 GINSBERG jordan 100% 97% 81% 46% 14% 2%
89 YOO Maxwell 100% 90% 56% 19% 3% -
91 HUANG Maxwell H. 100% 96% 75% 38% 10% 1%
92 WEIL Asher D. 100% 68% 25% 5% - - -
92 GOLD Carter 100% 99% 90% 65% 31% 8% 1%
94 CLARK Keagan 100% 93% 66% 28% 6% 1% -
95 FIELDS Matthew S. 100% 100% 99% 94% 71% 31% 5%
96 OU Brian 100% 100% 94% 73% 38% 11% 1%
97 COURTIN Frederic 100% 91% 60% 25% 6% 1% -
98 HOTHA Nikhil 100% 98% 84% 54% 21% 4% -
99 ANAND Sahil Z. 100% 97% 79% 46% 15% 2% -
100 ZHANG Yupeng 100% 95% 72% 34% 8% 1% -
101 CHENG Hong 100% 74% 32% 7% 1% - -
102 KESSLER Josh 100% 93% 68% 33% 10% 2% -
103 GOLDMAN Robert 100% 79% 38% 10% 1% - -
104 MARGULIS Jared 100% 93% 67% 32% 9% 1% -
105 YEUNG Jerry 100% 79% 38% 10% 1% -
106 SEN David 100% 84% 38% 6% - -
107 MARGULIAN Grant 100% 72% 29% 6% 1% -
108 BODKIN Jake M. 100% 99% 89% 63% 28% 6% -
108 MOULTON Ian 100% 97% 81% 48% 16% 2% -
110 WANG Oscar 100% 94% 69% 33% 9% 1% -
111 CHAN Austin 100% 90% 60% 25% 6% 1% -
112 IDRISSI Idris 100% 98% 86% 57% 23% 5% -
113 OH Kyle 100% 90% 61% 28% 8% 1% -
114 MENDOZA Luca 100% 88% 51% 16% 2% - -
115 TANG Charles 100% 92% 65% 31% 8% 1% -
116 ONG Chinli 100% 90% 59% 24% 5% 1% -
117 XIA Eric 100% 60% 20% 4% - - -
118 PRIEUR Christian F. 100% 60% 18% 3% - -
119 ZHOU Grant 100% 73% 32% 8% 1% - -
120 AGARWALA Mukul 100% 24% 2% - - -
121 CHEN Jonathan 100% 100% 97% 84% 52% 19% 3%
121 DESAI Dhilan 100% 88% 55% 22% 5% 1% -
121 DAI Gary 100% 84% 47% 15% 2% - -
124 TERMINI Jason 100% 87% 47% 14% 2% - -
125 OH Jean 100% 89% 50% 11% 1% -
126 LONKER Zachary 100% 36% 6% 1% - - -
126 KUSANAGI Soshi 100% 63% 23% 5% 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.