New Haven, CT - New Haven, CT, 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 | ||
| 1 | GONG Benjamin | - | - | 1% | 21% | 53% | 25% |
| 2 | ACHILOV Sayid | - | 1% | 5% | 23% | 43% | 28% |
| 3 | DEGREMONT Henri S. | - | - | - | 9% | 43% | 48% |
| 3 | LE Vyn A. | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 37% | 14% |
| 5 | SHIN Joshua J. | - | - | 4% | 20% | 43% | 33% |
| 6 | BOOTSMA Shane-Anson | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 35% | 12% |
| 7 | WANG Michael | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 38% | 16% |
| 8 | KALIPERSAD Neil A. | 4% | 19% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
| 9 | JIANG Owen | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 40% | 20% |
| 10 | JAUME Andrei | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 41% | 22% |
| 11 | ZHEN Ethan | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 34% | 12% |
| 12 | LIN James G. | - | 2% | 14% | 35% | 37% | 13% |
| 13 | MCLEAN Miles K. | 1% | 9% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 5% |
| 14 | MENG Zhaoyi | - | 3% | 19% | 43% | 30% | 6% |
| 15 | CHREKY Jacob D. | - | - | 7% | 51% | 35% | 6% |
| 16 | PO Oliver | - | 1% | 11% | 37% | 40% | 11% |
| 17 | TRAUGOT Owen G. | - | 4% | 19% | 36% | 31% | 10% |
| 18 | HOWARD Michael | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 41% | 25% |
| 19 | KITAGAWA Eric S. | - | 2% | 24% | 44% | 25% | 4% |
| 20 | MILLER Andrew | - | 3% | 17% | 36% | 33% | 11% |
| 21 | SYOMICHEV Gleb A. | 1% | 9% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 5% |
| 22 | PITERBARG Maxim | 3% | 20% | 38% | 29% | 9% | 1% |
| 23 | SONG Bryan | 1% | 10% | 32% | 37% | 18% | 3% |
| 24 | MCCAULEY Samuel R. | - | 6% | 22% | 37% | 28% | 7% |
| 25 | GALLUCCI Charles John | - | 2% | 11% | 32% | 39% | 17% |
| 26 | TSAI Max W. | 1% | 9% | 30% | 38% | 19% | 3% |
| 27 | CAI Oliver K. | - | 3% | 16% | 37% | 34% | 10% |
| 28 | JIN Dennis H. | 4% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
| 29 | VAZQUEZ Sebastian A. | 1% | 7% | 25% | 39% | 24% | 5% |
| 30 | HONG Issac | 1% | 6% | 22% | 37% | 28% | 7% |
| 31 | GLEBA Nico | 53% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 32 | TALLARICO Matthew | 2% | 22% | 40% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
| 33 | LI Eric | - | - | 5% | 22% | 43% | 29% |
| 34 | MOO Gareth G. | 1% | 15% | 35% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
| 35 | BROWN Alexander R. | 1% | 9% | 29% | 37% | 20% | 4% |
| 36 | BAO Chris W. | 4% | 26% | 44% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 37 | BALESTRACCI Chris | - | - | 5% | 25% | 45% | 25% |
| 38 | HOLTZ Donovan K. | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 42% | 20% |
| 39 | BOUSSY Luciano | 20% | 40% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 40 | WANG Jackson | 1% | 14% | 37% | 34% | 12% | 1% |
| 41 | BENTLEY Nick | 6% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
| 42 | KLOTZ Isaiah | 5% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
| 43 | LEE Jonah | 1% | 11% | 32% | 37% | 17% | 3% |
| 44 | WANG Mason | - | 8% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 5% |
| 45 | JOHNSON Cooper A. | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 35% | 14% |
| 46 | AMRANI David | 30% | 43% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 47 | VALENTON Timothy | 3% | 19% | 37% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
| 48 | ZHENG Harrison | 37% | 43% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 49 | REZA Farazi | 12% | 33% | 35% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 50 | ALIMI Yacine A. | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 31% | 9% |
| 51 | LI Ayren | 12% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 52 | NIECHWADOWICZ Michael | 25% | 52% | 22% | 1% | - | - |
| 53 | ZHUANG Chuanxuan | 30% | 43% | 22% | 5% | - | - |
| 54 | WU Michael | 10% | 34% | 37% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 54 | GARDOS Noah | 45% | 39% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 56 | MORGESON Colin | 12% | 43% | 41% | 4% | - | - |
| 57 | VO Jonathan | 70% | 27% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 58 | MAGALONG William | 35% | 47% | 17% | 1% | - | - |
| 59 | XU Ethan | 8% | 39% | 37% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 60 | TSIMMERMAN Michael | 15% | 39% | 33% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 61 | POPE Alexander | 14% | 41% | 33% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 62 | WU Benjamin | 69% | 27% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 63 | KAPOOR Aayan | 19% | 43% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 64 | DEVAUX Ryan T. | 25% | 41% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 65 | HAYLON Caleb | 12% | 36% | 36% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 65 | WERTZ Erik | 7% | 35% | 41% | 16% | 2% | - |
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.