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 | 6 | ||
| 1 | GONZALEZ Emilio A. | - | - | - | - | 4% | 27% | 68% |
| 2 | BAE Jason I. | - | - | - | 2% | 11% | 38% | 49% |
| 3 | SUGIURA Samuel | - | 2% | 9% | 24% | 34% | 25% | 7% |
| 3 | SAHAY Kenji | - | 4% | 19% | 38% | 31% | 7% | |
| 5 | KUSHKOV Daniel | - | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 44% | 21% |
| 5 | KWALWASSER Eric | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 39% | 23% | 4% |
| 7 | IDRISSI Idris | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 40% | 24% | 3% |
| 8 | ANAND Sahil Z. | 1% | 8% | 24% | 33% | 24% | 9% | 1% |
| 9 | GONG Jerry | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 6% | - |
| 10 | LIU Kevin | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 6% |
| 11 | SHIPITSIN Alexander | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 34% | 30% | 11% |
| 12 | VARUKATTY-GAFOOR Sohil | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 6% |
| 13 | WANG daniel | 1% | 7% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 5% | |
| 14 | KIM Ethan | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 35% | 25% | 7% |
| 15 | NGUYEN Anthony | - | 5% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 11% | 1% |
| 16 | NARDINI Nathanael P. | - | 2% | 9% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 7% |
| 17 | LI Yao (Liam) | - | 5% | 18% | 33% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
| 18 | HUANG Maxwell H. | - | 3% | 13% | 29% | 33% | 19% | 4% |
| 19 | LEE Ashe | 1% | 8% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
| 20 | BONETTI Brayden | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 6% |
| 21 | TURCK Caspar J. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 37% | 52% | |
| 22 | MARGULIS Jared | 9% | 31% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 23 | LIGH Checed | 5% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 8% | 1% | |
| 24 | DAI Gary | 1% | 8% | 23% | 33% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
| 25 | BRANDT Jaden | 7% | 25% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 25 | MUNGOVAN Matthew | 26% | 40% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 27 | EYBELMAN Ariel | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 39% | 21% | 2% |
| 28 | PRIEUR Christian F. | 6% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 29 | FRANCOIS Alexander C. | 1% | 8% | 23% | 33% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
| 30 | ALAVE Kyle | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
| 31 | OH Aster | - | 2% | 12% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 4% |
| 32 | CARROLL Charles | 4% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 33 | URSU Marcel T. | - | 1% | 5% | 21% | 42% | 32% | |
| 34 | LEUNG Ian | 7% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 6% | - | |
| 35 | LIN Philip T. | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 3% |
| 36 | MARGULIAN Grant | 11% | 31% | 34% | 18% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 37 | TIAGI George | 13% | 33% | 33% | 16% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 38 | HE Bowen | 9% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 39 | HOUSER Evan | 17% | 39% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 40 | LIN Maxim | 24% | 40% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 41 | MENDOZA Diwa | 5% | 23% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% | |
| 42 | DUMOULIN Gabriel | - | 2% | 9% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 7% |
| 43 | BOULAIS Andrew D. | - | 5% | 18% | 32% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
| 44 | TSAO Oliver | 1% | 8% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 5% | - |
| 45 | LIM Brandon | 9% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 46 | SINGER Marcus | 12% | 36% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 47 | MONTALVO Matthew | 6% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 48 | WONG Caleb W. | 2% | 16% | 37% | 32% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 49 | NAYAK Surin K. | 4% | 23% | 39% | 27% | 7% | 1% | |
| 50 | KATZ Ryan | 2% | 12% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 3% | |
| 51 | KESSLER Nathan | 1% | 6% | 20% | 32% | 28% | 12% | 2% |
| 52 | KONG Alan | - | < 1% | 3% | 13% | 31% | 36% | 17% |
| 52 | ALMEDA Stanislav | 9% | 34% | 37% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 54 | PETRE Tudor | 15% | 37% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 55 | SCHARR-WEINER Nathan | 8% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 56 | WITCZAK Mateus | 2% | 14% | 30% | 31% | 17% | 5% | 1% |
| 57 | LIN Justin | 3% | 15% | 30% | 30% | 17% | 5% | 1% |
| 57 | LAUB William | 8% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 59 | ABDEL-DAYEM Ibrahim | 29% | 45% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 60 | HOLTSCHLAG Milo | 11% | 38% | 37% | 12% | 1% | - | |
| 61 | LEE Andrew | 3% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
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.