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 | MAKLIN Edward P. | - | - | 1% | 5% | 21% | 42% | 31% |
| 2 | KIM Shaun M. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 42% | 28% |
| 3 | KUSHKOV Veniamin | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 10% |
| 3 | MCCARTHY Gabriel | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 6% |
| 5 | BABAYEV Gabriel A. | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 44% | 40% |
| 5 | NOURELDIN Gabriel | - | - | - | 3% | 19% | 43% | 34% |
| 7 | OH Triton | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 38% | 20% |
| 8 | FIELDS Matthew S. | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 37% | 21% | 4% |
| 9 | PENG Bryan | - | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 44% | 19% |
| 10 | BAE Jason I. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 40% | 25% |
| 11 | KILGALLEN William | - | 2% | 9% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 7% |
| 11 | TASIKAS Stylianos | - | 1% | 9% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 6% |
| 13 | WU Wilmund | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 5% |
| 14 | WEBER Mattias A. | 2% | 12% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 5% | - |
| 15 | WANG Robert | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 9% |
| 16 | LIU Mingyang Ryan | 1% | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
| 17 | LEONARD Charles | 1% | 6% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
| 18 | KOGAN Benjamin | - | - | - | 3% | 18% | 43% | 36% |
| 19 | DOLAN Charles R. | - | - | 2% | 12% | 34% | 39% | 13% |
| 20 | PIWOWAR Alex | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 6% |
| 21 | WAXLER Seth B. | - | 1% | 5% | 18% | 34% | 31% | 11% |
| 22 | STERN Tobias | 2% | 13% | 31% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 23 | KUSHKOV Daniel | - | - | 4% | 18% | 38% | 32% | 8% |
| 24 | HUANG Connor | - | 1% | 9% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 6% |
| 25 | MORALES Jonathan | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 4% |
| 26 | HONG Robert | 23% | 42% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 27 | ENGEL Peter | 3% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 15% | 4% | - |
| 28 | LI Yao (Liam) | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 12% | 1% |
| 29 | SMINK Oliver | 2% | 10% | 26% | 33% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 30 | DEKA Tanush | 1% | 8% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
| 31 | KESSLER Josh | 6% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 32 | EYBELMAN Ariel | 5% | 21% | 33% | 26% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 33 | MOULTON Ian | 1% | 12% | 32% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 34 | SHI Erick | 6% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 35 | SHIPITSIN Alexander | - | - | 5% | 22% | 41% | 27% | 5% |
| 36 | GILSON Lucas B. | - | 4% | 16% | 31% | 30% | 15% | 3% |
| 37 | MCCARTHY Devan | 1% | 11% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 5% | - |
| 38 | MARGULIAN Grant | 2% | 25% | 40% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 39 | PERRON Robert | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 4% |
| 40 | MENDOZA Luca | 5% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 41 | DAI Gary | 4% | 17% | 33% | 30% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 42 | KAPOOR Tanmay | 3% | 18% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 43 | BOULAIS Andrew D. | 1% | 11% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 44 | SHINCHUK Daniel | 3% | 17% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 45 | TAUER Sam | 26% | 45% | 24% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 46 | ANAND Sahil Z. | - | 7% | 28% | 39% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 47 | VARUKATTY-GAFOOR Sohil | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 3% |
| 48 | GONG Jerry | 12% | 33% | 34% | 17% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 49 | WRIGHT Zachary | 6% | 22% | 33% | 26% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 50 | DUMOULIN Gabriel | 4% | 26% | 42% | 23% | 4% | - | - |
| 51 | FLITSANOV Macabee | 1% | 7% | 24% | 34% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
| 52 | HUANG Tom | 3% | 16% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 53 | TIAGI Daniel | 22% | 40% | 27% | 9% | 2% | - | - |
| 54 | KESSLER Nathan | 2% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 54 | SHIPITSIN Yaroslav | 25% | 41% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 56 | KUMAR Shivai | 1% | 9% | 26% | 33% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 57 | WONG Caleb W. | 4% | 22% | 42% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 58 | HOFFMAN Pasquale | 40% | 40% | 16% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 59 | LIGH Checed | 10% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 59 | STOLPER Max | 45% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 61 | DESAUTELS Connor | 7% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 62 | LAUB William | 29% | 42% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 63 | FARMER Rohan | 66% | 30% | 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.