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 | WU Joseph | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 39% | 50% |
| 2 | COLLYMORE Spencer T. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 42% | 24% |
| 3 | GOHEL Dayus T. | - | - | - | 1% | 7% | 36% | 56% |
| 3 | AGAON Ethan | - | 1% | 11% | 32% | 39% | 16% | 2% |
| 5 | CHEN Eric | - | - | 3% | 18% | 40% | 32% | 8% |
| 6 | FELDMAN Jaemin | - | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 41% | 20% |
| 7 | LIEF Isaac R. | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 42% | 22% | |
| 8 | CHOI Aleksey | 1% | 10% | 30% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 9 | ZENG Zihan | - | 2% | 13% | 42% | 35% | 8% | |
| 10 | BEZRODNOV Alexander | - | - | 1% | 9% | 32% | 44% | 13% |
| 11 | GAO Daniel | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 43% | 19% | |
| 12 | MACARTY Jordan T. | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 6% |
| 13 | KUDRIAVTCEV Sergei | - | - | - | 3% | 20% | 44% | 32% |
| 14 | JOSLIN Tyler | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 15 | AGAON Shawn | - | 5% | 21% | 37% | 29% | 8% | |
| 16 | LI Jalen | 4% | 23% | 39% | 26% | 7% | 1% | |
| 17 | HE Lawrence | - | 2% | 14% | 36% | 36% | 12% | |
| 18 | MISHIMA Torata | - | 2% | 15% | 38% | 34% | 9% | |
| 19 | KOKENGE Reid | - | - | 3% | 18% | 45% | 34% | |
| 20 | SKAALAND Will | - | - | 6% | 26% | 46% | 22% | |
| 21 | SHAH Maximilian A. | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 41% | 20% | |
| 22 | BORODITSKY Ethan | - | - | 1% | 10% | 33% | 41% | 15% |
| 23 | PAHLAVI Kamran | - | 2% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 13% | 2% |
| 24 | RICHARD Owen | - | - | 2% | 14% | 34% | 36% | 13% |
| 25 | EKE Frank | - | - | 3% | 19% | 44% | 34% | |
| 26 | PRIHODKO Max | - | 2% | 15% | 38% | 35% | 9% | |
| 27 | LAI Aedin | 1% | 14% | 38% | 34% | 11% | 1% | |
| 28 | ROLLO Emmett H. | 4% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 8% | 1% | |
| 29 | KOBI Samuel | - | - | 1% | 10% | 33% | 44% | 12% |
| 30 | YANG Edward | 1% | 17% | 38% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 31 | TUMIBAY Noah C. | - | 1% | 8% | 34% | 44% | 14% | |
| 32 | SANTOS Francisco M. | 10% | 40% | 36% | 12% | 1% | - | |
| 33 | LEE Noah | - | - | 1% | 12% | 42% | 45% | |
| 34 | TEH Steven | - | 6% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 35 | CHEN Jun Ho | 1% | 7% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 6% | - |
| 36 | CHIMOSKEY Finn D. | 2% | 13% | 35% | 36% | 13% | 1% | |
| 37 | FUSSMAN Yuval | 23% | 45% | 27% | 5% | - | - | |
| 38 | OTTO Nathaniel B. | 1% | 12% | 36% | 37% | 13% | 1% | |
| 39 | THAKUR Om S. | - | 4% | 20% | 37% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
| 40 | GONG Haixiang | 1% | 10% | 31% | 37% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 41 | LEE Hudson | - | 6% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
| 42 | STABB Xuan | 1% | 17% | 39% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 43 | WU Jonathan | - | 6% | 28% | 42% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 44 | STEWART Charlie | 6% | 34% | 40% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 45 | BEALS Alden | 4% | 27% | 42% | 23% | 5% | - | |
| 46 | BEZRODNOV Michael | - | - | 1% | 10% | 29% | 40% | 19% |
| 47 | KALKANIS George | 17% | 45% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 48 | OSTIGUY Cameron | 6% | 31% | 39% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 49 | BRODSKY Julian | 2% | 25% | 41% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 50 | HU Robert J. | 30% | 44% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 51 | SONG Troy | 16% | 45% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 52 | XIE Brandon | 20% | 48% | 26% | 5% | - | - | |
| 53 | SANTOS Antonio K. | 19% | 44% | 30% | 6% | - | - | |
| 54 | KUBATIN Anton V. | 8% | 41% | 39% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 55 | TANG WanLi | 48% | 39% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 56 | LIU Jeremiah | 48% | 41% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 57 | CHEN Brian | 3% | 21% | 40% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 58 | CHOI Christian | 57% | 35% | 7% | 1% | - | - | |
| 58 | BYUN Kevin | 16% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 60 | KIM Dylan | 16% | 39% | 32% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 61 | MACNEILL Owen | 16% | 42% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 61 | BYARS John | 54% | 37% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
| 61 | PANDALAI Aryan | 14% | 36% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | |
| 64 | TEREB Daniel | 80% | 19% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 65 | MASSE Jack | 68% | 29% | 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.