Suffern, NY - Suffern, NY, 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 | HOLMES Andrew E. | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 12% | |
| 2 | LIU Patrick | - | - | - | 5% | 24% | 45% | 25% |
| 3 | WOODS Jack H. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 30% | 44% | 18% |
| 3 | TUMMINGS C.J. | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 35% | 16% | 3% |
| 5 | CHENG Thomas C. | 1% | 8% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 7% | |
| 6 | HAMILTON Bogdan A. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 44% | 25% |
| 7 | LIU Niles J. | - | - | - | 4% | 21% | 44% | 31% |
| 8 | KIM Nicholas W. | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 44% | 20% | |
| 9 | YANG Adam | - | 4% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 2% |
| 10 | MEMANI Apurva | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 5% |
| 11 | ZHOU Timmy | 1% | 8% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 12 | BLUTT Emerson B. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 40% | 23% |
| 13 | GILBERT-GOLDSTEIN Avery E. | - | 4% | 22% | 40% | 28% | 6% | |
| 14 | MA Alexander | - | 3% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 11% | |
| 15 | VANNI Filippo A. | 11% | 31% | 34% | 19% | 5% | 1% | |
| 16 | KASI Sanjay | - | 7% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
| 17 | YU Vinni | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% | |
| 17 | JANG Jaewon | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 36% | 14% | |
| 19 | ANDREWS Nathan J. | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 8% |
| 20 | ZUSIN Zachary W. | - | - | 1% | 11% | 34% | 39% | 15% |
| 21 | SINGH Dayaal | 2% | 14% | 34% | 34% | 14% | 2% | |
| 22 | CHO Justin Y. | 1% | 5% | 19% | 35% | 31% | 10% | |
| 23 | FLANAGAN James | 3% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 4% | |
| 24 | BATRAK Alexander | 2% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 2% | |
| 25 | YEROKHIN Michael N. | 2% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 19% | 4% | |
| 26 | LOCKWOOD Owen | - | - | 3% | 17% | 36% | 33% | 11% |
| 27 | MARSHALL Ian | - | 2% | 13% | 37% | 34% | 12% | 2% |
| 28 | SWADDIPONG Diego P. | 8% | 37% | 36% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 29 | DOBBINS Evan W. | 16% | 41% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 30 | JOSEPH Willem | 3% | 27% | 40% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 31 | LIN Richard W. | 1% | 8% | 28% | 39% | 21% | 4% | |
| 32 | WU Albert | 7% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 7% | 1% | |
| 33 | SCHLESINGER Nathan | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 4% |
| 34 | HEALY Griffen | - | 5% | 18% | 34% | 31% | 11% | |
| 35 | SULLIVAN Jackson R. | - | - | 1% | 11% | 33% | 39% | 16% |
| 36 | GU Jeffrey | 12% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 37 | MANGE Andrew E. | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 7% |
| 38 | LIU Kevin B. | 5% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 1% | |
| 39 | EHRLICH Noah | 5% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 7% | 1% | |
| 40 | MANGE Nathan | 24% | 42% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 41 | AUGUSTINE Ethan A. | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 5% |
| 42 | ZHANG Henry C. | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 41% | 19% | 3% |
| 43 | HERGERT Benito | - | 4% | 22% | 39% | 28% | 7% | - |
| 44 | WANG Michael | 2% | 12% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 4% | |
| 45 | BOBROW Logan | 4% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 2% | |
| 46 | ABDELAZIZ Hisham A. | 18% | 42% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 47 | SIEGEL Elliot | 12% | 32% | 34% | 18% | 5% | - | |
| 48 | HO Ryan J. | 2% | 14% | 34% | 34% | 14% | 2% | |
| 49 | CRALEY Thomas M. | 2% | 13% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 50 | O'BRIEN Jack K. | 1% | 15% | 45% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 51 | MEYERS Lee P. | 6% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 52 | TSAI Philip W. | 20% | 39% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 54 | DING Jonathan | 3% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 3% | |
| 55 | CORTIZAS John (Jack) | 7% | 33% | 39% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 56 | CARMAN Ian K. | - | 2% | 11% | 32% | 39% | 16% | |
| 57 | SHA Yi Peng | 28% | 43% | 23% | 5% | 1% | - | |
| 58 | LIU Eric P. | - | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 1% |
| 59 | ZELTSER Lawrence M. | 7% | 25% | 36% | 23% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 60 | CHAMBERS Thomas J. | 21% | 40% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 61 | TSAI Max W. | 39% | 41% | 16% | 3% | - | - | |
| 62 | BELLUOMO David C. | 15% | 44% | 35% | 6% | - | - | - |
| 63 | ZHAO Jesse | 61% | 33% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
| 64 | SCILEPPI Jonathan | 25% | 45% | 26% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 65 | CAPUTO John | 84% | 16% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
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.