Monroe 33 Tennis, Basketball and Sports - Monroe Township, NJ, 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 | MORRILL William | - | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 41% | 29% |
2 | MAKLIN Edward P. | - | 3% | 12% | 27% | 33% | 20% | 5% |
3 | HUANG Ethan F. | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 33% | 23% | 6% |
3 | TRUDNOS Allen | - | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 39% | 21% |
5 | HAMMERSTROM Jared | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 41% | 43% |
6 | MORRILL Justin | - | 1% | 4% | 17% | 33% | 33% | 13% |
7 | YANG Richard | - | 2% | 9% | 23% | 33% | 26% | 8% |
8 | WONG Ryan | - | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 2% |
9 | ERACHSHAW Cyrus P. | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 6% |
9 | LUKASHENKO Darii | - | - | - | 4% | 22% | 46% | 28% |
11 | HAN Daniel Y. | - | 1% | 7% | 21% | 34% | 28% | 9% |
12 | DENG Andrew | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 7% |
13 | DOLAN Charles R. | - | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
14 | KIM Shaun M. | - | 3% | 16% | 31% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
15 | OH Triton | 4% | 17% | 31% | 29% | 14% | 4% | - |
16 | MCCARTHY Gabriel | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 39% | 23% | 4% |
17 | FLOT Tai A. | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 39% | 28% | 6% |
18 | SHOMAN Noah | - | 3% | 13% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 5% |
19 | SHOMAN Zachary | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 6% |
20 | NG Jeremiah | 1% | 5% | 18% | 31% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
21 | CADAMBI Roshan | 1% | 7% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
22 | OVERDECK Andrew | 2% | 10% | 25% | 32% | 22% | 8% | 1% |
23 | ZHANG Jeffrey | 2% | 15% | 33% | 31% | 15% | 3% | - |
24 | MARGULIES William | 1% | 6% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 1% |
25 | WILSON Jude | - | - | - | 5% | 25% | 45% | 25% |
26 | COLE Alexander | - | 3% | 13% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 5% |
27 | WANG Robert | 3% | 15% | 30% | 30% | 17% | 5% | 1% |
28 | CHEN Evan P. | 4% | 17% | 31% | 29% | 14% | 4% | - |
29 | NOBLE Colin | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 5% |
30 | WU Wilmund | 5% | 21% | 33% | 26% | 11% | 2% | - |
30 | EDELMAN Seth A. | 1% | 11% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 5% | 1% |
32 | GOLDMAN Robert | 59% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
33 | HO Kaden M. | - | 1% | 5% | 18% | 34% | 31% | 11% |
34 | CZYZEWSKI Konrad R. | - | 1% | 5% | 17% | 32% | 32% | 13% |
35 | SINGH Angadh | 5% | 23% | 38% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
36 | DENNER Maximilian P. | - | - | 5% | 23% | 42% | 25% | 5% |
37 | BROU Inkosi | 1% | 11% | 36% | 37% | 13% | 2% | - |
38 | CORTEZ Christopher | 1% | 10% | 26% | 33% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
39 | DEPEW Spencer | 3% | 16% | 30% | 30% | 16% | 4% | - |
40 | HU Andrew | - | 8% | 25% | 34% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
41 | GLOZMAN Justin | 4% | 17% | 31% | 29% | 15% | 4% | - |
42 | ROBERTS Justin C. | 2% | 13% | 28% | 31% | 19% | 6% | 1% |
43 | TENG MATTHEW | 1% | 7% | 25% | 36% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
44 | MCCARTHY Devan | 20% | 38% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
45 | ZHENG Edward L. | 1% | 5% | 17% | 31% | 29% | 14% | 3% |
45 | ZHOU Miles | - | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 2% |
47 | MEDVEDEV Michail D. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 11% | 2% |
48 | ZENG Noah | - | 3% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
49 | NEVILLE James | 10% | 34% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
50 | WANG Oscar | 7% | 45% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
51 | YOU Jaden | 8% | 25% | 33% | 23% | 9% | 2% | - |
52 | SHTEYN Mark | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% |
53 | BREKHMAN Eric | 1% | 9% | 34% | 39% | 15% | 2% | - |
53 | ARMOUR Malachi | 72% | 24% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
55 | DA GRACA Aidan | 7% | 25% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
55 | LIU Mingyang Ryan | 4% | 16% | 31% | 30% | 15% | 4% | - |
57 | STUMACHER Ryan | 33% | 42% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
58 | POSY Daniel | 6% | 28% | 38% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
59 | KOVACH Jonah F. | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
60 | MACKENZIE Calvin | 67% | 29% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
61 | LEONARD Charles | 7% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
61 | HUANG Tyler T. | 3% | 15% | 31% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
63 | LEE Anderson | 39% | 42% | 16% | 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.