November NAC

Y-14 Men's Foil

Friday, November 9, 2018 at 8:00 AM

Kansas City, MO - Kansas City, MO, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

Explore the probability of achieving at least a certain number of victories in the pool 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 LEVY Jacob M. 100% 100% 100% 96% 82% 50% 15%
2 WU Alexander 100% 100% 99% 95% 77% 42% 10%
3 CHEN Ziyuan 100% 100% 97% 84% 54% 20% 3%
3 UM Ethan A. 100% 100% 100% 99% 95% 73% 29%
5 LEE Chris 100% 100% 99% 89% 62% 26% 5%
6 ZENG Lucas H. 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 86% 46%
7 XIAO Enoch A. 100% 100% 98% 87% 56% 20% 2%
8 GROSSMAN SMISEK Spencer E. 100% 100% 97% 82% 50% 17% 3%
9 PARK Luke J. 100% 100% 98% 88% 60% 25% 4%
10 NAGIMOV Marsel 100% 100% 99% 92% 70% 33% 6%
11 ZHANG Daniel D. 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 77% 36%
12 BAUMSTEIN Nicholas I. 100% 100% 100% 97% 83% 51% 15%
13 GIRALDO Pablo E. 100% 97% 75% 38% 11% 1% -
14 KUMBLA Samarth 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 75% 33%
15 GRANT Lachlan K. 100% 100% 100% 96% 80% 47% 13%
16 LAURICELLA Douglas 100% 99% 84% 48% 16% 2% -
17 HAMILTON Bogdan A. 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 79% 37%
18 CHEN Andrew 100% 100% 99% 88% 58% 22% 3%
19 JANG Jaewon 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 74% 25%
20 CHOUN Minwook (Sam) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 67%
21 JEON Alexander E. 100% 100% 100% 99% 91% 65% 24%
22 SHIKHMAN Robert 100% 98% 83% 49% 17% 3% -
23 DESERANNO Jeidus 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 81% 36%
24 ZHANG Henry C. 100% 100% 100% 94% 71% 32% 5%
25 XU Max 100% 100% 98% 88% 59% 23% 4%
26 YU Vinni 100% 100% 98% 85% 55% 17%
27 KIM Nicholas W. 100% 100% 100% 98% 85% 53% 16%
28 HOOSHI Dylan M. 100% 100% 100% 96% 81% 47% 13%
29 WAN Jason 100% 97% 72% 33% 9% 1% -
30 CHOY Lucas B. 100% 100% 98% 88% 60% 23% 4%
31 DARIANO Noah G. 100% 100% 99% 94% 69% 29% 5%
32 FUKUDA Renzo K. 100% 99% 83% 46% 14% 2% -
33 AUGUSTINE Ethan A. 100% 100% 100% 96% 79% 39% 7%
34 KIM Tei D. 100% 100% 98% 85% 55% 20% 3%
35 BALL James T. 100% 98% 84% 52% 18% 3%
36 SCHEMBRI MCCORD Kruz T. 100% 100% 100% 97% 81% 44% 9%
37 PELOSKY Zack B. 100% 100% 100% 96% 78% 40% 8%
38 TSAY Jeremy M. 100% 100% 95% 78% 47% 17% 3%
39 ROBSON Samuel 100% 96% 76% 42% 14% 2% -
40 CHUNG Jinwoo 100% 100% 97% 83% 50% 16% 1%
42 OH Jonathan 100% 88% 39% 8% 1% - -
43 LIANG Lixi (Henry) 100% 100% 100% 98% 89% 62% 22%
44 CAI Jason Zhicheng 100% 95% 75% 40% 12% 2% -
45 OAKLAND Brennan D. 100% 99% 90% 61% 26% 5% -
46 BURKE Spencer W. 100% 100% 100% 97% 85% 53% 16%
47 NG Eben S. 100% 100% 99% 94% 72% 36% 8%
48 BAE Kevin 100% 100% 96% 76% 38% 10% 1%
49 KAO Castor T. 100% 100% 97% 81% 49% 18% 3%
49 KIM Yonjae 100% 100% 99% 95% 77% 43% 12%
51 CHEN Allen 100% 100% 96% 80% 48% 16% 2%
52 SONG Aiden S. 100% 100% 99% 93% 71% 35% 8%
53 JOSEPH Dominic (Dom) 100% 100% 99% 91% 65% 28% 5%
54 KASI Sanjay 100% 100% 100% 97% 83% 50% 14%
55 LAO Scott E. 100% 99% 87% 56% 21% 4% -
56 WONG Adam L. 100% 100% 100% 97% 86% 58% 20%
57 SINGH Dayaal 100% 100% 100% 97% 84% 51% 14%
58 STANLEY Mason B. 100% 100% 93% 66% 30% 7% 1%
59 MITCHELL Philip D. 100% 90% 58% 22% 4% - -
61 SEAH Chad 100% 100% 98% 87% 60% 26% 5%
62 KIM Brandon J. 100% 99% 90% 64% 28% 5%
63 FREEDMAN Samuel E. 100% 95% 75% 40% 12% 1%
64 LI Jiaan 100% 100% 94% 72% 35% 8% -
65 SOYSKI Harrison Q. 100% 99% 93% 72% 38% 12% 1%
66 ZHANG Luke T. 100% 100% 98% 83% 47% 14% 1%
67 LI Raphael C. 100% 99% 94% 74% 42% 14% 2%
68 CHOI Samuel 100% 100% 96% 79% 46% 15% 2%
69 WU Nicholas 100% 75% 35% 10% 2% - -
70 WEN George C. 100% 99% 91% 63% 27% 6% -
72 DANKAR Neel 100% 98% 83% 51% 18% 3%
74 ZHANG Andy W. 100% 100% 93% 70% 33% 8% 1%
75 TSANG Matthew K. 100% 100% 97% 84% 53% 19% 3%
76 XIAO Ethan J. 100% 100% 96% 72% 33% 8% 1%
77 BREIER Matthew F. 100% 100% 98% 85% 55% 21% 3%
78 KOFROTH Zachary R. 100% 95% 70% 32% 8% 1% -
79 MURRAY Maximo 100% 99% 88% 57% 23% 5% -
80 YU Anders 100% 100% 99% 94% 74% 38% 9%
81 JEON Caleb A. 100% 99% 92% 69% 36% 11% 1%
82 MURUHIN Yaroslav 100% 97% 82% 51% 20% 4% -
83 FUKUDA Alessio R. 100% 100% 96% 77% 40% 9% 1%
84 DU Samuel R. 100% 100% 100% 98% 88% 58% 18%
85 WU Jerry 100% 93% 60% 23% 5% 1% -
86 WONG NICHOLAS A. 100% 98% 88% 61% 27% 6% 1%
87 KHER Roan 100% 82% 43% 13% 2% - -
88 WEINKOPF William O. 100% 100% 99% 91% 66% 29% 5%
89 GALLUCCI Charles John 100% 100% 97% 85% 55% 20% 3%
90 KITAGAWA Eric S. 100% 98% 82% 46% 15% 2% -
91 CHIN Julian S. 100% 100% 94% 69% 31% 7% 1%
92 MARTOS Jimmy 100% 100% 98% 86% 57% 22% 4%
93 CHENG Jonathan 100% 100% 100% 99% 94% 71% 28%
93 LANG Dong Lin 100% 83% 46% 16% 3% - -
95 BANERJEE ANUP 100% 100% 95% 74% 38% 11% 1%
96 LIN Dashiell 100% 98% 87% 56% 21% 4% -
97 KIM Jackson 100% 98% 85% 53% 18% 3% -
97 MCLAUGHLIN Lloyd I. 100% 97% 81% 52% 22% 5% 1%
99 STIAGUN Nikita 100% 98% 81% 46% 14% 2% -
100 FU Samuel Y. 100% 100% 95% 76% 42% 13% 1%
101 MILLER Duncan R. 100% 95% 67% 27% 6% 1% -
102 SONG Dylan S. 100% 96% 68% 28% 6% 1% -
103 TSAI Max W. 100% 94% 68% 32% 9% 1% -
104 FLYNN Ian 100% 96% 78% 44% 15% 3% -
105 CATINO Brennen 100% 97% 79% 42% 13% 2% -
106 SONG Leonardo T. 100% 48% 11% 1% - - -
107 KWON Ethan 100% 100% 94% 71% 33% 7% -
108 FEDONCHIK Henry J. 100% 82% 32% 6% 1% - -
109 AIBEL Hudson J. 100% 91% 60% 25% 6% 1% -
111 WU Conrad J. 100% 98% 83% 46% 13% 1% -
112 FOGELSON Frederick J. 100% 76% 31% 7% 1% - -
113 LE Vyn A. 100% 97% 78% 42% 13% 2% -
114 BELLUOMO David C. 100% 66% 24% 5% 1% - -
115 WANG Andrew 100% 91% 61% 25% 5% 1% -
116 GISLER Benjamin B. 100% 94% 67% 29% 7% 1% -
117 KUO Evan 100% 67% 24% 4% - - -
118 ZHAO Jesse 100% 87% 52% 19% 4% - -
118 JI Aidan Y. 100% 88% 49% 14% 2% - -
120 PARKER Riley D. 100% 73% 28% 6% 1% - -
121 WILLIAMS Connor J. 100% 96% 77% 43% 14% 2% -
122 NEWELL Ian A. 100% 78% 38% 11% 2% -
123 SIEGEL William P. 100% 59% 16% 2% - - -
124 MU Jeffrey 100% 48% 10% 1% - - -
125 HOOSHI Jayden C. 100% 99% 95% 77% 45% 16% 2%
126 YOUNGBLOOD Woody C. 100% 75% 31% 6% - - -
127 BAO Aaron 100% 39% 7% 1% - - -
128 DRESSEL Jet 100% 51% 11% 1% - - -
129 METTE Russell 100% 82% 42% 10% 1% - -
130 KOKKER Thomas 100% 78% 28% 5% - - -
131 NAM Michael 100% 19% 2% - - - -
131 FINLEY Dylan 100% 27% 3% - - - -

Explanation

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.