November NAC

Y-14 Men's Saber

Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 8:00 AM

Kansas City, MO - Kansas City, MO, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

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 HEATHCOCK Colin - 1% 8% 25% 36% 24% 6%
2 FRISHMAN Ethan J. - 1% 6% 20% 35% 29% 9%
3 JEFFORDS Alexander - 1% 8% 24% 35% 25% 6%
3 SHI Andrew - - 1% 10% 35% 42% 12%
5 HARGENRADER Kailen A. 1% 7% 24% 36% 24% 6% 1%
6 DODRILL Grant - - 3% 16% 35% 34% 11%
7 LIMB Matthew G. - - - 1% 8% 37% 54%
8 SOHN Kevin J. - - 3% 18% 42% 37%
9 LINSKY Matthew - 1% 10% 28% 38% 20% 3%
10 CHEN Brian - - 1% 10% 31% 40% 17%
11 SILBERZWEIG Jordan H. - - - 1% 11% 38% 50%
12 LILOV Neil - - 1% 6% 24% 42% 27%
12 PAN Jack (Yuxiang) - - - 3% 16% 42% 39%
14 LIN John A. - 2% 10% 27% 35% 21% 5%
15 SO Hananiah 1% 7% 21% 33% 26% 10% 2%
16 KEEFE Duncan 1% 9% 26% 34% 22% 6% 1%
17 WIND Nicky E. - - - 4% 19% 42% 34%
18 CALLAHAN Jaden P. - 3% 16% 35% 33% 11% 1%
19 DESROSIERS Olivier 4% 19% 35% 30% 11% 1%
20 WOOD Elden S. - - 1% 8% 27% 41% 22%
20 HARLEY Colby A. - - 1% 8% 25% 40% 26%
22 CHOI HYUNSEOK - - - 1% 10% 37% 52%
23 YANG Ziyi - 2% 13% 33% 37% 14% 1%
24 TANN Justin - 4% 20% 37% 29% 9% 1%
25 JARAMILLO Tobias L. - 3% 15% 30% 32% 17% 3%
26 PAN Andrew W. - - - 1% 10% 37% 51%
27 BAILEY Asher - - - 4% 17% 41% 37%
28 SUBBIAH Prashanth V. - - 3% 16% 36% 35% 9%
28 PAN Jerry - 3% 16% 36% 33% 11% 1%
30 JI Cody Walter - 1% 5% 19% 35% 31% 9%
31 UEYAMA Ietetsu A. 5% 28% 39% 22% 6% 1% -
32 LIU David J. 2% 14% 32% 33% 15% 3% -
33 YOUNG Nash - 2% 14% 34% 34% 14% 2%
34 DENNER Lysander H. - 1% 5% 20% 38% 31% 6%
35 SAKHAMURI Surya - - 1% 9% 30% 40% 20%
36 POPE Nico 1% 8% 24% 33% 24% 8% 1%
37 REYES Xavier M. - 2% 10% 29% 37% 20% 2%
38 DHINGRA Gian K. - 1% 10% 30% 36% 19% 4%
39 LIANG Connor - - 1% 7% 25% 42% 24%
40 NG Jonathan H. 1% 7% 24% 36% 25% 7% 1%
41 LAI Adam J. - - 2% 12% 34% 41% 12%
42 PORTMANN Stein J. - 2% 12% 32% 36% 16% 2%
43 NOBLE Daniel 2% 13% 28% 31% 18% 6% 1%
44 KIM Avery J. - 2% 13% 32% 34% 16% 3%
44 DIACOS Jordan - 1% 8% 23% 36% 25% 7%
46 LUKASHENKO Darii - 3% 16% 34% 33% 13% 2%
47 BERMAN Luca - - 2% 14% 37% 36% 10%
48 RAJA Arnav 1% 11% 31% 36% 18% 4% -
49 DU Gavin J. 15% 36% 32% 14% 3% - -
50 LI Joshua L. 4% 24% 39% 25% 7% 1%
51 DENNER Maximilian P. - 1% 4% 15% 31% 34% 15%
52 CZYZEWSKI Konrad R. 3% 17% 32% 30% 14% 3% -
53 BECKER Dylan J. - 1% 10% 30% 37% 19% 3%
54 TANG Alex Y. 1% 10% 28% 35% 20% 5% -
55 BERGER Oliver 4% 27% 39% 23% 6% 1% -
56 FREYRE DE ANDRADE Elian R. - 3% 19% 40% 29% 8% 1%
57 JINICH Ilan R. - 1% 7% 23% 36% 26% 6%
58 HONG Vincent Q. 1% 11% 28% 34% 20% 6% 1%
59 LINDHOLM Oliver S. 2% 10% 25% 32% 22% 8% 1%
60 LEE Justin - 5% 24% 39% 25% 7% 1%
61 ZHOU Justin - 1% 8% 25% 37% 24% 6%
62 CHEONG Heonjae - - 1% 9% 27% 41% 22%
63 WOODWARD Connor 1% 10% 27% 34% 21% 7% 1%
64 ZHOU Kevin - 1% 6% 21% 38% 29% 6%
65 BUERGENTHAL Aaron P. - - 3% 14% 32% 35% 15%
66 KIM Andrew H. 1% 7% 24% 36% 24% 7% 1%
67 LU Timothy 3% 16% 32% 30% 15% 4% -
68 CHAN Matthew - - 2% 12% 32% 38% 16%
69 ALKEMPER Tristan H. - 4% 16% 30% 31% 16% 3%
70 CHIN Matthew W. - - 3% 16% 37% 33% 10%
71 GINIS Nathan - 1% 10% 30% 37% 19% 3%
72 YANG Richard 3% 15% 29% 30% 17% 5% 1%
73 CHANG Colin S. - 3% 15% 31% 32% 16% 3%
74 MENTA Varun - - 3% 12% 30% 37% 18%
75 YOU Jaden 48% 42% 9% 1% < 1% - -
76 HOUTZ Jackson - 2% 12% 29% 34% 18% 3%
77 XU Luke 2% 13% 35% 34% 14% 2% -
78 STONE Jack V. - 1% 9% 27% 38% 22% 3%
79 MAKLIN Edward P. - 2% 12% 31% 35% 17% 3%
79 CHEN Oscar 12% 42% 33% 11% 2% - -
81 BULL Anderson 3% 19% 35% 29% 11% 2% -
82 HAMMERSTROM Jared - - 2% 13% 32% 37% 16%
83 MORRILL William - - 3% 18% 39% 33% 6%
84 ERMAKOV Lev 1% 10% 29% 36% 20% 5% -
85 NARANJO David E. 8% 29% 36% 20% 6% 1% -
86 ALKIN Isaac - 3% 15% 33% 32% 15% 2%
87 MICHNA Colin P. 2% 13% 32% 34% 16% 3% -
88 BRUSIE Christopher R. 2% 14% 31% 32% 17% 4% -
89 KOGAN Benjamin - 1% 8% 24% 37% 25% 5%
90 GREENBAUM Ian L. - 3% 16% 37% 35% 9%
91 BARBER William S. 1% 20% 42% 28% 8% 1% -
92 CHEN Lucas B. 11% 32% 34% 18% 5% 1% -
93 SHERWOOD Hayden F. 6% 25% 38% 24% 7% 1% -
94 PARKER Riley D. 2% 11% 29% 34% 19% 5% -
95 SAMMI Mukund 5% 25% 39% 24% 7% 1% -
96 SAINT-PIERRE-MENARD Colin 5% 27% 37% 23% 7% 1% -
97 TONG ZACHARY - 5% 22% 36% 27% 9% 1%
98 ZHOU Aeres Z. 2% 11% 27% 32% 21% 7% 1%
98 GAO Ethan 37% 44% 16% 3% - - -
100 LE Hayden 19% 40% 30% 10% 2% - -
101 ELIN Adam E. 8% 43% 36% 11% 2% - -
102 CONINE Tanner C. - 5% 20% 33% 28% 12% 2%
103 RASMUSSEN Alexzander C. 3% 19% 36% 29% 11% 2% -
104 TRAVERS Samir T. 3% 19% 37% 30% 10% 1%
105 CHON Taylor A. - 1% 7% 25% 37% 25% 6%
106 ALTIRS Alexander 8% 29% 37% 21% 5% 1% -
107 JAWOROWSKI Matthew 22% 40% 28% 9% 1% - -
108 ZHOU Miles 22% 49% 25% 4% - - -
110 WU Wilmund 25% 41% 25% 7% 1% - -
111 LI Minghan 16% 48% 29% 7% 1% - -
112 BERRIO Carter E. 4% 17% 32% 29% 14% 3% -
112 MORRILL Justin - 3% 17% 35% 31% 12% 1%
112 KOTOV Leonid 11% 34% 35% 16% 4% - -
115 COLLINS Andrew M. 17% 38% 31% 12% 2% - -
116 KIBBAR Tomer L. 6% 27% 40% 21% 5% 1% -
117 KESSENS Keith J. 39% 44% 15% 2% - - -
118 HAN William 11% 34% 36% 16% 3% - -
120 NAZLYMOV Andrei - 4% 18% 36% 31% 10% 1%
120 SIMAK Joseph P. 1% 10% 33% 38% 15% 2% -
120 RESHEIDAT Malik 7% 24% 34% 24% 9% 2% -
123 GUZZO Vito 35% 43% 18% 3% - - -
124 BONSELL Vance 5% 26% 40% 23% 6% 1% -
125 ZHANG Jeffrey - 1% 7% 24% 38% 25% 6%
126 LEITH Jack 65% 30% 5% - - - -
127 GOERING Ashton H. 35% 43% 19% 3% - -
128 CHAVES Matthew J. 21% 42% 28% 8% 1% - -
129 CHIEN Winston L. 26% 42% 25% 6% 1% - -
131 LEE Christopher M. 2% 16% 34% 31% 13% 3% -
132 VAUGHN Dylan A. 22% 40% 28% 9% 2% - -
133 LIN Andrew 13% 37% 35% 13% 2% - -
134 GRATHWOL-SEAR Oliver 26% 42% 24% 7% 1% - -
135 LEE Conner M. 5% 27% 39% 22% 6% 1% -
136 RYAN Will 13% 38% 34% 13% 2% - -
137 GHENEA George Philipe 14% 41% 33% 10% 1% - -
137 BOWMAN James 74% 24% 2% - - - -

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.