Jersey City, NJ - Jersey City, 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 | ANTIPAS Michael C. | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 37% | 28% | 6% |
| 2 | SCARPA Ryan N. | - | - | 2% | 15% | 38% | 35% | 9% |
| 3 | HASSAN Mohamed H. | - | - | - | 4% | 18% | 42% | 36% |
| 3 | REYNOLDS Tyler C. | - | - | 4% | 17% | 36% | 33% | 10% |
| 5 | GROSS Liran | - | - | 2% | 14% | 46% | 32% | 6% |
| 6 | FIELD Miles | - | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 42% | 17% |
| 7 | WOODS Jack H. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 44% | 23% |
| 8 | JU Alexander (Alex) Y. | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 41% | 21% | 3% |
| 9 | HEMPE Jake | - | 8% | 28% | 38% | 22% | 4% | |
| 10 | LESNIKOV Kirel | - | 1% | 5% | 17% | 33% | 32% | 13% |
| 11 | PANTEL Adam S. | - | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 34% | 10% |
| 12 | ZUSIN Zachary W. | - | 1% | 11% | 33% | 36% | 16% | 3% |
| 13 | HOLMES Andrew E. | - | - | - | 3% | 17% | 42% | 38% |
| 13 | HARTMARK Anders | - | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 36% | 17% |
| 15 | ACINAPURO Philip M. | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 4% |
| 16 | SCHLESINGER Nathan | - | 2% | 13% | 33% | 37% | 15% | |
| 17 | RICCIO Frank J. | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 36% | 31% | 9% |
| 18 | KASI Sanjay | 1% | 7% | 24% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
| 19 | PRILUTSKY David B. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 41% | 25% |
| 20 | PRINCE Nicholas J. | 2% | 12% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 4% | |
| 21 | CARMAN Ian K. | 5% | 20% | 33% | 27% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 22 | LOCKWOOD Owen | 1% | 8% | 22% | 31% | 25% | 11% | 2% |
| 23 | MANGE Nathan | 1% | 7% | 22% | 33% | 26% | 10% | 1% |
| 24 | LIU Eric P. | 4% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 25 | RITCHIE Luke W. | - | 5% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 26 | GEE Brandon | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 4% |
| 27 | GU Jeffrey | 10% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 28 | CHU Derek | 12% | 32% | 34% | 17% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 29 | TSANG Matthew K. | 2% | 10% | 25% | 32% | 22% | 8% | 1% |
| 30 | ADLER Ian B. | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 4% |
| 31 | LEE Daniel C. | 1% | 6% | 18% | 30% | 29% | 14% | 3% |
| 32 | DIVENTI Paul W. | 1% | 9% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 6% | |
| 33 | VITI Mark G. | 2% | 11% | 26% | 32% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 34 | VANNI Filippo A. | 5% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 35 | GORDON-SAND Spencer | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 36 | WANG Michael | 1% | 7% | 23% | 34% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
| 37 | MARSHALL Ian | 2% | 17% | 36% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 38 | LIN Richard W. | - | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 3% |
| 39 | PANTEL Glenn S. | 3% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 11% | 2% | |
| 40 | DUNAT Maximilian (Max) D. | 11% | 31% | 35% | 18% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 41 | ENGEL Henry R. | 13% | 34% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 42 | HEALY Griffen | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 1% |
| 43 | BRANDT-OGMAN Adlai | 1% | 7% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
| 43 | BREIER Matthew F. | 3% | 15% | 30% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 45 | ZELTSER Lawrence M. | 5% | 22% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 46 | MA Alexander | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 36% | 22% | 4% |
| 47 | SACCOCCIO Nicholas P. | 1% | 8% | 22% | 32% | 26% | 10% | 2% |
| 48 | PYO Michael M. | 14% | 36% | 33% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
| 49 | SINGH Dayaal | 2% | 12% | 26% | 31% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
| 50 | GAEHDE Christian P. | 25% | 43% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 51 | ONIK Elijah T. | 5% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 52 | SPIRLI Francesco | 1% | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 53 | SANTULLI Tristan | 15% | 44% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 54 | LI Yulei | 14% | 40% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 55 | CHESTNA Samuel E. | 4% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 56 | MILLER Trent D. | 3% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 57 | KUZMAK Michael J. | 57% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 58 | SOUMAKIS Sarantos G. | 21% | 42% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 59 | SKOLNICK Michael W. | 45% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 60 | FRERE-CAROSSIO Quentin | 41% | 41% | 15% | 2% | - | - | |
| 61 | COSTELLO Chaissen F. | 1% | 17% | 35% | 31% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 62 | OZSOLAK Alex | 3% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 15% | 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.