July Challenge & Parafencing Nat'l Championships

Cadet Men's Saber

Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 8:15 AM

Salt Lake City, UT - Salt Lake City, UT, 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 JI Cody Walter 100% 100% 100% 98% 90% 63% 23%
2 YUN Jake 100% 100% 100% 96% 80% 43% 7%
3 HO Kaden M. 100% 98% 88% 61% 27% 5%
3 SO Hananiah 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 77% 35%
5 CHON Taylor A. 100% 100% 96% 81% 48% 13%
6 WU Mengke 100% 100% 100% 98% 86% 53% 14%
7 FENG Leo 100% 100% 99% 91% 64% 27% 5%
8 KOTOV Leonid 100% 99% 94% 76% 45% 16% 3%
9 SILBERZWEIG Jordan H. 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 94% 64%
9 DHINGRA Gian K. 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 87% 48%
11 TONG ZACHARY 100% 100% 98% 85% 54% 16%
12 HONG Vincent Q. 100% 100% 97% 82% 49% 13%
13 WANG Eric Y. 100% 100% 100% 96% 82% 50% 15%
14 SHIRPAL Oleksandr 100% 100% 99% 95% 78% 42% 10%
15 JIANG Anthony 100% 100% 96% 81% 47% 13%
16 LINSKY Matthew 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 83% 43%
17 LIANG Connor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 67%
18 HOUTZ Jackson 100% 99% 94% 73% 39% 10%
19 CHIN Matthew W. 100% 99% 94% 75% 41% 11%
20 YUN Jaesun 100% 100% 99% 93% 75% 42% 11%
21 KIM Shaun M. 100% 100% 95% 77% 44% 14% 2%
22 WOODWARD Connor 100% 100% 99% 92% 69% 32% 6%
23 SHOMAN Noah 100% 98% 82% 50% 19% 4% -
24 SIMAK Joseph P. 100% 100% 99% 92% 70% 35% 8%
24 LEE Justin 100% 100% 97% 81% 43% 12% 1%
26 NOBLE Colin 100% 100% 99% 87% 57% 21% 3%
27 MARGULIES William 100% 93% 68% 35% 11% 2% -
28 GUZZO Vito 100% 100% 95% 69% 27% 4%
29 BULL Anderson 100% 100% 96% 71% 29% 4%
30 HAN Daniel Y. 100% 99% 89% 62% 26% 4%
31 ATANASSOV Vasil V. 100% 97% 81% 48% 16% 2%
32 HONG Steven 100% 98% 84% 56% 24% 6% 1%
33 TANN Justin 100% 100% 100% 96% 82% 51% 15%
34 KIM Alexander M. 100% 100% 100% 96% 81% 48% 13%
35 LUKASHENKO Darii 100% 100% 100% 98% 90% 63% 23%
35 ERMAKOV Lev 100% 100% 98% 88% 63% 29% 6%
37 BERMAN Luca 100% 100% 99% 91% 67% 31% 6%
38 GHAYALOD ansh 100% 100% 99% 91% 67% 31% 6%
39 YANG Duncan (BoTong) 100% 100% 98% 87% 59% 25% 5%
40 HUANG Alexander C. 100% 95% 76% 43% 15% 3% -
41 DU Gavin J. 100% 97% 82% 50% 19% 3%
42 FERNANDEZ Rodrigo 100% 100% 100% 99% 87% 47%
43 GREENBAUM Ian L. 100% 100% 96% 78% 42% 11% 1%
44 XU Andrew 100% 100% 95% 75% 39% 11% 1%
45 NAZLYMOV Andrei 100% 99% 89% 61% 27% 6% 1%
46 HOLZ Daniel 100% 100% 99% 93% 67% 27% 4%
47 STONE Esmond A. 100% 100% 96% 80% 44% 11% 1%
48 BABAYEV Gabriel A. 100% 100% 99% 88% 60% 23% 2%
49 CHOI Silas 100% 96% 77% 46% 17% 4% -
50 CHEONG Heonjae 100% 100% 97% 84% 53% 19% 2%
51 ERACHSHAW Cyrus P. 100% 100% 95% 80% 51% 20% 4%
52 KAKEHI Nicholas B. 100% 95% 74% 38% 11% 1%
53 COLE Alexander 100% 96% 77% 44% 14% 2%
54 KIBBAR Tomer L. 100% 100% 97% 84% 54% 21% 3%
55 MORRILL William 100% 100% 100% 99% 94% 71% 29%
55 ZHENG Edward L. 100% 100% 94% 75% 41% 13% 2%
57 QIU Nathan 100% 100% 97% 80% 45% 14% 2%
57 HOLZ William A. 100% 99% 90% 64% 30% 8% 1%
59 ROSBERG Dashiell W. 100% 98% 88% 62% 30% 8% 1%
60 MAKLIN Edward P. 100% 99% 90% 67% 35% 11% 1%
61 XU William 100% 99% 93% 72% 37% 9%
62 SWORDS Evan F. 100% 97% 81% 50% 21% 5% -
63 DOLAN Charles R. 100% 100% 89% 57% 22% 4% -
64 ZHANG Yankun 100% 84% 41% 10% 1% - -
65 SANDERS Samuel B. 100% 100% 86% 52% 18% 3% -
66 ZUBATIY Samuel 100% 100% 98% 91% 69% 35% 9%
67 CHEN Evan P. 100% 89% 58% 24% 6% 1% -
68 WU Richard 100% 77% 36% 9% 1% - -
69 ZHOU Miles 100% 96% 78% 44% 15% 2%
70 MCCARTHY Gabriel 100% 89% 59% 25% 6% 1%
71 POPE Nico 100% 100% 99% 91% 67% 31% 6%
72 REN James 100% 98% 85% 57% 26% 7% 1%
73 SHOMAN Zachary 100% 100% 100% 95% 73% 34% 5%
74 ALTIRS Giorgio 100% 79% 39% 11% 2% - -
75 OVERDECK Andrew 100% 99% 89% 62% 28% 7% 1%
76 RHEE Ethan N. 100% 98% 86% 60% 28% 8% 1%
76 KUMAR Sachit 100% 64% 23% 4% - - -
78 LEE Aydan J. 100% 98% 87% 58% 24% 5% -
79 RAJAN Advait 100% 76% 37% 10% 2% - -
80 BONSELL Vance 100% 96% 75% 40% 13% 2% -
81 CHANG Colin S. 100% 100% 96% 74% 32% 5%
82 CHAUDHURI Eeshaan A. 100% 84% 48% 16% 3% -
83 MOULTON Ian 100% 66% 16% 2% - -
84 HJERPE Wade H. 100% 97% 83% 50% 17% 3%
85 DENG Andrew 100% 99% 93% 71% 37% 11% 1%
86 GOLDMAN Noah R. 100% 98% 86% 54% 20% 4% -
87 OH Triton 100% 98% 86% 54% 19% 3% -
87 BONN-ELCHONESS Peter 100% 20% 2% - - - -
89 LU Caleb Q. 100% 96% 77% 43% 14% 2% -
90 HUANG Tom 100% 93% 59% 21% 4% - -
91 KUSHKOV Veniamin 100% 96% 79% 47% 18% 4% -
92 RADY-PENTEK Charles A. 100% 93% 66% 29% 7% 1% -
92 LIU Mingyang Ryan 100% 95% 72% 36% 10% 1% -
94 LIN Daniel 100% 97% 82% 52% 22% 5% 1%
95 LIU Christopher X. 100% 92% 67% 34% 11% 2% -
96 CHTERENTAL Alex 100% 92% 61% 25% 6% 1% -
97 YANG Ziyi 100% 100% 99% 96% 81% 49% 15%
97 ZHOU Brian 100% 100% 95% 73% 36% 9% 1%
99 AVAKIAN Alec 100% 100% 99% 91% 66% 30% 6%
100 TANG Alex Y. 100% 100% 97% 83% 53% 19% 3%
101 EICHHORN Lukas H. 100% 99% 94% 74% 39% 12% 1%
102 WANG Nicolas 100% 96% 78% 43% 14% 2% -
103 ZHOU Aeres Z. 100% 97% 79% 46% 16% 3% -
104 MISHRA Aadi 100% 38% 6% - - - -
105 LINDHOLM Oliver S. 100% 95% 73% 38% 12% 1%
106 ZHANG Derek 100% 90% 59% 24% 5% -
107 NG Jeremiah 100% 93% 69% 34% 9% 1%
108 PIWOWAR Alex 100% 91% 62% 28% 7% 1%
109 SCHERER Max 100% 89% 56% 21% 4% -
110 VO Minh Q. 100% 81% 41% 12% 2% -
110 GHENEA George Philipe 100% 98% 85% 55% 21% 4%
112 KIM Ryan 100% 63% 16% 2% - -
113 CHEN Leo 100% 100% 96% 82% 53% 21% 4%
114 LANNAMAN Connor 100% 89% 55% 20% 4% - -
115 BERRIO Carter E. 100% 100% 98% 89% 63% 28% 5%
116 BROU Inkosi 100% 98% 85% 54% 22% 4% -
117 KIM Andrew H. 100% 100% 98% 88% 63% 29% 6%
118 ZHANG Jeffrey 100% 100% 93% 67% 30% 7% -
119 CHEONG Heonjun 100% 96% 74% 39% 12% 2% -
120 ZHU Charlie 100% 64% 23% 5% 1% - -
121 LEUNG Nathan 100% 97% 65% 23% 4% - -
122 CHAN Aidan 100% 99% 78% 37% 9% 1% -
123 DUDNICK Christian 100% 75% 33% 8% 1% - -
124 PERRON Robert 100% 90% 46% 13% 2% - -
125 VELTZ Tyler J. 100% 14% 1% - - - -
126 GRATHWOL-SEAR Oliver 100% 86% 50% 17% 3% - -
126 WANG Liuao 100% 81% 38% 10% 1% - -
128 MONSON Eli 100% 79% 39% 11% 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.