USA Fencing National Championships & July Challenge

Y-12 Men's Épée

Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 8:00 AM

Minneapolis, MN, 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 DAVOODIAN Christopher 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 93% 61%
2 DODIN David 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 90% 55%
3 TRULL A.J. 100% 100% 99% 91% 65% 24%
3 ZHENG Andy 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 83% 41%
5 HAMZA Tudor 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 81% 36%
6 CHEN Zhengyang 100% 100% 99% 92% 66% 25%
7 SINGH Ravin 100% 100% 95% 76% 41% 10%
8 KIM Jayden 100% 100% 100% 96% 82% 49% 14%
9 KOPPENHEFFER Rowan 100% 100% 94% 72% 36% 9% 1%
10 LEE Aiden 100% 100% 99% 91% 70% 36% 9%
11 CHOI Zachary 100% 100% 98% 89% 64% 30% 7%
12 ERLIKHMAN Adrian 100% 100% 99% 92% 69% 34% 7%
13 GRAVES Lawson 100% 100% 96% 78% 44% 11%
14 MAO Benjamin 100% 100% 100% 99% 90% 64% 24%
15 CARTY JR Johndale 100% 100% 99% 93% 70% 31% 4%
16 ZENG Andrew 100% 99% 93% 68% 31% 6%
17 SOKOL Luke 100% 100% 99% 95% 78% 43% 10%
18 BUI Henry 100% 100% 99% 89% 61% 25% 4%
19 DONAHUE Lake 100% 100% 98% 87% 57% 18%
20 TWEMLOW Sacha 100% 99% 94% 73% 39% 11% 1%
21 ELHUSSEINI Dylan 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 84% 44%
22 NAKAS Levent 100% 100% 100% 99% 93% 70% 27%
23 LIOZNYANSKY Miron 100% 99% 92% 69% 36% 11% 1%
24 LIU Adam 100% 100% 96% 78% 45% 15% 2%
25 LAM Alan 100% 100% 98% 86% 55% 17%
26 SERAFYM Damian 100% 100% 96% 79% 45% 12%
27 MITEV Alexander 100% 100% 100% 98% 87% 56% 17%
28 LAI Boden 100% 100% 99% 93% 72% 36% 8%
29 PARK Sangwook 100% 100% 100% 98% 87% 54% 13%
30 CORBIN Bennett 100% 100% 100% 98% 89% 59% 19%
31 HERNDON Liam 100% 100% 96% 75% 34% 7% -
32 FENG shang 100% 100% 98% 88% 60% 25% 5%
33 LOISEAU Oscar 100% 100% 98% 90% 67% 34% 8%
34 SAUNIER Cameron 100% 100% 99% 90% 65% 28% 5%
35 YANG Gary 100% 99% 94% 71% 36% 10% 1%
36 ELHUSSEINI Kyle 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 71% 24%
37 LU Jacob 100% 100% 97% 85% 55% 21% 3%
38 ALI Farhan 100% 100% 98% 88% 64% 31% 7%
39 MANGAN Hunter 100% 90% 58% 23% 5% -
40 RUSSELL Michael 100% 95% 70% 32% 8% 1%
41 ZIEGLER John 100% 100% 95% 76% 39% 10% 1%
42 KIM Teddy 100% 100% 94% 73% 38% 10% 1%
43 FRANGER Max 100% 99% 93% 72% 39% 12% 1%
44 CHEN Leonardo 100% 100% 97% 81% 46% 14% 1%
45 LIU Yueri 100% 100% 98% 90% 64% 28% 5%
46 MEHROTRA Neel 100% 100% 100% 97% 83% 50% 15%
47 ZAHRAN Aiden 100% 100% 96% 79% 46% 14% 2%
48 LEE DoWon 100% 99% 89% 60% 24% 5% -
49 LEE Inwoo 100% 100% 100% 98% 87% 56% 17%
50 REAGAN Henry 100% 100% 100% 97% 84% 52% 16%
51 TAI Edison 100% 100% 95% 79% 49% 19% 3%
52 BORISENKO Samuel 100% 96% 78% 43% 14% 2%
53 KUGLER Luke 100% 99% 88% 59% 23% 4%
54 VYSOTSKIY Evan 100% 100% 97% 82% 49% 15% 1%
55 WANG Joey 100% 100% 99% 94% 76% 41% 10%
56 MIDYANY Evan 100% 99% 88% 57% 23% 5% -
57 GINZBURG Adam 100% 100% 99% 91% 66% 30% 6%
57 CHEN Bowen 100% 100% 95% 77% 43% 14% 2%
59 SOBESHKEVYCH ROMAN 100% 98% 84% 51% 18% 3% -
60 KUPPUSAMY Kotravel 100% 96% 76% 42% 14% 2% -
61 MODANLOU Navid 100% 98% 82% 47% 15% 2%
62 CHUTKAY Sai Pratham 100% 100% 96% 78% 44% 11%
63 HEADRICK Jack 100% 100% 98% 84% 53% 19% 3%
64 YILMAZ Tarik 100% 99% 91% 64% 27% 5%
65 SIEDOW William 100% 85% 49% 17% 3% -
66 JOHNSON Soren 100% 94% 69% 34% 9% 1% -
67 NILSEN Mark 100% 91% 63% 27% 7% 1% -
68 DODIN Daniel M. 100% 100% 97% 83% 52% 19% 3%
69 LIU Josh 100% 100% 95% 74% 37% 8%
70 JAIN Samyak 100% 100% 98% 87% 58% 22% 3%
71 MANA Arnav 100% 96% 78% 43% 14% 3% -
72 OSBORN Hunter 100% 100% 100% 99% 91% 66% 25%
73 NOVOJILOV Daniel 100% 93% 69% 34% 10% 1% -
74 DECKER Hunter 100% 94% 72% 38% 13% 2% -
75 SINGLETON Aman 100% 97% 83% 54% 23% 5% 1%
76 BRADSHAW Carter 100% 99% 91% 66% 32% 8% 1%
77 HUANG Kenneth 100% 98% 86% 55% 20% 3%
78 DODDAPANENI Aarav 100% 96% 77% 42% 13% 2%
79 RAHMAN Ali 100% 100% 96% 77% 40% 9%
80 TUSANTOSO McKenzie 100% 99% 90% 63% 27% 5%
80 AHN EZRA 100% 89% 56% 21% 4% -
82 ELMARSAFI Nurideen 100% 86% 47% 15% 2% -
83 BAKKEN Archer 100% 91% 63% 30% 9% 1% -
84 KUANG Bryan 100% 98% 86% 59% 27% 7% 1%
85 MOORE Alexander 100% 100% 95% 76% 41% 12% 1%
86 PAN Anthony 100% 85% 49% 17% 3% - -
87 CZEPLA Andrew 100% 99% 79% 42% 13% 2% -
88 ARMSTRONG TyLee 100% 98% 83% 50% 18% 3% -
89 WU Nathan 100% 97% 83% 54% 24% 6% 1%
90 SOLARZ Arthur 100% 76% 33% 6% 1% - -
91 LI Ray 100% 78% 34% 7% 1% - -
92 YAO Tristan 100% 98% 88% 63% 30% 9% 1%
93 RAHMAN Zayd 100% 92% 65% 30% 8% 1% -
94 ROSADO Balthazar Francisco 100% 66% 23% 4% - - -
95 KANG Brandon 100% 97% 80% 46% 16% 3% -
96 DOAN Christopher 100% 93% 64% 25% 5% - -
97 LEUNG Dylan 100% 98% 88% 63% 31% 9% 1%
98 SHCHUR Grayson 100% 100% 99% 88% 56% 17% 2%
99 GOROZA Eric 100% 63% 22% 4% - -
100 MA Ryan 100% 71% 29% 6% 1% -
101 JIANG Oscar 100% 96% 77% 43% 13% 2%
102 TUMULA Arihaan 100% 81% 39% 11% 2% - -
103 SHAFFER Tyler 100% 93% 64% 23% 4% - -
104 KIM Tae 100% 99% 93% 72% 40% 13% 2%
104 PARK Aiden 100% 96% 77% 43% 14% 2% -
106 GUO Lucas 100% 96% 72% 35% 10% 1% -
107 NORMILE Nicholas 100% 98% 84% 51% 18% 3% -
108 STARKIE Kitteridge 100% 94% 71% 34% 9% 1% -
109 FU Adrian 100% 83% 45% 14% 2% - -
110 KLINKNER Richard 100% 96% 74% 38% 11% 2% -
111 DAI Chengwen 100% 91% 60% 23% 5% - -
112 SRINIVASAN Sanat Ram 100% 68% 25% 5% - - -
113 HANNA Alexander 100% 16% 1% - - - -
114 KIM Henry 100% 96% 73% 37% 11% 1% -
115 KONG Brandon 100% 91% 62% 27% 6% 1% -
116 MAXU Tiger 100% 95% 73% 37% 10% 1%
117 KE Sebastian 100% 83% 45% 14% 2% - -
118 CAFASSO Alexander 100% 93% 67% 31% 8% 1%
118 RONG Gordon 100% 94% 67% 30% 7% 1%
120 KIM Alexander 100% 86% 52% 20% 4% 1% -
120 HARGREAVES Ryan 100% 95% 73% 38% 12% 2% -
120 HSU Joshua 100% 57% 17% 3% - - -
123 WAGHOLIKAR Prathit 100% 70% 27% 5% 1% - -
124 KIM Remington 100% 68% 27% 6% 1% - -
125 KIM Julian 100% 90% 61% 26% 7% 1% -
126 NOOL Alexander 100% 56% 16% 2% - - -
127 ROSIELLO Francesco 100% 54% 14% 2% - -
128 CLARKSON Moby 100% 92% 60% 23% 4% - -

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.