Aria Sofia Stahlhofen

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ 0 Current rating influence: This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ 0

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Round

2

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Outside the current rating period

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ 0 Current rating influence: This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ 0

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Outside the current rating period

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ 0 Current rating influence: This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ 0

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Round

3

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Outside the current rating period

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ 0 Current rating influence: This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ 0

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Outside the current rating period

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ 0 Current rating influence: This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ 0

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Round

3

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Outside the current rating period

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ 0 Current rating influence: This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ 0

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Round

2

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Outside the current rating period

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ 0 Current rating influence: This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ 0

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Outside the current rating period

Opponent rating

1,133

Expected win chance

70%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +10 Current rating influence: The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +10

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,133

Effective opponent evidence

7.4

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

70%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.84

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

3

Score

10–2

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,291

Expected win chance

50%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −10 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −10

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,291

Effective opponent evidence

8.8

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

50%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.59

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

4–2

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,540

Expected win chance

17%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −5 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −5

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,540

Effective opponent evidence

8.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

17%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.84

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

3

Score

0–2

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,117

Expected win chance

46%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +12 Current rating influence: This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +12

This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,117

Effective opponent evidence

1.7

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

46%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.84

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:53

Round

2

Score

1–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,115

Expected win chance

44%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +14 Current rating influence: This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. Within No-Gi this match has full weight: there were no other eligible matches at this event or other meetings with this opponent. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +14

This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating.

Within No-Gi this match has full weight: there were no other eligible matches at this event or other meetings with this opponent.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,115

Effective opponent evidence

1.0

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

44%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

1.00

Same-event matches

1

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

02:17

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,140

Expected win chance

51%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −19 Current rating influence: The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −19

The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,140

Effective opponent evidence

4.1

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

51%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.84

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

3

Score

0–2

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,291

Expected win chance

50%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +11 Current rating influence: This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +11

This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,291

Effective opponent evidence

8.8

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

50%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.59

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

2–2

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,201

Expected win chance

44%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +11 Current rating influence: This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +11

This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,201

Effective opponent evidence

2.8

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

44%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

01:22

Round

4

Score

2–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,062

Expected win chance

44%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +7 Current rating influence: This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +7

This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,062

Effective opponent evidence

2.8

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

44%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:35

Round

3

Score

4–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,362

Expected win chance

52%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −7 Current rating influence: The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −7

The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,362

Effective opponent evidence

8.9

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

52%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

0–2

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,097

Expected win chance

64%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +7 Current rating influence: The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +7

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 4 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,097

Effective opponent evidence

5.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

64%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

1

Score

2–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,361

Expected win chance

30%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −7 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −7

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,361

Effective opponent evidence

3.2

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

30%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:12

Round

2

Score

0–3

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ 0 Current rating influence: This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ 0

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Outside the current rating period

Opponent rating

1,362

Expected win chance

52%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −7 Current rating influence: The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −7

The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,362

Effective opponent evidence

8.9

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

52%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.54

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

3

Score

2–7

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,245

Expected win chance

52%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −14 Current rating influence: The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −14

The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,245

Effective opponent evidence

9.4

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

52%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:51

Round

1

Score

0–2

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,111

Expected win chance

44%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +9 Current rating influence: This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +9

This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,111

Effective opponent evidence

1.2

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

44%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.59

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

00:21

Round

2

Score

2–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,111

Expected win chance

44%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +9 Current rating influence: This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ +9

This win exceeded the model’s expectation, so it supports a higher rating.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 2 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,111

Effective opponent evidence

1.2

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

44%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.59

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

00:35

Round

1

Score

8–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,569

Expected win chance

28%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −3 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 3 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −3

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 3 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,569

Effective opponent evidence

20.3

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

28%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.44

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

3

Duration

00:43

Round

1

Score

2–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,569

Expected win chance

28%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −3 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 3 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −3

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 3 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,569

Effective opponent evidence

20.3

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

28%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.44

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

3

Duration

00:33

Round

2

Score

2–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,569

Expected win chance

28%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −3 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 3 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −3

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 3 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,569

Effective opponent evidence

20.3

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

28%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.44

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

3

Duration

00:43

Round

1

Score

4–7

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,632

Expected win chance

17%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −3 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −3

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,632

Effective opponent evidence

23.1

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

17%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.54

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

00:19

Round

1

Score

1–4

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,632

Expected win chance

18%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −3 Current rating influence: The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −3

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

The evidence weight is lower because these athletes met 2 times.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,632

Effective opponent evidence

23.1

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

18%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.54

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

00:15

Round

1

Score

1–0

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland

Opponent rating

1,230

Expected win chance

54%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −12 Current rating influence: The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored. The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event. This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches. Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Current rating influence ≈ −12

The loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 3 rated matches at this event.

Calculation details

This number estimates how much the published Overall rating would differ if this match were omitted. It is not a points transaction and cannot be added to other matches.

Later results can change this estimate when the model learns more about either athlete.

Opponent rating

1,230

Effective opponent evidence

1.7

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

54%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

11 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

1

Score

4–12

Academy during event

Renzo Gracie Holland