Sem Schildermans

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

28 rated matches · Established

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

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

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

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

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Duration

04:00

Round

3

Score

3–2

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

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

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Round

2

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

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

32 rated matches · Established

Duration

04:00

Round

1

Score

0–16

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Outside the current rating period

Opponent rating

1,184

Expected win chance

84%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +1 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. 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 ≈ +1

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.

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

1,184

Effective opponent evidence

8.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

84%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

01:24

Round

2

Score

8–1

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,583

Expected win chance

46%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −4 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 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 ≈ −4

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

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

1,583

Effective opponent evidence

28.9

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

46%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

01:26

Round

1

Score

0–1

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,293

Expected win chance

68%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +2 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. 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 ≈ +2

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.

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

1,293

Effective opponent evidence

16.0

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

68%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

00:44

Round

2

Score

4–1

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,628

Expected win chance

32%

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 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 ≈ −3

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

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

1,628

Effective opponent evidence

15.2

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

32%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

1

Score

2–16

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,583

Expected win chance

46%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −4 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 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 ≈ −4

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

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

1,583

Effective opponent evidence

28.9

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

46%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

3

Score

2–10

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,184

Expected win chance

84%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +1 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. 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 ≈ +1

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.

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

1,184

Effective opponent evidence

8.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

84%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

01:16

Round

2

Score

10–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,293

Expected win chance

68%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +2 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. 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 ≈ +2

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.

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

1,293

Effective opponent evidence

16.0

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

68%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

01:06

Round

3

Score

4–1

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,627

Expected win chance

39%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −4 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 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 ≈ −4

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

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

1,627

Effective opponent evidence

29.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

39%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

1

Score

0–2

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,182

Expected win chance

79%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +2 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 ≈ +2

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

1,182

Effective opponent evidence

5.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

79%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.84

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:44

Round

2

Score

0–2

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,606

Expected win chance

42%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −6 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 ≈ −6

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

1,606

Effective opponent evidence

25.8

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

42%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

01:04

Round

1

Score

0–4

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,464

Expected win chance

56%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +6 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 ≈ +6

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

1,464

Effective opponent evidence

17.3

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

56%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.84

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

01:34

Round

3

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,605

Expected win chance

42%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +8 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 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 ≈ +8

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

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

1,605

Effective opponent evidence

24.2

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

42%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

1–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,666

Expected win chance

29%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +10 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 ≈ +10

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

1,666

Effective opponent evidence

24.3

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

29%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.84

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

4–2

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,428

Expected win chance

68%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +4 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 ≈ +4

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

1,428

Effective opponent evidence

27.6

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

68%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.84

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:10

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,460

Expected win chance

58%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +5 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 ≈ +5

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

1,460

Effective opponent evidence

12.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

58%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

4

Score

2–2

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

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

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Round

4

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Outside the current rating period

Opponent rating

1,455

Expected win chance

54%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +5 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 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 ≈ +5

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly 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

1,455

Effective opponent evidence

14.5

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

54%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

01:15

Round

2

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,236

Expected win chance

62%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +3 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 ≈ +3

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

1,236

Effective opponent evidence

5.1

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

62%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

1

Score

13–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,219

Expected win chance

68%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +2 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 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 ≈ +2

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly 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

1,219

Effective opponent evidence

7.4

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

68%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

3

Score

5–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,328

Expected win chance

68%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +3 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 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 win supports a higher rating, but less strongly 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

1,328

Effective opponent evidence

4.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

68%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.54

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

7–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,168

Expected win chance

85%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +2 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 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 ≈ +2

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly 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

1,168

Effective opponent evidence

7.4

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

85%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

01:27

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,387

Expected win chance

61%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +4 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 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 ≈ +4

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly 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

1,387

Effective opponent evidence

11.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

61%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:33

Round

3

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,148

Expected win chance

75%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +1 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 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 ≈ +1

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly 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

1,148

Effective opponent evidence

4.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

75%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.54

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

02:11

Round

2

Score

7–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,248

Expected win chance

81%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +3 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 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 ≈ +3

The win supports a higher rating, but less strongly 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

1,248

Effective opponent evidence

4.6

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

81%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.76

Same-event matches

3

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

01:22

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,270

Expected win chance

64%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +3 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 ≈ +3

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

1,270

Effective opponent evidence

7.5

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

64%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

01:40

Round

5

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,160

Expected win chance

81%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +2 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 ≈ +2

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

1,160

Effective opponent evidence

8.1

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

81%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:33

Round

4

Score

6–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,304

Expected win chance

74%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +4 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 ≈ +4

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

1,304

Effective opponent evidence

2.8

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

74%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

3

Score

4–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,216

Expected win chance

83%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +3 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 ≈ +3

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

1,216

Effective opponent evidence

5.1

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

83%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

2–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,503

Expected win chance

56%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −5 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 ≈ −5

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

1,503

Effective opponent evidence

17.8

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

56%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

1–2

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,384

Expected win chance

64%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +4 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 ≈ +4

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

1,384

Effective opponent evidence

10.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

64%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

02:20

Round

1

Score

9–2

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,503

Expected win chance

56%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +4 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. 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 ≈ +4

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.

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

1,503

Effective opponent evidence

17.8

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

56%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

3

Score

2–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,393

Expected win chance

72%

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 5 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 loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 5 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

1,393

Effective opponent evidence

3.3

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

72%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.67

Same-event matches

5

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

1–9

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,353

Expected win chance

74%

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 6 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 loss weighs more negatively because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 6 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

1,353

Effective opponent evidence

3.5

Opponent rating status

Provisional

Expected win chance

74%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.64

Same-event matches

6

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

1–7

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,572

Expected win chance

44%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −4 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 5 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 ≈ −4

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 5 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

1,572

Effective opponent evidence

17.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

44%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.47

Same-event matches

5

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

1

Score

1–2

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,572

Expected win chance

44%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −4 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 5 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 ≈ −4

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 5 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

1,572

Effective opponent evidence

17.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

44%

Result

Loss

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.47

Same-event matches

5

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

03:00

Round

3

Score

0–6

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,423

Expected win chance

51%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +5 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 5 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 win supports a higher rating, but less strongly because the athlete was favored.

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 5 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

1,423

Effective opponent evidence

5.8

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

51%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.67

Same-event matches

5

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

01:00

Round

2

Score

0–5

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,215

Expected win chance

82%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +2 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 5 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 ≈ +2

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

The evidence weight is lower because this athlete had 5 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

1,215

Effective opponent evidence

12.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

82%

Result

Win

Format

No-Gi

Athlete’s No-Gi rating

28 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.67

Same-event matches

5

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

01:10

Round

1

Score

4–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,148

Expected win chance

83%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +1 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. 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 ≈ +1

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.

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

1,148

Effective opponent evidence

4.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

83%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.50

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

2

Duration

00:47

Round

5

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,397

Expected win chance

66%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −8 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. 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 ≈ −8

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.

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

1,397

Effective opponent evidence

7.4

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

66%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

4

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,710

Expected win chance

29%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ −4 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 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 ≈ −4

The stronger opponent reduces the negative influence.

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

1,710

Effective opponent evidence

34.8

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

29%

Result

Loss

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

2–9

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Opponent rating

1,103

Expected win chance

77%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +2 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 ≈ +2

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

1,103

Effective opponent evidence

5.7

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

77%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.71

Same-event matches

4

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

00:51

Round

1

Score

0–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

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

youth_ratings.formats.conflict

Duration

00:12

Round

3

Score

4–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

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

youth_ratings.formats.conflict

Duration

03:00

Round

2

Score

0–2

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

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

Win

Format

youth_ratings.formats.conflict

Duration

02:51

Round

1

Score

6–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg

Outside the current rating period

Opponent rating

1,081

Expected win chance

84%

Current estimated model contribution

Rating influence

≈ +2 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 ≈ +2

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

1,081

Effective opponent evidence

4.6

Opponent rating status

Established

Expected win chance

84%

Result

Win

Format

Gi

Athlete’s Gi rating

32 rated matches · Established

Evidence weight

0.84

Same-event matches

2

Meetings with this opponent

1

Duration

03:00

Round

3

Score

15–0

Academy during event

Brasa Limburg