Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center - National Harbor, DC, USA
Explore the pool victory probability density for each fencer, with their actual victories highlighted in a box. Learn more.
# | Name | Number of victories | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||
1 | TIYA BIAYA K. | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 39% | 52% |
2 | KNIZHNIK David | - | - | - | 5% | 35% | 60% | |
3 | ELWOOD Sebastian F. | - | - | - | 2% | 11% | 38% | 49% |
3 | MATSAKH Philip | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 37% | 14% | |
5 | LI Matthew | - | - | - | 1% | 13% | 44% | 43% |
6 | KALIPERSAD Neil A. | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 32% | 11% |
7 | PO Oliver | - | - | - | 1% | 13% | 42% | 44% |
8 | TIKHAEV Alexander | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 7% |
9 | TRAUGOT Owen G. | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 38% | 53% |
10 | PAN Henry | - | - | 1% | 10% | 34% | 41% | 14% |
11 | TANG August L. | - | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 12% |
12 | LING Eddie | - | - | - | 3% | 18% | 44% | 35% |
13 | LEE Brendan | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 5% |
14 | QIAN Jason H. | - | - | 1% | 15% | 46% | 38% | |
15 | SONG Austin | - | - | 4% | 25% | 53% | 18% | |
16 | SHEVCHENKO Kostiantyn | - | 1% | 7% | 30% | 40% | 20% | 3% |
17 | XU Andy P. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 30% | 39% | 19% |
18 | TANG Albert | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 28% | 9% |
19 | ORLOV Dmitriy | - | - | 1% | 9% | 32% | 43% | 15% |
20 | NGUYEN Martin | - | - | 1% | 7% | 31% | 46% | 15% |
21 | YAP Nathan | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 37% | 30% | 6% |
22 | LEVY Jacob | 1% | 11% | 27% | 33% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
23 | WANG Winston | - | - | 2% | 23% | 50% | 25% | |
24 | KLOTZ Isaiah | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 11% |
25 | XU Xinhao ( Sonny) | - | 5% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 2% |
26 | HUANG Eythan | - | - | 2% | 15% | 45% | 32% | 6% |
27 | SHENG Dalton | - | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 36% | 16% |
28 | ARIZA Abraham J. | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
29 | CHEN Kyle P. | 1% | 10% | 32% | 37% | 17% | 3% | |
30 | ZHAO Adam | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 40% | 17% | 2% |
31 | SUAREZ Adrian | 3% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% | |
32 | RNO Kyler | 2% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 15% | 3% | - |
33 | WECHSLER Jacob | - | - | 1% | 8% | 32% | 46% | 14% |
34 | SONG Noel | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 9% |
35 | STRINGER David | 1% | 9% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 6% | |
36 | GHEDINI Luca | 1% | 6% | 19% | 32% | 28% | 13% | 2% |
37 | SENIC Lucas | - | 4% | 21% | 38% | 29% | 8% | |
38 | PARRISH Evan | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 42% | 23% | 4% |
39 | SUN Ryan | 1% | 8% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
40 | LORENZO Alejandro | - | 1% | 10% | 28% | 36% | 20% | 4% |
40 | LIU Ethan | - | - | - | 4% | 28% | 48% | 19% |
40 | KAPOOR Aayan | - | 1% | 8% | 32% | 39% | 18% | 2% |
43 | YAO Bradley | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 4% |
44 | GRIFFITH MCALLISTER Thomas | - | 5% | 24% | 41% | 24% | 5% | - |
45 | TANG Terry | 1% | 10% | 26% | 33% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
46 | GERRISH William | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 2% |
47 | LI Bradley | 1% | 6% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 8% | |
48 | ZENG Rick | 1% | 10% | 34% | 42% | 12% | 1% | |
49 | DOELL Ethan | 15% | 35% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - | |
50 | ALONSO Vinicius | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 42% | 21% | 3% |
51 | ALLEN Henry G. | - | 2% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
52 | ARCE Andrew W. | 1% | 11% | 36% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - |
53 | FENG Michael | 3% | 21% | 43% | 27% | 5% | - | - |
54 | VISHAWADIA Jaimin | 10% | 39% | 42% | 8% | - | - | |
55 | FUKUDA Diego | - | 1% | 11% | 32% | 39% | 17% | |
56 | XU Ethan | - | 5% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 2% |
57 | XIE Buster | 5% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 11% | 2% | - |
58 | HE Kyle | 6% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
59 | CHUANG Oscar | 1% | 13% | 35% | 35% | 13% | 2% | - |
60 | JIANG Bowang | - | 3% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
61 | MAO Lucas | 1% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 5% | |
62 | WANG Brian | 6% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 1% | |
63 | TANG Alexander L. | - | 4% | 16% | 31% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
64 | CHO Xzander | 11% | 33% | 34% | 17% | 5% | 1% | - |
65 | ZAIDI Adil | 18% | 51% | 29% | 3% | - | - | |
66 | LEE Jonah | - | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 36% | 17% |
67 | TSAI Caleb | 3% | 17% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
68 | LU Nathan | 4% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - |
69 | CHEN Ethan | 1% | 10% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
70 | SURESH Rohan | 8% | 32% | 41% | 17% | 2% | - | |
71 | GUTH Joseph | - | 1% | 9% | 45% | 37% | 8% | |
72 | LI Lianhan | 2% | 17% | 36% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - |
73 | SHANNON Jack | 10% | 32% | 37% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
74 | RUIZ ALMEIDA Muhammad | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
75 | ZHANG Lucas | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
76 | MASSIMINO Andrew | 2% | 18% | 39% | 30% | 9% | 1% | - |
77 | XU Dinghui Ryan | 16% | 41% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
77 | KRAMER Ryan | 17% | 39% | 32% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
79 | BHAN Amar | 19% | 51% | 26% | 4% | - | - | - |
80 | YU William | 38% | 44% | 16% | 2% | - | - | |
81 | GRIEB Oliver | 22% | 44% | 27% | 6% | - | - | |
82 | LEE Ethan | 3% | 22% | 47% | 24% | 5% | - | - |
83 | XU Ethan | 4% | 25% | 39% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
84 | HASBUN Christopher | 3% | 42% | 38% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
85 | ZHANG Alex | 28% | 41% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
86 | KENNEDY christo | 6% | 30% | 40% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
87 | TAM Kyle | 57% | 35% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
88 | HUANG Chenghan | 9% | 32% | 38% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
89 | POWELL Sean | 20% | 46% | 28% | 6% | - | - | - |
90 | JURMAN Therin | 19% | 45% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - | |
91 | BAI Brian | 24% | 45% | 26% | 5% | - | - | |
92 | STRAYER Cody | 26% | 44% | 24% | 5% | - | - | - |
92 | ZAPPALA Nikolai | 10% | 32% | 37% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
94 | XIE Jicheng | 12% | 33% | 34% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
95 | MACKAY Ian | 89% | 10% | - | - | - | - | - |
95 | SANTOS Greyson | 44% | 39% | 14% | 3% | - | - | - |
97 | MONTERROSO Sebastian | 63% | 31% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
98 | XU Joseph | 43% | 44% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
99 | AGUILAR Eric | 39% | 45% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
99 | MA Ivan | 12% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
101 | COSSROW Alex | 53% | 39% | 7% | - | - | - | - |
The heatmap in this table provides a visual representation of the victory probability distribution for each fencer in their respective pools:
This heatmap visualization offers an immediate understanding of each fencer's expected performance compared to their actual results.