Salt Lake City, UT - Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Explore the probability of achieving at least a certain number of victories in the pool for each fencer, with their actual victories highlighted in a box. Learn more.
| # | Name | Number of victories | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||
| 1 | IYOKI Kent | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 54% | 17% |
| 2 | KIM Juni C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 25% |
| 3 | ZAFFT Maximo S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 16% |
| 3 | LI Brian X | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 50% | 19% | 3% |
| 5 | POHL Merik A. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 54% | 21% | 3% |
| 6 | KRAVIT Connor B. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 62% | 20% | |
| 7 | BRISLAWN Reilly R. | 100% | 100% | 93% | 70% | 34% | 7% | |
| 8 | CAI Kevin P. | 100% | 100% | 93% | 69% | 33% | 7% | |
| 9 | LIU Alexander | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 15% | |
| 10 | BEKKER Mitchel | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 6% | |
| 11 | MALYSZ Anthony J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 22% | |
| 12 | SMITH Jackson | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 21% | 3% | |
| 13 | LEE Timothy S. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 6% |
| 14 | MCDERMOTT Brian | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 13% | |
| 15 | SHIV Rishi | 100% | 95% | 72% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 16 | DIECK Logan O. | 100% | 95% | 76% | 43% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 17 | LIN Kyran | 100% | 99% | 86% | 54% | 20% | 3% | |
| 18 | KOFROTH Zachary R. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 49% | 16% | 2% |
| 19 | GYURE Brayden H. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 40% | 10% | |
| 20 | PRASAD Ankith | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 24% | |
| 21 | LIU John | 100% | 97% | 78% | 42% | 12% | 1% | |
| 22 | GANA Jr Jorge M. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 41% | 13% | 2% |
| 23 | MOSES Alexander | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 45% | 10% | |
| 24 | GRAY Sterling B. | 100% | 100% | 93% | 70% | 33% | 7% | |
| 25 | SALISBURY Cary | 100% | 89% | 56% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 26 | INSLER Ethan C. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 61% | 25% | 4% |
| 27 | GARRETT Samuel | 100% | 99% | 87% | 56% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 28 | JAYENDRA Chandrashekar | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 34% | 7% |
| 29 | GRAYSON Shane W. | 100% | 97% | 72% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 30 | WELLS Tommy R. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 34% | 7% |
| 31 | MORSE Tyler | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 32% | 9% | 1% |
| 32 | SUICO Zachary Emanuel O. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 25% | 5% | |
| 33 | BLISS Atticus H. | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 46% | 17% | 3% |
| 34 | LLOYD Alex | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 22% | 5% | 1% |
| 35 | MIELE Benjamin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 79% | 47% | 14% |
| 36 | SHOURIE Jai | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
| 37 | WRIGHT Christopher | 100% | 88% | 53% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 38 | LEI Jacob | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 56% | 16% | |
| 38 | JOSEPH William | 100% | 84% | 44% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 40 | LIANG Aaron | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 24% | 4% | |
| 41 | JANG Elliot | 100% | 82% | 43% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 42 | GATZA Logan | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 40% | 13% | 2% |
| 43 | KIM Benjamin I. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 26% | 6% | 1% |
| 44 | SCHEMBRI MCCORD Kruz T. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 21% | |
| 45 | LOGUE Ethan D. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 33% | 9% | 1% | |
| 46 | STEVENS Daniel | 100% | 89% | 54% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 47 | LEE Alexander G. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 29% | 6% |
| 48 | ALVAREZ Ian T. | 100% | 86% | 51% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 49 | PARK Elliot | 100% | 86% | 48% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 50 | CHU Allan | 100% | 86% | 53% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 51 | STENNIS Brendan | 100% | 38% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 52 | SCRIBNER Aidan C. | 100% | 91% | 61% | 23% | 4% | - | |
| 53 | ZHAO Luhan | 100% | 80% | 40% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 54 | HARR Carver | 100% | 41% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
| 55 | GOHEL Dayus T. | 100% | 90% | 59% | 23% | 5% | - | |
| 56 | KOH Tommy | 100% | 72% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 57 | LOUIE Jason | 100% | 79% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 58 | HOGAN Gideon | 100% | 27% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
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.