Secaucus, NJ - Secaucus, NJ, 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 | MARX Jackson L. | - | - | - | 1% | 12% | 45% | 42% |
| 2 | LI Aaron | - | - | 2% | 13% | 38% | 40% | 7% |
| 3 | XU Andy P. | - | - | - | - | 4% | 28% | 67% |
| 3 | LIU Ethan | - | - | - | 5% | 23% | 47% | 25% |
| 5 | WONG Jackson | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 3% |
| 6 | CHENG Ethan | - | 5% | 22% | 40% | 29% | 4% | |
| 7 | BOBROW Silas | 4% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 1% | |
| 8 | YU Jason | - | - | 4% | 20% | 42% | 34% | |
| 9 | XU Jia Bao (Bowen) | - | - | - | - | 3% | 26% | 71% |
| 10 | LIU Derek | - | - | 2% | 14% | 41% | 42% | |
| 11 | SHEN Mingxuan | - | 1% | 4% | 18% | 37% | 33% | 7% |
| 12 | CHUNG Ethan Sheng Xuan | - | - | 4% | 18% | 42% | 36% | |
| 13 | WONG Jacob W. | - | 11% | 33% | 37% | 17% | 2% | |
| 14 | SHIM Peter S. | 1% | 6% | 22% | 36% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
| 15 | GULCHIN Mark | - | - | 4% | 18% | 39% | 34% | 5% |
| 16 | GHEDINI Luca | 1% | 9% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
| 17 | KOKES William | - | 2% | 11% | 32% | 38% | 16% | |
| 18 | CHEN Kyle P. | - | - | - | 4% | 20% | 42% | 33% |
| 19 | TAN Aidan | - | 2% | 13% | 33% | 36% | 14% | 1% |
| 20 | ONIK Ari N. | - | 4% | 20% | 38% | 29% | 8% | - |
| 20 | ZHANG Aaron | 1% | 7% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
| 22 | LEE Brendan | 1% | 10% | 32% | 36% | 17% | 3% | |
| 23 | YAO Bradley | - | 2% | 13% | 33% | 35% | 15% | 2% |
| 24 | TOOMRE Luca | 1% | 8% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 25 | TANG Alexander L. | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 9% | |
| 26 | RAJ Jay | - | 10% | 33% | 38% | 17% | 2% | |
| 27 | GERRISH William | - | 5% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 8% | - |
| 28 | ZHANG Raphael | - | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 38% | 16% |
| 29 | CHA James | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 7% | - |
| 30 | ZENG Rick | 17% | 38% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 31 | HE Yuxiang | - | 5% | 22% | 40% | 28% | 5% | |
| 32 | SIMONOV Timofey | - | 4% | 19% | 38% | 31% | 8% | |
| 33 | MAO Lucas | 1% | 10% | 31% | 37% | 18% | 3% | |
| 34 | LI Bradley | 4% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% | |
| 35 | YU ZiRun (Kinton) | - | 3% | 12% | 27% | 33% | 20% | 5% |
| 36 | ZHANG Lucas | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 2% |
| 37 | YEVDAYEV Tamir | 10% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 38 | PEARL Benjamin | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 4% |
| 39 | TANG Royce | 18% | 40% | 30% | 10% | 2% | - | |
| 40 | HUANG Christopher | 2% | 11% | 30% | 36% | 18% | 3% | |
| 41 | TOOMRE Kai | 7% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 42 | MANIKTALA Suvir | 5% | 28% | 37% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 43 | BANG Sian | 42% | 40% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 44 | NORMILE Nicholas | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 39% | 25% | 3% |
| 45 | JIANG Matthew | 2% | 15% | 36% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 46 | LIU Robert | 32% | 43% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 47 | PHAM Kian | 5% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 48 | PALMA Nathan Anthony | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 49 | HONG Logan | 12% | 36% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | |
| 50 | LONGENBACH Matiuss | 4% | 26% | 39% | 24% | 6% | 1% | |
| 51 | DONG Joshua | 41% | 43% | 15% | 2% | - | - | |
| 52 | LEE Daniel | 2% | 23% | 41% | 26% | 7% | 1% | |
| 53 | MARTIRE Luca | 6% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 54 | KARPESHOV Maddox | 10% | 32% | 37% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 55 | POLEBOYINA Amrit | 2% | 19% | 37% | 30% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 56 | CHEN Thomas | 31% | 43% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 57 | CASSESE Tyler | 4% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 58 | LIN Johnson | 5% | 23% | 39% | 25% | 7% | 1% | |
| 59 | MCALLISTER thomas | 80% | 18% | 1% | - | - | - | |
| 60 | MCLENDON Dario | 22% | 40% | 28% | 9% | 2% | - | - |
| 61 | LAU Kyrus | 8% | 32% | 38% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 62 | SICAT Justin | 11% | 37% | 37% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 63 | YU William | 3% | 24% | 49% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
| 64 | SHAW Spencer | 7% | 29% | 40% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 65 | LIN Wilson | 3% | 22% | 41% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 66 | WANG Ralph | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
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.