New Haven, CT - New Haven, CT, 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 | WU Alexander | - | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 42% | 23% |
| 2 | KWON Ethan | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 42% | 41% |
| 3 | KAO Castor T. | - | - | - | 3% | 17% | 41% | 38% |
| 3 | LI Richard | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 42% | 41% |
| 5 | SCHENCK Koen M. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 42% | 22% |
| 6 | SHA Yi Peng | - | - | 5% | 22% | 43% | 30% | |
| 7 | BAE Kevin | - | 2% | 12% | 34% | 38% | 13% | |
| 8 | LE Vyn A. | 1% | 13% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 9 | HOOSHI Jayden C. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 33% | 39% | 15% |
| 10 | HOOSHI Dylan M. | - | - | - | 4% | 20% | 42% | 33% |
| 11 | LEE Jacob J | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 39% | 21% | 4% |
| 12 | DAI Jonathan T. | - | - | 2% | 16% | 38% | 34% | 10% |
| 13 | BRUK Peter J. | - | - | 2% | 12% | 34% | 39% | 13% |
| 14 | BING Charles | - | - | 2% | 14% | 36% | 37% | 11% |
| 15 | MAGIDSON Gabriel | - | - | 3% | 14% | 35% | 35% | 12% |
| 16 | LAURICELLA Douglas | - | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 40% | 18% |
| 17 | KIM Yonjae | - | - | 4% | 19% | 38% | 31% | 8% |
| 18 | BAS Liam | - | - | 1% | 10% | 40% | 49% | |
| 19 | JIANG Owen | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 20 | LI Eric | - | - | 5% | 25% | 40% | 24% | 5% |
| 21 | COSTELLO Chaissen F. | - | 1% | 9% | 35% | 43% | 12% | |
| 22 | FU Samuel Y. | - | 2% | 11% | 31% | 36% | 18% | 3% |
| 23 | GU Andrew | 1% | 8% | 28% | 37% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 24 | GONG Benjamin | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 38% | 18% | 3% |
| 25 | SHIN Joshua J. | - | 6% | 23% | 39% | 26% | 5% | |
| 26 | AHN Jun | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 6% |
| 27 | SONG Bryan | 3% | 23% | 40% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 28 | CHAN Tyler | - | - | 3% | 15% | 36% | 34% | 11% |
| 29 | BELLUOMO David C. | - | 2% | 15% | 44% | 33% | 6% | |
| 30 | TSAI Max W. | 3% | 25% | 40% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 31 | ZELTSER Lawrence M. | - | - | 3% | 19% | 39% | 31% | 8% |
| 32 | GUERRERO Isaac C. | - | 5% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
| 33 | TSIMIKLIS Yanni | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 34 | SIMA Congyu Josh | 6% | 28% | 39% | 21% | 5% | - | |
| 35 | KLEIN Sebastian W. | 2% | 19% | 48% | 26% | 5% | - | |
| 36 | DEGREMONT Henri S. | - | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 9% |
| 37 | TORRES Treston | 1% | 14% | 36% | 34% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 38 | VALENTON Timothy | 15% | 40% | 32% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 39 | PO Oliver | 2% | 16% | 35% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 40 | WOODTHORPE Michael G. | 15% | 42% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 41 | DAVIDSON Elliot | 2% | 27% | 41% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 42 | TALLARICO Matthew | 10% | 37% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 43 | MILLER Aidan A. | 7% | 30% | 38% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 44 | BOOTSMA Shane-Anson | 1% | 12% | 32% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 45 | WU Michael | 29% | 46% | 22% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 46 | YOON DYLAN | 33% | 44% | 19% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 47 | BUCKLEY-JONES Henry C. | 27% | 50% | 20% | 3% | - | - | |
| 48 | SYOMICHEV Gleb A. | 11% | 36% | 36% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 49 | MENG Zhaoyi | - | 9% | 30% | 38% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 50 | LIN James G. | 1% | 11% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 51 | ALIMI Yacine A. | 1% | 12% | 33% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 52 | TRAUGOT Owen G. | 1% | 12% | 33% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 53 | ZHEN Ethan | 1% | 9% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 6% | - |
| 54 | RNO Kyler | 62% | 31% | 6% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 55 | KALIPERSAD Neil A. | 30% | 43% | 21% | 4% | - | - | |
| 56 | MILLER Jordan | 37% | 43% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 57 | GARDOS Noah | 64% | 31% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 58 | POPE Alexander | 45% | 45% | 10% | 1% | - | - | |
| 59 | SHIKHMANQ Lennon | 44% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 60 | REZA Farazi | 23% | 47% | 26% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 61 | WERTZ Erik | 81% | 17% | 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.