Fort Worth, TX - Fort Worth, TX, 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 | JI Cody Walter | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 64% |
2 | HUANG Ethan F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 22% |
3 | CHON Taylor A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 70% | 27% |
3 | MORRILL William | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 44% |
5 | WOODWARD Connor | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 30% |
6 | WANG Eric Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 57% | |
7 | KIM Shaun M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 52% | 13% | |
8 | HJERPE Wade H. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 52% | 16% | 2% |
9 | WANG Robert | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 34% | 7% |
10 | ZUBATIY Samuel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 76% | 35% | |
11 | KIM Alexander M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 15% |
12 | ERMAKOV Lev | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 59% | 18% |
13 | BERRIO Carter E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 80% | 41% | 9% |
14 | BABAYEV Gabriel A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 48% | 12% |
15 | SHOMAN Noah | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 55% | 15% | |
16 | VAUGHN Jason | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 17% | 2% | |
17 | WILSON Jude | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 43% |
18 | FENG Leo | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 63% | 19% |
19 | BAE Jason I. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 69% | 25% |
20 | QIU Nathan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 63% | 23% |
21 | CHAN Matthew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 74% | 30% |
22 | HONG Steven | 100% | 100% | 100% | 91% | 64% | 27% | 5% |
23 | SHOMAN Zachary | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 70% | 26% | |
24 | HOLZ Daniel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 48% | 11% |
25 | ATANASSOV Vasil V. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 60% | 18% |
26 | PATIL Aaryan A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 24% | 2% |
27 | YUN Jake | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 48% | 12% |
28 | LUO George F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 92% | 66% | 28% | 5% |
29 | NG Jeremiah | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 56% | 15% | |
30 | LIN Daniel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 71% | 31% | 6% |
30 | ZHANG Derek | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 48% | 15% | 2% |
32 | KUMAR Sachit | 100% | 61% | 16% | 1% | - | - | - |
33 | CHEONG Heonjun | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 56% | 17% | 2% |
34 | MAY Griffin M. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 39% | 8% | |
35 | AVAKIAN Alec | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 69% | 26% | |
36 | MORALES Jonathan | 100% | 96% | 77% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - |
37 | WANG Nicolas | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 18% | 2% |
38 | CHOI Silas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 28% | 4% |
39 | KWALWASSER Eric | 100% | 95% | 74% | 38% | 11% | 2% | - |
40 | REN James | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 21% | 2% | |
41 | STONE Esmond A. | 100% | 96% | 78% | 44% | 14% | 2% | |
42 | MCCARTHY Gabriel | 100% | 100% | 93% | 69% | 30% | 4% | |
43 | YANG Dylan | 100% | 100% | 89% | 48% | 13% | 2% | - |
44 | LIM William J. | 100% | 100% | 93% | 64% | 24% | 4% | - |
45 | MICLAUS Justin | 100% | 100% | 92% | 65% | 27% | 6% | - |
46 | SU Landon | 100% | 100% | 98% | 77% | 40% | 11% | 1% |
47 | KILARI Krish | 100% | 95% | 70% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - |
48 | CHAN Aidan | 100% | 99% | 89% | 57% | 19% | 3% | - |
49 | LIU Christopher X. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 15% | 1% |
50 | KROON Lucas | 100% | 94% | 70% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - |
51 | GONZALEZ Emilio A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 39% | 7% |
52 | HUANG Alex F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 68% | 21% |
53 | ANTHONY Devyn V. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 38% | 9% |
54 | RADY-PENTEK Charles A. | 100% | 96% | 75% | 37% | 9% | 1% | |
55 | DUDNICK Christian | 100% | 86% | 48% | 14% | 2% | - | |
56 | ZHANG Ethan W. | 100% | 94% | 65% | 26% | 5% | - | |
57 | HOLZ William A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 23% | 3% |
58 | HU Christopher | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 25% | 4% |
59 | PRIMUS Nazir | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 53% | 16% | 1% |
60 | COOK Cole | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 35% | 10% | 1% |
61 | KALPATHY Rohit | 100% | 97% | 76% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - |
62 | HOUTZ Mitchell B. | 100% | 78% | 35% | 7% | 1% | - | |
63 | WU Richard | 100% | 98% | 79% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - |
64 | BELL III Alfred (Tripp) R. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 57% | 21% | 4% | - |
65 | MIYASAKI-CASTRO Masanobu | 100% | 85% | 45% | 11% | 1% | - | |
66 | YU Thomas | 100% | 98% | 76% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - |
67 | TSAI Michael T. | 100% | 95% | 54% | 16% | 2% | - | - |
68 | KERCHER Alexander | 100% | 99% | 85% | 50% | 17% | 3% | - |
69 | JORGESON Charlie | 100% | 90% | 49% | 13% | 1% | - | - |
69 | BYBEE Matthew | 100% | 25% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
71 | NIETO Titus P. | 100% | 99% | 84% | 45% | 12% | 1% | - |
72 | LO Bradley | 100% | 53% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
73 | ZHOU James Y. | 100% | 95% | 70% | 28% | 5% | - | - |
74 | LIN Philip T. | 100% | 92% | 64% | 29% | 7% | 1% | |
75 | HUNG Samuel | 100% | 89% | 53% | 17% | 2% | - | |
76 | CRAIG Samuel | 100% | 91% | 63% | 28% | 6% | 1% | |
77 | CARRINGTON IV William T. | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 13% | 2% | |
78 | WILKINSON James | 100% | 48% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
79 | NGUYEN Anthony | 100% | 65% | 21% | 3% | - | - | - |
80 | CHEN Evan P. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 55% | 19% | 3% | - |
81 | GUFFEY Christopher | 100% | 87% | 53% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
82 | TANG Charles | 100% | 84% | 47% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
83 | FLITSANOV Macabee | 100% | 87% | 46% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
84 | DECK Tyson | 100% | 93% | 37% | 6% | - | - | - |
85 | GONG Jerry | 100% | 58% | 17% | 2% | - | - | |
86 | CUNNINGHAM-SNELSON Aahil | 100% | 84% | 43% | 9% | 1% | - | |
87 | CRAIG Andrew | 100% | 78% | 36% | 8% | 1% | - | |
88 | PAN Alex | 100% | 87% | 44% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
88 | RODGERS Jacob | 100% | 14% | - | - | - | - | - |
90 | FANG Eason | 100% | 85% | 44% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
91 | MUNGOVAN Matthew | 100% | 42% | 7% | - | - | - | - |
92 | GUREVICH Savely | 100% | 67% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
92 | LIU Alexander | 100% | 24% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
92 | WANG HongXi | 100% | 86% | 45% | 12% | 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.