Ontario Convention Center - Hall B - Ontario, CA, 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 | LO Jake | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 23% |
2 | DAVOODIAN Christopher | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 26% |
3 | LIN Kyran | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 70% |
3 | FU Leon | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 21% |
5 | ZHENG Haoran | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 69% |
6 | KIM Nathan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 26% |
7 | DOWDELL Riley | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 47% | 10% |
8 | RICHARDS Jackson D. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 15% |
9 | WANG Devon | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 59% |
10 | KIM Sullivan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 33% | 7% |
11 | CHIRASHNYA Daniel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 55% | 18% |
12 | DRIBIN Ezra | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 23% |
13 | MULCAHY Olaf | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 58% | 17% |
14 | QUITORIANO Matthew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 42% | 10% |
15 | GINZBURG Adam | 100% | 94% | 71% | 36% | 11% | 1% | - |
16 | SINHA Zaan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 61% | 26% | 5% |
17 | LEE Inwoo | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 56% | 23% | 4% |
18 | BAZHENOV Anthony | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 43% | 10% |
19 | GAO Chaney C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 46% | 8% |
20 | CASTELLY Luke | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 40% | 11% |
21 | DAO Alexander | 100% | 98% | 89% | 64% | 32% | 10% | 1% |
22 | KNUDSEN Travis | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 65% | 30% | 6% |
23 | CHOI Kaiden I. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 23% | 3% |
24 | CHEN Bailey | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 30% | 5% |
25 | ZHU Eric | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 50% | 15% |
26 | GAO Zachary | 100% | 99% | 90% | 67% | 35% | 11% | 1% |
27 | HIGGINS Calvin | 100% | 98% | 83% | 50% | 17% | 3% | - |
28 | KIM Jayden | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 49% | 18% | 3% |
29 | BARG Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 38% | 8% |
30 | LOFTUS Luca | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 37% | 12% | 2% |
31 | TANDOC Noah | 100% | 75% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
32 | FERRIERE Joshua | 100% | 100% | 97% | 86% | 60% | 27% | 5% |
33 | OBERDERFER Vladimir | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
34 | KIM Ian | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 43% | 13% | 2% |
35 | WANG Owen | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 15% |
36 | PAK Elliot | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 61% | 27% | 5% |
37 | LIU Yikun | 100% | 98% | 83% | 45% | 12% | 1% | - |
38 | PRAKASH Hari | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 22% | 2% |
39 | JU Hanul | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
40 | HOGE William P. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
41 | MIAO Kunqi | 100% | 99% | 85% | 51% | 17% | 3% | - |
42 | MEHROTRA Neel | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 44% | 13% | 1% |
43 | CHEN Zhengyang | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 48% | 13% |
43 | DONAHUE Lake | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
45 | KAO Yishane | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 22% |
46 | VILLALOBOSKOWALSKI Demetrious C. | 100% | 96% | 73% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - |
47 | XIONG Aaron | 100% | 95% | 76% | 43% | 16% | 3% | - |
48 | HERNDON Liam | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 20% | 3% | - |
49 | MENDOZA Zander | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 23% | 5% | 1% |
50 | YU Austin | 100% | 92% | 65% | 32% | 9% | 2% | - |
51 | CHEN Josh | 100% | 81% | 43% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
52 | SU Oliver | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 33% | 8% | 1% |
53 | SEO Shawn | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 25% | 6% | 1% |
54 | KIM Teddy | 100% | 97% | 79% | 44% | 13% | 2% | - |
55 | MORALES Esteban | 100% | 94% | 70% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - |
56 | RAHMAN Yousef | 100% | 82% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
57 | HALL Gabriel | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 22% | 5% | - |
58 | DE LA TORRE PEREZ Jesus Adiel | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 34% | 10% | 1% |
59 | CHANG Andrew | 100% | 92% | 63% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
60 | MAJAM Brandon Audie | 100% | 96% | 77% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
61 | LIANG Eric | 100% | 87% | 50% | 16% | 2% | - | - |
62 | TUSANTOSO McKenzie | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 44% | 12% | 1% |
63 | LAU Christian | 100% | 92% | 63% | 25% | 5% | 1% | - |
64 | ARMITAGE Liam | 100% | 85% | 47% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
65 | MARTIN Charles | 100% | 98% | 88% | 61% | 28% | 6% | - |
66 | NUGENT Jack | 100% | 98% | 82% | 47% | 14% | 2% | - |
67 | DENISON Declan | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 39% | 11% | 1% |
68 | OLSON christopher | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 41% | 14% | 2% |
69 | TAI Edison | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 44% | 12% | 1% |
70 | MAXU Tiger | 100% | 96% | 76% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - |
71 | NG Biwon | 100% | 95% | 71% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - |
72 | LI zerong | 100% | 88% | 53% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
73 | LEE JiYuen | 100% | 80% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
74 | WANG Joey | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 23% | 4% |
75 | HINTON Evan | 100% | 89% | 57% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - |
76 | ANDERSON Kai | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
77 | LEE Damien | 100% | 88% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
78 | JAIN Samyak | 100% | 98% | 83% | 49% | 15% | 2% | - |
79 | GOROZA Eric | 100% | 72% | 28% | 5% | - | - | - |
80 | LIU Yueri | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
80 | SIM Ian | 100% | 75% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
80 | KIM Justin | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
83 | PERKINS Jaray | 100% | 73% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
84 | ABELAR Jacob | 100% | 97% | 80% | 43% | 12% | 1% | - |
85 | GUO Woody | 100% | 64% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
86 | RAHMAN Zayd | 100% | 56% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
87 | KIM Remington | 100% | 64% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
88 | BAXTER Max | 100% | 71% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
89 | RODRIGUEZ Ripley | 100% | 93% | 61% | 23% | 5% | - | - |
90 | CHANG Benjamin | 100% | 94% | 67% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
91 | LEE Aidan | 100% | 97% | 80% | 47% | 16% | 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.