RIMAC Arena @ UC San Diego - La Jolla, 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 | WU Mengke | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 38% | |
| 2 | AURAY Phileas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 60% |
| 3 | GHAYALOD Ansh | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 10% | |
| 3 | RAJA Arnav | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 26% |
| 5 | LIM William J. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 55% | 17% | |
| 6 | HOLZ Daniel | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 48% | 12% | |
| 7 | KOTOV Leonid | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 42% | 10% |
| 8 | PATIL Aaryan A. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 71% | 30% | 5% | |
| 9 | JIANG Anthony | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 41% |
| 10 | HJERPE Wade H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 59% | 12% |
| 11 | AVAKIAN Alec | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 44% | 9% | |
| 12 | ZUBATIY Samuel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 69% | 26% | |
| 13 | XU William | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 29% |
| 14 | QIU Nathan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 23% | 4% |
| 15 | CAISSE Simon B. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 16 | HAO Anwen | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 30% | 7% | 1% |
| 17 | BERGER Oliver | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 31% | |
| 18 | BONIFIELD Arthur G. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 37% | 7% | |
| 19 | STONE Esmond A. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 27% | 4% | |
| 20 | YOUNG Nash | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 41% | |
| 21 | JINICH Ilan R. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 50% | 13% | |
| 22 | ANDERSON William | 100% | 57% | 16% | 2% | - | - | |
| 23 | TAO Jeffrey | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 13% | |
| 24 | LIN Daniel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 66% | 30% | 5% |
| 24 | VO Minh Q. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 39% | 9% | 1% |
| 26 | MIYASAKI-CASTRO Masanobu | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 48% | 16% | 2% |
| 27 | SWORDS Evan F. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 41% | 9% |
| 28 | LEITH Jack | 100% | 97% | 80% | 44% | 13% | 2% | |
| 29 | PASTORE LIU Vince | 100% | 91% | 55% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 30 | CHAN Aidan | 100% | 90% | 58% | 22% | 4% | - | - |
| 31 | BYON Adrian | 100% | 97% | 78% | 40% | 10% | 1% | |
| 32 | LI Yiwei | 100% | 85% | 47% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 33 | ROSBERG Dashiell W. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 35% | 7% |
| 34 | BOUKHTIN Maxim | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 33% | 8% | 1% |
| 35 | KROON Lucas | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 35% | 7% | |
| 36 | KIBBAR Tomer L. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 34% | 7% | |
| 37 | BYON Julian | 100% | 97% | 78% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 38 | GAO Marcus | 100% | 94% | 68% | 29% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 39 | LO Konnor | 100% | 88% | 54% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 40 | SOUTHWORTH Nathaniel | 100% | 92% | 62% | 22% | 4% | - | |
| 41 | JAIN Aniket | 100% | 82% | 41% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 42 | BONN-ELCHONESS Peter | 100% | 89% | 55% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 43 | LO Andrew T. | 100% | 96% | 78% | 45% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 44 | HO Aiden | 100% | 97% | 79% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 45 | KANG Evan | 100% | 86% | 51% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 46 | CHEN Lohen | 100% | 89% | 57% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 47 | BAUER Hank E. | 100% | 98% | 80% | 42% | 11% | 1% | |
| 48 | LEE Noah | 100% | 88% | 51% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 49 | PATRICO Peter | 100% | 86% | 50% | 16% | 2% | - | |
| 50 | RAMANAN Jaisimh | 100% | 89% | 49% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 51 | BRAKEY Ryan | 100% | 83% | 44% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 52 | MUNGUIA Nathan | 100% | 90% | 60% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 53 | REED Samuel J. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 17% | 2% | - |
| 54 | RADJABLI Maximillian | 100% | 78% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 55 | NIETO Titus P. | 100% | 66% | 22% | 3% | - | - | |
| 56 | YAN Kevin | 100% | 50% | 12% | 1% | - | - | |
| 57 | YU Kevin | 100% | 71% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 58 | TUNG Ryan | 100% | 63% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
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.