Deerfield, IL - Deerfield, IL, 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 | DESERANNO Jeidus | - | - | - | - | 2% | 21% | 77% |
| 2 | KAO Castor T. | - | - | 3% | 17% | 44% | 36% | |
| 3 | LI Richard | - | - | 1% | 13% | 46% | 40% | |
| 3 | YANG Luao | - | - | - | 6% | 33% | 61% | |
| 5 | CHEN Andrew | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 41% | 44% |
| 6 | CHEN Allen | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 38% | 49% |
| 7 | OH Jonathan | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 43% | 26% | |
| 8 | FOGELSON Frederick J. | - | - | 3% | 19% | 49% | 29% | |
| 9 | ORVANANOS Jorge | - | - | 12% | 41% | 39% | 7% | |
| 10 | CHIN Julian S. | - | - | - | 1% | 6% | 31% | 63% |
| 11 | LO Conrad | - | - | 1% | 12% | 43% | 44% | |
| 12 | BERK Theodore | - | - | 2% | 13% | 39% | 38% | 8% |
| 13 | FORTUNE Alexander J. | 5% | 26% | 41% | 24% | 4% | - | |
| 14 | GOOR Julian | - | 1% | 8% | 30% | 43% | 18% | |
| 15 | OH SEAN | - | - | 3% | 19% | 44% | 31% | 3% |
| 16 | FREEDMAN Samuel E. | - | 2% | 12% | 33% | 38% | 14% | |
| 17 | SONG Aiden S. | - | - | - | - | 9% | 41% | 49% |
| 18 | KIM Derek A. | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 3% |
| 19 | JI Aidan Y. | - | 4% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
| 20 | ORR Spencer | - | - | 1% | 7% | 37% | 43% | 12% |
| 21 | LLIDO Soren | 4% | 31% | 44% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 22 | DEGROOT Blake | 10% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 23 | XIANG Derrick | 3% | 15% | 31% | 31% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 24 | PAI Lakshan K. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 41% | 40% | 9% |
| 25 | LOVIN Vlad | 4% | 22% | 39% | 27% | 7% | 1% | |
| 26 | PALMA Matthew Dominic | - | 7% | 43% | 38% | 10% | 1% | |
| 27 | WOO Christian | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 28 | TRAUGOT Owen G. | - | 3% | 21% | 44% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 29 | BRUK Peter J. | - | - | 3% | 21% | 51% | 25% | |
| 30 | MARTIN IV Elmer D. | - | 1% | 17% | 45% | 32% | 5% | |
| 31 | WONG Antonio | 2% | 10% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 6% | - |
| 32 | WANG Jackson | 8% | 31% | 38% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 33 | ZHAI Jeffrey | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 42% | 25% | 3% |
| 34 | BURBERRY Alan | 2% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 35 | CULLIVAN Justice | 1% | 11% | 31% | 37% | 18% | 3% | |
| 36 | KEE Andrew L. | - | - | 3% | 19% | 44% | 31% | 3% |
| 37 | ZHANG Zixuan "Mark" | 5% | 31% | 42% | 19% | 2% | - | - |
| 38 | CHIN Ryan | 15% | 40% | 33% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 39 | LI Yao (Liam) | 3% | 20% | 40% | 30% | 7% | - | |
| 40 | WECHSLER Jacob | 4% | 24% | 41% | 25% | 5% | - | |
| 41 | ZHEN Ethan | 3% | 18% | 37% | 30% | 10% | 1% | |
| 42 | MEJIA MATTHEW D. | 4% | 21% | 40% | 28% | 6% | - | |
| 43 | KLOTZ Isaiah | 6% | 30% | 42% | 20% | 2% | - | - |
| 44 | REEVES Liam | - | 4% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 15% | 2% |
| 45 | SMITH Cooper | 2% | 16% | 40% | 34% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 46 | TANG Albert | 1% | 12% | 34% | 37% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 47 | LIN Michael | - | 5% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
| 48 | ZHAO Dylan L. | 9% | 33% | 38% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 49 | KUSHNIR Aden N. | 33% | 44% | 20% | 3% | - | - | |
| 50 | POLONSKI Anthony | 11% | 35% | 36% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 51 | ORONOWICZ Jakub | 8% | 34% | 39% | 17% | 2% | - | |
| 52 | BAO Aaron | 2% | 15% | 36% | 34% | 12% | 1% | |
| 53 | SANTOS Carlos R. | 31% | 43% | 21% | 5% | - | - | |
| 54 | CAZER Mosby | 69% | 30% | 2% | - | - | - | |
| 55 | METTAPALLI Tarun | 40% | 42% | 15% | 2% | - | - | |
| 56 | FECHTNER Ezra M. | 40% | 42% | 15% | 3% | - | - | |
| 57 | WANG Mason | 1% | 14% | 35% | 33% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 58 | LAI Twayne | 6% | 36% | 42% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 59 | RAJPAL Alastair | 8% | 31% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 60 | LIU Jacob B. | 9% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 61 | GOGOI Vir K. | 12% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 62 | GRINDEM Stuart | 52% | 38% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 63 | IVANENKO Alex | 22% | 64% | 14% | 1% | - | - | |
| 64 | KWON Andrew | 64% | 30% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
| 65 | REAUME Nate | 68% | 28% | 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.