The Fencing Center of San Jose - San Jose, 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 | 7 | ||
| 1 | JIN Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 44% | 8% |
| 2 | KIM Benjamin I. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 74% | 33% | |
| 3 | CAI Brian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 23% | |
| 3 | LUCERO-OLSON Aydin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 37% | 8% | |
| 5 | JEON Alexander E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 57% | ||
| 6 | CHIRASHNYA Adam | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 50% | 18% | 2% | |
| 7 | EMARA Omar | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 42% | 11% | |
| 8 | ALLEN Graham | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 48% | |
| 9 | SHARMA Sanil | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 41% |
| 10 | YAO Geoffrey B. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 28% | 5% | |
| 11 | TEPEDELENLIOGLU Mehmet | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 74% | |
| 11 | YAMASAKI Kyle A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 52% | |
| 13 | KILUK Andrew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 46% | 13% | 1% |
| 14 | WONG Kevin | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 23% | 5% | 1% | |
| 15 | JAIN Sarthak | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 58% | 25% | 5% | |
| 16 | GARRETT Samuel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 15% | |
| 17 | WONG Nicholas A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 96% | 81% | 49% | 15% | |
| 18 | WINTZ Paul K. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 16% | 2% | |
| 19 | LIU Andrew | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 50% | 18% | 2% | |
| 19 | ZHENG Haoran | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 33% | 7% | |
| 21 | KARAUSKY Joshua C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 44% | |
| 21 | LIN Kyran | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 26% | |
| 23 | LOWE-THORPE Tyler | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 47% | 16% | 2% | |
| 24 | SMITH Justin C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 37% | |
| 25 | PHILIPPINE Matthias A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 50% |
| 26 | WEAVER Neil | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 40% | 10% | - | |
| 27 | WATT Darren | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 25% | 6% | - | |
| 28 | SIVAGAR Leo | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 26% | 5% | |
| 29 | ZHOU Stanley Q. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 12% | 1% | |
| 30 | NICHOLSON Dominic A. | 100% | 96% | 73% | 35% | 8% | 1% | ||
| 31 | CHIRASHNYA Daniel | 100% | 99% | 88% | 61% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 32 | YAO Shun | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 38% | 11% | 1% | |
| 33 | COOPER Rowan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 55% | 17% |
| 34 | DEKERMANJI Christopher | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 60% | 26% | 5% |
| 35 | BURLING Trenor | 100% | 91% | 62% | 25% | 5% | < 1% | - | |
| 36 | SARKAR Agniv | 100% | 99% | 88% | 60% | 26% | 6% | 1% | |
| 37 | KIM Nathan | 100% | 97% | 82% | 53% | 22% | 5% | 1% | |
| 38 | AHMED Saheer | 100% | 98% | 85% | 57% | 26% | 7% | 1% | |
| 39 | WANG owen | 100% | 99% | 90% | 58% | 20% | 3% | - | |
| 40 | SINHA Zaan | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 41 | WANG Terry | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 42 | DIECK Logan O. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 53% | 17% | 2% | |
| 43 | HELGE James R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 25% | |
| 44 | JOHNSTON Conner S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 27% | |
| 45 | PARK Elliot | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 27% | 4% | |
| 46 | ALVAREZ Ian T. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 52% | 16% | 1% | ||
| 47 | NICHOLSON Dimitri E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 46% | 11% |
| 48 | LOMIO Nicholas A. | 100% | 90% | 56% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 49 | ZHANG Alec | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 69% | 35% | 8% | |
| 50 | BARNETT Devin | 100% | 63% | 17% | 2% | - | - | - | |
| 51 | SARKAR Anish | 100% | 98% | 83% | 51% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 52 | ROOD Alex | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 91% | 68% | 33% | 7% |
| 53 | LO Jake | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 25% | 6% | - | |
| 54 | HARGROVE Kai | 100% | 97% | 80% | 50% | 20% | 5% | - | |
| 55 | WICKBOLDT Eric | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 23% | 4% | |
| 56 | LOFTUS Luca | 100% | 96% | 61% | 22% | 4% | - | - | |
| 57 | WELDON Benjamin | 100% | 100% | 96% | 84% | 57% | 25% | 5% | |
| 58 | FU Leon | 100% | 100% | 89% | 56% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 59 | KUO Elvin | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - | |
| 60 | PHUKAN Rohin | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 37% | 7% | - | |
| 61 | HOGE William P. | 100% | 90% | 61% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 62 | CHUNG Thomas | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 63% | 27% | 4% | |
| 63 | JONES Caleb | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 11% | 1% | |
| 64 | BARAFF David | 100% | 91% | 62% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 65 | CHU Allan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 17% | 2% | |
| 66 | LIU Felix | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% | |
| 67 | CASTELLY Luke | 100% | 96% | 78% | 45% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 68 | HARGROVE Charles | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 28% | 5% | |
| 69 | MING Nathan | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 70 | LEE Bryson | 100% | 95% | 71% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 71 | BHARGAV Siddharth | 100% | 92% | 64% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 72 | GOLDBERG Artie M. | 100% | 90% | 60% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 73 | MAYCHROWITZ Matt | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 28% | 5% | |
| 74 | KNUDSEN Travis | 100% | 90% | 60% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 75 | DAVIS Andrew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 14% | 1% |
| 75 | SIRBU Dan | 100% | 84% | 48% | 17% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 77 | ZAYDMAN David M. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 46% | 13% | 1% | ||
| 78 | HUSSAIN Kamran | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 50% | 18% | 2% | |
| 79 | ULINICH Alexander | 100% | 96% | 76% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 80 | HAYDEN Sam E. | 100% | 96% | 77% | 45% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 81 | HILLSTROM Nathan | 100% | 98% | 88% | 62% | 29% | 7% | 1% | |
| 82 | NICHOLSON Gabriel D. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 36% | 11% | 1% | |
| 82 | ZHANG Nathan | 100% | 88% | 55% | 20% | 3% | - | - | |
| 84 | GU Aidan | 100% | 87% | 53% | 18% | 3% | - | - | |
| 85 | BERMENDER Eric | 100% | 82% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | - | |
| 86 | WIRZ Severin | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 27% | 7% | 1% | |
| 87 | PHILIPPINE Johan L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 46% | 12% | 1% |
| 87 | CHEN Bailey | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 89 | WANG Steven | 100% | 96% | 77% | 43% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 90 | SHA Michael | 100% | 99% | 88% | 56% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 91 | KIM Sullivan | 100% | 77% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | ||
| 92 | OU wei | 100% | 96% | 77% | 40% | 10% | 1% | ||
| 93 | MARIANI Lou | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 33% | 3% | |
| 94 | KIM Darius H. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 64% | 32% | 9% | 1% | |
| 95 | PRAKASH Hari | 100% | 76% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | - | |
| 96 | LIU Noah | 100% | 77% | 22% | 3% | - | - | - | |
| 97 | SLOAN Ryan | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 98 | ZACHES Torrey | 100% | 100% | 96% | 74% | 36% | 9% | 1% | |
| 99 | SMAY II Joseph E. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 35% | 10% | 1% | |
| 99 | YU Austin | 100% | 73% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - | - | |
| 99 | YUEN Nathan | 100% | 63% | 18% | 3% | - | - | - | |
| 102 | BAGCHI Aritra | 100% | 93% | 67% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 103 | LIPTON Michael D. | 100% | 98% | 83% | 49% | 16% | 2% | - | |
| 103 | TETALI Vishwanath | 100% | 51% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - | |
| 105 | SMITH Zane A. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 56% | 25% | 6% | 1% | |
| 106 | BHARGAV Angad | 100% | 90% | 60% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 107 | HEINS Dylan | 100% | 100% | 97% | 86% | 60% | 28% | 8% | 1% |
| 108 | CHERDAK jacob | 100% | 93% | 66% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 109 | MILSTEIN Nikolas | 100% | 69% | 26% | 5% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 110 | WU Eric | 100% | 97% | 80% | 48% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 111 | TONG Samuel | 100% | 84% | 46% | 14% | 2% | - | - | |
| 112 | ELANGO SriVaaikuntesh | 100% | 76% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | - | |
| 113 | LEONARDINI Barry M. | 100% | 68% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - | - | |
| 113 | BENNETT Peter | 100% | 21% | 2% | - | - | - | - | |
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.