Pasadena Convention Center - Pasadena, 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 | SIU Aiden | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 76% | |
| 2 | JAIN Aditya | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 72% |
| 3 | CANLAS Nathan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 51% | |
| 3 | CO Dylan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 87% | 42% | |
| 5 | SADOVSKY Leor B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 58% |
| 6 | MARTIN IV Elmer D. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 51% |
| 7 | WANG Ethan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 49% | 10% | |
| 8 | DINSAY Kristjan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 20% | |
| 9 | ZHENG zhe | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 49% | 12% | |
| 10 | MYERS Dean | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 56% | 14% | |
| 11 | NAYGAS LAWRENCE I. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 57% | |
| 12 | HOSKERI Anik S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 31% | |
| 13 | SISINNI Riccardo | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 68% | 25% | |
| 14 | RASMUSSEN Sage | 100% | 100% | 94% | 68% | 27% | 4% | |
| 15 | MA Andrew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 31% | |
| 16 | EDISON Ansel | 100% | 97% | 73% | 32% | 7% | 1% | |
| 17 | SOTO-ULEV Aden A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 51% | 10% |
| 18 | NICOLETTI Luca | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 54% | 15% | |
| 19 | GOBBO Alexander | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 39% | |
| 20 | MUSHER Benjamin J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 23% | |
| 21 | OH Jaden | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 62% | 19% | |
| 21 | LING Eddie | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 52% | 10% | |
| 23 | SMITH Grant D. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 44% | 13% | 1% |
| 24 | LI Matthew | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 34% | 6% | |
| 25 | PIESNER Zachary C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 60% | 14% | |
| 26 | PARK Ryan | 100% | 99% | 86% | 45% | 9% | - | |
| 27 | RENTERIA Emiliano | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 56% | 16% | |
| 28 | CORTRIGHT Skipper | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 13% | |
| 29 | NGUYEN Liam | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 63% | 16% | |
| 30 | LE Jacob W. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 62% | 20% | |
| 31 | MA Bryant | 100% | 100% | 94% | 72% | 34% | 7% | |
| 32 | TULYAG Azim | 100% | 79% | 34% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 33 | DERRICK Blake | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 38% | 5% | |
| 34 | ZHOU Hao Kai | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 41% | 4% |
| 35 | WOO Christian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 66% | |
| 36 | LEUNG Chu Ming Aiden | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 28% | |
| 37 | SHEN Owen | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 51% | 7% |
| 38 | CORTRIGHT Joshua C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 35% | 5% |
| 39 | PARK Steve | 100% | 99% | 89% | 56% | 17% | 2% | - |
| 40 | RUBIN Max | 100% | 97% | 71% | 27% | 5% | - | |
| 41 | SETLUR Bhrugu | 100% | 100% | 93% | 65% | 23% | 3% | |
| 42 | FUKUDA Diego | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 57% | 8% | |
| 43 | PONS Diego | 100% | 100% | 92% | 62% | 23% | 3% | |
| 44 | NAVARRO Kato | 100% | 99% | 88% | 53% | 15% | 1% | |
| 45 | TAN Peter | 100% | 100% | 94% | 64% | 21% | 2% | |
| 46 | LAM Nicolas | 100% | 96% | 64% | 23% | 4% | - | |
| 47 | LE Jacob H. | 100% | 96% | 76% | 39% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 48 | CHUN Dashel | 100% | 73% | 28% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 49 | LLIDO Soren | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 32% | 5% | |
| 50 | PARK Rion | 100% | 98% | 80% | 40% | 10% | 1% | |
| 51 | BUTLER Owen | 100% | 54% | 15% | 2% | - | - | |
| 52 | LI Jett | 100% | 99% | 91% | 58% | 18% | 2% | |
| 53 | BAEK David | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 41% | 8% | |
| 54 | KROVIDI Arush | 100% | 98% | 74% | 14% | 1% | - | |
| 55 | KIM Daniel Y. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 53% | 12% | 1% | |
| 56 | SCHIENEMAN Valentine | 100% | 57% | 16% | 2% | - | - | |
| 57 | YOUNG Owen | 100% | 96% | 73% | 33% | 7% | - | |
| 58 | FINNEY Lorenz | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 40% | 6% |
| 59 | GREENEBAUM Oliver | 100% | 82% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 60 | TUAN Evan | 100% | 100% | 87% | 46% | 11% | 1% | |
| 61 | KUNTSEVICH Ivan I. | 100% | 94% | 67% | 28% | 6% | - | |
| 62 | GORDON William L. | 100% | 86% | 37% | 7% | - | - | |
| 63 | BORG Matthew | 100% | 86% | 47% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 64 | PINCHENG Yao | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 39% | 10% | 1% |
| 65 | FANG Jaden | 100% | 96% | 72% | 33% | 8% | 1% | |
| 66 | YI William | 100% | 100% | 93% | 66% | 25% | 3% | |
| 66 | KALAMAS Nikolas | 100% | 49% | 11% | 1% | - | - | |
| 68 | ZHANG Graham | 100% | 81% | 36% | 7% | - | - | |
| 69 | BARTSCH Henry | 100% | 97% | 53% | 13% | 1% | - | |
| 70 | COONAN Seamus | 100% | 56% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 71 | PETERSON Lucas | 100% | 93% | 61% | 20% | 2% | - | - |
| 72 | CHAN Connor | 100% | 54% | 12% | 1% | - | - | |
| 73 | PARK David | 100% | 76% | 29% | 5% | - | - | |
| 74 | TSAY Jordan R. | 100% | 92% | 61% | 22% | 4% | - | |
| 75 | SMITH Jeremiah | 100% | 98% | 82% | 45% | 12% | 1% | |
| 76 | PARZICK Wade | 100% | 74% | 31% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 77 | REICHEL Ezra | 100% | 93% | 56% | 16% | 2% | - | |
| 78 | LIANG Ethan | 100% | 68% | 14% | - | - | - | |
| 79 | ZHAN Kevin | 100% | 97% | 76% | 34% | 5% | - | - |
| 80 | CHANG Nathan | 100% | 95% | 68% | 26% | 3% | - | - |
| 81 | FLANAGAN Miles | 100% | 88% | 53% | 17% | 2% | - | - |
| 82 | JIANG Yehong | 100% | 36% | 5% | - | - | - | |
| 83 | BECKER Ethan | 100% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - | |
| 84 | DROPKIN Mason | 100% | 51% | 6% | - | - | - | |
| 85 | ROSE Jacob W. | 100% | 39% | 5% | - | - | - | |
| 85 | MESERVE Max | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 20% | 2% | |
| 87 | MONTGOMERY Georgie | 100% | 64% | 19% | 2% | - | - | |
| 88 | YORK Lucas | 100% | 79% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 89 | BOYNTON Alex | 100% | 91% | 40% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 90 | YUAN Jonathan | 100% | 94% | 52% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 91 | SHORTER David Alexander | 100% | 38% | 6% | - | - | - | |
| 92 | COLLIGAN Apollo | 100% | 91% | 49% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 93 | ORNELAS Matteo | 100% | 78% | 29% | 5% | - | - | |
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.