Pasadena Convention Center - Pasadena, CA, 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 | VAZQUEZ Zander | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 38% | 50% |
2 | GODZHIK Zachary | - | - | - | - | 4% | 26% | 70% |
3 | SOTO Ulises | - | - | - | - | 5% | 33% | 62% |
3 | SISINNI Riccardo | - | - | 8% | 30% | 43% | 19% | |
5 | CHENG Nathan | - | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 41% | 34% |
6 | YU Anders | - | - | - | 1% | 12% | 42% | 45% |
7 | SIU Aiden | - | - | 1% | 10% | 41% | 48% | |
8 | LIN Dashiell | - | - | - | - | 4% | 28% | 67% |
9 | HOSKERI Anik S. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 38% | 44% | 7% |
10 | MA Andrew | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 39% | 28% | 6% |
11 | GOBBO Alexander | - | - | 1% | 11% | 36% | 41% | 12% |
12 | CHIN Jason Y. | - | - | - | - | 2% | 24% | 73% |
13 | KIM Derek A. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 35% | 37% | 12% |
14 | DIERKS Kian | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 40% | 48% |
15 | CO Dylan | - | - | 7% | 28% | 43% | 21% | |
16 | PONS Diego | - | 5% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 6% | - |
17 | MUSHER Benjamin J. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 31% | 44% | 15% |
18 | WOO Christian | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 38% | 50% |
19 | MYERS Dean | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 40% | 25% | 3% |
20 | JAIN Aditya | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 39% | 49% |
21 | MARTIN IV Elmer D. | - | - | - | 2% | 17% | 43% | 38% |
22 | WANG Ethan | - | 1% | 11% | 33% | 38% | 16% | 1% |
23 | SUNG Chang-Han S. | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 34% |
24 | LING Eddie | - | - | 5% | 26% | 46% | 20% | 2% |
25 | NAYGAS LAWRENCE I. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 27% | 47% | 19% |
26 | LLIDO Soren | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 34% | 14% | 2% |
26 | CANLAS Nathan | - | - | 1% | 7% | 31% | 49% | 13% |
26 | LI Avery Peihong | - | - | 1% | 14% | 39% | 36% | 10% |
29 | FUKUDA Diego | - | - | 5% | 23% | 46% | 25% | 2% |
30 | MA Bryant | - | 3% | 18% | 38% | 31% | 10% | 1% |
31 | FINNEY Lorenz | - | 3% | 29% | 46% | 19% | 2% | |
32 | DINSAY Kristjan | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 4% |
33 | SEEDS Edward T. | - | 2% | 16% | 40% | 32% | 9% | 1% |
34 | SHEN Owen | - | 3% | 15% | 37% | 34% | 10% | 1% |
35 | CORTRIGHT Joshua C. | - | 2% | 13% | 31% | 35% | 16% | 2% |
36 | HOBSON Aaron K. | - | - | 5% | 28% | 48% | 18% | |
37 | SOTO-ULEV Aden A. | - | - | 2% | 18% | 41% | 32% | 7% |
38 | RASMUSSEN Sage | 1% | 7% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 6% | - |
39 | LE Jacob W. | - | - | 5% | 23% | 41% | 27% | 3% |
40 | RENTERIA Emiliano | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 4% |
41 | CHIN Julian S. | - | - | - | 1% | 12% | 41% | 46% |
42 | LI Jett | - | 15% | 36% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - |
43 | PARK Ryan | 3% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - |
44 | PIESNER Zachary C. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
45 | CORTRIGHT Skipper | - | - | 5% | 32% | 42% | 19% | 3% |
46 | AGRAWAL Niki | 8% | 29% | 37% | 20% | 5% | - | - |
46 | HARRIS Otto | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 33% | 10% | 1% |
48 | WONG Luke S. | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 33% | 13% | 1% |
49 | CHAN Connor | 15% | 49% | 30% | 5% | - | - | - |
50 | LI Matthew | - | 4% | 19% | 38% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
51 | OH Jaden | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 7% |
52 | EDISON Ansel | 1% | 17% | 44% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - |
53 | GORDON William L. | 6% | 38% | 47% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
54 | GONZALEZ Matthew | - | 15% | 36% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - |
55 | NGUYEN Liam | - | 3% | 27% | 42% | 23% | 4% | |
56 | ANDERSON Jacob | - | 5% | 38% | 43% | 13% | 1% | |
57 | SETLUR Bhrugu | - | 6% | 28% | 44% | 19% | 3% | - |
58 | ALFARO Sergio Raul O. | - | 6% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
59 | NG Kenneth | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 13% | 2% |
60 | PARK Rion | 3% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - |
61 | YI William | 2% | 15% | 35% | 33% | 14% | 2% | - |
62 | MCCOSH Evin M. | - | - | 5% | 24% | 42% | 24% | 4% |
63 | KRAUSE Colin | 6% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
64 | BAEK David | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 1% |
65 | TUAN Evan | 5% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 9% | 1% | - |
66 | BOUCHARD Kai | 17% | 40% | 31% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
67 | RUBIN Max | 7% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
68 | ZHOU Hao Kai | - | 2% | 22% | 42% | 28% | 6% | |
69 | FLANAGAN Miles | 11% | 64% | 22% | 3% | - | - | |
70 | KALAMAS Nikolas | 32% | 43% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
71 | ZHENG zhe | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 3% |
72 | DALVA Michael | 11% | 37% | 36% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
73 | LE Jacob H. | 8% | 31% | 39% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
74 | JIANG Yehong | 59% | 35% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
75 | FANG Jaden | 3% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
76 | ORNELAS Matteo | 22% | 41% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
77 | AIKEN Nicholas A. | 1% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
78 | PINCHENG Yao | 1% | 11% | 35% | 36% | 15% | 2% | - |
79 | SCHIENEMAN Valentine | 11% | 69% | 19% | 2% | - | - | |
80 | LI Ryan Z. | - | 2% | 16% | 36% | 33% | 12% | 1% |
81 | YU Leo | 3% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
82 | SMITH Grant D. | - | 3% | 14% | 34% | 35% | 12% | 1% |
83 | YOUNG Owen | 5% | 26% | 44% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
84 | ZHANG Graham | 21% | 48% | 25% | 5% | - | - | - |
85 | ELVANDER Ethan | 16% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
86 | CHEN Brian | 4% | 22% | 40% | 27% | 6% | - | - |
87 | BUTLER Owen | 33% | 42% | 20% | 5% | - | - | - |
88 | BORG Matthew | 3% | 19% | 39% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - |
89 | PETERSON Lucas | 13% | 48% | 34% | 4% | - | - | - |
90 | SMITH Jeremiah | 13% | 47% | 32% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
91 | MESERVE Max | 32% | 43% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
92 | LIN Po-Chen | 47% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
93 | HUANG Alston | 34% | 41% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
94 | REICHEL Ezra | 16% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
95 | LAM Nicolas | 11% | 38% | 36% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
96 | ROSE Jacob W. | 60% | 35% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
96 | BECKER Ethan | 94% | 6% | - | - | - | - | - |
98 | LIANG Ethan | 84% | 15% | - | - | - | - | |
99 | MONTGOMERY Georgie | 45% | 43% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
100 | BOYNTON Alex | 80% | 19% | 1% | - | - | - | |
101 | YUAN Jonathan | 62% | 34% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
102 | GREENEBAUM Oliver | 30% | 44% | 21% | 4% | - | - | - |
103 | YORK Lucas | 15% | 48% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
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.