Minneapolis, MN, 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 | TAO Jeffrey | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 37% |
| 2 | JOO Jeein | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 43% | 11% |
| 3 | KWALWASSER Eric | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 48% |
| 3 | GONZALEZ Emilio A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 61% | |
| 5 | ZHU Yuchen (Kevin) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 83% | 52% | 17% |
| 6 | GUFFEY Christopher | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 31% | 6% | |
| 7 | NG Jonathan | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 26% | 6% | 1% |
| 8 | MEHAN Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 14% |
| 9 | HOLZ Daniel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 37% |
| 10 | GONG Jerry | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 19% | |
| 11 | KUSHKOV Daniel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 58% | 14% | |
| 12 | LI Yiwei | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 37% | 5% | |
| 13 | RAMANAN Jaisimh | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 40% | 10% | |
| 14 | KALPATHY Rohit | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 55% | 16% | |
| 15 | SU Landon | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 64% | 25% |
| 16 | KANG Evan | 100% | 99% | 90% | 67% | 34% | 10% | 1% |
| 17 | PRIMUS Nazir | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 41% |
| 18 | YANG Dylan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 22% |
| 19 | PASTORE LIU Vince | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 46% | 12% | |
| 20 | WANG Zhuoyi | 100% | 98% | 83% | 47% | 14% | 2% | |
| 21 | PATEL Rayn | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 57% | 17% | |
| 22 | CHON Collin | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 23 | WANG daniel | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 64% | 28% | 5% |
| 24 | HWANG Jayden | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 45% | 15% | 2% |
| 25 | NGUYEN Anthony | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 50% | 19% | 3% |
| 26 | HU Christopher | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 27% |
| 27 | HUANG Alex F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 47% | |
| 28 | ANTHONY Devyn V. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 42% | |
| 29 | ANAND Rohan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 61% | 26% | 5% |
| 30 | ERMAKOV Semeon | 100% | 99% | 88% | 58% | 23% | 4% | - |
| 31 | ZHAO Lucas | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 35% | 8% | |
| 32 | ZHENG LEON | 100% | 98% | 85% | 56% | 23% | 5% | - |
| 33 | RAMANAN Govind | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 41% | 13% | 1% |
| 34 | VAID Luke | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 18% | |
| 35 | CHEN Samuel | 100% | 97% | 80% | 43% | 11% | 1% | |
| 36 | BERA Enzo | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 46% | 14% | 2% |
| 37 | LI Maxwell | 100% | 96% | 79% | 47% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 38 | HOLZ Lucas | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
| 39 | LIN Philip T. | 100% | 95% | 68% | 26% | 4% | - | |
| 40 | PRIEUR Christian F. | 100% | 69% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 40 | SHIPITSIN Alexander | 100% | 98% | 87% | 54% | 17% | 2% | |
| 42 | MUNGUIA Nathan | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 25% | 3% | |
| 43 | TUNG Ryan | 100% | 93% | 66% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 43 | EYBELMAN Ariel | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 46% | 16% | 3% |
| 45 | KIM ELIJAH | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 41% | 12% | 1% |
| 46 | SUGIURA Samuel | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 63% | 27% | 5% |
| 47 | LEE Andrew | 100% | 98% | 84% | 53% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 48 | ATWOOD Griffin | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 33% | 9% | 1% |
| 49 | SKARBONKIEWICZ Maksymilian A. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 53% | 20% | 3% |
| 50 | TSAO Oliver | 100% | 90% | 56% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 51 | MEYERSON Jacob | 100% | 97% | 78% | 43% | 13% | 2% | |
| 52 | ALAVE Kyle | 100% | 99% | 88% | 59% | 24% | 4% | |
| 53 | KATZ Ryan | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 33% | 9% | 1% |
| 54 | CRAIG Andrew | 100% | 80% | 40% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 55 | OLALIA-NAPIER Gabriel | 100% | 88% | 55% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 56 | LIGH Checed | 100% | 80% | 43% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 57 | OH Aster | 100% | 99% | 91% | 69% | 35% | 9% | 1% |
| 58 | CHEN Lohen | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 26% | 6% | - |
| 59 | MATTOO Deven | 100% | 46% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 59 | SO Preston | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 61 | LAUB William | 100% | 92% | 57% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 62 | NGO Maximus | 100% | 96% | 72% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 63 | WONG Caleb W. | 100% | 83% | 47% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 64 | HUNG Samuel | 100% | 96% | 74% | 35% | 7% | - | |
| 65 | LIN Maxim | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 16% | 2% |
| 66 | ZHOU William | 100% | 64% | 24% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 67 | GUREVICH Benjamin | 100% | 95% | 76% | 42% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 68 | ANAND Rishab | 100% | 97% | 80% | 47% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 69 | WANG Max | 100% | 94% | 67% | 30% | 7% | 1% | |
| 70 | LIU Kevin | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 36% | 7% | |
| 71 | LIU Aaron | 100% | 79% | 36% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 72 | CHUNG Connor | 100% | 93% | 64% | 26% | 5% | - | |
| 73 | FANG Eason | 100% | 98% | 88% | 61% | 27% | 6% | - |
| 74 | GAY Jono | 100% | 96% | 78% | 46% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 75 | NARDINI Nathanael P. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 46% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 76 | KIM Kendrick | 100% | 95% | 74% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 77 | BELL III Alfred (Tripp) R. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 36% | 11% | 1% |
| 78 | YAP Kah Kai (Cayden) | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 34% | 10% | 1% |
| 79 | ZHAO Zhiyu | 100% | 80% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 80 | YANG Si He | 100% | 74% | 30% | 5% | - | - | |
| 81 | BREGADZE NODAR | 100% | 81% | 40% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 82 | ANDRES Michael | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 28% | 5% | |
| 83 | VUONG Kyle Ka-Him | 100% | 91% | 60% | 24% | 5% | - | |
| 84 | SHANKWILER Christopher | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 50% | 19% | 3% |
| 85 | YANG Phillip | 100% | 96% | 78% | 44% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 86 | AUTREY Adrien | 100% | 44% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
| 87 | PEREIRA Beckham | 100% | 86% | 49% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 88 | GONG Gavin | 100% | 76% | 31% | 5% | - | - | |
| 89 | ORLIN Edward | 100% | 77% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 90 | SUN Andrew | 100% | 71% | 29% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 91 | DAI Zihou | 100% | 97% | 81% | 50% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 92 | GREMILLION Obadiah | 100% | 76% | 36% | 10% | 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.