Baltimore, MD - Baltimore, MD, 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 | FAYEZ Ayman A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 66% |
| 3 | DE GUZMAN Inaki P. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 69% | 35% | 8% |
| 3 | XIAN Ryan | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 45% | 16% | 2% |
| 5 | SCHACK Samuel D. | 100% | 92% | 63% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 6 | INSLER Gabriel C. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 44% | 11% | |
| 7 | ZHENG Hagen | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 60% | 21% | |
| 8 | SILVER Cameron | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 28% | 5% | |
| 9 | ALLEN Graham | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 42% | 6% |
| 10 | SMITH Justin C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 23% |
| 11 | TAE William G. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 25% | 5% |
| 12 | STOTT Donovan R. | 100% | 96% | 73% | 36% | 10% | 1% | |
| 13 | HOFFMANN Christopher J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 19% | |
| 14 | BEKKER Mitchel | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 30% | 6% | |
| 15 | LI Jeffrey | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 42% | 10% | |
| 16 | YOON Nathan | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 13% | 1% |
| 17 | LAFVING Brandon | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 40% | 10% |
| 18 | KIM Juni C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 49% |
| 19 | HILBERT Xavier | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 52% | 16% | |
| 19 | LEE Timothy S. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 44% | 11% | |
| 21 | PARK Minchan | 100% | 95% | 73% | 36% | 10% | 1% | |
| 22 | HANXU Richard A. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 24% | 4% |
| 23 | KLASSEN Andrew P. | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 13% | 2% | |
| 24 | CULLEN Daniel F. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 25 | FREEMAN Daniel H. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 52% | 17% | 1% |
| 26 | TRAN Dai Long | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 50% | 19% | 3% |
| 27 | XU Zitong (Evan) | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 51% | 20% | 3% |
| 28 | LIU John | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 35% | 11% | 1% |
| 29 | KIM Minjun | 100% | 94% | 71% | 36% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 30 | CHARRON Jack H. | 100% | 65% | 24% | 5% | - | - | |
| 31 | JURGENSON Artemie A. | 100% | 86% | 47% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 32 | LI Jeffrey | 100% | 96% | 73% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 33 | PLUMER Jack E. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 47% | 17% | 3% |
| 34 | DAVIS Jeffrey H. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 58% | 25% | 5% |
| 35 | O'HARA Keegan J. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 45% | 15% | 2% |
| 36 | RODACHY Jeffrey M. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 44% | 15% | 2% |
| 37 | ECKEL Anson J. | 100% | 99% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 6% | - |
| 38 | DEL CASTILLO Matthew Raymond M. | 100% | 90% | 61% | 26% | 6% | 1% | |
| 39 | KUMAR Anitya | 100% | 100% | 93% | 69% | 31% | 6% | |
| 40 | CHEN Wesley | 100% | 97% | 77% | 41% | 12% | 1% | |
| 41 | WALTHER Bryan M. | 100% | 99% | 86% | 53% | 18% | 2% | - |
| 42 | YI Kyle | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 34% | 7% | |
| 43 | DE KLERK Ryan | 100% | 84% | 45% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 44 | CHEN Eric Y. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 36% | 7% | |
| 45 | MARCHANT Albert J. | 100% | 90% | 53% | 16% | 2% | - | |
| 46 | CHAWLA Armaan | 100% | 88% | 56% | 21% | 4% | - | |
| 47 | RITCHIE Patrick Q. | 100% | 96% | 75% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 48 | HODGE Jaydon L. | 100% | 96% | 77% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 49 | SOZANSKI Kyle S. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 29% | 6% | - |
| 50 | TATE Leon J. | 100% | 53% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 51 | TUCKER Owen J. | 100% | 66% | 24% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 52 | ADLER Ethan M. | 100% | 86% | 52% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 53 | LIU Kevin X. | 100% | 87% | 53% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 54 | XIAN Riley | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 51% | 19% | 3% |
| 55 | O'BRIEN Timothy S. | 100% | 44% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 56 | LABROZZI Aidan | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 37% | 12% | 2% |
| 57 | GARRISON Andrew T. | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 26% | 6% | 1% |
| 58 | KUHN Jeffrey | 100% | 60% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 59 | KIRSCH Adam J. | 100% | 68% | 27% | 6% | 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.