Boston , MA - Boston, MA, 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 | SCHENCK Koen M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 67% | |
| 2 | PAN Eric | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 61% | 12% | |
| 3 | KAZA Nitish | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 65% | 16% |
| 3 | LI Richard | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 67% |
| 5 | KAO Castor T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 48% |
| 6 | ZHANG Evan | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 40% | 12% | 2% |
| 7 | VASILIEV Sacha M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 63% |
| 8 | PARK Ryan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 25% |
| 9 | BREIER Matthew F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 37% |
| 10 | BING Charles | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 92% | 54% |
| 11 | MIALL Steven A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 48% | 11% |
| 12 | LI Eric | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 62% | 21% |
| 13 | LI Yao (Liam) | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 28% | 3% |
| 14 | MENG Zhaoyi | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 48% | 16% | 2% |
| 15 | WU Alexander | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 41% | 8% |
| 16 | FU Yifan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 22% | 2% |
| 17 | BAE Kevin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 18% |
| 18 | HONG Issac | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 22% | 2% |
| 19 | ZHONG Guoren | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 20 | ZHAI Jeffrey | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 31% | 6% |
| 21 | GAO Anthony | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 34% | 9% | 1% |
| 22 | TSAI Max W. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 58% | 18% | 2% |
| 23 | LI Owen | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 78% | 34% |
| 24 | GU Andrew | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 50% | 13% | 1% |
| 25 | MCLEAN Miles K. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 42% | 10% |
| 26 | JIANG Owen | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 41% | 6% |
| 27 | MILLER Aidan A. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 17% | 2% |
| 28 | TALLARICO Matthew | 100% | 98% | 79% | 36% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 29 | WANG Mason | 100% | 93% | 63% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
| 31 | DAVIDSON Elliot | 100% | 93% | 60% | 21% | 3% | - | - |
| 32 | WANG Alex L. | 100% | 98% | 82% | 46% | 12% | 1% | - |
| 33 | ZHAO Jesse | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 46% | 13% | 1% |
| 34 | LI Arvin | 100% | 100% | 94% | 72% | 36% | 10% | 1% |
| 35 | LI Jinghua E. | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 36 | VALENTON Timothy | 100% | 94% | 68% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 37 | DE JAGER Robert | 100% | 82% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 38 | PELT Ethan T. | 100% | 65% | 22% | 3% | - | - | |
| 39 | LI Ayren | 100% | 99% | 90% | 57% | 15% | 1% | |
| 40 | DONG sean | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 41 | PITERBARG Maxim | 100% | 96% | 75% | 34% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 42 | JIN Dennis H. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 43 | PROMRAT Pete | 100% | 99% | 92% | 63% | 23% | 4% | - |
| 44 | XU Mathu Yang | 100% | 85% | 46% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 45 | TAN Connor | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 47 | ZHANG Mark | 100% | 66% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 48 | BOUSSY Luciano | 100% | 94% | 65% | 23% | 3% | - | |
| 49 | HU Jason | 100% | 85% | 41% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 50 | LIU Charles | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 23% | 5% | - |
| 51 | BAUMANN Gunnar | 100% | 91% | 62% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 52 | XU Bernard | 100% | 97% | 78% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 53 | BEBER Bodhi | 100% | 89% | 56% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 54 | WOODTHORPE Michael G. | 100% | 76% | 29% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 54 | CHEN Matthew | 100% | 70% | 25% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 56 | ABRUZZESE Owen | 100% | 94% | 63% | 21% | 2% | - | - |
| 56 | CHEN Derek | 100% | 84% | 38% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 58 | WANG Julang | 100% | 57% | 13% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 59 | WILSON Samuel S. | 100% | 89% | 53% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 60 | TAYLOR Adam | 100% | 93% | 64% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 61 | GARDINER Luke J. | 100% | 86% | 50% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 61 | FREEDMAN Theodore | 100% | 91% | 49% | 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.