Ontario Convention Center - Hall A & B - Ontario, 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 | CHEN Zhengyang (Allen) | - | - | - | 3% | 20% | 51% | 25% |
| 2 | SHAN Junzhe | - | - | - | - | 1% | 19% | 79% |
| 3 | MEHROTRA Neel | - | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 35% | 14% |
| 3 | DONG Haiyi | - | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 42% | 33% |
| 5 | NAEMI Barsam | - | - | 3% | 17% | 38% | 34% | 7% |
| 6 | TAI Edison | - | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 41% | 30% |
| 7 | WANG Joey | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 41% | 47% |
| 8 | FEI Victor | - | - | 2% | 18% | 45% | 35% | |
| 9 | TANG Zheng | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 7% |
| 10 | MULCAHY Sebastian | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 40% | 20% |
| 11 | GUO Woody | 1% | 5% | 19% | 32% | 28% | 13% | 2% |
| 12 | MAXU Tiger | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 32% | 11% |
| 13 | RONG Gordon | - | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 36% | 14% |
| 14 | KIM Alexander | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
| 14 | CHAN JR Jason | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 4% |
| 16 | WONG Baron | - | - | 1% | 9% | 31% | 44% | 15% |
| 17 | LEE Damien | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 20% |
| 18 | LIANG Donny | - | - | 1% | 11% | 37% | 43% | 7% |
| 19 | WU Johnny y. | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 7% |
| 20 | LEE Aiden | - | 1% | 5% | 24% | 43% | 25% | 2% |
| 21 | HSU Joshua | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 7% |
| 22 | MAZAHERI Fletcher | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 35% | 17% | 3% |
| 23 | MORIN-JIANG Jake | - | 1% | 5% | 18% | 35% | 31% | 10% |
| 24 | CLAES Thomas | - | 1% | 11% | 36% | 39% | 12% | |
| 25 | KIM Julian | - | 2% | 11% | 26% | 33% | 22% | 6% |
| 26 | WANG aaron | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 29% | 10% |
| 27 | WU Steven | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 36% | 19% | 3% |
| 28 | ROBINSON Samuel | 2% | 10% | 26% | 33% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 29 | ENG Kyler | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 32% | 3% |
| 29 | CHUNG YEONSUN | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 5% |
| 31 | LEE Royce | - | 2% | 12% | 38% | 37% | 11% | |
| 32 | FU Adrian | 2% | 11% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 5% | - |
| 33 | KIM Remington | 1% | 6% | 21% | 33% | 26% | 11% | 2% |
| 34 | CHEN Aiden | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
| 35 | TANG Michael | - | - | 4% | 16% | 33% | 34% | 13% |
| 36 | RODOCANACHI Hector | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 7% |
| 37 | SU Samuel | - | 6% | 22% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
| 37 | XUE Michael | 3% | 16% | 31% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 39 | RONG Marcus | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 33% | 15% | 3% |
| 40 | SHI jingxuan | - | 2% | 13% | 30% | 34% | 17% | 3% |
| 41 | DAI Steven (Chengwen) | - | 3% | 17% | 36% | 32% | 10% | 1% |
| 41 | MANA Sameer | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
| 43 | WU Nathan | - | 2% | 9% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 7% |
| 44 | AUYEUNG Aedan Ho lam | 1% | 9% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 45 | TUBALTSEV Evan | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 35% | 17% | 2% |
| 46 | DENG haoyu | - | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 43% | 29% |
| 47 | WANG Devin | 1% | 7% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
| 48 | KOFMAN David | 5% | 22% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 48 | BROWN Korbyn | 3% | 17% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 50 | FU Nolan | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 5% |
| 51 | ROBERTS Arthur | 3% | 16% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 52 | WOOLCOCK Cash | 24% | 45% | 26% | 5% | - | - | |
| 53 | AVETISIAN Michael | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 7% |
| 54 | JAO Aaron | 1% | 12% | 33% | 36% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 55 | VOO Lucas | - | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 11% | 2% |
| 56 | MA Ciel | 12% | 34% | 34% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 57 | GADHVI Darius | 2% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 58 | HARRIS Hayden | - | 1% | 13% | 41% | 33% | 10% | 1% |
| 59 | STREAM Logan | 24% | 41% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 60 | JIANG Aaron | 7% | 24% | 34% | 25% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 61 | QIU William | 18% | 43% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 62 | WONG Alexander | 7% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 63 | KURUGANTI Vivaan | 18% | 37% | 30% | 12% | 3% | - | - |
| 64 | DING Max | 4% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 65 | ZHANG Chaoyi（Joey） | 1% | 10% | 31% | 37% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 66 | LIU Max | 5% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 67 | JAMES Kaden | 2% | 16% | 36% | 33% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 68 | NGUYEN Ethan | 5% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 69 | MA Ryan | 2% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 70 | SUROV Alexander | - | 3% | 12% | 27% | 33% | 21% | 5% |
| 71 | SCHWARTZMAN Ethan | 2% | 15% | 32% | 31% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 72 | LI Bryan | 35% | 44% | 18% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 72 | ZHANG Joshua | 1% | 9% | 30% | 36% | 19% | 5% | - |
| 74 | KIM Evan | 4% | 21% | 38% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 75 | DU Evan | 1% | 8% | 25% | 34% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 76 | SHIH Derek | 15% | 45% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 77 | MA kevin | 8% | 34% | 38% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 78 | MA Nolan | 1% | 5% | 19% | 32% | 28% | 13% | 2% |
| 79 | LIU Xuyao | 13% | 38% | 36% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 80 | LIU Zicheng | 9% | 30% | 36% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 81 | MOSLEY Wally | 3% | 15% | 31% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 82 | ZHAO Kyle Zekai | 17% | 37% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 83 | MARZBANI Zehl | 20% | 39% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 84 | LIU Aiden | 12% | 35% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 85 | HUA Nolan | 9% | 39% | 37% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 86 | WU MiEr | 4% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 87 | MAZAHERI Theodore | 29% | 43% | 22% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 88 | PISCITELLO Aleksandr | 46% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 89 | WONG Vansen | 15% | 36% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 90 | SUNWOO Blake | 1% | 11% | 32% | 35% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 91 | WANG Lucas | 1% | 9% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 92 | CHUNG Sawyer | 35% | 41% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 92 | YU Brandon | 44% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 92 | CHEN Christopher | 50% | 38% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 95 | BAI Hang Qi | 1% | 17% | 39% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 96 | FERRIERE Theo | 12% | 37% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 97 | DAYMAN Ryan | 37% | 41% | 18% | 4% | - | - | - |
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.