Ontario Convention Center - Hall A & B - Ontario, CA, 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 | SODERBERG Alex Z. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 35% | |
2 | LO Jake | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 74% | 40% | 10% |
3 | KIM Benjamin I. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 49% | 13% | |
3 | SINGHA Orion | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 50% | 15% |
5 | GALLO James | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 21% | 3% |
6 | ZHU Zimo | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 30% | |
7 | WESTPHAL David R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 55% | 18% |
8 | MOSES Alexander | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 41% | 6% |
9 | SHEPARD Trevor S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 57% | |
10 | KIM Nathan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 24% | 4% |
11 | YAO Derek (Shunyu) | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
12 | WATT Darren | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 6% | - |
13 | CHIEN Brandon | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 21% |
14 | WONG Chi Ho | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 21% | 2% | |
15 | CUMMINGS Atticus C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 34% |
16 | ZONE Liam | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 27% | 4% |
17 | JEON Alexander E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 22% |
18 | LIN Kyran | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 24% | 4% |
19 | MA Victor | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 29% | 7% | 1% |
20 | ZHENG Haoran | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 10% | |
21 | BRISLAWN Reilly R. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 21% | |
22 | BOYCE Samuel H. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 26% | |
23 | PAK Elliot | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
24 | LIPTON Jason S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 54% | 17% |
25 | POLAKOSKI David R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 41% | 8% |
26 | VENET Téva | 100% | 98% | 85% | 56% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
27 | ULINICH Alexander | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 23% | 4% |
28 | STRAUSS Luke | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 21% | 3% | |
29 | ZHOU Stanley Q. | 100% | 97% | 80% | 45% | 13% | 1% | |
30 | KIM Darius H. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 25% | 5% | - |
31 | STEPHAN Jens | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 52% |
32 | DEKERMANJI Christopher | 100% | 98% | 83% | 46% | 13% | 1% | |
33 | NORBUTAS Jackson S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 44% |
34 | CHRISTENSEN Parker | 100% | 99% | 88% | 56% | 21% | 4% | - |
35 | YAMASAKI Kyle A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 42% | |
36 | MCDANIELS Jeremy | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 56% | 16% | |
37 | MCADOO Declan | 100% | 98% | 83% | 52% | 20% | 4% | - |
38 | JIN Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 48% | 13% |
39 | JIN Daniel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 76% | 41% | 10% |
40 | MADSEN Jr Eric W. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 25% | 4% |
40 | FU Leon | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 14% | 2% |
42 | CHU Allan | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
43 | FOWLER James A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 23% |
44 | JU Hanul | 100% | 76% | 34% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
45 | KIM Sterling S. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 47% | 15% | 2% | |
46 | ZAYDMAN David M. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 55% | 18% | 2% | |
47 | LOGUE Ethan D. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 35% | 9% | 1% |
48 | SMITH Justin C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 32% | 6% |
49 | ROBITZSKI Daniel A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 41% | 9% |
50 | JONES Caleb | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 16% | 2% | - |
51 | GAO Chaney C. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 52% | 19% | 3% |
52 | MENDOZA Zachari | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 26% | 6% | 1% |
53 | PERKINS-OLLILA Justin W. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
54 | KNUDSEN Travis | 100% | 81% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - | |
55 | KIM Sullivan | 100% | 98% | 81% | 43% | 11% | 1% | |
56 | MUNOZ Humberto | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 17% | 2% |
57 | CHEN Bailey | 100% | 93% | 63% | 24% | 4% | - | - |
58 | PARKER Lane S. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 55% | 21% | 4% |
59 | FAN Beichen | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 33% | 8% | 1% |
60 | LIU Yikun | 100% | 86% | 47% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
61 | LEE Chun Po | 100% | 98% | 78% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - |
62 | UVAROV Andrii | 100% | 99% | 85% | 48% | 13% | 1% | |
63 | CHOI San | 100% | 76% | 32% | 7% | 1% | - | |
64 | ZHANG Alec | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 40% | 12% | 2% |
65 | WANG owen | 100% | 93% | 58% | 19% | 3% | - | |
66 | HELGE James R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 15% |
67 | DAO Alexander | 100% | 90% | 60% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - |
68 | GIOVAGNOLI Nolan | 100% | 79% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | |
69 | GREGER Jack | 100% | 88% | 53% | 18% | 3% | - | |
70 | SINHA Zaan | 100% | 77% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | |
71 | ZHUANG William | 100% | 85% | 46% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
72 | HILLSTROM Nathan | 100% | 96% | 74% | 37% | 11% | 2% | - |
73 | YU Austin | 100% | 91% | 57% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
74 | CLAWSON Brian C. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 33% | 9% | 1% |
75 | GU Aidan | 100% | 87% | 48% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
76 | GREEN Jake L. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 36% | 10% | 1% |
77 | KENT V David | 100% | 85% | 48% | 16% | 3% | - | |
78 | PALACIOS Justin M. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 62% | 23% | 2% | |
79 | KURITZ Marc M. | 100% | 97% | 79% | 44% | 13% | 2% | |
80 | CROSSMAN Brandon | 100% | 83% | 45% | 13% | 2% | - | |
81 | LEE Bryson | 100% | 83% | 45% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
82 | KIM Taeho | 100% | 72% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
83 | MIAO KUNQI | 100% | 87% | 52% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
84 | TODD Glenn | 100% | 92% | 64% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - |
85 | LI zerong | 100% | 65% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
86 | GENCHEV Madav | 100% | 42% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
87 | HEWITT Frank F. | 100% | 95% | 73% | 36% | 9% | 1% | |
87 | PRAKASH Hari | 100% | 47% | 10% | 1% | - | - | |
89 | CHAO Warren | 100% | 71% | 29% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
90 | BRAHMBHATT Krishna | 100% | 31% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
91 | BRECHTEL James | 100% | 76% | 32% | 7% | 1% | - | |
92 | PAINTER Noah | 100% | 47% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
93 | LEE Richard U. | 100% | 82% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
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.