Salt Lake City, UT - Salt Lake City, UT, 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 | KOKENGE Clark | 100% | 99% | 94% | 76% | 44% | 15% | 2% |
| 2 | WELLS Tommy R. | 100% | 98% | 83% | 47% | 12% | ||
| 3 | JAYENDRA Chandrashekar | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 33% | 7% |
| 3 | IYOKI Kent | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 24% | |
| 5 | PROCTOR Oliver L. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 86% | 59% | 26% | 5% |
| 6 | MALYSZ Anthony J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 39% | 10% |
| 7 | MIELE Benjamin | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 54% | 22% | 4% |
| 8 | GRAY Sterling B. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 52% | 20% | 4% |
| 9 | LEI Joshua | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 20% |
| 10 | MOSES Alexander | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 23% | 4% | |
| 11 | LLOYD Alex | 100% | 85% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 12 | ZAFFT Maximo S. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 52% | 20% | 3% |
| 13 | LIU Alexander | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 65% | 31% | 7% |
| 14 | POHL Merik A. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
| 15 | LI Brian X | 100% | 99% | 89% | 64% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 16 | KIM Benjamin I. | 100% | 87% | 55% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 17 | GANA Jr Jorge M. | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 17% | 2% | |
| 18 | KIM Juni C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 86% | 56% | 19% |
| 19 | YOON Nathan | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 35% | 10% | 1% |
| 20 | KUMAR Anitya | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 11% | |
| 21 | CAI Kevin P. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 47% | 13% | |
| 22 | RODNEY Maxwell | 100% | 63% | 21% | 3% | - | ||
| 23 | ROY Joseph T. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 79% | 49% | 19% | 3% |
| 24 | KRAVIT Connor B. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 67% | 32% | 7% |
| 25 | LEI Jacob | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 63% | 29% | 6% |
| 26 | KOFROTH Zachary R. | 100% | 92% | 65% | 29% | 7% | 1% | |
| 27 | MCDERMOTT Brian | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 39% | 9% |
| 28 | GYURE Brayden H. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 57% | 24% | 4% |
| 29 | SCRIBNER Aidan C. | 100% | 94% | 70% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 30 | BLISS Atticus H. | 100% | 91% | 63% | 28% | 7% | 1% | |
| 31 | LIU John | 100% | 94% | 68% | 31% | 8% | 1% | |
| 32 | RHYU Kozmo | 100% | 95% | 74% | 39% | 12% | 2% | |
| 33 | LUEDECKE Myles A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 45% | 11% |
| 34 | BODON Michele I. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 30% | 6% | |
| 35 | FARQUHARSON Cole | 100% | 99% | 88% | 60% | 25% | 4% | |
| 36 | STEELE DeMario A. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 63% | 29% | 6% |
| 37 | BRISLAWN Reilly R. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 56% | 16% | ||
| 38 | DIECK Logan O. | 100% | 99% | 86% | 53% | 19% | 3% | - |
| 39 | BRENNAN Charles F. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 40 | INSLER Ethan C. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 75% | 39% | 9% | |
| 41 | MORSE Tyler | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 17% | 2% | |
| 42 | SHIV Rishi | 100% | 84% | 46% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 43 | BEKKER Mitchel | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 4% |
| 44 | GRAYSON Shane W. | 100% | 82% | 46% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 45 | SHOURIE Jai | 100% | 88% | 54% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 46 | STEVENS Daniel | 100% | 84% | 49% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 47 | SMITH Jackson | 100% | 91% | 57% | 19% | 3% | ||
| 48 | PRASAD Ankith | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 13% | |
| 49 | GARRETT Samuel | 100% | 89% | 56% | 21% | 4% | - | |
| 50 | LOGUE Ethan D. | 100% | 96% | 77% | 42% | 13% | 2% | |
| 51 | LEE Timothy S. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
| 52 | ALVAREZ Ian T. | 100% | 95% | 74% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 53 | ZHAO Luhan | 100% | 80% | 41% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 54 | JOSEPH William | 100% | 96% | 70% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 55 | SUICO Zachary Emanuel O. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 49% | 13% | ||
| 56 | JANG Elliot | 100% | 76% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 57 | GOHEL Dayus T. | 100% | 93% | 66% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 57 | HOGAN Gideon | 100% | 73% | 28% | 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.