Salt Lake City, UT - Salt Lake City, UT, 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 | IYOKI Kent | - | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 37% | 17% |
| 2 | KIM Juni C. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 41% | 25% |
| 3 | ZAFFT Maximo S. | - | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 36% | 16% |
| 3 | LI Brian X | - | 4% | 16% | 30% | 31% | 16% | 3% |
| 5 | POHL Merik A. | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 3% |
| 6 | KRAVIT Connor B. | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 42% | 20% | |
| 7 | BRISLAWN Reilly R. | - | 6% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 7% | |
| 8 | CAI Kevin P. | - | 7% | 24% | 37% | 26% | 7% | |
| 9 | LIU Alexander | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 36% | 15% | |
| 10 | BEKKER Mitchel | 1% | 8% | 25% | 36% | 25% | 6% | |
| 11 | MALYSZ Anthony J. | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 43% | 22% | |
| 12 | SMITH Jackson | 2% | 12% | 31% | 35% | 17% | 3% | |
| 13 | LEE Timothy S. | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 6% |
| 14 | MCDERMOTT Brian | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 13% | |
| 15 | SHIV Rishi | 5% | 23% | 37% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 16 | DIECK Logan O. | 5% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 17 | LIN Kyran | 1% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 17% | 3% | |
| 18 | KOFROTH Zachary R. | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
| 19 | GYURE Brayden H. | - | 5% | 19% | 35% | 31% | 10% | |
| 20 | PRASAD Ankith | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 43% | 24% | |
| 21 | LIU John | 3% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 11% | 1% | |
| 22 | GANA Jr Jorge M. | - | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
| 23 | MOSES Alexander | - | 3% | 15% | 37% | 34% | 10% | |
| 24 | GRAY Sterling B. | - | 6% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% | |
| 25 | SALISBURY Cary | 11% | 34% | 35% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 26 | INSLER Ethan C. | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 36% | 21% | 4% |
| 27 | GARRETT Samuel | 1% | 12% | 32% | 34% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 28 | JAYENDRA Chandrashekar | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 7% |
| 29 | GRAYSON Shane W. | 3% | 25% | 38% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 30 | WELLS Tommy R. | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 7% |
| 31 | MORSE Tyler | 1% | 7% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
| 32 | SUICO Zachary Emanuel O. | 1% | 10% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 5% | |
| 33 | BLISS Atticus H. | 1% | 5% | 17% | 31% | 30% | 14% | 3% |
| 34 | LLOYD Alex | 3% | 14% | 30% | 31% | 17% | 5% | 1% |
| 35 | MIELE Benjamin | - | 1% | 4% | 16% | 32% | 33% | 14% |
| 36 | SHOURIE Jai | 1% | 10% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
| 37 | WRIGHT Christopher | 12% | 34% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 38 | LEI Jacob | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 40% | 16% | |
| 38 | JOSEPH William | 16% | 40% | 32% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 40 | LIANG Aaron | 1% | 9% | 28% | 38% | 20% | 4% | |
| 41 | JANG Elliot | 18% | 40% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 42 | GATZA Logan | 1% | 6% | 20% | 32% | 27% | 11% | 2% |
| 43 | KIM Benjamin I. | 1% | 10% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 5% | 1% |
| 44 | SCHEMBRI MCCORD Kruz T. | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 40% | 21% | |
| 45 | LOGUE Ethan D. | 6% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 8% | 1% | |
| 46 | STEVENS Daniel | 11% | 35% | 37% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 47 | LEE Alexander G. | - | 1% | 9% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 6% |
| 48 | ALVAREZ Ian T. | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | |
| 49 | PARK Elliot | 14% | 38% | 34% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 50 | CHU Allan | 14% | 33% | 32% | 16% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 51 | STENNIS Brendan | 62% | 32% | 6% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 52 | SCRIBNER Aidan C. | 9% | 31% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 53 | ZHAO Luhan | 20% | 40% | 29% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 54 | HARR Carver | 59% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | - | |
| 55 | GOHEL Dayus T. | 10% | 31% | 35% | 18% | 5% | - | |
| 56 | KOH Tommy | 28% | 43% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 57 | LOUIE Jason | 21% | 42% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 58 | HOGAN Gideon | 73% | 23% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
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.