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 | KELLY William J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 41% | 10% |
| 2 | CHUNG Andrew N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 78% |
| 3 | CHEN Andrew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 13% |
| 3 | YU Vinni | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 29% |
| 5 | LIN Richard W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 32% | 5% |
| 6 | MION Lorenzo | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 9% |
| 7 | DESERANNO Jeidus | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 37% |
| 8 | HU Oliver W. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 34% | 7% |
| 9 | MARTINEZ Donavyn E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 27% |
| 10 | KASI Sanjay | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 37% | 8% |
| 11 | YANG Adam | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 50% | 15% |
| 12 | PAEK Alex J. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 24% | 4% |
| 13 | OH Samuel H. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 51% | 19% | 3% |
| 14 | ZHANG Andy W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 40% | 9% |
| 15 | GIRALDO Pablo E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 54% | 17% |
| 16 | NAGER Noah | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 17 | MAURER Ned (John) E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 17% |
| 17 | WEN George C. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 43% | 13% | 2% |
| 19 | MA Alexander | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 70% | 28% |
| 20 | CHIN Jason Y. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 34% | 7% |
| 21 | MORAIS Paulo | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 26% |
| 22 | KUMBLA Samarth | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 43% | 11% |
| 23 | BING Charles | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 15% | 2% |
| 24 | CHEN Allen | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 7% | |
| 25 | FARQUHARSON Cole | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 18% | 3% |
| 26 | ZHAO Jason L. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 78% | 43% | 11% |
| 27 | CHENG Matthew S. | 100% | 98% | 80% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 28 | BAE Junnie | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 31% | 7% | |
| 29 | HONDA Kazu Z. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 50% | 19% | 3% |
| 30 | KELLY Benjamin J. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 39% | 10% | 1% |
| 30 | SWEENEY Quinn | 100% | 76% | 28% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 32 | LAURICELLA Douglas | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 47% | 11% | - |
| 33 | GRANT Lachlan K. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 43% | 11% |
| 34 | LEE Joshua | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 35 | BANERJEE ANUP | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 43% | 5% |
| 36 | LIN Dashiell | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 15% |
| 37 | VITI Mark G. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 65% | 31% | 6% |
| 38 | LI Raphael C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 81% | 40% | 8% | - |
| 39 | XIAO EDWARD | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 40 | FUKUDA Alessio R. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 41 | LUH Ethan K. | 100% | 81% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 42 | HOOSHI Dylan M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 79% | 44% | 11% |
| 43 | KIM Isaiah G. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 45% | 15% | 2% |
| 44 | HSIUNG Richie | 100% | 96% | 73% | 36% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 45 | KIM Tei D. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 51% | 18% | 3% |
| 46 | URODOVSKIKH Evan | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 40% | 10% | |
| 47 | ZHENG Alan H. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 52% | 18% | 2% |
| 48 | CHIN Julian S. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 21% | 3% |
| 49 | DIERKS Kian | 100% | 99% | 80% | 41% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 50 | SUNG Chang-Han S. | 100% | 83% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 51 | KIM Yonjae | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 53% | 20% | 3% |
| 52 | GU Jeffrey | 100% | 100% | 97% | 67% | 25% | 4% | - |
| 53 | PHAM-CHANG Duke A. | 100% | 72% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 54 | FUKUDA Renzo K. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 22% | 4% | |
| 55 | BARTEL Jacob L. | 100% | 99% | 87% | 51% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 56 | SONG Leonardo T. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 57 | JEON Caleb A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 28% | 6% |
| 58 | DING Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 4% |
| 59 | WU Albert | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 60% | 24% | 4% |
| 60 | MCCOSH Evin M. | 100% | 68% | 21% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 61 | YU Anders | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
| 62 | WANG Gerald Y. | 100% | 67% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 63 | LI Ryan Z. | 100% | 78% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 64 | MILLER Duncan R. | 100% | 95% | 67% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 65 | SPEVAK Alexander | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 45% | 12% |
| 66 | BURKE Spencer W. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 22% | 3% |
| 67 | KIM Jackson | 100% | 86% | 44% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 68 | ARNOLD Oscar A. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 69 | LIM Charles Q. | 100% | 53% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 70 | HAN Andersen Y. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 71 | AMICO Julian F. | 100% | 100% | 90% | 59% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 72 | SONG Dylan S. | 100% | 99% | 86% | 51% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 73 | CHIRASHNYA Adam | 100% | 85% | 49% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 74 | GODZHIK Zachary | 100% | 95% | 72% | 36% | 10% | 1% | |
| 75 | HOOSHI Jayden C. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 74% | 39% | 11% | 1% |
| 76 | NEWELL Ian A. | 100% | 93% | 68% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 77 | SONG Aiden S. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 48% | 15% | 2% |
| 78 | KEE Andrew L. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 45% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 79 | SYLVESTER William Z. | 100% | 81% | 40% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 80 | KIM Aaron J. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 81 | CAI Jason Zhicheng | 100% | 87% | 52% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 82 | BOSELEY Owen | 100% | 40% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 83 | SHAJI Karthik | 100% | 97% | 63% | 23% | 4% | - | - |
| 84 | MURATA Akitoshi D. | 100% | 62% | 16% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 85 | MILLER Chance | 100% | 46% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 86 | DORMAN Patrick | 100% | 15% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 87 | PATINO Yahir | 100% | 69% | 25% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 88 | ZACHARY Zane | 100% | 72% | 13% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 89 | JEFFERY Jakob | 100% | 42% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 90 | DURSTELER Ryken | 100% | 18% | 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.