La Jolla, CA - La Jolla, 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 | KUPANOFF Dimitri N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 66% |
| 2 | NOBLE Daniel | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 42% | 10% | |
| 3 | CHO Justin W. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 52% | 21% | 4% |
| 3 | PARK Justin W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 36% | |
| 5 | WINKLER Lucas G. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 23% | |
| 6 | KIM Shawn J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 50% |
| 7 | OSTER Keegan J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 32% |
| 8 | TAO Stone Z. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 57% | 20% | 3% | |
| 9 | CASTRO-SOLIS HUGO ABEL | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 58% | 16% |
| 10 | BARBER William S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 47% | 9% |
| 11 | RAJA Arnav | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 21% | 3% |
| 12 | ROBERTS Sam | 100% | 92% | 58% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 13 | KIM Andrew H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 56% | 10% |
| 14 | SINGER Carson | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 37% | 9% |
| 15 | YANG Kevin S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 49% |
| 16 | LE Hayden | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 36% | 7% | |
| 17 | BAILEY Asher | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 44% | 8% |
| 18 | ALKIN Isaac | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 40% | 7% | - |
| 19 | TANG Alex Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 83% | 41% | 6% |
| 20 | LI Joshua L. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 58% | 17% | 1% |
| 21 | IWAMOTO Eric Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 68% | 21% | |
| 22 | KOUNALAKIS Antoneo T. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 19% | |
| 23 | BREIER Satchel E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 80% | 35% | |
| 24 | RABINKOV Anthony | 100% | 100% | 90% | 41% | 8% | - | |
| 25 | VOCHOSKA Aidan F. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 60% | 26% | 5% |
| 26 | KIM Benjamin H. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 54% | 16% | |
| 27 | TANN Justin | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 22% | 3% | |
| 28 | REYES Xavier M. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 45% | 10% | |
| 29 | PORTMANN Stein J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 73% | 25% | 2% |
| 30 | JINICH Ilan R. | 100% | 98% | 73% | 33% | 7% | 1% | |
| 31 | FLORES Peter D. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 58% | 15% | |
| 32 | HASNAH Henry | 100% | 97% | 80% | 47% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 33 | JIANG Anthony | 100% | 100% | 99% | 84% | 40% | 7% | |
| 34 | LLAMAS Diego F. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 65% | 31% | 7% |
| 35 | GAO Ethan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 74% | 29% | 3% |
| 36 | PROCHAZKA Archer R. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 46% | 12% | 1% | - |
| 37 | REED Samuel J. | 100% | 77% | 31% | 6% | - | - | |
| 38 | SARIPALLI Satvik | 100% | 57% | 15% | 2% | - | - | |
| 39 | AVAKIAN Alec | 100% | 98% | 81% | 45% | 13% | 1% | |
| 40 | VAUGHN Michael R. | 100% | 71% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 41 | GRIFFIN Nicholas D. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 49% | 15% | 2% |
| 42 | LIU Christopher X. | 100% | 91% | 63% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 43 | BAILEY Nate | 100% | 89% | 52% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 44 | HODGES Calvin | 100% | 89% | 35% | 6% | - | - | - |
| 45 | SWORDS Evan F. | 100% | 88% | 49% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 46 | KORINTH Alexander J. | 100% | 73% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
| 47 | CHANIN Liam R. | 100% | 61% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 47 | VAUGHN Justin T. | 100% | 63% | 18% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 49 | WANG CIHANG | 100% | 73% | 25% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 50 | HAWKINS Jasper R. | 100% | 84% | 42% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 51 | CHOI Jaemin | 100% | 92% | 60% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
| 52 | VILLA-KOWAL Ivan H. | 100% | 98% | 80% | 40% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 53 | SALAKHLY Mark | 100% | 92% | 56% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
| 54 | BRISTOL Brijen | 100% | 74% | 29% | 5% | - | - | |
| 55 | TIEU Ethan | 100% | 79% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 56 | DAVIS Oliver | 100% | 40% | 3% | - | - | - | |
| 57 | SIVAKUMAR Ashwin | 100% | 39% | 7% | 1% | - | - | |
| 58 | LI Chengyu | 100% | 94% | 59% | 16% | 2% | - | - |
| 59 | DHANANI Zain | 100% | 53% | 10% | - | - | - | - |
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.