Chelsea Piers - Stamford, CT - Stamford, CT, 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 | GHEDINI Luca | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 70% | |
| 2 | MARTIN Darius | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 51% | 14% |
| 3 | CHEN Ethan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 70% | 27% |
| 3 | CHEN Hanson | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 69% |
| 5 | SIMONOV Timofey | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 49% |
| 6 | LI Bradley | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 61% | |
| 7 | CHO Xzander | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 78% | 33% | |
| 8 | XU Nathan | 100% | 98% | 87% | 60% | 27% | 6% | - |
| 9 | SION Andrew | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 14% | 1% |
| 10 | GERRISH William | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 70% | 24% |
| 11 | ZHAO Ryan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 31% | 4% |
| 12 | TOOMRE Kai | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 61% | 17% | |
| 13 | HOU Gaven | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 20% | |
| 14 | YAVENDITTI William | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 6% | |
| 15 | HARRA Alexander | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 45% | 14% | 2% |
| 16 | GRIGORIEV Michael | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 53% | 8% | |
| 17 | CHENG Logan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 31% |
| 18 | MARTIRE Luca | 100% | 97% | 79% | 45% | 15% | 2% | |
| 18 | SENANI Arjun | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 34% | 6% | |
| 20 | KRZYWON Dylan | 100% | 89% | 53% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 21 | NOVIKOV Yann | 100% | 100% | 95% | 67% | 28% | 6% | - |
| 22 | WONG Jacob W. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 25% | |
| 23 | JIN Andy | 100% | 99% | 83% | 45% | 12% | 1% | |
| 24 | HAN Alexander | 100% | 100% | 95% | 70% | 30% | 4% | |
| 25 | CHEN kenneth | 100% | 96% | 71% | 29% | 6% | - | |
| 26 | MO Ethan | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 51% | 18% | 2% |
| 27 | HELMY Richard | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 18% | 1% |
| 28 | SHANNON Jack | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 21% | 3% |
| 29 | ABRAMKIN Tim | 100% | 97% | 72% | 28% | 5% | - | |
| 30 | CZARNECKI Thomas | 100% | 99% | 80% | 40% | 10% | 1% | |
| 31 | BRAIZINHA David | 100% | 71% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 32 | BO Aiden | 100% | 52% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 33 | WU Isaac | 100% | 97% | 61% | 17% | 2% | - | |
| 34 | WANG Luke | 100% | 93% | 67% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 35 | FOGELSON Hugh | 100% | 100% | 97% | 76% | 29% | 3% | |
| 36 | REN Ryan | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 11% | |
| 37 | ONIK Ari N. | 100% | 100% | 89% | 54% | 17% | 1% | |
| 38 | ZHANG Ethan | 100% | 98% | 83% | 50% | 17% | 2% | - |
| 39 | REYES Yannik | 100% | 95% | 71% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 40 | ZHENG Austin | 100% | 84% | 45% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 41 | WANG Ancen | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 36% | 8% | |
| 42 | ZHANG Gavin | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 47% | 14% | 2% |
| 43 | HART-SYED declan | 100% | 95% | 72% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 44 | FROST Chayse | 100% | 100% | 96% | 71% | 21% | 2% | |
| 45 | LI Jayden | 100% | 96% | 75% | 39% | 12% | 1% | |
| 46 | CHUN Alexander | 100% | 17% | 1% | - | - | - | |
| 47 | XIA Philip | 100% | 94% | 58% | 17% | 2% | - | |
| 48 | QIAN Zekai | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 49 | ZHENG Christopher | 100% | 89% | 59% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 50 | HU Daniel | 100% | 96% | 76% | 39% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 51 | CHUN Zachary | 100% | 65% | 22% | 3% | - | - | |
| 52 | CHANG Ian | 100% | 33% | 4% | - | - | - | |
| 53 | YOUM Tyson | 100% | 17% | 1% | - | - | - | |
| 54 | KINGSLEY Griffin | 100% | 95% | 75% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 55 | KIAYIAS Alexander | 100% | 98% | 65% | 18% | 2% | - | |
| 56 | TIAN Dylan | 100% | 68% | 26% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 57 | HERBST Ari | 100% | 71% | 17% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 57 | LIANG Haojia | 100% | 80% | 39% | 10% | 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.