Birmingham Jefferson Convention Complex - Birmingham, AL, 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 | MAZAHERI Fletcher | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 42% |
| 2 | FEDELI Francesco | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 40% |
| 3 | KIM Gene | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 23% | |
| 3 | SHIN Noah | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 28% | |
| 5 | DOELL Ethan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 69% |
| 6 | GE Felix Fei | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 80% | 34% | |
| 7 | LIM EUNSEONG | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 48% | 10% |
| 8 | WU Gengze (Daniel) | 100% | 99% | 91% | 62% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 9 | PAN Ethan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 38% | |
| 10 | XU Nathan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 33% | 6% |
| 11 | SLAIN Owen | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 62% | 24% | 2% |
| 12 | FANG Haoyu | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 43% | |
| 13 | HUYNH Matthew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 69% | 23% | |
| 14 | ZHAO Nathan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 36% |
| 15 | QIAN Zekai | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 33% | 9% | 1% |
| 16 | LATORRE Leonardo | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 15% | |
| 17 | WANG Elijah (QiChen) | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 17% | |
| 18 | CHANG Parker | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 12% | |
| 19 | LIU Alex | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 68% | 20% | |
| 20 | PARK Andrew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 74% | 33% | 5% |
| 21 | SIU Max | 100% | 98% | 84% | 53% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 22 | JIN Xueyuan George | 100% | 100% | 94% | 66% | 22% | 3% | |
| 23 | ZENG Albert | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 38% | 10% | 1% |
| 24 | ZHAI Derrick | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 33% | 6% |
| 25 | ARORA Maximilian Andras A. | 100% | 93% | 67% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 26 | JIN Xuechong Daniel | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 27 | CHIANG Aiden | 100% | 92% | 57% | 17% | 2% | - | |
| 28 | BAIER Leon | 100% | 65% | 18% | 2% | - | - | |
| 29 | HUANG Dalynn | 100% | 100% | 96% | 69% | 27% | 5% | - |
| 30 | QIAN Henry | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 56% | 22% | 3% |
| 31 | DANTON Ryan | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 45% | 13% | 1% |
| 32 | LI Jayden | 100% | 99% | 92% | 58% | 19% | 3% | - |
| 33 | KIM Andrew | 100% | 97% | 80% | 44% | 13% | 2% | |
| 34 | MAZAHERI John | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 18% | 2% | |
| 35 | HOFFMAN Zane | 100% | 88% | 50% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 36 | HOARE Gabriel | 100% | 95% | 69% | 31% | 6% | - | |
| 37 | LEE Aeden | 100% | 90% | 57% | 22% | 4% | - | - |
| 38 | SUSANTO William | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 45% | 15% | 2% |
| 39 | DIFRANK Avery | 100% | 100% | 95% | 72% | 28% | 4% | |
| 40 | NEMI Vin | 100% | 93% | 64% | 27% | 5% | - | |
| 41 | JORGE Elijah | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 28% | 5% | |
| 42 | KOVACH Graham | 100% | 80% | 36% | 7% | - | - | |
| 43 | MAZAHERI Theodore | 100% | 94% | 64% | 26% | 6% | - | |
| 44 | LI Andrew | 100% | 93% | 67% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 45 | SCHWARTZ David | 100% | 99% | 87% | 48% | 13% | 1% | |
| 46 | LIU Runze | 100% | 89% | 55% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 47 | SIEBENALER Trevon | 100% | 99% | 83% | 45% | 12% | 1% | |
| 48 | GRIGORYAN Erik | 100% | 79% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 49 | REBNER Parker | 100% | 80% | 36% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 50 | KUTATELADZE Danieli | 100% | 57% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 51 | LIANG Andrew | 100% | 69% | 17% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 52 | ROBERTSON Liam | 100% | 66% | 17% | 2% | - | - | |
| 53 | MORRISON Archer | 100% | 74% | 31% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 54 | CHUNG Royce | 100% | 80% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 54 | PATEL Aarav | 100% | 77% | 32% | 5% | - | - | |
| 54 | PHILIPP John | 100% | 56% | 15% | 2% | - | - | |
| 57 | CHIU Vincent | 100% | 68% | 24% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 58 | HU Anthony | 100% | 82% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
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.