University of California, Los Angeles - Collins Court, John Wooden Center - Los Angeles, CA, 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 | LEE Seungwon | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 41% | 24% |
2 | LIPTON Jason S. | - | - | - | 6% | 32% | 45% | 16% |
3 | PHILIPPINE thibault N. | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 38% | 53% |
3 | MCDANIELS Jeremy | - | - | 1% | 10% | 35% | 45% | 10% |
5 | MA Victor | - | - | - | 1% | 14% | 49% | 36% |
6 | CHIEN Brandon | - | - | - | - | 6% | 34% | 60% |
7 | LIU Yueri | 5% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
8 | JUGAN Bruce M. | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 42% | 46% |
9 | MENDOZA Zachari | - | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 12% |
10 | LEE Joseph J. | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 3% |
11 | WANG DEVON | - | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 37% | 14% |
12 | SHEN Jiayi | - | 4% | 21% | 40% | 29% | 6% | - |
13 | ACKERMANN Richard | - | 5% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 8% | 1% |
14 | GELNAW William (Gypsy) H. | - | - | 2% | 16% | 45% | 31% | 5% |
15 | ZHOU Runda | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 31% | 10% | 1% |
16 | LOEFFLER Carl E. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 26% |
17 | SMITH Justin C. | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 42% | 43% |
18 | MENDOZA Zandro | - | - | 2% | 14% | 40% | 37% | 7% |
19 | ROBITZSKI Daniel A. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 28% | 47% | 18% |
19 | SPEICHER Brian E. | - | 1% | 12% | 34% | 36% | 15% | 1% |
21 | LINGVAY Laurance (Larry) S. | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 39% | 25% | 5% |
22 | XIANG Hongyi | 1% | 5% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
23 | DILLON Anik | 17% | 43% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
24 | LEE Royce | 6% | 28% | 40% | 22% | 5% | - | - |
25 | CHEONG Cameron | 5% | 28% | 44% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
26 | VALBUENA Xavier | - | 1% | 13% | 38% | 36% | 12% | 1% |
27 | WANG owen | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 40% | 22% | 3% |
28 | KOUTSOUKOS James | 1% | 12% | 36% | 36% | 14% | 2% | - |
29 | CLAWSON Brian C. | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 48% | 36% |
30 | FERRIERE Joshua | 1% | 10% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - |
31 | DESOUZA Hansel S. | - | - | < 1% | 1% | 8% | 40% | 51% |
32 | FAN Beichen | - | 3% | 15% | 36% | 36% | 10% | 1% |
33 | TAYLOR Daryl J. | - | - | - | 1% | 6% | 32% | 61% |
34 | ROBITZSKI David R. | - | - | 2% | 16% | 43% | 33% | 6% |
35 | WILLIAMS Terrill D. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 37% | 36% | 10% |
36 | WU Johnny y. | 1% | 10% | 32% | 40% | 15% | 2% | - |
37 | HUANG Tony | 2% | 12% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 4% | - |
38 | CHAO Warren | 1% | 11% | 32% | 36% | 16% | 3% | - |
39 | LIAS Richard | 1% | 9% | 29% | 37% | 19% | 3% | - |
40 | CHANG Huan-Yu | 1% | 7% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
41 | GADHVI Darius | 4% | 36% | 41% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
41 | MIAO Kunqi | - | 2% | 20% | 39% | 29% | 8% | 1% |
43 | BELL Michael S. | 3% | 19% | 39% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - |
44 | O’CONNOR Nathan (Finn) | 1% | 12% | 35% | 37% | 13% | 2% | - |
45 | LEON Miguel | 6% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
46 | BAXTER David | 4% | 21% | 37% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - |
47 | FERRIERE Thomas | 5% | 26% | 40% | 23% | 5% | - | - |
48 | WOO Lucas | 4% | 27% | 43% | 22% | 4% | - | - |
49 | MAXU Tiger | 4% | 65% | 26% | 4% | - | - | - |
50 | CHARETTE Matthew | - | 6% | 27% | 41% | 23% | 3% | - |
51 | FU Adrian | 31% | 43% | 21% | 5% | - | - | - |
52 | DU Yiwei | 5% | 33% | 41% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
53 | XUE Chenming | 36% | 44% | 17% | 2% | - | - | - |
54 | KHOO Mason | 29% | 44% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
55 | XU Wangzitai | 13% | 36% | 34% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
56 | MCGAHA-SCHLETTER Dashiell | 92% | 8% | - | - | - | - | - |
57 | HOFFMAN Tyler | 50% | 38% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
58 | CAO Vincent | 22% | 40% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
59 | CREASON Nicholas | 16% | 42% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
60 | ITO WILSON Miles | 19% | 44% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
61 | GALLIVAN James | 78% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
61 | CAMP Ryder | 26% | 42% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
63 | MCKOWN Christopher | 23% | 42% | 26% | 7% | 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.