Anaheim , CA - Anaheim, 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 | KIM Shawn J. | - | - | 2% | 9% | 27% | 39% | 22% |
2 | MA Jonathan D. | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 40% | 44% |
3 | GREENBAUM Maxwell H. | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 41% | 39% |
3 | KUPANOFF Dimitri N. | - | - | - | 1% | 12% | 40% | 47% |
5 | LIANG Connor | - | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 43% | 25% |
6 | FLORES Peter D. | 1% | 8% | 24% | 35% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
7 | SOHN Kevin J. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 35% | 15% |
8 | REESE Aaron S. | - | 5% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 8% | |
9 | CALLAHAN Jaden P. | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 5% |
10 | RAI Avin | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% |
11 | IWAMOTO Eric Y. | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 3% |
12 | OSTER Keegan J. | - | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 34% | 11% |
13 | DINU Nicholas D. | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 41% | 25% | |
14 | VACCARI Braden | 2% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 9% | 2% | - |
15 | HEATHCOCK Colin | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 38% | 18% | 3% |
16 | ZHOU Matthew R. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 31% | 39% | 18% |
17 | MARSEE James | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 6% |
18 | DEMAREST Iain | - | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 39% | 21% |
18 | KOUNALAKIS Antoneo T. | - | 5% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
20 | PRIEST Leighton K. | - | - | 1% | 12% | 36% | 38% | 13% |
21 | DHINGRA Gian K. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 37% | 36% | 11% |
22 | KIM Benjamin H. | 1% | 11% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 5% | - |
23 | HU William | - | - | 2% | 9% | 27% | 40% | 22% |
24 | CHO Brandon | 1% | 7% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
25 | FRISHMAN Ethan J. | - | 2% | 12% | 28% | 34% | 19% | 4% |
26 | HARLEY Colby A. | - | - | 4% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 11% |
26 | WINKLER Lucas G. | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% |
28 | KIM Minwook | - | - | 2% | 13% | 32% | 37% | 16% |
29 | GRATHWOL-SEAR Sebastian | 2% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
30 | BREIER Satchel E. | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 1% |
31 | HONG Marshall Q. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 41% | 27% |
32 | NOBLE Daniel | 1% | 15% | 34% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
33 | BARBER William S. | 2% | 16% | 37% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - |
34 | SEVOSTYANOV Stepan (Seva) | - | - | 3% | 16% | 35% | 33% | 11% |
35 | NG Jonathan H. | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 5% |
36 | KIM Sean G. | - | - | - | 5% | 24% | 44% | 26% |
37 | KANG Brandon M. | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 6% |
38 | LIMB Matthew G. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 18% |
39 | JEFFORDS Alexander | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 7% |
40 | QUAN Nicholas | - | 5% | 19% | 33% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
41 | WESLER Logan A. | 28% | 43% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | |
42 | WILLIAMS Nolan E. | - | - | 4% | 18% | 38% | 33% | 8% |
43 | GINIS Nathan | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
44 | SHEPANEK Noah M. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 20% |
44 | ALKIN Isaac | 9% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
46 | WUN William | - | 2% | 15% | 39% | 32% | 10% | 1% |
47 | CAPPELLUTI Ryan M. | - | 5% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 12% | 2% |
48 | SHIN Richard J.H. | - | 3% | 14% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 3% |
49 | DILLREE Spencer S. | 2% | 13% | 31% | 33% | 17% | 4% | - |
50 | TANG Brendan J. | - | 4% | 16% | 33% | 32% | 13% | 2% |
51 | LE Hayden | 6% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
52 | CHANG Brandon | - | 1% | 10% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 4% |
53 | TRINH Trevor Z. | 1% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
54 | SMITH David C. | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 36% | 22% | 5% |
55 | YATES Colum C. | 5% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
56 | BERGER Oliver | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
57 | ZIELINSKI Nicholaus M. | - | - | 4% | 17% | 36% | 32% | 10% |
58 | YANG Ziyi | 2% | 13% | 32% | 35% | 16% | 3% | |
59 | STATEN-LUSTY Silas J. | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 7% |
60 | REDFIELD Jack | 6% | 30% | 43% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
61 | DENNER Maximilian P. | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
62 | LIU Kelly | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
63 | CHU Sean L. | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% | |
64 | SATHE Tej R. | 26% | 40% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
65 | GREEN IV James (Bud) | - | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 11% | 1% |
66 | SINGER Carson | 2% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 2% | |
67 | TANG Alex Y. | 4% | 19% | 34% | 28% | 12% | 2% | - |
68 | LI Joshua L. | 6% | 33% | 39% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
69 | HOUTZ Jackson | 11% | 36% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
70 | HASNAH Henry | 23% | 42% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
71 | ZHANG Michael M. | 5% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
72 | HARLEY Sage N. | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 21% | 5% | 1% |
72 | RUNDLETT Jakob C. | 12% | 36% | 34% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
74 | WANG Eric Y. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
75 | UEYAMA Ietetsu A. | 13% | 33% | 34% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
76 | BAILEY Asher | - | 5% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
77 | CHANG Colin S. | 2% | 16% | 35% | 31% | 13% | 3% | - |
78 | GAFFNEY John M. | 26% | 50% | 21% | 3% | - | - | - |
78 | JINICH Ilan R. | 7% | 30% | 37% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
80 | BROWNE JR ROLSTON D. | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 37% | 30% | 8% |
81 | KIM Andrew H. | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% |
82 | DEAK Gabriel M. | 23% | 41% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
83 | MYERS Kaleb S. | 3% | 20% | 39% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - |
83 | WYCHE Scott H. | 17% | 39% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
85 | LEUNG Nathan | 39% | 44% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
86 | MICHNA Colin P. | 18% | 38% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
87 | KAYDALIN Artyom | 4% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
88 | TANN Justin | - | 6% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
89 | REED Samuel J. | 70% | 26% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
90 | HJERPE Wade H. | 6% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
91 | VO Minh Q. | 45% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
92 | ROSS Avi J. | 30% | 46% | 21% | 3% | - | - | - |
92 | JEFFERY Jakob | 43% | 41% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
94 | KIM Noah L. | 28% | 41% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
95 | VILLA-KOWAL Ivan H. | 18% | 44% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
95 | KORINTH Alexander J. | 66% | 29% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
95 | LEITH Jack | 61% | 33% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
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.