Anaheim , CA - Anaheim, 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 | KAMBESELES Peter G. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 19% |
| 2 | LEE Aaron Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 79% | 46% | 13% |
| 3 | RAYLE Evan K. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 22% |
| 3 | CANDELA Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 18% |
| 5 | LEI Joshua | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 37% | 8% |
| 6 | MATVEEV Valentin S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 30% |
| 7 | NGUYEN Ethan D. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 16% |
| 8 | MOOSEKIAN Stafford | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 78% | 44% | 12% |
| 9 | NORBUTAS Jackson S. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 55% | 18% | |
| 10 | SHIN Joshua | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 36% |
| 11 | TAE William G. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 58% | 22% | 3% | |
| 12 | WESTEN Zachary (Zack) C. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 48% | 17% | 3% |
| 13 | LEE Ryan | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 53% | 16% | |
| 14 | SPIER Julian H. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 25% | |
| 15 | ZAFFT Maximo S. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 28% | 5% |
| 16 | WANG Nathan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 35% | 8% |
| 17 | SHUGART Henry R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 55% | 15% |
| 18 | FORTNER Lance R. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 53% | 21% | 4% |
| 19 | RUSSANOV Boris J. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 19% | 3% |
| 20 | HILBERT Xavier | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 58% | 18% | |
| 21 | WEI Zikun | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 23% | |
| 22 | RHYU Kozmo | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 31% | 7% | 1% |
| 23 | WELLS Tommy R. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 18% | 3% |
| 24 | CAI Kevin P. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 26% | 4% |
| 25 | LIN Ryan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 35% | 7% |
| 26 | DESOUZA Hansel S. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 40% | 13% | 2% |
| 27 | SHACKLEFORD Aidan J. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 6% | |
| 28 | ROBINSON Riley | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 33% | 7% | |
| 29 | SHUR Yakov C. | 100% | 96% | 79% | 45% | 14% | 2% | |
| 30 | DAO Matthew M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 21% |
| 30 | CHIN Ethan | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 45% | 15% | 2% |
| 32 | YUMIACO Nolan C. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 33 | INSLER Gabriel C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 25% |
| 34 | ZHU Wilson | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 13% | |
| 35 | GAIDAR Daniel B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 20% |
| 36 | MUN Michael K. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 33% |
| 37 | VAN EIKEMA HOMMES Neil B. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 51% | 17% | 2% |
| 38 | JEONG Connor | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 59% | 16% |
| 39 | IVE Isaac L. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 38% | 9% |
| 40 | SUICO Zachary Emanuel O. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 27% | 5% |
| 41 | ZHOU Alan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 22% |
| 42 | ZHANG Eric | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 19% | |
| 43 | FARQUHARSON Cole | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 15% | 2% | |
| 44 | PLUMER Jack E. | 100% | 94% | 70% | 34% | 9% | 1% | |
| 45 | MACHULSKY Ned | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 13% | |
| 46 | MCDERMOTT Brian | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 28% | 5% | |
| 47 | LEE Alexander G. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 20% | 3% |
| 48 | MOHEBI Saam | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 35% | 6% |
| 49 | JEON Alexander E. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 41% | 11% | 1% |
| 50 | ROY Joseph T. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 38% | 9% |
| 51 | MILAM Hugh | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 22% |
| 52 | LEI Jacob | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 18% | 2% |
| 53 | LIU Alexander | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 24% | 4% |
| 54 | DEO Ameya | 100% | 89% | 51% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 55 | MAENG Jake W. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 37% | 11% | 1% |
| 56 | KAJI Ty | 100% | 99% | 86% | 51% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 57 | DE JONG Thijmen J. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 70% | 32% | 6% | |
| 58 | KOKENGE Clark | 100% | 96% | 75% | 39% | 11% | 1% | |
| 59 | VELO Juan Manuel H. | 100% | 78% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 60 | KIM PAUL | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 6% | - |
| 61 | ROMERO Caleb E. | 100% | 73% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 62 | DIAS-LALCACA Kieran P. | 100% | 84% | 47% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 63 | LUCERO-OLSON Aydin | 100% | 95% | 70% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 64 | NG Alexander M. | 100% | 92% | 64% | 27% | 6% | 1% | |
| 65 | ALAIMO Charles | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 47% | 14% | 2% |
| 66 | KAMBESELES Jack M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 36% | 8% |
| 67 | USHER Alexander | 100% | 99% | 88% | 59% | 25% | 6% | 1% |
| 68 | MIELE Benjamin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 32% | 7% |
| 69 | LIANG Aaron | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 70 | CHAVARIN Gustavos L. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 52% | 18% | 2% | |
| 71 | LEVY Zachari I. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 6% | |
| 72 | LEE Timothy S. | 100% | 95% | 75% | 40% | 12% | 1% | |
| 73 | SCRIBNER Aidan C. | 100% | 78% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 74 | THORNE Casey B. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 39% | 12% | 2% |
| 75 | RAJPAL Sartaj S. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 17% | 2% |
| 76 | DORRELL Connor I. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 53% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 77 | YOON Nathan | 100% | 99% | 85% | 50% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 78 | ARABACI Jack A. | 100% | 92% | 58% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
| 79 | GHILDIYAL Manyu | 100% | 97% | 80% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 80 | BARRY Dominick | 100% | 98% | 81% | 46% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 81 | LOUIE Jason | 100% | 75% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 82 | IYOKI Kent | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 32% | |
| 83 | ZHOU Alec Q. | 100% | 81% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 84 | ZHU Max | 100% | 93% | 66% | 30% | 7% | 1% | |
| 85 | DOLMETSCH Max | 100% | 70% | 24% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 86 | SOOHOO Jackson F. | 100% | 91% | 52% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 87 | CHUNG Thomas | 100% | 91% | 61% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 88 | OGILVIE Evan C. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 70% | 34% | 9% | 1% |
| 89 | SOLTER Kai | 100% | 74% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 90 | MOSES Alexander | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 43% | 13% | 2% |
| 91 | KANG Michael H. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 6% |
| 92 | XU Zitong (Evan) | 100% | 96% | 76% | 40% | 11% | 1% | |
| 93 | LI Brian X | 100% | 94% | 70% | 35% | 10% | 1% | |
| 94 | HE Jason | 100% | 75% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 95 | LEHR William D. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 27% | 5% | |
| 96 | YULE Alexander L. | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 16% | 2% | |
| 97 | ZIEBART Jeremy J. | 100% | 87% | 52% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 98 | KIM Benjamin I. | 100% | 85% | 46% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 99 | JUNG Alexander | 100% | 96% | 73% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 100 | LAVENSTEIN Kinley V. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 36% | 10% | 1% |
| 101 | LEE Matthew C. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 30% | 7% | 1% |
| 102 | SMITH Zane A. | 100% | 90% | 60% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 103 | MENDOZA Zachari | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
| 104 | FOREMAN Alexander E. | 100% | 83% | 44% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 105 | DUONG Enoch | 100% | 90% | 56% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 105 | WOMACH Tristan | 100% | 96% | 72% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 107 | KOPPE Alexander | 100% | 68% | 25% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 108 | SHOURIE Jai | 100% | 93% | 59% | 22% | 4% | - | - |
| 109 | HU Matthew | 100% | 74% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 109 | KOPPE Benjamin | 100% | 61% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 111 | GARRETT Samuel | 100% | 80% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 112 | KIM Sterling S. | 100% | 67% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 113 | ZHENG Yuanlong (Bill) | 100% | 97% | 78% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 114 | RAKHIMI Marat T. | 100% | 79% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 115 | INSLER Ethan C. | 100% | 89% | 57% | 23% | 5% | - | |
| 116 | BORLAND Isaac | 100% | 51% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 117 | DAYON Pierre | 100% | 73% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 118 | STENNIS Brendan | 100% | 44% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 119 | MA Victor | 100% | 40% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 120 | MILEY Nick N. | 100% | 55% | 12% | 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.