Salt Lake City, UT - Salt Lake City, UT, 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 | MEINHARDT Gerek L. | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 36% | 54% |
2 | ITKIN Nick (Nikita) B. | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 39% | 52% |
3 | CHAMLEY-WATSON Miles C. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 41% | 24% |
3 | MATHIEU Adam | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 38% | 50% |
5 | DEBACK Maximus (Max) X. | - | 6% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 7% | 1% |
6 | BARMANN Samuel (Sam) I. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 41% | 22% |
7 | KUMBLA Sidarth | - | - | - | 1% | 7% | 34% | 58% |
8 | HODGES Carter F. | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 41% | 17% | |
9 | LI Brian H. | - | - | 1% | 12% | 34% | 39% | 14% |
10 | KANESHIGE Brian K. | - | - | - | 3% | 17% | 46% | 35% |
11 | PAIK Joon K. | - | 1% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 20% | |
12 | BRAVO Kenji U. | - | - | - | 5% | 23% | 44% | 28% |
13 | HAMILTON Bogdan A. | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 35% | 17% | 3% |
14 | MOELIS Samuel (Sam) D. | - | - | - | 4% | 27% | 69% | |
15 | KNODT Julian P. | - | - | 5% | 22% | 43% | 30% | |
16 | ZHANG Daniel D. | 1% | 5% | 21% | 36% | 29% | 8% | |
17 | LI Brandon H. | - | - | 2% | 12% | 37% | 41% | 8% |
18 | LUTAR Lucas N. | 1% | 8% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 6% | |
19 | KIM Nicholas W. | 8% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 5% | 1% | |
20 | KUCEBA Vitalijs | - | 3% | 18% | 37% | 32% | 10% | |
21 | HAN YIMING | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 41% | 22% | |
22 | PRILUTSKY David B. | - | - | 3% | 20% | 40% | 29% | 7% |
23 | HU Oliver W. | 2% | 15% | 39% | 33% | 10% | 1% | - |
24 | JOHNSON Aidan J. | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 42% | 19% | 2% |
25 | MITBERG Gregory W. | - | - | - | 4% | 18% | 42% | 36% |
26 | ARCHER Kristjan | 1% | 11% | 32% | 36% | 17% | 3% | - |
27 | MARTINEZ Donavyn E. | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 5% | |
28 | SHIH William | 24% | 40% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | |
29 | REID Clayton J. | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 38% | 25% | 4% |
30 | PARK Luke J. | - | 2% | 14% | 38% | 33% | 11% | 1% |
31 | DORITY Philip S. | 1% | 9% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 3% | |
32 | OURSLER Jack | 1% | 7% | 29% | 41% | 19% | 3% | - |
33 | LIU Niles J. | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 26% | 7% | |
34 | KATAYAMA Kevin | - | 1% | 10% | 33% | 41% | 14% | 1% |
35 | ROSOWSKY Ahmed | - | 2% | 17% | 44% | 32% | 4% | - |
36 | TULYAG Fyze A. | 1% | 9% | 30% | 37% | 20% | 4% | |
37 | KAISER Hans Z. | 6% | 26% | 37% | 24% | 6% | - | |
38 | ZUSIN Zachary W. | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 5% |
39 | ZENG Lucas H. | - | 5% | 22% | 40% | 26% | 6% | - |
40 | XIAO Enoch A. | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 9% | 1% |
41 | PAIK Hyun K. | - | 4% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 13% | 2% |
42 | BAE Anthony | - | 5% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
43 | YU Vinni | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
44 | TIERNEY David A. | 6% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 7% | - | |
44 | XIAO Ethan J. | 2% | 14% | 34% | 34% | 14% | 2% | |
46 | BINDER Zachary (Zach) B. | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 37% | 27% | 6% |
47 | BOURTIS James S. | - | - | - | 5% | 27% | 50% | 18% |
48 | HUANG Bin | - | - | - | 4% | 21% | 48% | 27% |
48 | YANG Andy H. | 5% | 24% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
50 | YU Eric W. | - | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 33% | 11% |
51 | ORTS Lucas E. | - | - | - | 5% | 24% | 48% | 23% |
51 | SONG Lawrence (Larry) | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 35% | 17% | 2% |
53 | STREB JR. Joseph T. | 2% | 17% | 39% | 30% | 10% | 1% | - |
54 | OH Samuel H. | 3% | 19% | 37% | 30% | 10% | 1% | - |
55 | PARKINS Benjamin B. | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 38% | 16% | |
56 | JANG Jaewon | 8% | 29% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | |
57 | GRIFFIN John O. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 8% | |
58 | LEVY Jasper | 1% | 7% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 5% | |
59 | BERMENDER Cameron | 2% | 11% | 29% | 35% | 19% | 4% | |
60 | GORDON-SAND Spencer | 26% | 43% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | |
61 | HOOSHI Dylan M. | 11% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | |
62 | MCKENNA Joseph (Owen) O. | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
63 | KIM Brandon J. | 6% | 29% | 38% | 21% | 5% | - | - |
64 | HOLMES Andrew E. | - | - | 4% | 18% | 39% | 33% | 6% |
65 | DICKSON Farr R. | 2% | 11% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 4% | |
66 | HOLMES Stuart S. | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 34% | 14% | |
67 | PELOSKY Ryan F. | 3% | 16% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 2% | |
68 | MA Alexander | 6% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 7% | - | |
69 | LEVY Jacob M. | 1% | 10% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 3% | - |
70 | GIRALDO Pablo E. | 1% | 7% | 27% | 41% | 20% | 4% | - |
71 | CHENG Thomas C. | 2% | 17% | 36% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - |
72 | TAQI Ahmad F. | 5% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
73 | MOHAMMAD Abdulwahab | 3% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
74 | DESAI Nalin H. | 9% | 46% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
74 | GAUDET Paul D. | 14% | 37% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
76 | KIM Isaiah G. | 38% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
77 | DIERKS Kian | 41% | 43% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
78 | ADLER David R. | 18% | 42% | 30% | 9% | 1% | - | |
79 | LEE Benjamin H. | 4% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 8% | 1% | |
80 | ANDREWS Nathan J. | 5% | 21% | 36% | 27% | 10% | 1% | |
81 | WU Albert | 16% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | |
82 | SPEVAK Alexander | 16% | 37% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - | |
83 | KELLY William J. | 5% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
84 | LI Raphael C. | 12% | 43% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
85 | FARQUHARSON Cole | 7% | 29% | 37% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
86 | STACKHOUSE Andre L. | 45% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
86 | JAUME Andrei | 57% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
86 | LIM Ari | 4% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - |
89 | VANNI Filippo A. | 6% | 31% | 38% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
90 | HSIUNG Richie | 44% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
91 | ANDERSON David C. | 53% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
92 | GRIFFITH JACK | 2% | 21% | 46% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
93 | KIM Ian M. | 45% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
94 | URODOVSKIKH Evan | 32% | 44% | 20% | 4% | - | - | |
95 | PAEK Alex J. | 16% | 37% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - | |
95 | ZHAO Jason L. | 18% | 39% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | |
97 | MAO Connor | 24% | 42% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
98 | KIM Aaron J. | 19% | 46% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
99 | STURGIS Zachary C. | 68% | 29% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
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.