Nittany Valley Sports Centre - State College, PA, 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 | CHEN Brian | - | - | - | - | 4% | 29% | 67% |
| 2 | DUKO Phillip | - | 2% | 14% | 34% | 36% | 14% | |
| 3 | ZHANG Michael | - | - | 4% | 17% | 36% | 33% | 11% |
| 3 | BOUDREAUX James | - | - | - | 2% | 19% | 59% | 20% |
| 5 | LEE DoWon | - | 1% | 8% | 22% | 34% | 27% | 9% |
| 6 | DECKER Hunter | - | 2% | 11% | 31% | 39% | 17% | |
| 7 | LIN Nathan | 1% | 8% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 5% | |
| 8 | YANG Alex | 2% | 13% | 33% | 34% | 16% | 3% | |
| 9 | ANAFI Ari | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 43% | 25% | |
| 10 | AHMED Mohsen | - | 2% | 13% | 41% | 45% | ||
| 11 | CHO Alex | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 40% | 28% | 4% |
| 12 | HU Anton | - | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 38% | 16% |
| 13 | HENNESSY Levon | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% | |
| 14 | KIM Gene | - | 2% | 11% | 31% | 39% | 18% | |
| 15 | LENNON Nicholas | 1% | 11% | 35% | 41% | 12% | ||
| 16 | CHEN Jayden | - | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 13% |
| 17 | RADENOVIC Vukan | - | - | - | - | 4% | 32% | 64% |
| 18 | MODANLOU Navid | - | - | 3% | 15% | 41% | 41% | |
| 19 | RIM Eugene | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 40% | 22% | |
| 20 | DURKIN Hudson | 1% | 7% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 5% | |
| 21 | SCHAUER Oliver | 1% | 11% | 30% | 37% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 22 | LEE Anton | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 5% | |
| 23 | SUN Lucas | 1% | 7% | 22% | 33% | 25% | 10% | 2% |
| 24 | WANG Kaiyan | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 40% | 22% | 2% |
| 25 | MILLER Quinlan | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 17% | 4% |
| 26 | TU Jinqi | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 4% |
| 27 | AGROMAYOR Benjamin | 1% | 6% | 24% | 39% | 26% | 5% | |
| 28 | CUMMINGS Owen | 2% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 2% | |
| 29 | LEE Henry | 17% | 40% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 30 | RAMEY Daylon | 27% | 42% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - | |
| 31 | STARKIE Kitteridge | 17% | 41% | 32% | 9% | 1% | ||
| 32 | NUSCHKE Luka | 13% | 35% | 34% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 33 | MARIN Ayan N. | 17% | 39% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 34 | WALTERS Tomas | 1% | 8% | 22% | 32% | 25% | 10% | 2% |
| 35 | GOVOROV Alexander | 19% | 39% | 30% | 10% | 2% | - | |
| 36 | CHEN Edward | 2% | 14% | 33% | 33% | 15% | 2% | |
| 37 | CUELLAR Markus | 8% | 32% | 37% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 38 | HERDMAN Julian | 3% | 18% | 36% | 31% | 11% | 1% | |
| 39 | NALLICHERI Ayaan | 2% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% | |
| 40 | BANG Dylan | 13% | 35% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 41 | CUK Max | 12% | 36% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 42 | TSIEN Richard | 16% | 40% | 34% | 10% | 1% | ||
| 43 | ZHANG Jason | 1% | 11% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 2% | - |
| 44 | ESPINAL DAPIC Nicolas | 1% | 6% | 23% | 37% | 27% | 7% | |
| 45 | LUO Alexander | 1% | 8% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 6% | |
| 46 | HELMY Richard | 4% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 9% | 1% | |
| 47 | NG Nico | 3% | 17% | 36% | 32% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 48 | ARMSTRONG Payson | 7% | 28% | 37% | 22% | 6% | 1% | |
| 49 | CZACHOROWSKI Mark | 21% | 42% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 50 | ADDYSON Aidan | 3% | 18% | 35% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 51 | KIM Zac | 15% | 34% | 32% | 15% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 52 | ZHU Jared | 20% | 41% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 53 | MALHAM Andrew | 2% | 12% | 32% | 37% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 53 | ZHENG Jason | 23% | 41% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 55 | NUSCHKE Conrad | 13% | 35% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 56 | HELLINGER Ben | 5% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 57 | ZHU Yiming | 7% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 8% | 2% | - |
| 58 | YU David | 6% | 26% | 39% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 59 | O'KEEFE Grady | 4% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 9% | 1% | |
| 60 | WITHERELL Logan | 43% | 41% | 14% | 2% | - | - | |
| 61 | FRIEDMAN Andres | 15% | 39% | 34% | 11% | 1% | ||
| 62 | BENUCCI Vincent | 36% | 41% | 18% | 4% | - | - | |
| 63 | BRAVO ORTEGA Estéfano | < 1% | 1% | 8% | 27% | 41% | 23% | |
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.