Intercontinental - Los Angeles Hotel - 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 | LIN Xilong | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 41% | 44% |
| 2 | LIN Youlong | - | - | - | - | 7% | 40% | 53% |
| 3 | CHOI Ethan | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 42% | 46% |
| 3 | LOZANO Veyron Jericho | - | - | 2% | 19% | 42% | 30% | 6% |
| 5 | YI William W. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 41% | 25% |
| 6 | PARK Sky | - | - | 1% | 7% | 29% | 43% | 20% |
| 7 | ZHANG Jacob | - | - | 1% | 11% | 36% | 40% | 12% |
| 8 | BORG Matthew | 1% | 6% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
| 9 | COSTE Fabien | - | - | - | 6% | 26% | 48% | 19% |
| 10 | DERRICK Blake | - | - | - | 1% | 13% | 42% | 44% |
| 11 | LE Jacob H. | - | - | - | 7% | 35% | 44% | 14% |
| 12 | BIELER Mason | - | 1% | 9% | 31% | 40% | 17% | 2% |
| 13 | CHEN Matthew | - | - | 1% | 8% | 31% | 42% | 18% |
| 14 | MARTIN IV Elmer D. | - | - | - | 1% | 13% | 43% | 42% |
| 15 | QIU Zhaocheng | - | - | 1% | 7% | 30% | 45% | 16% |
| 16 | KIM Aiden | 1% | 7% | 24% | 37% | 26% | 6% | |
| 17 | BAE Eugene | - | - | 4% | 18% | 36% | 31% | 10% |
| 18 | KETTELLE John | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 35% | 14% | |
| 19 | SMITH Grant D. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 40% | 40% | 10% |
| 20 | LIU William | - | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 35% | 14% |
| 21 | PARK Steve (Sangmin) | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 29% | 8% |
| 22 | LING Carson Jr | - | 1% | 14% | 42% | 33% | 9% | 1% |
| 23 | WONG Evan | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 13% | |
| 24 | PE Noah | - | 4% | 20% | 41% | 28% | 7% | - |
| 25 | PINCHENG Yao | - | - | 4% | 17% | 35% | 33% | 11% |
| 26 | FOY Grant | 12% | 34% | 34% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 27 | ONG Nicholas | - | 4% | 21% | 41% | 28% | 6% | - |
| 28 | ZHOU Ryan | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 34% | 17% | 3% |
| 29 | CHONG Tristan | - | 2% | 16% | 41% | 31% | 9% | 1% |
| 30 | WEI Winston | 1% | 17% | 50% | 26% | 5% | - | - |
| 31 | TSOI Spencer | 2% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 32 | CHOI Ethan | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 39% | 19% | 3% |
| 33 | LI Matthew | - | - | 1% | 13% | 37% | 37% | 12% |
| 34 | CHANG Jonathan | - | - | 2% | 12% | 35% | 39% | 12% |
| 35 | CHEN Owen | 20% | 46% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 36 | FLANAGAN Miles | 1% | 9% | 31% | 38% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 37 | LI Daniel | 1% | 7% | 31% | 45% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 38 | CHANG Eric Jonathan | 2% | 14% | 32% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 39 | SCHIENEMAN Valentine | - | 2% | 14% | 38% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
| 40 | KIM Jonah | 9% | 30% | 36% | 19% | 5% | - | |
| 41 | WONG Braxton | 7% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 42 | PONTOPPIDAN Erik | 17% | 41% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 43 | LEE Christopher | 30% | 46% | 21% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 44 | ZHAN Kevin | 2% | 16% | 41% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 44 | KULKARNI Karan | 6% | 30% | 43% | 19% | 2% | - | - |
| 46 | SMITH Jeremiah | 20% | 47% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 47 | ORNELAS Matteo | 2% | 13% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 48 | KARPMAN Benny | 25% | 46% | 25% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 49 | POUND Michael | 20% | 40% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - | |
| 50 | PETRAITIS Matteus | 6% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% | |
| 51 | CHEN kenneth | 8% | 34% | 41% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 52 | TRUJILLO Jonah | 40% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 53 | CHEN Fengyi(James) | 1% | 8% | 30% | 38% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 54 | MCCARVILL Cooper | 6% | 29% | 42% | 19% | 3% | - | - |
| 55 | MARSHALL Kyler | 63% | 33% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 56 | YOUNG Luke | 30% | 46% | 21% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 57 | LO Ernest | 43% | 43% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 57 | TURNER Finian | 22% | 46% | 27% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 59 | HUANG Nathan | 34% | 42% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 59 | BURLINGAME Owen | 25% | 41% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 59 | MALIGAYA Gabe | 31% | 45% | 20% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 62 | COLLIGAN Apollo | 18% | 57% | 22% | 2% | - | - | - |
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.