The Fencing Center - San Jose, 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 | ZHANG Aaron | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 61% |
| 2 | WANG Elijah (QiChen) | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 55% | 21% | 3% |
| 3 | LI Richard | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 15% |
| 3 | QIU Zhaocheng | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 49% |
| 5 | SISINNI Leonardo | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 43% | 8% |
| 6 | PONS Diego | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 37% |
| 7 | CHANG Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 31% |
| 8 | YUE Jackson | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 50% | 18% | 2% |
| 9 | WU Lucas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 20% |
| 10 | KIM Jonah | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 62% | 24% | 3% |
| 11 | LAM Nicolas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 23% |
| 11 | YANG Charles | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 74% | 36% | 7% |
| 13 | WONG Evan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 39% |
| 14 | CLARK Benjamin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 42% | 10% |
| 15 | LO Ernest | 100% | 70% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 16 | AGRAWAL Niki | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 34% | 8% |
| 17 | ONG Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 42% | 10% |
| 18 | MANIKTALA Suvir | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
| 19 | TSAY Jordan R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 48% | 12% |
| 20 | BI Ryan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 55% | 16% |
| 21 | HOLLIDAY Christopher Mansfield-Scott | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 21% | 2% |
| 22 | YEE Colin | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 29% | 8% | 1% |
| 23 | SEIGEL Duncan | 100% | 91% | 63% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 24 | GORDON William L. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 57% | 24% | 5% |
| 25 | PARK Andrew | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 22% | 3% |
| 26 | WONG Braxton | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 27 | ZHANG Jayden | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 28% | 6% | - |
| 28 | AGARWAL Savya | 100% | 94% | 69% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 29 | LEHTINEN Axel | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 23% | 4% | - |
| 30 | ANDRADE Cedric | 100% | 91% | 58% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
| 31 | CHAN Joseph | 100% | 97% | 80% | 48% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 32 | ZHANG Andrew | 100% | 94% | 69% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 33 | LUK Trusten | 100% | 97% | 79% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 34 | BORG Matthew | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 65% | 31% | 7% |
| 35 | ZHOU Shawn | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 16% | 2% |
| 36 | NISHIHIRA Tyler | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 35% | 10% | 1% |
| 37 | GANAPATHI Eshan | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 38 | LEE Christopher | 100% | 97% | 75% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 39 | SLAIN Owen | 100% | 96% | 72% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 40 | CHEN Owen | 100% | 88% | 51% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 41 | GRINER Kevin | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 42 | ZHAN Kevin | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 48% | 16% | 2% |
| 43 | KARPMAN Benny | 100% | 71% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 44 | DOUGLASS Liam | 100% | 99% | 91% | 61% | 23% | 4% | - |
| 45 | WILLIAMS Matthew | 100% | 82% | 40% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 46 | LIU Yuxuan | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 47 | ARCARA Evan | 100% | 76% | 29% | 6% | - | - | - |
| 48 | HE Ian | 100% | 96% | 76% | 40% | 12% | 1% | - |
| 49 | PETROV Mikhail | 100% | 99% | 90% | 66% | 33% | 9% | 1% |
| 50 | BHARDWAJ Ranbir | 100% | 82% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 51 | NGUYEN Ethan | 100% | 70% | 26% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 52 | BURLINGAME Owen | 100% | 88% | 55% | 21% | 5% | - | - |
| 53 | HE Bourne | 100% | 89% | 56% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 54 | LEONG Wilson Hua | 100% | 71% | 27% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 55 | LEE Linus | 100% | 64% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 55 | HERNANDEZ Jonathan | 100% | 53% | 14% | 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.