Secaucus, NJ - Secaucus, NJ, 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 | HOOSHI Jayden C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 68% | 25% |
2 | WONG Adrian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 55% |
3 | MARX Jackson L. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 58% | 16% | |
3 | XU Jia Bao | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 54% |
5 | LIU Derek | 100% | 99% | 88% | 52% | 15% | 1% | |
6 | TANG Alexander L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 93% | 69% | 32% | 7% |
7 | WONG Garrick G. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 65% | |
8 | GUO Justin | 100% | 99% | 88% | 58% | 21% | 3% | |
9 | CHEN Charlie Tian-You | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 36% |
10 | YANG Luao | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 13% |
11 | TANG Albert | 100% | 95% | 63% | 15% | 1% | < 1% | |
12 | TANG August L. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 25% | 2% |
13 | LIN James G. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 70% | 30% | 5% |
14 | LIN Michael | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 63% | 29% | 6% |
15 | AROUH Dylan | 100% | 97% | 76% | 39% | 11% | 2% | - |
16 | ZHEN Ethan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 43% | |
17 | XU Andy P. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 69% | 36% | 10% | 1% |
18 | CHENG Ethan | 100% | 92% | 65% | 28% | 6% | 1% | |
19 | XU Ethan | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 7% | - |
20 | LIEW Jeremy K. | 100% | 95% | 74% | 41% | 15% | 3% | - |
21 | LIU Zixian (Aaron) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 32% | 6% |
22 | XIE Brandon | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 22% | 2% |
23 | XIAO Benjamin | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 19% | 2% |
24 | DONG Quintin | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 67% | 33% | 7% |
25 | TRAUGOT Owen G. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 25% | 5% | - |
26 | YU Jason | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 50% | 19% | 3% |
27 | CHEN Kyle P. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 76% | 45% | 16% | 3% |
28 | TANG Owen S. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
29 | MATSAKH Philip | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
30 | LI Aaron | 100% | 97% | 76% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - |
31 | SHIM Peter S. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 25% | 4% | - |
32 | SHAO Eric | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 66% | 30% | 6% |
33 | BRAIZINHA Thomas | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 27% | 3% | |
34 | WONG Jacob W. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 20% | |
35 | FUKUDA Diego | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 55% | 19% | 2% |
36 | LI Matthew | 100% | 98% | 89% | 64% | 32% | 9% | 1% |
37 | LEE Jonah | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 16% | 2% | |
38 | BOBROW Silas | 100% | 97% | 71% | 30% | 6% | - | |
39 | GERRISH William | 100% | 93% | 66% | 28% | 5% | - | |
40 | SEMAPAKDI-CHANG Kaiden | 100% | 97% | 83% | 54% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
42 | LEE Brendan | 100% | 92% | 60% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
43 | YAO Bradley | 100% | 96% | 75% | 41% | 12% | 2% | - |
44 | ZHUANG Chuanxuan | 100% | 90% | 54% | 15% | 2% | - | |
45 | SENIC Lucas | 100% | 87% | 53% | 19% | 3% | - | |
46 | SIMON Luke | 100% | 97% | 79% | 45% | 15% | 2% | |
47 | HAN Jinu | 100% | 93% | 64% | 26% | 5% | - | - |
48 | MALHAM Andrew | 100% | 96% | 78% | 44% | 15% | 2% | - |
49 | HONG Logan | 100% | 82% | 43% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
50 | JURMAN Therin | 100% | 90% | 55% | 17% | 2% | - | - |
51 | ZHENG Leon | 100% | 98% | 86% | 51% | 17% | 3% | - |
52 | TAN Aidan | 100% | 55% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
53 | WONG Jackson | 100% | 66% | 23% | 4% | - | - | - |
54 | SALDANHA Rafael | 100% | 88% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - | |
55 | NG Micah | 100% | 98% | 87% | 60% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
56 | RAYKIN Gabriel | 100% | 87% | 47% | 12% | 1% | - | |
57 | BOSCO-SCHMIDT Tyler | 100% | 73% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - |
58 | GOFMAN Robert | 100% | 93% | 65% | 24% | 3% | - | |
59 | HUANG Eythan | 100% | 77% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
60 | TANG Terry | 100% | 88% | 54% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
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.