Irving, TX - Irving, TX, 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 | DHINGRA Gian K. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 27% |
| 2 | ERMAKOV Lev | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 22% | |
| 3 | RESHEIDAT Malik | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 27% | |
| 3 | CHANG Colin S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 52% | 14% |
| 5 | BULL Anderson | 100% | 100% | 98% | 78% | 38% | 7% | |
| 6 | JI Cody Walter | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 47% |
| 7 | POPE Nico | 100% | 100% | 96% | 72% | 29% | 3% | |
| 8 | ZUBATIY Samuel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 26% |
| 9 | CONINE Tanner C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 22% | |
| 10 | YANG Duncan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 47% | 13% |
| 11 | TONG ZACHARY | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 46% | 11% |
| 12 | DU Gavin J. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 21% | 3% |
| 13 | CHOI Silas | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 73% | 35% | 6% |
| 14 | CHON Taylor A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 33% | |
| 15 | CHEONG Heonjae | 100% | 100% | 97% | 77% | 37% | 7% | |
| 16 | KIM Alexander M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 71% | |
| 17 | JIANG Anthony | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 65% | 18% |
| 18 | ZHOU Brian | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 45% | 11% | |
| 19 | LU Caleb Q. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 69% | 29% | 5% | |
| 20 | SHOMAN Zachary | 100% | 100% | 99% | 85% | 49% | 12% | |
| 21 | BONSELL Vance | 100% | 96% | 74% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 22 | TANN Justin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 44% | 12% |
| 23 | YU Thomas | 100% | 96% | 76% | 39% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 24 | RHEE Ethan N. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 28% | 6% | 1% |
| 25 | HOUTZ Jackson | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 23% | |
| 26 | GHENEA George Philipe | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 37% | 11% | 1% |
| 27 | LEWIS John G. | 100% | 79% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 28 | STONE Esmond A. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 42% | 9% | |
| 29 | PATIL Aaryan A. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 72% | 32% | 6% | |
| 30 | LEUNG Nathan | 100% | 93% | 67% | 29% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 31 | LOPEZ Lucas M. | 100% | 91% | 61% | 24% | 4% | - | - |
| 32 | SHOMAN Noah | 100% | 100% | 89% | 50% | 12% | 1% | |
| 33 | WANG Andy | 100% | 95% | 72% | 34% | 8% | 1% | |
| 34 | WANG Nicolas | 100% | 100% | 96% | 73% | 28% | 4% | |
| 35 | QIU Nathan | 100% | 100% | 96% | 73% | 30% | 3% | |
| 36 | RADY-PENTEK Charles A. | 100% | 93% | 65% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 36 | CHEONG Heonjun | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 31% | 9% | 1% |
| 38 | ZHU Charlie | 100% | 69% | 19% | 2% | - | - | |
| 39 | GIANETTO Ethan K. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 17% | 2% |
| 40 | RICHARDS Jackson D. | 100% | 96% | 74% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 41 | SHERES Asher | 100% | 87% | 44% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 42 | RAJAN Advait | 100% | 52% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
| 43 | PAN Alex | 100% | 90% | 35% | 6% | - | - | |
| 44 | KILARI Krish | 100% | 97% | 82% | 47% | 14% | 1% | |
| 44 | DUDNICK Christian | 100% | 99% | 84% | 31% | 5% | - | |
| 46 | FOWBLE Chance | 100% | 91% | 63% | 28% | 7% | 1% | |
| 47 | KOCHENSPARGER III Robert L. | 100% | 87% | 48% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 48 | BYBEE Matthew | 100% | 21% | 1% | - | - | - | |
| 49 | BRADFORD Tucker | 100% | 92% | 64% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 50 | HUANG Alexander C. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 17% | 2% |
| 51 | ROE Finnegan | 100% | 81% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 52 | LI Matthew | 100% | 84% | 46% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 53 | XU Adler | 100% | 88% | 50% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
| 54 | WOLFE Alex | 100% | 64% | 18% | 2% | - | - | |
| 55 | CARUSO Massimo | 100% | 94% | 47% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 56 | YE Joshua | 100% | 85% | 46% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 57 | BOWMAN James | 100% | 21% | 1% | - | - | - | |
| 58 | ZHOU James Y. | 100% | 82% | 43% | 13% | 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.