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 | DICKSON Farr R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 51% |
| 2 | GRIFFIN John O. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 64% |
| 3 | BAE Junnie | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 26% |
| 3 | FUKUDA Renzo K. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 23% | |
| 5 | FUKUDA Alessio R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 34% |
| 6 | DESHMUKH Ayush | 100% | 100% | 95% | 66% | 24% | 3% | |
| 7 | TSAY Jeremy M. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 73% | 35% | 7% | |
| 8 | WONG Adam L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 22% |
| 9 | ZHANG Andy W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 39% | |
| 10 | ZHAO Jason L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 43% |
| 11 | DORAN Wesley C. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 48% | 15% | 2% |
| 12 | LIN Dashiell | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 47% | 12% | |
| 13 | AVRON Case B. | 100% | 98% | 78% | 37% | 8% | 1% | |
| 14 | OH SEAN | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 55% | 16% | |
| 15 | MURRAY Maximo | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 62% | 26% | 5% |
| 16 | NEWHARD Noah A. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 28% | 6% | - |
| 17 | YANG Luao | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 31% | |
| 18 | LI Peihong | 100% | 98% | 85% | 51% | 14% | 1% | - |
| 19 | NEWELL Ian A. | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 17% | 2% | |
| 20 | CHOI Samuel | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 46% | 11% | |
| 21 | ELKOUSY Laith H. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 17% | 2% | |
| 22 | SONG Aiden S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 39% | |
| 23 | REYES Omar | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 19% | |
| 24 | DANKAR Neel | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 41% | 8% | |
| 25 | KLEPKO Gleb | 100% | 97% | 76% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 26 | SONG Dylan S. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 42% | 9% | |
| 27 | GOOR Julian | 100% | 100% | 96% | 72% | 30% | 5% | |
| 28 | WILLIAMS Connor J. | 100% | 92% | 39% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 29 | GODZHIK Zachary | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 40% | 7% |
| 30 | CHENG Nathan | 100% | 90% | 60% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 31 | MARICONDA Christopher | 100% | 98% | 82% | 46% | 13% | 1% | |
| 32 | FINNEY Lorenz | 100% | 84% | 47% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 33 | REEVES Liam | 100% | 97% | 81% | 47% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 34 | MCLAUGHLIN Lloyd I. | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 25% | 6% | - |
| 35 | SHA Yi Peng | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 19% | 3% | |
| 36 | SHEN Troy R. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 17% | 2% | - |
| 37 | GILLIAM Jason E. | 100% | 98% | 79% | 42% | 12% | 1% | |
| 38 | FINLEY Dylan | 100% | 94% | 58% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 39 | KUO Evan | 100% | 67% | 25% | 5% | - | - | |
| 40 | KANG Anthony Jaegu | 100% | 98% | 82% | 46% | 14% | 1% | |
| 41 | WONG Adrian | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 37% | 8% |
| 42 | PALMA Matthew Dominic | 100% | 99% | 88% | 56% | 19% | 2% | - |
| 43 | PRASANNA Advaith | 100% | 98% | 83% | 47% | 13% | 1% | - |
| 44 | YANG Andrew | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 48% | 8% | - |
| 45 | SHEN Luke R. | 100% | 83% | 42% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 46 | ZHOU Oscar J. | 100% | 96% | 72% | 34% | 8% | 1% | |
| 47 | TAN Christien | 100% | 90% | 58% | 22% | 4% | - | |
| 48 | GAO William | 100% | 69% | 26% | 5% | - | - | |
| 49 | KHER Roan | 100% | 94% | 67% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 50 | ROSS III Paul D. | 100% | 81% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
| 51 | JI Aidan Y. | 100% | 91% | 61% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
| 52 | PIERCE Cody | 100% | 92% | 61% | 22% | 3% | - | - |
| 53 | ZHENG Jadon | 100% | 71% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 54 | LAKE Wyatt J. | 100% | 92% | 61% | 23% | 5% | - | |
| 55 | ROBINSON Elliot G. | 100% | 53% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 56 | XU Ethan | 100% | 22% | 1% | - | - | - | |
| 56 | GARCIA Dylan | 100% | 71% | 27% | 5% | - | - | |
| 58 | PIERCE Logan | 100% | 33% | 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.