Ontario Convention Center - Ontario, 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 | CHIRASHNYA Daniel | - | - | - | 8% | 31% | 42% | 18% |
2 | BRISLAWN Reilly R. | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 36% | 53% |
3 | ERLIKHMAN Adrian | - | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 41% | 18% |
3 | CHU Theodore | 7% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
5 | KIM Sullivan | - | - | - | 2% | 11% | 38% | 49% |
6 | ROBINSON Samuel | - | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 43% | 24% |
7 | LIU Yueri | - | 3% | 15% | 36% | 36% | 11% | |
8 | WANG Joey | - | - | 2% | 10% | 33% | 43% | 11% |
9 | WU Johnny y. | - | 4% | 19% | 38% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
10 | MCDANIELS Jeremy | - | - | - | - | 5% | 32% | 62% |
11 | PARK Sangwook | - | - | 3% | 17% | 40% | 34% | 6% |
12 | HERBRANDSON Luke | 1% | 11% | 30% | 35% | 19% | 4% | - |
13 | ZHENG Haoran | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 35% | 55% |
14 | MCLAREN Mason | 2% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 2% | - |
15 | BOYCE Samuel H. | - | - | - | 2% | 11% | 38% | 49% |
16 | KIM Remington | 13% | 42% | 38% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
17 | KIM Alexander | 3% | 19% | 38% | 30% | 9% | 1% | |
18 | WU Steven | 2% | 19% | 41% | 30% | 8% | < 1% | |
19 | SANKEY Levi | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 38% | 21% | 4% |
20 | LUCERO-OLSON Aydin | - | - | 5% | 32% | 42% | 19% | 3% |
21 | WONG Baron | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 44% | 21% | |
22 | KILUK Andrew | - | 1% | 11% | 31% | 39% | 17% | |
23 | JAIN Samyak | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 31% | 10% | 1% |
24 | NORBUTAS Jackson S. | - | - | - | 1% | 7% | 33% | 60% |
25 | YU Austin | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 37% | 19% | 2% |
26 | TOYOFUKU Ethan | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 13% | 1% |
27 | ONG Jee Ken | - | - | - | 5% | 26% | 44% | 25% |
28 | FIECHTNER Thomas A. | - | - | 4% | 20% | 44% | 31% | |
29 | WANG owen | 1% | 10% | 32% | 38% | 17% | 2% | |
30 | GACIOCH Noah | 1% | 12% | 31% | 34% | 18% | 4% | - |
31 | LOUIE Joseph | 8% | 32% | 38% | 18% | 4% | - | |
32 | SIM Ian | - | 3% | 18% | 35% | 31% | 12% | 1% |
33 | LI Ethan R. | 1% | 8% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 4% | |
34 | YAO Geoffrey B. | - | - | - | 3% | 19% | 51% | 27% |
35 | JOHNSTON Conner S. | - | - | - | 1% | 7% | 35% | 57% |
36 | KIM Jayden | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 14% | 2% |
37 | MIAO KUNQI | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 39% | 27% | 4% |
38 | BARRAZA Eduardo | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 3% |
39 | PARKE Nathaniel | 1% | 14% | 36% | 34% | 13% | 1% | - |
40 | LITTLE Alex | 14% | 37% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
41 | VOO Lucas | 3% | 30% | 40% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - |
42 | CHARETTE Matthew | 1% | 9% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 6% | - |
43 | LEHNER Brian | 1% | 9% | 29% | 37% | 20% | 4% | - |
44 | AVETISIAN Alexander | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 33% | 15% | 2% |
45 | CHANG Andrew | - | 6% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
46 | DILLON Anik | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 33% | 13% | 2% |
47 | LEE Royce | 1% | 6% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% | 1% |
48 | CHOI JJ | 3% | 20% | 38% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - |
49 | KIM Sterling S. | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 38% | 13% | |
50 | LEE Jake (JiYuen) | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 31% | 10% | 1% |
51 | KIM Ian | 1% | 10% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - |
52 | WALLAK Jesse J. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 43% | 42% | |
52 | MORIN-JIANG Jake | 4% | 28% | 41% | 23% | 5% | - | |
54 | LI Yunji (Rain) | 3% | 19% | 38% | 30% | 10% | 1% | |
55 | WIEGAND-SHAHANI Braden M. | 11% | 37% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - | |
56 | LIPTON Jason S. | - | - | 5% | 22% | 43% | 30% | |
57 | ZHANG Austin | 11% | 32% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
58 | MARTIN zachary | 21% | 43% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
59 | LEE Tobias (Toby) T. | - | - | < 1% | 4% | 19% | 45% | 32% |
59 | ZAROTSKY Ronald | - | 1% | 11% | 31% | 37% | 18% | 2% |
61 | SANKEY Luka | 1% | 7% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 6% | - |
62 | LIANG Donny | 1% | 14% | 36% | 35% | 13% | 1% | - |
63 | MENDOZA Zandro | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 33% | 13% | 1% |
64 | SCHWENK Cody D. | 23% | 42% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | |
65 | SARMIENTO Luke | 12% | 40% | 34% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
66 | COLLINS Vernon | 3% | 19% | 38% | 29% | 9% | 1% | |
67 | DONG Haiyi | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 42% | 25% | 3% |
68 | FOWLER James A. | - | - | 2% | 21% | 41% | 29% | 7% |
69 | MAXU Tiger | 2% | 22% | 41% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
70 | MENG Haoyi | 14% | 41% | 33% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
71 | SAHAGIAN Izzy C. | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 13% | 2% |
72 | LAURSEN Logan | 4% | 21% | 37% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - |
73 | CHENG Trevor | 38% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | |
74 | ROBITZSKI Daniel A. | - | 4% | 20% | 38% | 30% | 8% | |
75 | CHEW Aedan | 3% | 18% | 37% | 31% | 10% | 1% | |
76 | NIXON Mark | - | 2% | 12% | 33% | 38% | 16% | |
77 | DU Yiwei | 12% | 34% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
78 | YOUNG Quentin | 17% | 39% | 32% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
79 | GADHVI Darius | 7% | 26% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
79 | BERTEL Florian | 23% | 42% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
81 | GOROZA Eric | 2% | 15% | 35% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - |
82 | AU Marcus J. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 45% | 23% |
83 | SUROV Alexander | 18% | 47% | 31% | 4% | - | - | - |
84 | TAGKOPOULOS Pagkratios | 15% | 39% | 33% | 11% | 2% | - | |
85 | MANDEL Christian | 1% | 11% | 32% | 37% | 16% | 2% | - |
86 | WILLIAMS Timothy | 1% | 7% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
87 | YAMASAKI Kyle A. | - | < 1% | - | 1% | 11% | 44% | 43% |
88 | XU Che | 4% | 22% | 38% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - |
89 | KRUGER Mark | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 36% | 18% | 3% |
90 | COIMBATORE Dillon | 80% | 18% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
91 | ANDERSON Donald | 25% | 44% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
92 | COLE Perrin | 45% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - | - | |
93 | LI Sean | 47% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
93 | DENG Destin | 37% | 42% | 18% | 4% | - | - | - |
95 | RAHMAN Zayd | 68% | 28% | 4% | - | - | - | |
96 | CHAO Warren | 8% | 29% | 36% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - |
96 | MARTIN Lucas | 39% | 42% | 16% | 3% | - | - | - |
98 | QIAN Zhixu | 64% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | - | - |
99 | DENG Andes | 73% | 24% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
100 | BRACCO Cameron | 37% | 46% | 16% | 1% | - | - | - |
101 | XUE Chenming | 6% | 25% | 36% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
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.