Salle Auriol Seattle - Seattle, WA, 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 | ELSAYED Ahmed | - | - | - | - | - | 5% | 95% |
| 2 | HSU Shiou Tian | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 43% | 21% | 2% |
| 3 | WESTPHAL David R. | - | - | - | - | 8% | 45% | 47% |
| 3 | HAMZA Tudor | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 53% | 35% |
| 5 | LARSEN Samuel F. | - | - | - | - | 3% | 25% | 72% |
| 6 | MALAHE Michael | - | - | - | 6% | 25% | 43% | 25% |
| 7 | MATHES Caleb | - | - | 2% | 15% | 41% | 40% | 1% |
| 8 | SPROWLES Cameron D. | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 42% | 38% |
| 9 | WU Alistair | - | - | 2% | 14% | 37% | 36% | 11% |
| 10 | DONDISCH Ilan | - | 1% | 11% | 35% | 36% | 14% | 2% |
| 11 | LUEDECKE Myles A. | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 6% |
| 12 | DU SHUNYU K. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 33% | 43% | 14% |
| 13 | CARLSON Jesse | - | - | 3% | 16% | 40% | 36% | 5% |
| 14 | KROGH Daniel (Dan) M. | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 42% | 44% |
| 15 | WEISE Eli S. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 43% | 22% |
| 16 | BREILING Nikki | 1% | 7% | 27% | 40% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 17 | DESSAUER Tobyn M. | - | - | 3% | 16% | 39% | 33% | 9% |
| 18 | SUVOROV Yuly | - | - | 5% | 28% | 44% | 20% | 3% |
| 19 | WANG Aaron | 1% | 11% | 43% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 20 | SHI William | - | 5% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
| 21 | LI Timothy | 12% | 40% | 34% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 22 | KILUK Andrew | - | - | 1% | 7% | 29% | 43% | 20% |
| 23 | TSAI Oscar | - | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 14% |
| 24 | ROBERTS Peter | - | 2% | 14% | 33% | 33% | 15% | 3% |
| 25 | VARNEY John R. | - | 1% | 9% | 32% | 42% | 16% | |
| 26 | CRANOR Erich L. | - | - | 2% | 16% | 44% | 38% | |
| 27 | DEMPSEY Connor | - | - | 1% | 12% | 36% | 38% | 13% |
| 28 | MYRAH Devin | 7% | 30% | 41% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 29 | GOWDA Suyog | 6% | 35% | 41% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 30 | KIM Teo | 5% | 25% | 40% | 23% | 5% | - | - |
| 31 | PARKEY Jack O. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 37% | 39% | 8% |
| 31 | LEWIS Michael | 2% | 17% | 39% | 32% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 33 | RAMIREZ Hunter | 44% | 41% | 13% | 2% | < 1% | - | - |
| 34 | OLSON Kevin | - | 5% | 23% | 40% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 35 | BRACCO Cameron | 44% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - | - | |
| 36 | REED David | - | 3% | 17% | 39% | 32% | 9% | 1% |
| 37 | ST.CLAIRE-KING Tenzin | - | 7% | 29% | 41% | 20% | 2% | - |
| 38 | DAN Rex | - | 4% | 20% | 41% | 30% | 5% | - |
| 39 | WAI Andreas | 1% | 13% | 34% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 40 | TOYOFUKU Ethan | - | 2% | 17% | 41% | 31% | 9% | 1% |
| 41 | TANG Zheng | 4% | 30% | 41% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 42 | DUNNING Kurt R. | 9% | 39% | 37% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 43 | BACON Corban | 44% | 45% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 44 | MONTGOMERY Elliot | 2% | 20% | 41% | 29% | 7% | - | - |
| 45 | SPERANZA John | 9% | 36% | 37% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 46 | JONES Colby | 53% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 47 | HARRISKING Benjamin | 13% | 39% | 35% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 48 | BREILING Sebastian | 46% | 40% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 49 | KRYLTSOV Greg | 2% | 14% | 36% | 34% | 12% | 1% | |
| 50 | WEGENER Soren | 1% | 12% | 35% | 36% | 14% | 2% | |
| 51 | PAGE Aaron M. | - | < 1% | 3% | 19% | 39% | 31% | 8% |
| 52 | SILKEY Jason | 10% | 40% | 36% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 52 | BIROAN Chaz | 4% | 29% | 43% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 54 | PENG Gregory | - | 1% | 9% | 31% | 39% | 17% | 2% |
| 55 | KLEIN Johannes | 2% | 18% | 39% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 56 | STOCK Jordan | - | 2% | 15% | 38% | 35% | 9% | - |
| 57 | MEHROTRA Dhruv | 21% | 56% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 58 | GILMORE Nik | 26% | 50% | 21% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 59 | SRINIVASAN Sanat Ram | 67% | 29% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 59 | CASONI Calder | 66% | 29% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 61 | RAMIREZ Tristan | 60% | 35% | 4% | - | - | - | - |
| 62 | DAN Chuntao | 36% | 44% | 18% | 3% | - | - | - |
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.