Thousand Oaks, CA - Thousand Oaks, 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 | LA ROSA Federico | - | 2% | 15% | 37% | 36% | 10% | |
| 2 | FUNK Theo S. | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 7% |
| 3 | JEON Alexander E. | - | - | - | 3% | 18% | 45% | 34% |
| 3 | CATLIN Adam | - | - | 3% | 14% | 36% | 37% | 10% |
| 5 | HONG Daniel | - | - | - | 3% | 20% | 48% | 28% |
| 6 | NGUYEN Jett | - | - | - | 1% | 13% | 47% | 38% |
| 7 | TOBIN Ryan | - | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 41% | 24% |
| 8 | WILKENS Zach Q. | 1% | 11% | 31% | 38% | 18% | 2% | - |
| 9 | PROUTY Nicholas C. | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 42% | 27% | |
| 10 | SCHENCK Theo | - | 3% | 13% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 4% |
| 11 | WONG Anthony M. | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 41% | 44% |
| 12 | GIRALDO Pablo E. | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 39% | 23% | 4% |
| 13 | HO Justin | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 14 | NGUYEN Nish | 3% | 15% | 31% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 15 | WHARTON Zachary | 1% | 7% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
| 16 | FORTNER Lance R. | - | 8% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 4% | |
| 17 | OH Jonathan | 2% | 17% | 38% | 31% | 11% | 1% | |
| 18 | MORALES Ian N. | 4% | 28% | 38% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 19 | MEINHOLD Li | - | 5% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
| 20 | KUMBLA Samarth | - | - | - | 3% | 21% | 48% | 28% |
| 21 | HSIUNG Richie | 3% | 16% | 31% | 30% | 15% | 4% | - |
| 22 | XIAO Edward | 2% | 13% | 32% | 35% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 23 | WU Conrad J. | 1% | 11% | 32% | 36% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 23 | BARTEL Jacob L. | - | 4% | 16% | 31% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
| 25 | PIESNER Joshua C. | - | 5% | 18% | 33% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
| 26 | KIM Aaron J. | - | 3% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
| 27 | MCCOSH Evin M. | 5% | 32% | 40% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 28 | CHENG Matthew S. | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
| 28 | LAMBRECHT Julius | 12% | 34% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 30 | HODESS Ethan | 2% | 22% | 39% | 28% | 8% | 1% | |
| 31 | ARNOLD Oscar A. | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 9% |
| 32 | GOLDADE Luke A. | 69% | 27% | 4% | - | - | - | |
| 33 | LUNA Emilio | 5% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 34 | LEE David Y. | 7% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 35 | WONG Luke S. | 5% | 25% | 40% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
| 36 | SELIVANOV Adam | 13% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 37 | WOMACH Tristan | 41% | 42% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 38 | MASCARI DUMONT Alexandre | 25% | 43% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 39 | MA Jonas(zhao long) | 44% | 39% | 14% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 40 | HOBSON Aaron K. | 3% | 18% | 37% | 32% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 41 | LYMAN Finnian S. | 20% | 41% | 28% | 9% | 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.