San Jose, CA - San Jose, 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 | BANERJEE Anup | - | - | - | - | 3% | 27% | 70% |
| 2 | DANKAR Neel | - | - | 1% | 10% | 39% | 50% | |
| 3 | DIERKS Kian | - | - | 3% | 18% | 43% | 35% | |
| 3 | LO Conrad | - | - | - | - | 1% | 16% | 84% |
| 5 | NG Eben S. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 36% | 41% | 8% |
| 6 | CHIRASHNYA Adam | - | - | 5% | 21% | 42% | 32% | |
| 7 | WOO Christian | - | 1% | 14% | 38% | 36% | 12% | |
| 8 | SUNG Chang-Han S. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 32% | 38% | 15% |
| 9 | CHUANG Kian J. | - | - | 4% | 18% | 41% | 37% | |
| 10 | CORTRIGHT Joshua C. | - | - | 6% | 28% | 43% | 22% | |
| 11 | MA Andrew | - | 4% | 22% | 41% | 27% | 5% | |
| 12 | DETERING Julian | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 38% | 16% | |
| 13 | ZHANG Jiening G. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 40% | 21% |
| 14 | KIM Ryan Y. | 2% | 19% | 41% | 29% | 8% | 1% | |
| 15 | KANG Anthony Jaegu | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 34% | 10% | |
| 16 | SMITH Grant D. | 2% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 2% | |
| 17 | FINNEY Lorenz | - | 5% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 18 | MU Jeffrey | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 4% | |
| 19 | BAEK David | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 40% | 18% | |
| 20 | MARTIN IV Elmer D. | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 14% | 2% |
| 21 | CHIN Ryan | - | 6% | 28% | 42% | 20% | 2% | - |
| 22 | LYNCH Owen C. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 34% | 44% | 9% |
| 23 | HOSKERI Anik S. | - | 6% | 23% | 38% | 27% | 7% | |
| 24 | TEH Ryan | 13% | 35% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | |
| 25 | YEE Johnathan | - | 3% | 20% | 41% | 30% | 6% | |
| 26 | KHER Roan | - | 3% | 18% | 40% | 33% | 7% | |
| 27 | CHOPRA Rohan A. | 2% | 11% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 28 | COELHO Cristiano P. | - | - | - | < 1% | 4% | 30% | 65% |
| 29 | WANG Ethan | 4% | 21% | 37% | 28% | 9% | 1% | |
| 30 | VALOUEV Aleksey | 18% | 39% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 31 | BAO Aaron | - | 2% | 16% | 37% | 34% | 11% | 1% |
| 32 | UPENDER Sky | 63% | 32% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 33 | HARRIS Otto | 12% | 34% | 34% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 34 | YU Leo | - | - | 1% | 6% | 31% | 55% | 7% |
| 35 | HUSSAIN Ibrahim | 7% | 26% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 36 | WHITE Austin M. | - | 1% | 14% | 38% | 36% | 11% | |
| 37 | LIN Richard | 12% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | |
| 38 | WACHTEL Oliver | 29% | 46% | 21% | 4% | - | - | |
| 39 | RAINS Jackson T. | 9% | 35% | 39% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 40 | HUSSAIN Ismail A. | 4% | 25% | 41% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
| 41 | NG Kenneth | 11% | 33% | 36% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 42 | AIKEN Nicholas A. | 4% | 22% | 38% | 26% | 8% | 1% | |
| 43 | WU Lucas | - | 1% | 11% | 35% | 40% | 13% | |
| 44 | CHENG Jonathan | - | 3% | 27% | 42% | 23% | 4% | |
| 45 | CHEN Justin K. | 6% | 28% | 41% | 21% | 4% | - | |
| 46 | CHEN Evan | 5% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 8% | 1% | |
| 47 | CHASTAINE Ryan L. | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 48 | RANJITH Yash M. | 8% | 28% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 49 | LEVY Jacob | 1% | 14% | 36% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 50 | BUFIY Aeneas | 18% | 38% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 51 | LLIDO Soren | 10% | 41% | 36% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 52 | CHU Colin | 19% | 62% | 18% | 2% | - | - | |
| 53 | ZENG Chuyi | 16% | 37% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 54 | MAK Osman K. | 7% | 36% | 39% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 55 | BARTELS Milo | - | 2% | 15% | 38% | 36% | 9% | - |
| 55 | MA Bryant | 3% | 16% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 57 | LI Jett | 2% | 12% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 58 | FANG Jaden | 10% | 30% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - | - |
| 59 | ANDERSON Jacob | 18% | 41% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 60 | MYERS Dean | 33% | 44% | 20% | 4% | - | - | |
| 61 | RUBIN Max | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 3% | |
| 61 | GERA Kaveer | 70% | 28% | 2% | - | - | - | |
| 63 | SISINNI Riccardo | 57% | 35% | 7% | 1% | - | - | |
| 64 | ZHANG Luke | 47% | 40% | 11% | 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.