NJ Convention & Exposition Center - Edison, NJ, 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 | SHIN Noah | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 43% | 38% |
| 2 | SIMONOV Timofey | - | - | - | - | 6% | 44% | 49% |
| 3 | WONG Jacob W. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 42% | 30% |
| 3 | ABRAMKIN Tim | - | - | 2% | 14% | 48% | 35% | |
| 5 | SHANNON Jack | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 40% | 46% |
| 5 | GRUNENWALD Henri | - | - | 1% | 8% | 32% | 48% | 11% |
| 7 | PLUMMER Waylon | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 38% | 20% |
| 8 | YEVDAYEV Tamir | - | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 36% | 13% |
| 9 | OH Joshua | - | 3% | 12% | 28% | 34% | 19% | 4% |
| 10 | LEE Thomas | - | - | 5% | 21% | 41% | 28% | 5% |
| 11 | BEYDOUN Sam | - | 4% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
| 12 | LEE Charles T | - | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 43% | 27% |
| 13 | SAMUEL Lucas | - | 4% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 10% | - |
| 14 | HOLMES Alexiy | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 36% | 31% | 9% |
| 15 | JIMENEZ Naveen | - | - | - | - | 4% | 30% | 66% |
| 16 | CHANG Zane | 1% | 10% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 17 | CHANG Parker | - | - | 2% | 16% | 46% | 35% | |
| 18 | WANG Freyr | 2% | 12% | 33% | 36% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 19 | HUYNH Matthew | - | - | 2% | 14% | 48% | 36% | |
| 20 | JAZWINSKI Ryan | - | - | 4% | 18% | 39% | 32% | 7% |
| 21 | ZHENG Austin | 2% | 14% | 32% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 22 | BHATT Jayan | 2% | 16% | 35% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 23 | WAYBRIGHT Matteo | - | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 44% | 19% |
| 24 | SENANI Arjun | - | - | 3% | 21% | 48% | 27% | |
| 25 | EZEKIEL Nathan | 1% | 13% | 35% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 26 | AYYAGARI Abhiram | 1% | 6% | 24% | 39% | 24% | 6% | - |
| 26 | CHENG Karter | 8% | 30% | 36% | 20% | 5% | - | - |
| 28 | TOOMRE Kai | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 5% |
| 29 | SONG Enoch | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
| 30 | CHOI Hunter | 1% | 5% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 8% | 1% |
| 31 | SHAW Eric | 6% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 32 | SMITH Colin | 4% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 33 | BAS Jonathan | 1% | 10% | 34% | 39% | 14% | 2% | |
| 34 | SIELSKI Evan | 11% | 35% | 37% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 35 | DIAZ Gabriel | 2% | 11% | 27% | 33% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 36 | LU Hansen | - | 3% | 17% | 37% | 33% | 9% | - |
| 37 | POLEBOYINA Amrit | - | 5% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 1% |
| 38 | ZHANG Ethan | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 39 | CAO Joshua | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 35% | 17% | 3% |
| 40 | TSIMBERG Jadon | 7% | 36% | 38% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 41 | KIM Albert | 26% | 46% | 23% | 4% | - | - | |
| 42 | INSERRO Luca | 7% | 28% | 39% | 21% | 3% | - | |
| 43 | ZHANG Julian | - | 7% | 25% | 37% | 25% | 6% | - |
| 44 | CHANG Xavier | 4% | 18% | 33% | 29% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 45 | RAJAT Rivaan | 20% | 41% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 46 | TSENG Lucas | 4% | 19% | 36% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 47 | XU Lucas | 16% | 39% | 33% | 11% | 1% | - | |
| 48 | SCHEURER Edwin | 3% | 18% | 41% | 30% | 7% | 1% | |
| 49 | CHEN Kevin | 29% | 46% | 21% | 4% | - | - | |
| 50 | YEUNG rex | 64% | 31% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 51 | BRADFORD-WATT Ezra | 29% | 42% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 52 | PARISH-MORRIS Jay | 23% | 41% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 53 | CONVERSO-PARSONS Alexander | 9% | 33% | 38% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 54 | CHAE Thomas Woojin | 65% | 29% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 55 | SANTHOSH Rithwik | 9% | 30% | 36% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 56 | LAWRENCE James | 14% | 38% | 34% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 57 | KANG Hunter | 8% | 31% | 39% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 58 | SINCAVAGE Louis | 11% | 35% | 37% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 59 | CROWE Ethan | < 1% | 1% | 8% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 7% |
| 59 | FRIEDMAN Noah | 15% | 35% | 32% | 15% | 4% | - | - |
| 59 | YUAN Chenhang | 33% | 42% | 20% | 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.