Atlantic City Convention Center - Atlantic City, 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 | BRODSKY Julian | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 38% | 49% |
| 2 | SVERDLOV Seth | - | - | 2% | 12% | 39% | 48% | |
| 3 | SOKOL Luke | - | - | 2% | 13% | 41% | 44% | |
| 3 | TRAN Spencer | - | - | - | 5% | 22% | 43% | 30% |
| 5 | ATKINS Levi H. | - | - | - | 1% | 7% | 33% | 59% |
| 6 | DOUBOV Andrew | - | - | - | 3% | 18% | 43% | 35% |
| 7 | WU Matthew | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 16% | 3% | |
| 8 | VYSOTSKIY Evan | - | 2% | 12% | 34% | 38% | 14% | |
| 9 | CHEN Zhengyang (Allen) | - | - | - | 1% | 7% | 35% | 57% |
| 10 | HU Lucas | - | - | - | 2% | 11% | 38% | 50% |
| 11 | SHOUSHA Hamza | - | - | 2% | 11% | 32% | 40% | 15% |
| 12 | WANG Marcus | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
| 13 | LIU Pan Iok | 12% | 37% | 36% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 14 | MANSFIELD Hunter | 3% | 17% | 35% | 31% | 12% | 2% | |
| 15 | NAKAS Levent | - | - | 4% | 18% | 42% | 36% | |
| 16 | KARIMOV Amir | - | < 1% | 5% | 24% | 45% | 26% | |
| 17 | GUMEDELLI Mohnish | - | - | 5% | 22% | 43% | 29% | |
| 18 | ZHENG Jason | 2% | 15% | 36% | 34% | 12% | 1% | |
| 19 | ZHU Yiming | 1% | 11% | 30% | 36% | 19% | 3% | |
| 20 | KIM Gene | - | - | 5% | 23% | 45% | 27% | |
| 21 | LEE DoWon | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 37% | 22% | 4% |
| 22 | LIU Adam | - | - | - | 2% | 16% | 44% | 38% |
| 23 | WU Jonathan | - | - | - | - | 2% | 21% | 76% |
| 24 | NILSEN Mark | - | 5% | 26% | 39% | 23% | 6% | - |
| 25 | KABA Elias | - | 4% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 1% |
| 26 | LI Jade | - | 5% | 21% | 39% | 29% | 6% | |
| 27 | GUO Benjamin | 2% | 17% | 37% | 31% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 28 | CRESPO Nathaniel Justus | - | 2% | 9% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 3% |
| 29 | HEGLAND Grady | 1% | 12% | 36% | 36% | 13% | 2% | |
| 30 | CHEN Tianjun | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 40% | 21% | 3% |
| 31 | CASH William Li | 16% | 37% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 32 | KIM Zac | 10% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 33 | KIM Henry | - | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 45% | 21% |
| 34 | TUNG Charlie | 5% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 35 | BRADSHAW Carter | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 40% | 20% | |
| 36 | RIM Eugene | - | 4% | 17% | 36% | 33% | 9% | |
| 37 | CHAU Collin | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 38 | NOOL Alexander | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 38 | CHOU-ESTEBAN Pau | - | - | 3% | 17% | 39% | 34% | 7% |
| 40 | ARMSTRONG Payson | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 41 | LAU LUCAS | 1% | 9% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 6% | - |
| 42 | HU HAOYUE | 1% | 10% | 29% | 38% | 20% | 3% | |
| 43 | YIN Chujun | 3% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 15% | 3% | |
| 44 | MARTISEK Martin | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% | |
| 45 | CUELLAR Markus | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 13% | |
| 46 | NG Nico | 1% | 7% | 25% | 39% | 24% | 5% | |
| 48 | DU Yifan | 8% | 32% | 38% | 18% | 4% | - | - |
| 49 | LIU Ethan | 7% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 50 | CHEN Aiden | 14% | 34% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - | |
| 51 | CHEN Edward | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 8% | |
| 51 | BHANDARE Veer | 11% | 34% | 36% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 53 | SUBRAMANIAM Sahil | 4% | 19% | 36% | 29% | 11% | 1% | |
| 54 | KUYKENDALL Logan | 31% | 45% | 20% | 4% | - | - | |
| 55 | KIM Remington | 8% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - | |
| 56 | ADDYSON Aidan | 1% | 5% | 19% | 33% | 29% | 11% | 1% |
| 57 | MIDYANY Evan | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 2% |
| 58 | LI Morgan | - | - | 4% | 18% | 37% | 32% | 9% |
| 59 | YANG Alex | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
| 60 | SAAD Noah | 16% | 36% | 31% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
| 61 | LI Ryan | 1% | 8% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 63 | CHALLAMEL Hadrien | 13% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 64 | LEE Ryan | 47% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 65 | ZHANG Jonathan | 1% | 12% | 34% | 37% | 14% | 2% | |
| 66 | LIN Nathan | - | - | 5% | 21% | 39% | 28% | 7% |
| 67 | LIN Lucas | 13% | 33% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 68 | LEE Anton | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 42% | 14% | |
| 69 | PARIGIAN Alexander | 6% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 70 | WANG Zhenhao | 16% | 49% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 71 | KONG Ethan | 18% | 40% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 72 | CHO Alex | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 8% | |
| 73 | STEVENS Owen | 20% | 40% | 29% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 74 | CHEN Evan | 16% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 75 | GRIGORENKO Gleb | - | 6% | 27% | 39% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 76 | SUN Lucas | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 3% |
| 77 | LEE Elijah | 14% | 35% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 78 | GOVOROV Alexander | 2% | 16% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 79 | CHANG Matthew | 3% | 15% | 31% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 80 | KUSACTAY Eric | - | 3% | 17% | 36% | 32% | 10% | 1% |
| 81 | LIU-XUE Shuliang | 5% | 26% | 40% | 23% | 5% | - | - |
| 82 | PAN Anthony | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 83 | KIM Doyun | 4% | 20% | 39% | 29% | 8% | 1% | |
| 84 | TSIEN Richard | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 85 | SKLAR Davida | 12% | 34% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 86 | KAPLAN Maddox | 6% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 7% | 1% | |
| 87 | MADRIGAL SALVAT Guillermo | 24% | 46% | 25% | 5% | - | - | |
| 88 | CHAN Kyle Si Tin | 10% | 32% | 37% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 89 | DATSON David | 10% | 30% | 35% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 90 | CHEN Cameron | 2% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 91 | DOAN Christopher | - | 6% | 23% | 39% | 25% | 6% | - |
| 92 | MAKOLO Hudson | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 93 | REYNOLDS CHANG Luke | 57% | 37% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
| 94 | CARPENTER Touma S. | 6% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 95 | FENG Xinmin | 36% | 43% | 18% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 96 | SCHROPPE Henry | 15% | 39% | 33% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 96 | CUMMINGS Owen | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 9% | 1% |
| 96 | KO Ethan | 28% | 43% | 23% | 5% | - | - | |
| 99 | ATKINS Elan | 41% | 40% | 15% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 100 | SAAD Peter | 24% | 41% | 26% | 8% | 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.