Fredericksburg, VA - Fredericksburg, VA, USA
Explore the probability of achieving at least a certain number of victories in the pool 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 | IYOKI Kent | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 49% | 11% |
| 2 | PACYNA ATILLA | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 19% |
| 3 | LIOZNYANSKY Simon | 100% | 93% | 64% | 26% | 4% | ||
| 3 | ZHANG Andrew | 100% | 99% | 92% | 63% | 21% | ||
| 5 | PARK Ian C. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 18% | 2% |
| 6 | WIMMER Chandler M. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 44% | 15% | 2% |
| 7 | TUCKER Henry M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 41% | 9% |
| 8 | RHYU Kozmo | 100% | 96% | 74% | 35% | 7% | - | |
| 9 | LEE Daniel Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 38% | 5% |
| 10 | KIM Edward J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 34% | 8% |
| 11 | SCHEMBRI MCCORD Kruz T. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 25% | 5% |
| 12 | GYURE Brayden H. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 44% | 15% | 2% |
| 13 | YAVOROVSKIY Joshua I. | 100% | 92% | 64% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 14 | BORODITSKY Ethan | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 38% | 10% | 1% |
| 15 | JEYOON Ryan S. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 49% | 14% | 1% |
| 16 | WU Byron | 100% | 83% | 42% | 10% | 1% | ||
| 17 | JIN Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 26% | 4% |
| 18 | CAO Brad | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 48% | 12% |
| 19 | PRASAD Ankith | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 57% | 18% |
| 20 | RAWSON Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 49% | 18% | 3% |
| 21 | LEE Shwan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 32% | 6% |
| 22 | LIEF Isaac R. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 50% | 18% | 2% |
| 23 | MOON Nathan | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 45% | 14% | 2% |
| 24 | LEE Noah | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 26% | |
| 25 | POZOVSKIY Mitchell R. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 24% | 4% |
| 26 | STUBBLEFIELD Evan | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 27 | SIVAKUMAR Ajit | 100% | 94% | 66% | 25% | 4% | ||
| 28 | HENSAL Nicolas A. | 100% | 88% | 54% | 19% | 3% | - | - |
| 29 | YU Jonathan J. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 50% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 30 | LI Benjamin | 100% | 97% | 80% | 48% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 31 | CAO Albert | 100% | 94% | 70% | 35% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 32 | MURPHY Thomas P. | 100% | 45% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 33 | LEONE Charles D. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 62% | 27% | 5% |
| 34 | ILYAS Zakariya | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 50% | 12% | |
| 35 | ZENG Zihan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 24% | 4% |
| 36 | BANNEN Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 32% | 7% |
| 37 | KING Cameron | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 59% | 25% | 5% |
| 38 | QUINN Maloy S. | 100% | 97% | 79% | 44% | 13% | 2% | |
| 39 | CHAWLA Armaan | 100% | 95% | 76% | 45% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 40 | HANRATTY Liam | 100% | 96% | 76% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 41 | AKOCS Ethan | 100% | 99% | 88% | 58% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 42 | DURKIN Tristan E. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 72% | 33% | 8% | 1% |
| 43 | KIM Prestin | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 30% | 7% | 1% |
| 44 | KOTCHEN Peter Trammell | 100% | 96% | 68% | 25% | 3% | - | |
| 45 | MARGHUB Safi | 100% | 91% | 63% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 46 | DIXON Thomas | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 55% | 22% | 4% |
| 47 | GOHEL Dayus T. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 65% | 30% | 6% |
| 48 | KROPP Jack | 100% | 88% | 54% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 49 | CHATZIKALFAS Dimitris E. | 100% | 97% | 75% | 34% | 6% | ||
| 51 | FU Ethan | 100% | 93% | 65% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 52 | GLOGOWSKI Konrad | 100% | 88% | 56% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 53 | SHARMA Om V. | 100% | 96% | 75% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 54 | ROYTBURD Samuel | 100% | 89% | 52% | 16% | 2% | - | - |
| 55 | MUN Chur-Yong | 100% | 90% | 57% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
| 56 | CHO Hyunseong | 100% | 86% | 50% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 57 | JANG Elliot | 100% | 79% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 58 | HILBERT Gabriel E. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 69% | 33% | 7% |
| 60 | MORAN Joseph | 100% | 91% | 61% | 24% | 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.