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 | CANDELA Nicholas | - | - | 1% | 13% | 44% | 42% | |
| 2 | MACHULSKY Ned | - | - | 3% | 17% | 42% | 37% | |
| 3 | SHIN Joshua | - | - | 4% | 28% | 49% | 18% | |
| 3 | SHUR Yakov C. | - | 1% | 9% | 43% | 38% | 9% | |
| 5 | WISOFF Jeffrey | - | 2% | 14% | 36% | 37% | 11% | |
| 6 | SHARMA Sanil | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 43% | 25% | |
| 7 | RAJPAL Sartaj S. | - | 6% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 7% | |
| 8 | NG Alexander M. | - | 13% | 37% | 35% | 13% | 2% | |
| 9 | NGUYEN Ethan D. | - | - | - | 5% | 23% | 46% | 25% |
| 10 | KIM PAUL | 1% | 7% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 5% | |
| 11 | DE JONG Thijmen J. | - | 2% | 14% | 37% | 36% | 11% | |
| 12 | HE Jason | 1% | 9% | 30% | 38% | 19% | 3% | |
| 13 | VAN EIKEMA HOMMES Neil B. | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 43% | 21% | |
| 14 | CAI Kevin P. | - | - | - | 4% | 22% | 45% | 28% |
| 15 | GHILDIYAL Manyu | 1% | 10% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 4% | |
| 16 | KIM Benjamin I. | 6% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 6% | - | |
| 17 | DORRELL Connor I. | - | 2% | 12% | 32% | 36% | 15% | 2% |
| 18 | JEON Alexander E. | - | 6% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 6% | |
| 19 | LIANG Aaron | 1% | 10% | 30% | 37% | 18% | 3% | |
| 20 | SHAMIS Mark | - | 8% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 5% | |
| 21 | LIU Bennett | - | 24% | 43% | 26% | 6% | 1% | |
| 22 | LEVY Zachari I. | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 43% | 27% | |
| 23 | ROBINSON Riley | - | - | 3% | 17% | 43% | 37% | |
| 24 | ZIEBART Jeremy J. | - | 5% | 25% | 40% | 25% | 5% | |
| 25 | SCRIBNER Aidan C. | 1% | 8% | 30% | 38% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 26 | MA Victor | 55% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
| 27 | RAKHIMI Marat T. | 11% | 39% | 40% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 28 | SIVAGAR Leo | 2% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 14% | 2% | |
| 29 | DESOUZA Hansel S. | - | 3% | 18% | 36% | 32% | 11% | |
| 30 | GARRETT Samuel | 10% | 32% | 37% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 31 | ARABACI Jack A. | 31% | 48% | 20% | 2% | - | - | |
| 32 | HAINES Reagan | 71% | 26% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
| 33 | ZHANG Michael | 26% | 48% | 24% | 2% | - | - | |
| 34 | PALLI Maximillian | 13% | 35% | 35% | 14% | 3% | - | |
| 35 | SMITH Zane A. | 6% | 33% | 39% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 36 | KOH Tommy | 3% | 30% | 41% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 37 | VELUVALI Vivek S. | 7% | 28% | 37% | 22% | 6% | - | |
| 38 | WONG Nathan | 1% | 15% | 38% | 33% | 11% | 1% | |
| 39 | STENNIS Brendan | 60% | 33% | 6% | 1% | - | - | |
| 40 | LOUIE Jason | 17% | 40% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 41 | LIU Felix | 1% | 14% | 36% | 34% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 42 | WANG Andrew | 99% | 1% | - | - | - | - | |
| 43 | MILEY Nick N. | 31% | 43% | 21% | 5% | - | - | |
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.