Pasadena, CA - Pasadena, 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 | ROBINSON Riley | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 35% | |
| 2 | MEINHOLD Li | - | - | 4% | 20% | 43% | 32% | |
| 3 | LEE Aaron Y. | - | - | 3% | 16% | 43% | 39% | |
| 3 | EMARA Omar | 1% | 12% | 34% | 36% | 14% | 2% | |
| 5 | MILAM Hugh | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 39% | 50% |
| 6 | WANG Nathan | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 41% | 28% | |
| 7 | SINGHA Orion | - | 2% | 15% | 36% | 35% | 11% | |
| 8 | KULIGOWSKI Bartosz | - | 1% | 7% | 29% | 47% | 17% | |
| 9 | ZHU Max | - | 1% | 9% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 5% |
| 10 | JIN daniel | - | 4% | 16% | 31% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
| 11 | LIN Ryan | - | - | 1% | 12% | 41% | 45% | |
| 12 | SHUR Yakov C. | - | 2% | 14% | 35% | 37% | 12% | |
| 13 | SIVAGAR Leo | 1% | 9% | 29% | 37% | 20% | 4% | |
| 14 | JIN Nicholas | - | - | 1% | 11% | 36% | 41% | 11% |
| 15 | WEAVER Neil | - | 10% | 33% | 38% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 16 | AHN Gus | 2% | 17% | 37% | 31% | 10% | 1% | |
| 17 | MOSES Alexander | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 41% | 25% |
| 18 | DAO Matthew M. | - | - | - | 4% | 17% | 41% | 37% |
| 19 | SCHENCK Theo | 1% | 14% | 38% | 36% | 11% | 1% | |
| 20 | ROMERO Caleb E. | 5% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | |
| 21 | WELLS Tommy R. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 40% | 23% |
| 22 | MAENG Jake W. | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 4% |
| 23 | GRAYSON Shane W. | 2% | 14% | 35% | 34% | 14% | 2% | |
| 24 | LIANG Aaron | - | - | 3% | 15% | 35% | 35% | 12% |
| 25 | CHU Anthony | - | 2% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
| 26 | ZHOU Stanley Q. | 4% | 19% | 34% | 28% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 27 | REDDINGTON aidan | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
| 28 | LEE Matthew C. | - | 8% | 29% | 39% | 20% | 3% | |
| 29 | SHOURIE Jai | 2% | 17% | 37% | 32% | 11% | 1% | |
| 30 | GILLISON Edward L. | 1% | 14% | 39% | 34% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 31 | ALVAREZ Ian T. | 1% | 10% | 27% | 36% | 21% | 4% | |
| 32 | KOPPE Benjamin | 47% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - | - | |
| 33 | ZHOU Alec Q. | 1% | 9% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 4% | |
| 34 | KOSLU Aidan D. | 3% | 21% | 39% | 28% | 8% | 1% | |
| 35 | MOHEBI Saam | - | - | 5% | 24% | 43% | 24% | 4% |
| 36 | DEKERMANJI Christopher | - | - | 4% | 21% | 44% | 29% | |
| 37 | ALFARO Justus | 1% | 17% | 38% | 32% | 11% | 1% | |
| 38 | FOREMAN Alexander E. | 2% | 21% | 42% | 28% | 6% | - | |
| 39 | KIM Sterling S. | 5% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 40 | COMER Alexander J. | 13% | 34% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 41 | MATTIS George | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
| 42 | NA Larry | 7% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 43 | LI Henry | - | 5% | 22% | 38% | 28% | 7% | |
| 44 | MENDOZA Zachari | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 43% | 20% | |
| 45 | THOMPSON Chester | 4% | 26% | 39% | 24% | 6% | - | |
| 46 | SOOHOO Jackson F. | 2% | 13% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 47 | WONG Nathan | 1% | 10% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 5% | 1% |
| 48 | CHARLES Matthew J. | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 49 | SMITH Zane A. | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 50 | KOPPE Alexander | 2% | 24% | 41% | 25% | 7% | 1% | |
| 51 | SPEICHER Brian E. | 3% | 26% | 42% | 23% | 5% | - | |
| 52 | DALVA Michael | 16% | 37% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - | |
| 53 | FEES HOLDEN | 9% | 29% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | |
| 54 | MUIR Douglas K. | 37% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | |
| 55 | CROSSMAN Brandon | 45% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - | - | |
| 56 | NGO Ethan | 15% | 38% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 57 | AUTELLI Marco | 4% | 33% | 42% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 58 | ORTEGA Julien | 6% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 59 | ESTRADA Luke | 51% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 60 | BERSHIN Izzy | 6% | 32% | 39% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 61 | GUPTA-GARCIA Krish | 72% | 25% | 3% | - | - | - | |
| 62 | KIM Darius H. | 10% | 34% | 36% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 63 | ONTIVEROS Miller | 79% | 19% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 64 | GUPTA-GARCIA Raj | 70% | 26% | 3% | - | - | - | |
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.