La Jolla, CA - La Jolla, CA, 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 | KIM Shawn J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 54% |
2 | PARK Justin W. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 56% | 16% | 1% | |
3 | MCBRIDE Jackson R. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 61% | 26% | 4% |
3 | MA Jonathan D. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 47% |
5 | DINU Nicholas D. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 28% |
6 | JEFFORDS Alexander | 100% | 99% | 91% | 62% | 23% | 3% | |
7 | TRINH Trevor Z. | 100% | 95% | 60% | 17% | 1% | - | |
8 | YANG Kevin S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 74% | 26% | |
9 | FLORES Gerardo (Gerardito) D. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 21% | |
10 | CHOU Stephen C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 92% | 56% | |
11 | SOHN Kevin J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 53% | 17% | 2% |
12 | SOHN Joshua C. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 39% | 10% | 1% |
13 | LEE Kevin H. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 83% | 46% | 13% | 1% |
14 | CHU Sean L. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 28% | 5% |
15 | EMIR PUTRA Syed Adam | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 27% | 4% |
16 | LIMAYE Dhruv | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 56% | 16% |
17 | LIANG Connor | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 43% | 11% |
18 | LIMB Matthew G. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 30% |
19 | WINKLER Lucas G. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 72% | 32% | 5% | |
20 | FLORES Peter D. | 100% | 98% | 82% | 44% | 10% | 1% | |
21 | MARSEE James | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 48% | 13% | 1% |
22 | KOUNALAKIS Antoneo T. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 45% | 13% | 1% |
23 | CAPPELLUTI Ryan M. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 16% | 2% | |
24 | BALDAUF Frederick (Fritz) P. | 100% | 86% | 52% | 19% | 4% | - | |
25 | ZHOU Matthew R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 64% | 14% | |
26 | KUPANOFF Dimitri N. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 31% | |
27 | COPELAND Oliver E. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 70% | 26% | |
28 | REESE Aaron S. | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 20% | 4% | - |
29 | KANG Brandon M. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 42% | 10% | 1% |
30 | LI Joshua L. | 100% | 97% | 77% | 36% | 7% | - | |
31 | HU William | 100% | 98% | 77% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - |
32 | LIU David J. | 100% | 82% | 39% | 8% | 1% | - | |
33 | CHANG Nigel | 100% | 97% | 71% | 30% | 6% | - | - |
34 | KIM Benjamin H. | 100% | 98% | 82% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - |
35 | IWAMOTO Eric Y. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 65% | 21% | |
36 | VOCHOSKA Aidan F. | 100% | 99% | 87% | 57% | 23% | 5% | - |
37 | KOUNALAKIS Evangelos T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 56% | 15% |
37 | RAJA Arnav | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 19% | 2% |
39 | DHINGRA Gian K. | 100% | 99% | 85% | 48% | 13% | 1% | |
40 | CHAN Andrew M. | 100% | 86% | 51% | 17% | 3% | - | |
41 | YOUNG Nash | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 28% | 3% |
42 | RUNDLETT Jakob C. | 100% | 61% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
43 | BARBER William S. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 18% | 3% | - |
44 | UEYAMA Ietetsu A. | 100% | 68% | 26% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
45 | TANG Alex Y. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 48% | 14% | 2% |
46 | RAY Alexander K. | 100% | 90% | 57% | 18% | 2% | - | |
47 | SINGER Carson | 100% | 99% | 88% | 55% | 18% | 2% | |
48 | BIAGIOTTI Elliot A. | 100% | 79% | 35% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
49 | CHANG Colin S. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
50 | ORPILLA Apolo A. | 100% | 95% | 67% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
51 | VAUGHN Justin T. | 100% | 81% | 40% | 9% | 1% | - | |
52 | SWORDS Evan F. | 100% | 77% | 29% | 5% | - | - | - |
53 | VAUGHN Michael R. | 100% | 69% | 22% | 3% | - | - | |
53 | BAUER Hank E. | 100% | 63% | 19% | 2% | - | - | |
55 | COLEMAN Zachary | 100% | 70% | 24% | 4% | - | - | |
56 | REED Samuel J. | 100% | 42% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
57 | DAVIS Alexander N. | 100% | 49% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
57 | VILLA-KOWAL Ivan H. | 100% | 81% | 29% | 5% | - | - | - |
59 | KORINTH Alexander J. | 100% | 97% | 77% | 37% | 9% | 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.