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 | ZENG Lucas H. | - | - | - | - | 6% | 38% | 56% |
| 2 | TSANG Matthew K. | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 39% | 19% | |
| 3 | LA ROSA Federico | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 37% | 53% |
| 3 | WANG Andrew | - | - | 4% | 22% | 46% | 28% | |
| 5 | LIN Dashiell | - | 1% | 11% | 35% | 39% | 14% | |
| 6 | JEON Caleb A. | - | - | 4% | 25% | 53% | 18% | |
| 7 | LAO Scott E. | - | - | 1% | 13% | 38% | 39% | 9% |
| 8 | JAYASEKARA Hiran H. | - | - | - | 6% | 37% | 57% | |
| 9 | ZHANG Luke T. | - | 3% | 17% | 38% | 33% | 9% | |
| 10 | BANERJEE Anup | - | - | 1% | 8% | 38% | 53% | |
| 11 | DANKAR Neel | - | - | 1% | 12% | 49% | 39% | |
| 12 | MURUHIN Yaroslav | 1% | 13% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 2% | |
| 13 | LI Raphael C. | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 37% | 17% | |
| 14 | DARIANO Noah G. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 41% | 42% | |
| 15 | SOMERS Sean | - | 6% | 26% | 40% | 23% | 5% | |
| 16 | NG Eben S. | - | - | 3% | 16% | 42% | 39% | |
| 17 | CHENG Matthew S. | - | 4% | 23% | 41% | 27% | 5% | |
| 18 | TSAY Jeremy M. | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 20% | |
| 19 | SUNG Chang-Han S. | - | 5% | 21% | 37% | 29% | 8% | |
| 20 | XIAO Edward | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 35% | 15% | 2% |
| 21 | HOU Kenneth | 4% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 22 | AIBEL Hudson J. | 3% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 14% | 2% | |
| 23 | HUANG Bernard | 2% | 14% | 34% | 34% | 14% | 2% | |
| 24 | DIERKS Kian | 1% | 11% | 31% | 35% | 18% | 3% | |
| 25 | LUH Ethan K. | - | 3% | 19% | 41% | 31% | 6% | |
| 26 | BAO Aaron | - | 7% | 32% | 43% | 15% | 1% | |
| 27 | CHEN Bryce | 1% | 7% | 25% | 37% | 25% | 6% | |
| 28 | GODZHIK Zachary | - | - | - | 3% | 21% | 53% | 22% |
| 29 | HOBSON Aaron K. | 16% | 45% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 30 | CHUANG Kian J. | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 42% | 21% | |
| 31 | UZGIRIS Kovas | 1% | 8% | 30% | 39% | 20% | 3% | |
| 32 | HE Bu Wei O. | 6% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 6% | - | - |
| 33 | MASCARI DUMONT Alexandre | - | 4% | 23% | 47% | 23% | 3% | |
| 34 | WILT Daniel E. | 4% | 20% | 38% | 30% | 9% | 1% | |
| 35 | FINNEY Lorenz | 1% | 12% | 33% | 36% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 36 | TANG Adrian | 10% | 35% | 37% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 37 | STIAGUN Nikita | 3% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 10% | 1% | |
| 38 | YEE Johnathan | 8% | 31% | 40% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 39 | NG Kenneth | 18% | 41% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 40 | MASCARI DUMONT Louis | - | 4% | 20% | 39% | 28% | 8% | 1% |
| 41 | LIM Charles Q. | 2% | 17% | 36% | 32% | 12% | 1% | - |
| 42 | BAEK David | - | 8% | 28% | 38% | 22% | 4% | |
| 43 | SEEDS Edward T. | 7% | 32% | 42% | 16% | 2% | - | |
| 44 | KHER Roan | 4% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 8% | 1% | |
| 45 | CORTRIGHT Joshua C. | - | 5% | 24% | 41% | 25% | 4% | |
| 46 | FU Vincent | 63% | 31% | 5% | - | - | - | |
| 47 | ZENG Chuyi | 27% | 48% | 22% | 3% | - | - | |
| 48 | ZUO Ethan | 21% | 47% | 27% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 49 | CHOPRA Rohan A. | 26% | 46% | 23% | 4% | - | - | |
| 50 | CHIRASHNYA Adam | - | 2% | 16% | 38% | 34% | 9% | |
| 51 | MU Jeffrey | 24% | 46% | 24% | 5% | - | - | |
| 52 | JUDSON Colin | 3% | 24% | 44% | 25% | 3% | - | |
| 53 | WANG Ethan | 4% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% | |
| 54 | MA Andrew | 2% | 14% | 34% | 34% | 15% | 2% | |
| 56 | BELANGER Jackson | 6% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 6% | 1% | |
| 57 | FINK August | 19% | 40% | 30% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 58 | LLIDO Soren | 13% | 40% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 59 | LIN Richard | 65% | 30% | 5% | - | - | - | |
| 60 | WACHTEL Oliver | 6% | 26% | 39% | 24% | 5% | - | |
| 61 | AMAYA Jared C. | 7% | 39% | 43% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 62 | HOSKERI Anik S. | 51% | 40% | 9% | 1% | - | - | |
| 63 | WOO Christian | 6% | 47% | 39% | 8% | - | - | |
| 64 | HARRIS Otto | 16% | 42% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 65 | MA Bryant | 17% | 38% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 66 | GERA Kaveer | 18% | 42% | 30% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 67 | HIGHTOWER Palmer | 9% | 30% | 37% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 68 | DOWLING Cian | 11% | 34% | 36% | 16% | 2% | - | |
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.