San Diego, CA - San Diego, 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 | LIANG Connor | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 41% | 24% |
2 | JEFFORDS Alexander | - | - | - | 1% | 11% | 42% | 46% |
3 | SOHN Kevin J. | - | - | - | 1% | 7% | 33% | 59% |
3 | CALLAHAN Jaden P. | - | - | 1% | 13% | 35% | 37% | 13% |
5 | LIMB Matthew G. | - | - | - | 4% | 18% | 41% | 37% |
6 | UEYAMA Ietetsu A. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
7 | JEAN Noe T. | - | 1% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 3% |
8 | NOBLE Daniel | 1% | 5% | 18% | 31% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
9 | LIU David J. | 1% | 10% | 31% | 37% | 19% | 3% | |
10 | DHINGRA Gian K. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 37% | 53% | |
11 | WANG Eric Y. | - | 6% | 25% | 43% | 25% | ||
12 | RAJA Arnav | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 37% | 24% | 6% |
13 | PORTMANN Stein J. | - | 1% | 7% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 9% |
14 | ZUBATIY Samuel | 2% | 10% | 25% | 32% | 22% | 8% | 1% |
15 | GAO Albert | 2% | 13% | 31% | 35% | 17% | 3% | - |
16 | JIANG Anthony | 10% | 36% | 37% | 14% | 2% | ||
17 | YUN Jaesun | - | - | 1% | 9% | 31% | 41% | 18% |
18 | LEE Conner M. | 1% | 10% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 4% | - |
19 | LUO George F. | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 7% |
20 | TANN Justin | 2% | 13% | 34% | 38% | 14% | ||
21 | LEUNG Nathan | 1% | 8% | 24% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
22 | BARBER William S. | 2% | 11% | 26% | 32% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
23 | AVAKIAN Alec | - | 3% | 12% | 26% | 33% | 21% | 5% |
24 | KIM Andrew H. | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 25% | |
25 | CHEN Lucas B. | - | 4% | 16% | 31% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
26 | VO Minh Q. | 4% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
27 | JEFFRY Nicholas B. | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 39% | 26% | 4% |
28 | SWORDS Evan F. | 2% | 13% | 31% | 33% | 17% | 3% | - |
29 | CHANG Colin S. | - | 9% | 32% | 40% | 17% | 2% | |
30 | HJERPE Wade H. | 6% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 11% | 2% | - |
31 | GIANETTO Ethan K. | 6% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
32 | ROSBERG Dashiell W. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 38% | 20% |
33 | LE Hayden | 1% | 18% | 42% | 31% | 8% | 1% | |
34 | REYES Xavier M. | - | 4% | 22% | 39% | 28% | 7% | |
35 | BRISLAWN Reilly R. | - | - | 4% | 21% | 39% | 28% | 7% |
36 | KOTOV Leonid | 24% | 40% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
37 | KIM Shaun M. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 38% | 12% |
38 | ALKIN Isaac | 5% | 32% | 41% | 19% | 3% | - | |
39 | KAKEHI Nicholas B. | 11% | 35% | 37% | 16% | 2% | ||
40 | XU Andrew | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 4% | - |
41 | SHERES Asher | 2% | 15% | 35% | 32% | 13% | 2% | - |
42 | LO Konnor | - | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
43 | VAUGHN Dylan A. | 52% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | - | |
44 | KIBBAR Tomer L. | 2% | 14% | 29% | 31% | 18% | 5% | 1% |
45 | CHAN Aidan | 9% | 34% | 39% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
46 | HODGES Calvin | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
47 | JEFFRY Christian B. | 3% | 16% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 3% | - |
48 | QIU Nathan | 1% | 10% | 29% | 35% | 19% | 5% | - |
49 | HUANG Alexander C. | - | 1% | 12% | 37% | 41% | 9% | |
50 | HAQ Omar M. | 1% | 6% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 6% | |
51 | SONG Ryan | 4% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% | - |
52 | PATIL Aaryan A. | 2% | 10% | 25% | 32% | 22% | 8% | 1% |
53 | ZHANG Michael (Jiayuan) | 3% | 14% | 30% | 31% | 17% | 5% | 1% |
54 | RODRÍGUEZ Jose | 13% | 33% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
55 | LEE Sean | 10% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
56 | BURNS Caleb | 4% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 10% | 1% | - |
57 | LIU Christopher X. | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 3% |
58 | SHI Kyle | 16% | 41% | 33% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
59 | ROBLEDO Everett M. | 64% | 30% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
60 | LEWALLEN Reece | 23% | 42% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
61 | CHAUDHURI Eeshaan A. | 5% | 38% | 39% | 15% | 2% | - | |
62 | HOLZ William A. | 17% | 41% | 32% | 10% | 1% | ||
63 | XU William | 1% | 28% | 41% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
64 | WANG YiLe(Justin) | 16% | 39% | 32% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
65 | GUO Ethan | 70% | 27% | 3% | - | - | - | |
66 | STONE Esmond A. | 31% | 42% | 21% | 5% | 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.