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 | KIM Brandon J. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 35% | 14% |
2 | NGUYEN Nish | - | 4% | 20% | 40% | 31% | 5% | |
3 | KUMBLA Samarth | - | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 35% |
3 | HOOSHI Dylan M. | - | - | - | 3% | 17% | 43% | 38% |
5 | YU Anders | - | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 35% | 15% |
6 | NAGIMOV Marsel | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 38% | 52% |
7 | HONDA Kazu Z. | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 37% | 21% | 4% |
8 | FUKUDA Renzo K. | - | - | 4% | 15% | 32% | 34% | 15% |
9 | GIRALDO Pablo E. | - | - | 1% | 14% | 62% | 23% | |
10 | CHIN Julian S. | - | 9% | 33% | 38% | 17% | 3% | |
11 | PARK Luke J. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 42% | 27% |
12 | BANERJEE ANUP | - | 1% | 12% | 35% | 39% | 13% | |
13 | JAIN Aditya | - | - | 1% | 9% | 36% | 54% | |
14 | SUNG Chang-Han S. | - | 5% | 19% | 33% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
15 | BURKE Spencer W. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 36% | 36% | 10% |
16 | HOOSHI Jayden C. | - | - | 4% | 19% | 38% | 31% | 8% |
17 | WANG Andrew | - | 5% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
18 | WONG Nicholas A. | - | 2% | 12% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 4% |
19 | MUSHER Benjamin J. | - | 1% | 11% | 37% | 41% | 10% | |
20 | PIESNER Joshua C. | 1% | 9% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
21 | DARIANO Noah G. | - | - | 2% | 9% | 28% | 39% | 22% |
22 | ZHANG Luke T. | - | 2% | 11% | 34% | 41% | 13% | |
23 | PROUTY Nicholas C. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 39% | 51% | |
24 | LI Richard | - | - | - | 3% | 33% | 64% | |
25 | TSAY Jeremy M. | - | - | 3% | 17% | 38% | 33% | 8% |
26 | LAI Christopher W. | 1% | 8% | 33% | 37% | 18% | 4% | - |
26 | MORALES Ian N. | - | 2% | 15% | 33% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
28 | YAKUSHKIN Ernest D. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 41% | 31% |
29 | SOMERS Sean | 2% | 12% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 4% | - |
30 | GOOR Julian | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 5% |
31 | XIAO EDWARD | 1% | 10% | 30% | 38% | 19% | 3% | |
32 | JEON Caleb A. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 13% |
33 | LEVY Jacob M. | - | - | - | 3% | 14% | 39% | 44% |
34 | KIM Jackson | - | 3% | 13% | 28% | 33% | 19% | 4% |
35 | STRUGAR Marcus A. | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 6% |
36 | LO Conrad | - | - | 3% | 16% | 42% | 39% | |
37 | VARGAS Bryan | 1% | 10% | 26% | 33% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
38 | NG Eben S. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 34% | 39% | 12% |
39 | DIERKS Kian | - | 5% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
40 | CHEN Wilson | 2% | 14% | 34% | 33% | 14% | 2% | - |
41 | GOLDADE Luke A. | 8% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 7% | 1% | - |
42 | CHEN Bryce | - | 2% | 13% | 36% | 34% | 13% | 2% |
43 | VAZQUEZ Zander | - | 3% | 18% | 39% | 33% | 7% | |
44 | LI Ryan Z. | 24% | 46% | 26% | 5% | - | - | |
45 | CHUNG Jinwoo | - | 1% | 12% | 44% | 35% | 7% | |
46 | OH Jonathan | - | - | 4% | 18% | 38% | 33% | 8% |
47 | ZHOU Oscar J. | - | 3% | 17% | 35% | 32% | 11% | 1% |
47 | LEE David Y. | 7% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 8% | 1% | - |
49 | JEAN Noe T. | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 35% | 15% | 2% |
50 | MASCARI DUMONT Louis | 2% | 14% | 34% | 33% | 14% | 2% | - |
51 | MASCARI DUMONT Alexandre | 5% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
52 | LAKE Wyatt J. | 1% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 19% | 5% | 1% |
53 | CHUANG Kian J. | 4% | 21% | 36% | 27% | 10% | 1% | - |
54 | PAI Lakshan K. | - | 4% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 15% | 2% |
55 | LUH Ethan K. | 1% | 5% | 18% | 32% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
56 | MU Jeffrey | 30% | 43% | 22% | 5% | - | - | |
57 | HOBSON Aaron K. | 45% | 41% | 12% | 1% | - | - | |
58 | WOO Christian | 2% | 16% | 41% | 36% | 5% | - | |
59 | KIM BANSEOK | 4% | 21% | 38% | 28% | 8% | 1% | |
60 | SADOVSKY Leor B. | 1% | 9% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 5% | 1% |
61 | PIESNER Zachary C. | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 20% | 5% |
62 | BAO Aaron | 1% | 6% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
63 | ZHAI Jeffrey | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
64 | HOU Kenneth | 11% | 40% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - | |
65 | ANTON Nathaniel | - | 4% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
66 | CHIRASHNYA Adam | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 5% |
67 | WONG Luke S. | 10% | 34% | 37% | 16% | 3% | - | |
68 | TAN Christien | 6% | 29% | 40% | 21% | 4% | - | |
69 | MO Jason | 8% | 39% | 36% | 14% | 2% | - | |
70 | CHENG Matthew S. | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 13% | 2% |
71 | BAEK David | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 33% | 16% | 3% |
71 | KHER Roan | 2% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - |
73 | WONG Antonio | 8% | 30% | 37% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
74 | RYOU Aiden | 36% | 43% | 18% | 3% | - | - | - |
75 | LI Peihong | 29% | 41% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
76 | WANG Ethan | 1% | 19% | 36% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
77 | LLIDO Soren | 7% | 32% | 42% | 18% | 1% | - | |
78 | KIM Derek A. | 9% | 39% | 40% | 11% | 1% | - | |
79 | MA Andrew | 4% | 22% | 40% | 27% | 7% | 1% | |
80 | BERK Theodore | - | 2% | 12% | 34% | 39% | 14% | |
81 | AIBEL Hudson J. | 2% | 15% | 35% | 33% | 13% | 2% | |
82 | FINNEY Lorenz | 5% | 24% | 36% | 24% | 8% | 1% | - |
83 | HUANG Kevin D. | 16% | 36% | 31% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
84 | NAM Michael | 48% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
85 | ZHOU Hao Kai (Kevin) | 42% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
86 | CHEN Christopher | 27% | 49% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
87 | DETERING Julian | 2% | 12% | 28% | 33% | 19% | 5% | 1% |
88 | CORTRIGHT Joshua C. | 3% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
88 | WONG Matthew H. | 4% | 23% | 39% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - |
90 | CHEN Jaden K. | 1% | 11% | 31% | 36% | 17% | 3% | - |
91 | MA Bryant | 10% | 37% | 36% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
91 | HARRIS Rhonen | 18% | 45% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
93 | HOSKERI Anik S. | 21% | 43% | 29% | 6% | - | - | |
94 | OH Joshua | 46% | 40% | 13% | 2% | - | - | |
95 | BARTELS Milo | 63% | 32% | 5% | - | - | - | |
97 | OH Jaden | 11% | 31% | 34% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
98 | ZUO Ethan | 44% | 46% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
99 | ZENG Chuyi | 31% | 42% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
99 | BLADH Ian | 21% | 42% | 28% | 8% | 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.