Beaverton, OR - Beaverton, OR, 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 | BURKE Spencer W. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 42% | 23% |
| 2 | GOOR Julian | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 41% | 24% |
| 3 | BERK Theodore | - | 1% | 9% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 6% |
| 3 | SCHEMBRI MCCORD Kruz T. | - | - | - | - | 3% | 23% | 74% |
| 5 | LO Conrad | - | - | - | - | 6% | 33% | 61% |
| 6 | FUKUDA Alessio R. | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 37% | 53% |
| 7 | STRUGAR Marcus A. | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 41% | 39% |
| 8 | HOBSON Aaron K. | - | - | 3% | 16% | 36% | 34% | 10% |
| 9 | MARTIN IV Elmer D. | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 39% | 26% | 5% |
| 10 | CORTRIGHT Joshua C. | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 37% | 25% | 6% |
| 11 | WYMAN Julian | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% |
| 12 | IYOKI Kent | - | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 38% | 16% |
| 13 | FORTUNE Alexander J. | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
| 13 | KIM Jackson | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 37% | 29% | 7% |
| 15 | MIN Eric | - | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 42% | 28% |
| 16 | WOO Christian | - | 1% | 10% | 29% | 38% | 19% | 2% |
| 17 | NG Eben S. | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 34% | 26% | 8% |
| 18 | FINNEY Lorenz | - | 6% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 19 | WHITE Austin M. | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 13% | 1% |
| 20 | SIU Aiden | 1% | 8% | 23% | 33% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
| 21 | PAI Lakshan K. | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% |
| 22 | KIM Andrew J. | - | - | 4% | 23% | 44% | 26% | 3% |
| 23 | AIKEN Nicholas A. | 7% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 8% | 2% | - |
| 23 | MYERS Dean | 4% | 27% | 45% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
| 25 | KRYLTSOV Michael | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 5% |
| 26 | KANG Anthony Jaegu | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 9% |
| 27 | RUBIN Max | 5% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 28 | PO Oliver | - | 3% | 12% | 27% | 33% | 20% | 5% |
| 29 | MA Andrew | 7% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 30 | BEAVER Aaron | 6% | 26% | 38% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 31 | WONG Luke S. | 3% | 15% | 31% | 30% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 32 | LLIDO Soren | - | 2% | 17% | 42% | 30% | 8% | - |
| 33 | LEE Christopher T. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 39% | 38% | 7% |
| 34 | XU Jia Bao (Bowen) | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 34% | 17% | 3% |
| 35 | FANG Jaden | 10% | 33% | 36% | 17% | 4% | - | - |
| 36 | CHUNG Yeongbin | - | 2% | 12% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 4% |
| 37 | DINSAY Kristjan | - | 6% | 24% | 38% | 25% | 7% | - |
| 38 | WU Lucas | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
| 39 | STAVREFF Michael | 1% | 17% | 37% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 40 | PORRAS Cristian | 2% | 12% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 41 | SONG Jeremy | 1% | 13% | 35% | 34% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 42 | YU Jason | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 36% | 17% | 2% |
| 43 | ZHANG Jiening G. | 5% | 22% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 44 | OH Jaden | 3% | 17% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 45 | LAKE Wyatt J. | - | 4% | 18% | 36% | 31% | 11% | 1% |
| 46 | MA Bryant | 10% | 30% | 35% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 47 | LEVY Jacob | - | 9% | 31% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 48 | HSIAO Nicholas | 5% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 49 | KIM Aiden | 3% | 32% | 40% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 50 | LIU William | 16% | 37% | 31% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
| 51 | KIM Ryan Y. | 2% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 52 | RAJ Jay | 12% | 32% | 33% | 18% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 53 | CHEN Charlie Tian-You | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 5% |
| 54 | KIM Harrison | 5% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 55 | ZENG Chuyi | 9% | 45% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 56 | KALAMAS Nikolas | 83% | 16% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 57 | GUERRA Gabriel H. | < 1% | 2% | 9% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 7% |
| 58 | CHEN Justin K. | 24% | 41% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 59 | KIM Teo | 82% | 17% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 60 | AGRAWAL Niki | 31% | 43% | 21% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 61 | LI Samuel | 21% | 40% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 61 | ZHANG Luke | 84% | 15% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 63 | MCCARTHY Seamus | 63% | 32% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
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.