San Jose, CA - San Jose, 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 | YAMASAKI Kyle A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 45% |
| 2 | NGUYEN Ethan D. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 85% |
| 3 | ARIETA Ryan T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 77% | 32% |
| 3 | KULIGOWSKI Bartosz | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 14% |
| 5 | DESOUZA Hansel S. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 27% | 5% |
| 6 | MIELE Benjamin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 35% |
| 7 | JOHNSON Lucas W. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 60% | 20% | |
| 8 | LEI Jacob | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 36% | 8% |
| 9 | KIM PAUL | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 44% | 11% |
| 10 | SUVOROV Yuly | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 29% |
| 11 | ALLGEIER Peter | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 62% | 27% | 5% |
| 11 | LEVY Zachari I. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 24% |
| 13 | SHIREY Daniel L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 39% | 7% |
| 14 | WONG Nicholas A. | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 25% | 6% | 1% |
| 15 | HABIB Farooq | 100% | 100% | 100% | 92% | 66% | 29% | 5% |
| 16 | JIN Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 74% | 35% | 6% |
| 17 | CAI Kevin P. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 5% |
| 18 | NG Alexander M. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 60% | 29% | 8% | 1% |
| 19 | MENEGOLI Lorenzo | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 55% | 14% |
| 20 | SHARMA Sanil | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 5% |
| 21 | SMITH Justin C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 43% |
| 22 | MATTIS George | 100% | 98% | 87% | 60% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
| 23 | GARRETT Samuel | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 19% | 3% |
| 24 | SHUR Yakov C. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 36% | 8% | |
| 25 | DE JONG Thijmen J. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 66% | 31% | 7% |
| 26 | GREEN Ummi | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 17% | 2% |
| 27 | LOGUE Ethan D. | 100% | 99% | 95% | 79% | 50% | 20% | 4% |
| 28 | BOYCE Samuel H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 34% | |
| 29 | GREEN Jabreel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 30% | 6% |
| 30 | DESSAUER Tobyn M. | 100% | 100% | 91% | 62% | 26% | 6% | 1% |
| 31 | HELGE James R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 49% | 14% |
| 32 | WISOFF Jeffrey | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 74% | 40% | 10% |
| 33 | KILUK Andrew | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 17% | 1% |
| 34 | LIANG Aaron | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 78% | 43% | 11% |
| 35 | LOUIE Jason | 100% | 99% | 88% | 59% | 25% | 6% | 1% |
| 36 | SIVAGAR Leo | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 38% | 8% | |
| 37 | NGUYEN Steven | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 58% | 23% | 4% |
| 38 | BRUCE II Ommer E. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 71% | 34% | 8% | - |
| 39 | ROOD Alex | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 34% | 6% | |
| 40 | VELUVALI Vivek S. | 100% | 88% | 55% | 20% | 4% | - | |
| 41 | WRIGHT Christopher | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 45% | 14% | 2% |
| 42 | DYER Carson C. | 100% | 95% | 70% | 34% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 43 | KAUFMAN Joel H. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 47% | 16% | 2% |
| 44 | WEAVER Neil | 100% | 99% | 89% | 65% | 33% | 10% | 1% |
| 45 | SLOAN Ryan | 100% | 94% | 73% | 41% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 46 | BECK Brian C. | 100% | 99% | 86% | 51% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 47 | MAYCHROWITZ Matt | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
| 48 | JOSEPH William | 100% | 97% | 80% | 44% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 49 | CHON Joshua | 100% | 99% | 81% | 42% | 11% | 1% | |
| 50 | RAJPAL Sartaj S. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 59% | 24% | 4% | |
| 51 | ZIEBART Jeremy J. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 71% | 29% | 5% | - |
| 52 | AU Marcus J. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 42% | 15% | 2% |
| 53 | PERKA Michael | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 64% | 29% | 6% |
| 54 | LEVITSKY Jonathan | 100% | 94% | 68% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 54 | LUCERO-OLSON Aydin | 100% | 99% | 94% | 78% | 48% | 19% | 3% |
| 56 | ZAYDMAN David M. | 100% | 91% | 61% | 24% | 5% | - | - |
| 57 | KUO Elvin | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 45% | 12% | - |
| 58 | SMITH Zane A. | 100% | 95% | 73% | 38% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 59 | MILEY Nick N. | 100% | 82% | 44% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 60 | PARK Elliot | 100% | 82% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - | |
| 61 | ALVAREZ Ian T. | 100% | 96% | 64% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 62 | WICKBOLDT Eric | 100% | 100% | 83% | 46% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 63 | BARAFF David | 100% | 87% | 53% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 64 | GNERRE Sante | 100% | 63% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 65 | TORVINEN Trevor J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 23% | 4% |
| 66 | KIM Benjamin I. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 70% | 34% | 9% | 1% |
| 67 | ZHUANG William | 100% | 87% | 54% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 68 | RYAN Christopher | 100% | 96% | 67% | 27% | 5% | - | |
| 69 | MA Victor | 100% | 95% | 73% | 37% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 70 | WILLIS Alan T. | 100% | 98% | 70% | 29% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 71 | ZHANG Alec | 100% | 98% | 86% | 60% | 29% | 8% | 1% |
| 72 | LEONARDINI Barry M. | 100% | 86% | 46% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 73 | ROUSE Joseph (Joe) T. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 19% | 3% | - |
| 73 | ATHAVALE Pranav | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 75 | DYER CJ | 100% | 100% | 97% | 72% | 30% | 5% | - |
| 76 | DOWNEY Gerard C. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 46% | 15% | 2% | |
| 77 | QUIROGA Kyle | 100% | 34% | 5% | - | - | - | |
| 78 | RYAN Seth C. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 49% | 15% | 2% |
| 79 | WONG Nathan | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
| 80 | BAGCHI Aritra | 100% | 98% | 83% | 50% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 81 | BEITTEL David F. | 100% | 77% | 38% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 82 | BURLING Trenor | 100% | 32% | 3% | - | - | - | - |
| 83 | PATERSON Owen | 100% | 19% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 84 | ZHANG Andrew | 100% | 82% | 21% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 85 | LIPTON Michael D. | 100% | 84% | 47% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 86 | ZANKOWSKI Brendan | 100% | 64% | 21% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 87 | HASAN Raamis | 100% | 21% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 88 | GUPTA Karan | 100% | 79% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 89 | WANG Andrew | 100% | 3% | - | - | - | - | - |
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.