San Francisco, CA - San Francisco, 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 | LIN Dashiell | - | - | - | - | 2% | 19% | 79% |
2 | LO Conrad | - | - | - | - | 3% | 25% | 72% |
3 | HOBSON Aaron K. | - | - | - | 4% | 21% | 46% | 30% |
3 | CORTRIGHT Joshua C. | - | 1% | 9% | 32% | 41% | 17% | |
5 | KIM Ryan Y. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 38% | 42% | 9% |
6 | SUNG Chang-Han S. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 41% | 22% |
7 | YEE Johnathan | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 38% | 18% | 2% |
8 | DETERING Julian | - | - | 4% | 23% | 44% | 27% | 3% |
9 | CHUANG Kian J. | - | - | 2% | 9% | 26% | 40% | 23% |
10 | HOSKERI Anik S. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 38% | 19% |
11 | NG Kenneth | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
12 | WOO Christian | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 42% | 23% | |
13 | WANG Ethan | - | 4% | 22% | 40% | 27% | 6% | |
14 | MU Jeffrey | - | 4% | 16% | 31% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
15 | TEH Ryan | - | 3% | 22% | 42% | 27% | 6% | - |
16 | CHIRASHNYA Adam | - | - | 4% | 22% | 44% | 30% | |
17 | SEEDS Edward T. | 1% | 12% | 35% | 36% | 14% | 2% | |
18 | LI Jett | 1% | 9% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
19 | WILT Daniel E. | - | - | 2% | 19% | 45% | 29% | 4% |
20 | FINNEY Lorenz | - | 2% | 9% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 2% |
21 | BAEK David | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 41% | 15% | |
22 | CHENG Jonathan | - | 4% | 22% | 39% | 28% | 7% | |
23 | WHITE Austin M. | - | 1% | 13% | 35% | 38% | 13% | |
24 | HUSSAIN Ismail A. | 3% | 16% | 37% | 33% | 10% | 1% | - |
25 | SHEN Owen | - | - | 2% | 16% | 39% | 35% | 7% |
26 | HUSSAIN Ibrahim | 4% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 13% | 3% | - |
27 | RANJITH Yash M. | 1% | 8% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 7% | - |
28 | KANG Anthony Jaegu | - | - | 5% | 24% | 44% | 26% | |
29 | NG Eben S. | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 36% | 56% |
30 | WU Lucas | - | 3% | 12% | 28% | 33% | 19% | 4% |
31 | CHEN Justin K. | - | 9% | 36% | 38% | 15% | 2% | |
32 | RUBIN Max | 3% | 16% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
33 | MYERS Dean | - | 5% | 23% | 41% | 25% | 6% | - |
34 | HARRIS Otto | 1% | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
35 | AIKEN Nicholas A. | 1% | 7% | 22% | 33% | 26% | 10% | 1% |
36 | KHER Roan | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 36% | 20% | 4% |
37 | TUAN Evan | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 39% | 22% | 3% |
38 | CHOPRA Rohan A. | - | 3% | 13% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 4% |
39 | LEVY Jacob | - | 3% | 13% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 4% |
40 | PETERSON Lucas | 11% | 39% | 38% | 11% | 1% | - | - |
41 | CHU Colin | 18% | 49% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - | |
42 | YU Leo | 1% | 10% | 30% | 36% | 18% | 3% | |
43 | HE Bu Wei O. | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 32% | 15% | 2% |
44 | HIGHTOWER Palmer | 23% | 40% | 26% | 9% | 2% | - | - |
45 | GETSIN Anthony | 2% | 12% | 31% | 36% | 17% | 3% | - |
46 | LIN Richard | 24% | 40% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
47 | WACHTEL Oliver | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 4% | - | - |
48 | GERA Kaveer | 46% | 42% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
49 | BACHER Richard | 9% | 32% | 38% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
50 | FLIGOR William | 24% | 40% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
51 | WYMAN Julian | - | 1% | 9% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 6% |
52 | SMITH Grant D. | 1% | 8% | 30% | 39% | 19% | 3% | |
53 | AGRAWAL Niki | 37% | 42% | 17% | 3% | - | - | |
54 | KALAMAS Nikolas | 77% | 21% | 2% | - | - | - | |
55 | MAK Osman K. | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - |
56 | FANG Jaden | 3% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
57 | MIN Lucas | 46% | 42% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
58 | ZHANG Luke | 29% | 44% | 22% | 5% | - | - | - |
59 | BUFIY Aeneas | 6% | 52% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | |
60 | MANDAL Souptik | 2% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
61 | LIU William | 3% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
62 | BOUCHARD Kai | 5% | 30% | 40% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
63 | ZENG Chuyi | 15% | 36% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
63 | BHARDWAJ Kush | 10% | 35% | 37% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
65 | EDISON Ansel | 51% | 39% | 9% | 1% | - | - | |
66 | ZHOU Aiden | 18% | 50% | 27% | 5% | - | - | - |
67 | BHARDWAJ Kayshav | 12% | 51% | 30% | 6% | - | - |
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.