The Fencing Center - San Jose, 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 Nathan | - | - | 2% | 12% | 33% | 39% | 13% |
| 2 | RICHARDS Jackson D. | - | - | - | 4% | 20% | 42% | 33% |
| 3 | KIM Sullivan | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 3% |
| 3 | LO Jake | - | - | - | 2% | 15% | 43% | 40% |
| 5 | YAO Geoffrey B. | - | - | - | 2% | 10% | 36% | 52% |
| 6 | KNUDSEN Travis | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 8% |
| 7 | ZHOU Justin | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 10% |
| 8 | DAO Alexander | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 7% | |
| 9 | DAVOODIAN Christopher | - | - | 1% | 8% | 26% | 41% | 24% |
| 10 | IMREK Elijah S. | - | - | - | 5% | 21% | 44% | 30% |
| 11 | ERLIKHMAN Adrian | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% | |
| 12 | GAO Zachary | 1% | 10% | 26% | 33% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
| 13 | SINHA Zaan | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 41% | 18% | 2% |
| 14 | HOGE William P. | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 1% |
| 15 | HE Zhiheng | - | 2% | 9% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 7% |
| 16 | CHIN Dylan A. | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 38% | 27% | 7% |
| 17 | LIU Noah | 5% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 18 | LEE JoonWon | 1% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 19 | MAJAM Audie | 1% | 6% | 22% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
| 20 | CHEN Zhengyang | - | - | 2% | 10% | 30% | 41% | 18% |
| 21 | PAK Elliot | - | 5% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 11% | 1% |
| 22 | FU Leon | 1% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 23 | CHOI Zachary | 2% | 12% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 5% | - |
| 24 | PRAKASH Hari | 1% | 10% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 25 | LEVENTAL Mark | - | - | 1% | 8% | 30% | 44% | 17% |
| 26 | APEL Gustaf | - | - | 2% | 9% | 27% | 40% | 23% |
| 27 | DONAHUE Lake | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 4% |
| 28 | BAZHENOV Anthony | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 13% | |
| 29 | TONG Samuel | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 34% | 23% | 6% |
| 30 | CHEN Tyler | 4% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 31 | HIGGINS Calvin | 6% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 1% | |
| 32 | LI Ethan R. | 2% | 12% | 28% | 33% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
| 33 | HSU Alexander | - | 4% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 12% | 2% |
| 34 | LEE DoWon | 3% | 20% | 40% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 35 | GOROZA Eric | 19% | 45% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 36 | ARMITAGE Liam | 4% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 37 | PERKINS Jaray | 1% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 6% | - |
| 38 | BAKKEN Archer | 15% | 36% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
| 38 | KIM Ian | 3% | 15% | 30% | 31% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 40 | SHAIKH Zaki | - | 2% | 9% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 7% |
| 41 | BRADSHAW Carter | 2% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 42 | MAXU Tiger | 2% | 14% | 32% | 33% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 43 | SIM Ian | 16% | 40% | 32% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 44 | BHATT Arjun | 8% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 44 | LEE JiYuen | 31% | 41% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 46 | LALUYAUX Alexander | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
| 47 | NG Biwon | 25% | 40% | 26% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 48 | HUSTON Riley | 3% | 17% | 33% | 30% | 14% | 2% | |
| 49 | CLAES Lucas | 3% | 15% | 30% | 30% | 16% | 5% | 1% |
| 50 | MACIAN Sergio | 5% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 51 | WONG Ethan | 18% | 39% | 31% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
| 52 | RICHARD silas | 1% | 9% | 29% | 38% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 53 | DODDAPANENI Aarav | 4% | 18% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 54 | NUGENT Jack | 7% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 55 | CHANG Andrew | 6% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 56 | SECONDINE James | 8% | 33% | 38% | 17% | 3% | - | |
| 57 | JOHAR Manvik | 25% | 42% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 58 | SU Oliver | 13% | 33% | 33% | 16% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 59 | CHEN Bailey | < 1% | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 12% |
| 60 | CHAUDHURI Kabir | 3% | 21% | 39% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 61 | BUEHLMANN Johann | 12% | 34% | 34% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
| 62 | HARTMANN Angelo | 4% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 7% | 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.