Philadelphia, PA - Philadelphia, PA, 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 | YEN Darren | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 76% | 35% |
| 2 | LAI Adam J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 41% | |
| 3 | SILBERZWEIG Jordan H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 31% |
| 3 | VOCHOSKA Aidan F. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 65% | 30% | 5% |
| 5 | BIERNACKI Maciej L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 59% |
| 6 | MORREALE John | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 50% | 17% | 2% |
| 7 | SHI Andrew | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 23% | |
| 8 | ESCUETA Tony V. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 91% | 68% | 34% | 8% |
| 9 | TANN Justin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 38% | 10% |
| 10 | LO Joshua H. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 36% | 7% |
| 11 | GANTA Vijay | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 52% | 21% | 4% |
| 12 | MOLINA Nicholas (Nico) G. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 32% | 7% | |
| 13 | OSTER Keegan J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 63% | 23% |
| 14 | CZYZEWSKI Konrad R. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 28% | 6% | |
| 15 | HUANG Ethan F. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 18% | 2% | |
| 16 | LUEBBE Macklan C | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 48% | 17% | 3% |
| 17 | HOLZ William A. | 100% | 94% | 70% | 36% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 18 | GHOSH Tuhin | 100% | 99% | 93% | 74% | 43% | 15% | 2% |
| 19 | GHENEA George Philipe | 100% | 95% | 72% | 35% | 9% | 1% | |
| 20 | HAZLE-CARY Jacob P. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 11% | |
| 21 | FENG Leo | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 33% | 7% | |
| 22 | MOSKOWITZ Mason C. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 35% | 7% | |
| 23 | BARTOLO Domenic V. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 44% | 11% | |
| 24 | RAI Avin | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 52% | 19% | 3% |
| 25 | HO Kaden M. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 40% | 13% | 2% |
| 26 | XU William | 100% | 99% | 89% | 65% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 27 | MEDVEDEV Michail D. | 100% | 90% | 62% | 28% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 28 | BARNETT Adam | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 51% | 16% |
| 29 | CZAHA Balint | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 55% | 22% | 4% |
| 30 | RESHEIDAT Malik | 100% | 97% | 81% | 50% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 31 | MAKLIN Edward P. | 100% | 97% | 78% | 44% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 32 | LIN Daniel | 100% | 89% | 57% | 23% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 33 | REYES Xavier M. | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 25% | 5% | |
| 34 | BREIER Satchel E. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 33% | 7% |
| 35 | HONG Vincent Q. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 61% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
| 36 | YUN Jake | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 37 | KAUFMAN Bradley A. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 64% | 29% | 6% |
| 38 | KIM Shawn J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 26% |
| 39 | MAGUIRE Matthew V. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
| 39 | BRAR Sanjeet | 100% | 97% | 81% | 50% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 41 | HOLMES Aiden G. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 52% | 21% | 4% |
| 41 | WU Mengke | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 36% | 10% | 1% |
| 43 | COVINGTON Max G. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 54% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 44 | QUAN Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 75% | 41% | 11% |
| 45 | LEITH Jack | 100% | 66% | 24% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 46 | SHASHA zane | 100% | 98% | 86% | 59% | 26% | 6% | - |
| 47 | HARRIS Alex K. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 40% | 11% |
| 48 | CHANG Colin S. | 100% | 94% | 70% | 33% | 8% | 1% | |
| 49 | XU Andrew | 100% | 94% | 69% | 32% | 8% | 1% | |
| 50 | LO Alexander | 100% | 92% | 64% | 28% | 7% | 1% | |
| 51 | LU Caleb Q. | 100% | 77% | 38% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 52 | COLE Alexander | 100% | 87% | 53% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 53 | YAO Jonathan | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 43% | 15% | 2% |
| 54 | BUKOWSKI Bronson | 100% | 100% | 94% | 75% | 42% | 14% | 2% |
| 55 | ATEFI Daniel | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 36% | 11% | 1% |
| 56 | ZHOU Brian | 100% | 88% | 56% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 57 | CHOI Silas | 100% | 95% | 72% | 36% | 10% | 1% | |
| 58 | LIU kelly | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 34% | 6% | |
| 59 | HAN Daniel Y. | 100% | 95% | 71% | 36% | 10% | 1% | |
| 60 | STONE Esmond A. | 100% | 96% | 78% | 46% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 61 | MICHELL Bailey | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 63% | 28% | 5% |
| 62 | CHEONG Heonjae | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 30% | 7% | 1% |
| 63 | KOKKIN Jack S. | 100% | 96% | 76% | 43% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 64 | NG Jeremiah | 100% | 96% | 77% | 45% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 65 | XUE ALEXANDER | 100% | 97% | 80% | 45% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 66 | LEVIN Mark A. | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 6% | - |
| 67 | GAFFNEY John M. | 100% | 95% | 76% | 43% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 68 | CORNEJO Jeffrey A. | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 26% | 6% | 1% |
| 69 | BUERGENTHAL Aaron P. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 86% | 60% | 27% | 5% |
| 70 | SUSANTO Samuel (sammy) | 100% | 92% | 67% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 71 | GREENBAUM Ian L. | 100% | 92% | 65% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 72 | YEN Preston | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 31% | 6% | |
| 73 | OH Triton | 100% | 75% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 74 | MURZYN III CJ | 100% | 93% | 64% | 27% | 6% | - | |
| 75 | ESCUETA Jr Antonio V. | 100% | 72% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 76 | LI Joshua L. | 100% | 94% | 71% | 37% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 77 | ALTIRS Alexander | 100% | 99% | 90% | 66% | 34% | 10% | 1% |
| 78 | ZHENG Edward L. | 100% | 96% | 76% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 79 | CHENG Albert | 100% | 58% | 18% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 80 | DENG Andrew | 100% | 94% | 69% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 81 | JAWOROWSKI Matthew | 100% | 96% | 77% | 44% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 82 | SATHE Tej R. | 100% | 96% | 78% | 46% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 83 | FALLICK Ozzie | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 40% | 12% | 1% |
| 84 | PARKHURST Jr Michael | 100% | 89% | 59% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 85 | CHEN Evan P. | 100% | 81% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 86 | DILLREE Spencer S. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 34% | 7% | |
| 87 | BIRKS Evan D. | 100% | 55% | 16% | 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.