Fredericksburg, VA - Fredericksburg, VA, 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 | SIVAKUMAR Ajit | - | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 42% | 29% |
| 2 | CHEN Eric | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 7% |
| 3 | LEE Shwan | - | - | 4% | 18% | 39% | 31% | 8% |
| 3 | SU Caleb | - | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 40% | 20% |
| 5 | STEVENS Daniel | - | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 41% | 18% |
| 6 | DUAN eric | 1% | 7% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
| 7 | LEE Daniel Y. | - | - | - | 2% | 14% | 42% | 41% |
| 8 | PARK Ian C. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 43% | 25% |
| 9 | KIM Ethan J. | - | - | - | 1% | 10% | 37% | 52% |
| 10 | WOZNIAK Ignacy | - | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 43% | 27% |
| 11 | JEYOON Ryan S. | - | - | 3% | 18% | 43% | 36% | |
| 12 | CHAWLA Armaan | 1% | 6% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 6% | |
| 13 | TREBON Hayden | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 38% | 29% | 6% |
| 14 | KING Cameron | - | 3% | 16% | 33% | 32% | 13% | 2% |
| 15 | MURPHY Thomas P. | 3% | 16% | 34% | 32% | 14% | 2% | |
| 16 | KROPP Jack | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 34% | |
| 17 | HENSAL Nicolas A. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 35% | 37% | 11% |
| 18 | WIMMER Nathaniel P. | - | - | 2% | 13% | 36% | 37% | 12% |
| 19 | CAO Brad | - | 6% | 24% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 20 | SHIV Rishi | - | - | 2% | 13% | 33% | 37% | 14% |
| 21 | LEE Samuel Y. | - | 4% | 20% | 37% | 28% | 9% | 1% |
| 22 | KIM Dylan J. | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 23% | 5% |
| 23 | JOSEPH William | - | 2% | 13% | 35% | 38% | 13% | |
| 24 | O'CONNOR Riley | 1% | 12% | 33% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 25 | VALES Keyan | 1% | 6% | 24% | 38% | 24% | 6% | - |
| 26 | WOZNIAK Fryderyk | 10% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 27 | WOLFE Alex | 2% | 15% | 36% | 34% | 12% | 1% | |
| 28 | LEONE III Charles D. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 42% | 20% |
| 29 | VACCARO Dominick J. | 8% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 30 | LEE JoonWon | 7% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 31 | KIM Ryan | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - |
| 32 | CHAMBLISS Logan C. | 1% | 9% | 30% | 36% | 19% | 5% | - |
| 33 | PARK Vincent | 1% | 8% | 23% | 33% | 25% | 9% | 1% |
| 34 | JANG Elliot | - | 3% | 17% | 35% | 32% | 12% | 1% |
| 35 | CAO Albert | 1% | 11% | 32% | 37% | 17% | 2% | |
| 36 | NORTH Alexander M. | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 31% | 11% | 1% |
| 37 | CLICK Aiden | - | - | - | 3% | 20% | 44% | 33% |
| 38 | KWOUN Miles S. | 8% | 32% | 39% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 39 | HILBERT Gabriel E. | - | 4% | 17% | 33% | 32% | 13% | 1% |
| 40 | WANG Trontour | 17% | 42% | 30% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 41 | MODULLA Yathin | 32% | 44% | 20% | 4% | - | - | |
| 42 | JORDAN Anton | 1% | 6% | 24% | 39% | 24% | 6% | - |
| 43 | ZHANG Andy | 32% | 44% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 44 | ZHANG Caden | 18% | 41% | 30% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 44 | DAVIS Jonah | 28% | 43% | 23% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
| 46 | BERNARD Jack B. | 33% | 44% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 47 | MILLER Kurt | 39% | 44% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 48 | MING Isaac | 22% | 40% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 49 | JUNG Minche | 3% | 18% | 35% | 31% | 12% | 2% | |
| 50 | CRANE Matthew T. | - | 2% | 13% | 33% | 35% | 15% | 2% |
| 50 | LAM Bill | 11% | 36% | 37% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 52 | JONES Tyler | 5% | 22% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 53 | POIST Wylie | 4% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 54 | LIN Harrison | 18% | 43% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 55 | SINFUEGO Adrian | 21% | 45% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 56 | ILYAS Zakariya | 1% | 11% | 31% | 35% | 18% | 4% | - |
| 57 | FU Ethan | 19% | 39% | 30% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 58 | SLOUGH Sean | < 1% | 7% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 59 | BANNEN Nicholas | 17% | 42% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 60 | PALAMARCHUK Matthew | 37% | 44% | 16% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 61 | COREY Colin | 18% | 41% | 31% | 9% | 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.