RIMAC Arena @ UC San Diego - La Jolla, 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 | KELLY William J. | - | - | - | 2% | 11% | 36% | 51% |
2 | GODZHIK Zachary | - | - | 3% | 14% | 37% | 38% | 7% |
3 | KO Brian J. | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 36% | 55% |
3 | XIAO Edward | - | 2% | 15% | 36% | 35% | 12% | |
5 | SUNG Chang-Han S. | - | 2% | 11% | 32% | 40% | 16% | |
6 | SHIH William | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 41% | 16% | |
7 | VAZQUEZ Zander | - | - | 4% | 21% | 40% | 28% | 6% |
8 | DIVITO Dylan | - | - | 4% | 21% | 44% | 31% | |
9 | YU Anders | - | - | 2% | 13% | 35% | 38% | 13% |
10 | OH Samuel H. | - | - | - | 4% | 22% | 47% | 26% |
11 | ZENG Lucas H. | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 43% | 20% | |
12 | SIU Aiden | - | 6% | 25% | 39% | 25% | 5% | |
13 | CHENG Nathan | - | 6% | 27% | 39% | 23% | 5% | |
14 | LUH Ethan K. | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
15 | BANERJEE Anup | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 43% | 25% | |
16 | JAIN Aditya | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 41% | 21% | |
17 | OTAKE Jared K. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 31% | 41% | 18% |
18 | KIM Brandon J. | - | - | - | 3% | 18% | 43% | 36% |
19 | SCHULZE-KALT Graydon L. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 36% | 15% |
20 | DARIANO Noah G. | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 9% |
21 | HOBSON Aaron K. | - | 2% | 11% | 31% | 39% | 16% | 1% |
22 | DANKAR Neel | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 43% | 24% | |
23 | VARGAS Bryan | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 38% | 19% | 3% |
24 | LAO Scott E. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 44% | 25% |
25 | GOLDADE Luke A. | 4% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 14% | 3% | - |
26 | JORDON Kaleb W. | 5% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 11% | 2% | - |
27 | WU Jerry Z. | 1% | 11% | 31% | 37% | 17% | 3% | |
28 | CHENG Matthew S. | 1% | 7% | 28% | 40% | 20% | 3% | |
29 | TSANG Matthew K. | - | - | - | 3% | 18% | 46% | 33% |
30 | WOO Christian | - | 2% | 16% | 39% | 31% | 10% | 1% |
31 | CHI Alexander | 24% | 45% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - | |
32 | FINNEY Lorenz | 4% | 26% | 40% | 24% | 5% | - | - |
33 | ZHOU Oscar J. | - | - | 9% | 37% | 39% | 13% | 1% |
34 | DINSAY Kristjan | 1% | 10% | 49% | 32% | 7% | 1% | - |
35 | SADOVSKY Leor B. | - | - | 8% | 34% | 41% | 15% | 2% |
36 | TAN Christien | 5% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 7% | 1% | |
37 | MUSHER Benjamin J. | - | 3% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 14% | 2% |
38 | MO Jason | 3% | 20% | 38% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - |
39 | GOBBO Alexander | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 17% | 3% |
40 | DETERING Julian | - | 2% | 15% | 37% | 33% | 12% | 1% |
41 | CANLAS Nathan | 1% | 6% | 24% | 39% | 25% | 6% | |
42 | MCCOSH Evin M. | 15% | 44% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - | |
43 | TSAY Jeremy M. | 2% | 14% | 37% | 34% | 12% | 1% | |
44 | ZHENG Zhe | 12% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - | |
45 | PIESNER Zachary C. | 20% | 42% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | |
46 | RYOU Aiden | 6% | 26% | 39% | 23% | 6% | - | |
47 | MILLER Duncan R. | 2% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
48 | CORTRIGHT Joshua C. | 1% | 11% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 5% | 1% |
49 | LE Jacob W. | 17% | 40% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - | |
50 | ZHOU Hao Kai (Kevin) | 4% | 38% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
51 | LI Avery Peihong | 2% | 18% | 41% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - |
52 | WU Lucas | 4% | 38% | 40% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
53 | CHOI Samuel | 1% | 7% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 9% | 1% |
53 | NGUYEN Liam | 14% | 37% | 32% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
55 | GONZALEZ Matthew | 28% | 43% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
56 | BAEK David | 6% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - |
57 | BLAM Matthew | 35% | 55% | 9% | - | - | - | - |
58 | OH Jaden | 1% | 24% | 45% | 24% | 5% | - | - |
59 | HAGHIGHAT KASHANI Farzad | 77% | 21% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
60 | SCHIENEMAN Valentine | 76% | 22% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
61 | UZGIRIS Kovas | 30% | 45% | 20% | 4% | - | - | |
62 | BROWN Darius D. | 29% | 43% | 22% | 5% | - | - | |
63 | HARRIS Rhonen | 50% | 40% | 10% | 1% | - | - | |
64 | SHEBEST Shane | 8% | 29% | 36% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
65 | KIESS Christopher | 22% | 41% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
66 | CHRISTIE William | 51% | 44% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
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.