RIMAC Arena @ UC San Diego - La Jolla, CA, 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 | KRASILNIKOV Rostislav | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 61% | 16% |
| 2 | CALLAHAN Jaden P. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 62% | 20% |
| 3 | BERGER Oliver | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 40% | 8% |
| 3 | BARRETO Elliott | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 53% |
| 5 | CHOI Silas | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 57% | 18% | 2% |
| 6 | CASTRO-SOLIS HUGO ABEL | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 51% | |
| 7 | CHEN Howard | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 38% |
| 8 | DHINGRA Gian K. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 53% | 12% |
| 9 | XU William | 100% | 100% | 100% | 92% | 55% | 15% | 1% |
| 10 | WU Mengke | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 51% | 12% |
| 11 | YUN Jaesun | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 78% | 34% | |
| 12 | PATIL Aaryan A. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 62% | 21% | 2% | |
| 13 | AURAY Phileas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 42% | |
| 14 | ROSBERG Dashiell W. | 100% | 95% | 71% | 32% | 6% | ||
| 15 | BARBER William S. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 20% | ||
| 16 | JIANG Anthony | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 58% | 15% |
| 17 | BARBUTA Andrew | 100% | 80% | 39% | 10% | 1% | < 1% | |
| 17 | ROCHA Alejandro | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 55% | 14% | |
| 19 | WANG Eric Y. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 58% | 15% | |
| 20 | FALLICK Ozzie | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 14% | |
| 21 | BEAM David E. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 25% | 4% | |
| 22 | HJERPE Wade H. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 54% | 17% | 2% |
| 23 | HOLZ William A. | 100% | 99% | 87% | 57% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 24 | TAO Stone Z. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 66% | 22% | 2% |
| 25 | KROON Lucas | 100% | 97% | 72% | 31% | 6% | - | |
| 26 | REYES Xavier M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 35% | |
| 27 | FRIAS Saul F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 64% | 20% |
| 28 | QIU Nathan | 100% | 97% | 75% | 33% | 6% | ||
| 29 | LIM William J. | 100% | 96% | 74% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 30 | LIN Daniel | 100% | 100% | 96% | 73% | 30% | 6% | - |
| 31 | XU Andrew | 100% | 99% | 92% | 58% | 18% | 2% | |
| 32 | LI Yiwei | 100% | 95% | 72% | 35% | 9% | 1% | |
| 33 | HOLZ Daniel | 100% | 98% | 80% | 41% | 9% | ||
| 34 | CHANG Colin S. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 27% | 4% | |
| 35 | ANFORA Andrew T. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 30% | 6% | - | |
| 36 | KUMAR Sachit | 100% | 82% | 43% | 12% | 1% | - | |
| 37 | BRISTOL Brijen | 100% | 92% | 57% | 17% | 2% | - | - |
| 38 | NOBLE Daniel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 43% | 11% |
| 39 | RAJAN Advait | 100% | 98% | 49% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 40 | CAISSE Simon B. | 100% | 91% | 53% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 41 | CENTENO Zachary | 100% | 62% | 18% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 42 | BAUER Hank E. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 36% | 7% | |
| 43 | LEITH Jack | 100% | 93% | 66% | 27% | 5% | - | |
| 44 | MIYASAKI-CASTRO Masanobu | 100% | 90% | 58% | 21% | 3% | - | |
| 45 | YANG Dylan | 100% | 97% | 71% | 28% | 5% | - | |
| 46 | NIETO Titus P. | 100% | 53% | 10% | 1% | - | - | |
| 47 | REED Samuel J. | 100% | 99% | 72% | 20% | 2% | - | - |
| 48 | LO Konnor | 100% | 95% | 71% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 49 | ZHANG Yankun | 100% | 89% | 51% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 50 | KANDLIK Aaron K. | 100% | 88% | 53% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 50 | UYANIK Muhammet | 100% | 74% | 22% | 3% | - | - | |
| 52 | CHEN Lester | 100% | 65% | 22% | 3% | - | ||
| 53 | KORINTH Alexander J. | 100% | 90% | 53% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 54 | GOMES John F. | 100% | 30% | 4% | - | - | - | |
| 55 | GUO Ethan | 100% | 63% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 56 | MATTHEWS William | 100% | 55% | 13% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 57 | CHANG LAWRENCE | 100% | 8% | - | - | - | - | - |
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.