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 | XIAO Enoch A. | - | - | - | - | 4% | 31% | 64% |
2 | XIAO Ethan J. | - | - | - | - | 2% | 20% | 79% |
3 | GRAHAM Roy J. | - | - | 4% | 19% | 42% | 34% | |
3 | ZHANG Andy W. | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 39% | 46% |
5 | JEON Caleb A. | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 39% | 46% |
6 | WU Nicholas | - | - | - | 3% | 16% | 42% | 39% |
7 | DAI Jonathan T. | - | - | 2% | 10% | 31% | 40% | 16% |
8 | TOLBA Abdelrahman | - | - | 1% | 10% | 44% | 39% | 7% |
9 | YANG Luao | - | - | - | - | 4% | 28% | 68% |
10 | YU Jonathan J. | - | - | 7% | 31% | 43% | 17% | 1% |
11 | KEE Andrew L. | - | - | 2% | 15% | 42% | 35% | 5% |
12 | SCHENCK Koen M. | - | - | 1% | 5% | 23% | 43% | 28% |
13 | SHA Yi Peng | - | 4% | 17% | 34% | 33% | 12% | |
14 | MOHAMED Amir | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 4% |
15 | HOBSON Aaron K. | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 36% | 21% | 4% |
16 | LEUNG Wai Chi Ethan | - | 2% | 10% | 31% | 40% | 18% | |
17 | WAN Jason | - | - | - | 7% | 40% | 44% | 9% |
18 | LEE Aidan | - | 4% | 16% | 33% | 34% | 13% | |
19 | BUERGIN Aidan | 1% | 7% | 25% | 38% | 24% | 5% | |
20 | MARTIN IV Elmer D. | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 39% | 23% | 4% |
21 | LIN Michael | 1% | 8% | 23% | 34% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
22 | WOO Christian | 9% | 31% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | |
23 | SUNG Chang-Han S. | 4% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 2% | |
24 | LUH Ethan K. | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 4% | |
25 | MOHAMED Murad | - | 5% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 12% | 2% |
26 | NEWELL Ian A. | - | - | 2% | 15% | 42% | 37% | 4% |
27 | ZHAO Dylan L. | 3% | 17% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
28 | REEVES Liam | 5% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 9% | 1% | |
29 | ALLAMPALLAM Maanav V. | 13% | 34% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - | |
30 | LI Matthew | 6% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 6% | 1% | |
31 | KNIZHNIK David | 9% | 30% | 35% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
32 | EMENHEISER Conrad | 1% | 14% | 40% | 37% | 7% | - | - |
33 | SONG Leonardo T. | - | 2% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 19% | |
34 | OH SEAN | 2% | 14% | 34% | 34% | 14% | 2% | |
35 | LIU Eric Y. | - | 5% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
35 | ZHENG zhe | 3% | 20% | 38% | 28% | 10% | 1% | - |
37 | PAN Henry | 4% | 28% | 46% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
38 | TANG Owen S. | - | - | 3% | 18% | 43% | 31% | 4% |
39 | WANG Winston | 4% | 28% | 44% | 21% | 2% | - | - |
40 | GONZALEZ Matthew | 42% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
41 | WECHSLER Jacob | 2% | 12% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 4% | - |
41 | TAHOUN Mostafa | 3% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
43 | GAO William | 4% | 18% | 34% | 29% | 13% | 2% | - |
44 | ALONSO Vinicius | 1% | 17% | 41% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - |
45 | GISLER Benjamin B. | 1% | 8% | 27% | 37% | 21% | 5% | - |
46 | SONG Austin | 8% | 31% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
47 | WOODTHORPE Michael G. | 2% | 21% | 41% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
48 | TIKHAEV Alexander | 3% | 33% | 42% | 19% | 3% | - | - |
49 | CHENG Nathan | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
50 | PRASANNA Advaith | 3% | 19% | 37% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - |
51 | KUMAMOTO Sota | - | 1% | 10% | 38% | 39% | 12% | 1% |
52 | BERNABE Rafael | 1% | 12% | 37% | 37% | 12% | 1% | - |
53 | TIAN Aaron C. | 1% | 9% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 4% | |
54 | MILLER Aidan A. | 11% | 35% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - | |
55 | POLONSKI Anthony | 30% | 43% | 22% | 5% | 1% | - | |
56 | CHOI Samuel | - | < 1% | 3% | 16% | 37% | 34% | 9% |
57 | DRESSEL Jet | 8% | 35% | 41% | 15% | 1% | - | - |
58 | WANG Brayden | 58% | 34% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
59 | VIVEROS Antonio | 14% | 48% | 31% | 5% | - | - | - |
60 | LONG Connor M. | 17% | 37% | 31% | 12% | 3% | - | - |
61 | LIN James G. | < 1% | 5% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
62 | ORLOV Dmitriy | 25% | 40% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
63 | LI Ryan Z. | 25% | 42% | 26% | 7% | 1% | - | |
64 | ELWOOD Sebastian F. | 5% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 10% | 1% | |
65 | QUINN Nathan | 78% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
66 | KAN Edward | 54% | 38% | 7% | - | - | - | - |
67 | JEFFERS Edison | 56% | 36% | 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.