Richmond, VA - Richmond, VA, 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 | LONCAR Luka E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 63% | 24% |
2 | PRASAD Ankith | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 23% | |
3 | JIN Nicholas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 41% | |
3 | GAO Daniel | 100% | 96% | 73% | 34% | 7% | 1% | |
5 | GOLDFINE Ian J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 25% |
6 | LIN Kyran | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 47% | |
7 | BEZRODNOV Alexander | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 39% | 8% |
8 | STRAUSS Luke | 100% | 98% | 85% | 51% | 17% | 2% | |
9 | MACARTY Jordan T. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 50% | 11% | |
10 | CHONG christopher | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 19% |
11 | CLICK Aiden | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 62% | 29% | 6% |
12 | KATS Dylan G. | 100% | 99% | 87% | 56% | 21% | 3% | |
13 | KOKENGE Reid | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 25% | 4% |
14 | LATIF IMRAN ZAKARIYYA | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 43% | |
15 | WIMMER Nathaniel P. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 56% | 18% | |
16 | PRIHODKO Max | 100% | 99% | 85% | 52% | 18% | 3% | |
17 | YOUNG Peyton E. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 52% | 21% | 4% |
18 | GOHEL Dayus T. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 52% | 15% | |
19 | BINDAS Odinn A. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 33% | 8% | 1% | |
20 | KUMAR Aidan | 100% | 99% | 82% | 44% | 12% | 1% | |
21 | FLECKENSTEIN Benjamin T. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 15% | 2% |
22 | PARK Ian C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 18% |
23 | KHANNA Nikhil | 100% | 100% | 94% | 74% | 42% | 14% | 2% |
24 | KUDRIAVTCEV Sergei | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 18% |
25 | SU Caleb | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 32% | 6% | |
26 | LIEF Isaac R. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 17% | |
27 | JEYOON Ryan S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 52% | 14% |
28 | KIM Dylan J. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 41% | 12% | 1% |
29 | JIN daniel | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 42% | 9% | |
30 | BEZRODNOV Michael | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 57% | 25% | 5% |
31 | PHUKAN Rohin | 100% | 97% | 81% | 50% | 19% | 4% | - |
32 | KIM Tei D. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 39% | 9% | |
33 | LEE Shwan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 75% | 34% |
34 | LIOZNYANSKY Simon | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 38% | 8% |
35 | LEE Noah | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 31% |
36 | AGAON Shawn | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 43% | 11% |
37 | CHOI Mason | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 48% | 14% | 2% |
38 | LI Patrick | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 69% | 33% | 7% |
39 | SONG Alexander | 100% | 97% | 82% | 51% | 20% | 4% | - |
40 | CAO Brad | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 37% | 10% | 1% |
41 | LAI Aiden | 100% | 87% | 43% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
42 | LEE Seungwon | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 32% | 6% |
43 | KOBI Samuel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 31% | 6% |
44 | GALLO James | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 43% | 10% | |
45 | YAVOROVSKIY Joshua I. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 76% | 39% | 9% | |
46 | NORTH Alexander M. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 40% | 12% | 2% |
47 | LEE Daniel Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 31% |
48 | CARRIER Gabriel A. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 41% | 11% | 1% |
49 | SCHULZE Ethan | 100% | 90% | 61% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
50 | WOZNIAK Fryderyk | 100% | 93% | 66% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
51 | ZHENG Haoran | 100% | 92% | 61% | 20% | 3% | - | - |
52 | CHU Allan | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 40% | 13% | 2% |
53 | TORRES Nicolas | 100% | 90% | 55% | 19% | 3% | - | |
54 | VEZMAR Evan H. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 35% | 7% | |
55 | CAO Albert | 100% | 92% | 63% | 27% | 6% | 1% | |
56 | IMREK Elijah S. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 48% | 13% | 1% | |
57 | DESTEFANO Julius | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 17% | 3% |
58 | YAO Geoffrey B. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 72% | 36% | 10% | 1% |
59 | AGAON Ethan | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 35% | 10% | 1% |
60 | SATTERFIELD Donald | 100% | 91% | 62% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - |
61 | JORDAN Anton | 100% | 94% | 72% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - |
62 | WANG DEVON | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 39% | 13% | 2% |
63 | MURPHY Thomas P. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 56% | 18% | 2% | |
64 | WANG Clayton | 100% | 45% | 10% | 1% | - | - | |
65 | OTTO Nathaniel B. | 100% | 90% | 54% | 17% | 2% | - | |
66 | HILBERT Gabriel E. | 100% | 98% | 82% | 44% | 11% | 1% | |
67 | LOISEAU Eliott | 100% | 97% | 72% | 32% | 7% | 1% | |
68 | DUAN eric | 100% | 98% | 81% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - |
69 | NIKOLOV Peter | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
69 | XIAO Andrew | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 19% | 4% | - |
71 | LEE Samuel Y. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 50% | 20% | 5% | - |
72 | TIKHOMIROV Theodore | 100% | 99% | 88% | 54% | 18% | 3% | - |
73 | HU Robert J. | 100% | 47% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
74 | CLICK Tristan | 100% | 80% | 38% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
75 | BERNARD Jack B. | 100% | 32% | 4% | - | - | - | |
76 | WRIGHT Christopher | 100% | 98% | 81% | 46% | 15% | 2% | |
77 | LEE JoonWon | 100% | 54% | 14% | 2% | - | - | |
77 | WOLFE Alex | 100% | 95% | 65% | 26% | 5% | - | |
79 | PARKS Isaac | 100% | 77% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | |
80 | O'DONNELL Benjamin | 100% | 99% | 86% | 52% | 16% | 2% | |
81 | ZHANG Andy | 100% | 57% | 15% | 2% | - | - | - |
82 | XIA Oliver | 100% | 70% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
83 | POIST Wylie | 100% | 95% | 76% | 45% | 17% | 4% | - |
84 | SONN Rohan | 100% | 98% | 86% | 57% | 25% | 6% | 1% |
85 | KIM Sullivan | 100% | 59% | 19% | 4% | - | - | - |
86 | SEBASTIAN Alexander P. | 100% | 94% | 63% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
87 | GRENKE Wyatt | 100% | 50% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
88 | MUGA Aiden | 100% | 65% | 22% | 3% | - | - | |
89 | PAK Elliot | 100% | 81% | 35% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
90 | BAZHENOV Anthony | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
91 | GAO Zachary | 100% | 47% | 11% | 1% | - | - | |
92 | KWOUN Miles S. | 100% | 75% | 31% | 6% | 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.