King of Prussia, PA - King of Prussia, PA, 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 | ||
| 1 | LUKASHENKO Darii | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 35% |
| 2 | BARNETT Adam | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 66% |
| 3 | GEFELL Andrew P. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 30% |
| 3 | JEAN Noe T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 44% |
| 5 | SILBERZWEIG Jordan H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 59% |
| 6 | GANTA Vijay | 100% | 100% | 91% | 60% | 18% | |
| 7 | BARTOLO Domenic V. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 70% | 28% |
| 8 | LAHOTSKA Yahor | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 77% | 29% |
| 9 | MORRILL Justin | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 55% | 17% |
| 10 | BASALYGA Jeffrey | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 46% |
| 11 | YUAN Kevin | 100% | 99% | 90% | 58% | 19% | 2% |
| 12 | MAHONEY Colin M. | 100% | 100% | 90% | 58% | 17% | |
| 13 | WONG Ryan | 100% | 96% | 74% | 37% | 9% | 1% |
| 14 | SIMAK Joseph P. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 60% | 24% | 4% |
| 15 | COLE Alexander | 100% | 96% | 77% | 42% | 13% | 1% |
| 16 | EDELMAN Seth A. | 100% | 95% | 67% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 17 | CHAN Matthew | 100% | 100% | 93% | 64% | 18% | |
| 18 | ZHENG Edward L. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 27% | 4% |
| 19 | HO Kaden M. | 100% | 98% | 87% | 54% | 18% | 2% |
| 20 | MARGULIES William | 100% | 99% | 86% | 49% | 12% | 1% |
| 21 | MORREALE John | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 21% |
| 22 | ALTIRS Alexander | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 48% | 12% |
| 23 | BRAR Sanjeet | 100% | 97% | 81% | 46% | 14% | 2% |
| 24 | MORRILL William | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 38% | |
| 25 | NG Jeremiah | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 22% | 3% |
| 26 | CZYZEWSKI Konrad R. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 16% |
| 27 | KIM Matthew | 100% | 97% | 78% | 41% | 11% | 1% |
| 28 | DENG Andrew | 100% | 100% | 93% | 67% | 26% | 3% |
| 29 | CHAUDHURI Eeshaan A. | 100% | 89% | 56% | 20% | 4% | - |
| 30 | WU Wilmund | 100% | 98% | 81% | 46% | 14% | 2% |
| 31 | HONG Vincent Q. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 21% | 2% |
| 32 | REYES Kyle | 100% | 93% | 64% | 27% | 6% | - |
| 33 | GHAYALOD ansh | 100% | 97% | 66% | 24% | 4% | |
| 34 | TEVEBAUGH Andrew | 100% | 97% | 76% | 38% | 10% | 1% |
| 35 | OVERDECK Andrew | 100% | 99% | 85% | 48% | 13% | 1% |
| 36 | LEDERER Justin W. | 100% | 72% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 37 | HU Andrew | 100% | 91% | 63% | 27% | 6% | - |
| 38 | YOU Jaden | 100% | 77% | 32% | 6% | - | |
| 39 | ZHOU Miles | 100% | 99% | 88% | 57% | 22% | 3% |
| 40 | HAN Daniel Y. | 100% | 95% | 75% | 39% | 11% | 1% |
| 41 | MOLINA Nicholas (Nico) G. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 68% | 25% |
| 42 | ZENG Noah | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 12% | 1% |
| 43 | FIELDS Matthew S. | 100% | 94% | 72% | 36% | 10% | 1% |
| 44 | CHEONG Heonjae | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 18% | 2% |
| 45 | MCCARTHY Gabriel | 100% | 94% | 71% | 34% | 8% | 1% |
| 46 | BULL Anderson | 100% | 96% | 71% | 27% | 4% | |
| 47 | GREENE Alexander J. | 100% | 99% | 86% | 48% | 11% | |
| 48 | NOBLE Colin | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 15% | 2% |
| 49 | CHEN Evan P. | 100% | 82% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 50 | MATSUI Alen K. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 28% | 5% |
| 50 | LIU Mingyang Ryan | 100% | 82% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 52 | HUANG Tyler T. | 100% | 98% | 78% | 35% | 7% | - |
| 53 | JANG Junhyuk | 100% | 79% | 38% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 54 | SANDERS Samuel B. | 100% | 95% | 63% | 21% | 3% | - |
| 55 | POSY Daniel | 100% | 59% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 56 | DA GRACA Aidan | 100% | 95% | 68% | 30% | 7% | 1% |
| 57 | GOLD Jackson | 100% | 92% | 61% | 23% | 4% | - |
| 58 | MIRDALA Drew | 100% | 33% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 59 | LEE Aydan J. | 100% | 95% | 72% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
| 60 | CORTEZ Christopher | 100% | 69% | 22% | 3% | - | |
| 61 | WEBER Mattias A. | 100% | 79% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 62 | GLOZMAN Justin | 100% | 28% | 3% | - | - | |
| 63 | MOULTON Ian | 100% | 59% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 64 | STERN Tobias | 100% | 38% | 6% | - | - | - |
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.