Pasadena Convention Center - Visitors Center - Pasadena, 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 | CHEN Ziyuan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 89% |
| 2 | DARIANO Noah G. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 38% |
| 3 | DIERKS Kian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 62% | 19% |
| 3 | SCHULZE-KALT Graydon L. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 35% |
| 5 | LEVY Jacob M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 88% |
| 6 | GODZHIK Zachary | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 46% |
| 7 | KUO Evan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 92% | 57% | 14% | |
| 8 | MUSHER Benjamin J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 36% | 6% |
| 9 | SIU Aiden | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 71% | 23% |
| 10 | OTAKE Jared K. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 51% |
| 11 | JAIN Aditya | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 52% |
| 12 | CANLAS Nathan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 62% | 14% |
| 13 | WOO Christian | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 31% | 5% |
| 14 | HOBSON Aaron K. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 43% | |
| 15 | LUH Ethan K. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 28% | |
| 16 | JORDON Kaleb W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 46% | 9% |
| 17 | CHENG Matthew S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 42% |
| 18 | SUNG Chang-Han S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 40% |
| 19 | GIRALDO Pablo E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 93% | 57% |
| 20 | KIM Derek A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 35% | 2% |
| 21 | LI Avery Peihong | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 47% | 13% | 1% |
| 22 | VALOUEV Aleksey | 100% | 100% | 100% | 88% | 45% | 8% | |
| 23 | CHI Alexander | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 19% | 3% | |
| 24 | YEE Johnathan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 48% | 11% | 1% |
| 25 | CHENG Nathan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 45% | 10% |
| 25 | VARGAS Bryan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 58% | 14% |
| 27 | ZHOU Hao Kai | 100% | 99% | 89% | 55% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 27 | DETERING Julian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 56% | 14% |
| 29 | TSAY Jeremy M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 69% | 23% |
| 30 | GUARDIA Gabriel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 55% | 16% |
| 31 | ANDERSON Jacob | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 37% | 7% | - |
| 32 | CHUANG Kian J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 86% | 49% | 13% | 1% |
| 33 | ZHOU Oscar J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 65% | 20% |
| 34 | FINNEY Lorenz | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 52% | 14% | 1% |
| 35 | SMITH Grant D. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 36 | LI Jett | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 25% | 4% | - |
| 37 | DINSAY Kristjan | 100% | 100% | 97% | 77% | 35% | 7% | - |
| 38 | PIESNER Zachary C. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 50% | 15% | 2% |
| 39 | ZHENG zhe | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 20% | 2% |
| 40 | HARRIS Otto | 100% | 81% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - | |
| 41 | TEH Ryan | 100% | 100% | 97% | 50% | 11% | 1% | |
| 42 | MCCOSH Evin M. | 100% | 96% | 74% | 38% | 11% | 1% | |
| 43 | KHER Roan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 84% | 44% | 11% | 1% |
| 44 | NGUYEN Liam | 100% | 100% | 93% | 67% | 27% | 4% | - |
| 45 | RENTERIA Emiliano | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 62% | 20% | 2% |
| 46 | PARK Sky | 100% | 94% | 62% | 23% | 4% | - | - |
| 47 | LLIDO Soren | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 27% | 1% |
| 48 | LE Jacob W. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 46% | 15% | 2% |
| 49 | CHEN Justin K. | 100% | 99% | 85% | 51% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 49 | MO Jason | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 51% | 13% | - |
| 51 | MYERS Dean | 100% | 99% | 86% | 50% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 52 | AIKEN Nicholas A. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 17% | 2% | - |
| 53 | BAEK David | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 31% | 1% |
| 54 | YU Leo | 100% | 98% | 83% | 46% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 55 | OH Jaden | 100% | 100% | 97% | 61% | 20% | 3% | - |
| 56 | FINLEY Dylan | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 41% | 10% | 1% |
| 57 | WANG Ethan | 100% | 100% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 7% | 1% |
| 58 | TUAN Evan | 100% | 93% | 64% | 26% | 5% | - | - |
| 59 | BERSHIN Izzy | 100% | 99% | 85% | 40% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 60 | GONZALEZ Matthew | 100% | 99% | 90% | 53% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 61 | GOLDADE Luke A. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 74% | 38% | 8% | |
| 62 | RAINS Jackson T. | 100% | 68% | 24% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 63 | EDISON Ansel | 100% | 87% | 48% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
| 64 | HAGHIGHAT KASHANI Farzad | 100% | 34% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 65 | SCHIENEMAN Valentine | 100% | 91% | 59% | 22% | 4% | - | - |
| 66 | ELVANDER Ethan | 100% | 90% | 55% | 17% | 2% | - | - |
| 67 | BLAM Matthew | 100% | 89% | 36% | 6% | - | - | - |
| 68 | BRENNAN Ty | 100% | 93% | 63% | 21% | 3% | - | - |
| 69 | BEECHER Keegan | 100% | 45% | 2% | - | - | - | |
| 70 | KALAMAS Nikolas | 100% | 61% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 71 | QIU Jay | 100% | 78% | 32% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 72 | BARTSCH Henry | 100% | 82% | 30% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 73 | NAM Michael | 100% | 96% | 75% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 74 | MAK Osman K. | 100% | 95% | 53% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 75 | TAN Peter | 100% | 98% | 82% | 47% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 76 | NGUYEN William | 100% | 67% | 24% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 77 | CHEN Brian | 100% | 99% | 86% | 52% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 78 | BOUCHARD Kai | 100% | 82% | 39% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 79 | KIM Jonah | 100% | 72% | 7% | - | - | - | - |
| 80 | WONG Luke S. | 100% | 91% | 61% | 25% | 5% | - | |
| 81 | HAHN Jacob | 100% | 64% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 82 | PETERSON Lucas | 100% | 69% | 23% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 82 | GREENEBAUM Oliver | 100% | 40% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 84 | ALBINALI Eissa | 100% | 28% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 85 | GRITCHEN Alex | 100% | 60% | 3% | - | - | - | |
| 86 | COUFAL Christian | 100% | 40% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 87 | KHAZEI Kian | 100% | 97% | 71% | 27% | 5% | - | - |
| 88 | OPATKIEWICZ Aidan | 100% | 32% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 89 | DROPKIN Mason | 100% | 24% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
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.