Fort Worth, TX - Fort Worth, TX, 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 | EMMER Chase T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 30% |
| 2 | KUMBLA Sidarth | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 68% |
| 3 | PARK Luke J. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 15% | 2% |
| 3 | GASSNER Ethan I. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 75% | 33% |
| 5 | LOUIE Bryce | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 51% |
| 6 | LI Brandon H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 37% | |
| 7 | KASI Sanjay | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 36% | 10% | 1% |
| 8 | BAS Liam | 100% | 97% | 78% | 36% | 6% | - | |
| 9 | OLIVARES Marcello G. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 43% |
| 10 | HOSSFELD Finn E. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 20% | |
| 11 | KIM Nicholas W. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 17% | 2% |
| 12 | YU Vinni | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 39% | 9% |
| 13 | SNYTSHEUVEL John Evan (Evan) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 54% | 17% |
| 14 | TSANG Matthew K. | 100% | 89% | 58% | 23% | 5% | - | |
| 15 | ZHANG Daniel D. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 11% |
| 16 | BINDER Zachary (Zach) B. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 63% | 21% | |
| 17 | LIAO Jun Heng (James) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 59% | |
| 18 | KO Brian J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 25% | 4% |
| 19 | GRIFFIN John O. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 51% | 7% |
| 20 | NDIAYE Edriss G. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 76% | 41% | 9% |
| 21 | KELLY William J. | 100% | 99% | 87% | 53% | 15% | 1% | |
| 22 | XIAO Ethan J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 42% | 9% |
| 23 | DORITY Philip S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 40% | 6% |
| 24 | ZHAO Jason L. | 100% | 95% | 72% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 25 | XIAO Enoch A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 26% | 4% |
| 26 | GROSSMAN SMISEK Spencer E. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 31% | 7% | 1% |
| 27 | CHUNG Andrew N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 55% |
| 28 | LEVY Jacob M. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 40% | 10% | 1% |
| 29 | WANG Brian S. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 46% | 8% | |
| 30 | DEBACK Maximus (Max) X. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 75% | 34% | |
| 31 | BOURTIS James S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 41% | |
| 32 | GRIFFITH JACK | 100% | 94% | 70% | 34% | 9% | 1% | |
| 33 | CHEN James P. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 39% |
| 34 | MATHIEU Adam | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 74% |
| 35 | KAISER Hans Z. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 52% | 19% | 3% |
| 36 | LO Conrad | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 29% | 6% | 1% |
| 37 | WELCH Kyle J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 27% | 3% |
| 38 | HUANG Bin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 22% |
| 39 | AUGUSTINE Ethan A. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 30% | 5% | |
| 40 | FOGELSON Frederick J. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 34% | 9% | 1% | |
| 41 | ZENG Lucas H. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 40% | 8% | - |
| 42 | DUDEY Michael | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 16% |
| 43 | KATAYAMA Kevin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 40% | 8% |
| 43 | YU Eric W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 18% |
| 45 | CHIN Jason Y. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 74% | 40% | 12% | 1% |
| 46 | CHEN Earnest P. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 14% |
| 47 | KAO Castor T. | 100% | 95% | 74% | 39% | 11% | 1% | |
| 48 | PARKINS Benjamin B. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 22% | |
| 49 | SCHEMBRI MCCORD Kruz T. | 100% | 99% | 85% | 47% | 10% | 1% | |
| 50 | IVERSON Shane D. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 23% |
| 51 | KIM Brandon J. | 100% | 97% | 77% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 52 | OH Jonathan | 100% | 90% | 60% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 53 | GRANT Lachlan K. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 51% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 54 | JOSEPH Dominic (Dom) | 100% | 99% | 87% | 53% | 19% | 3% | - |
| 55 | BAUMSTEIN Nicholas I. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 37% | 10% | 1% |
| 56 | UM Ethan A. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 37% | 10% | 1% |
| 57 | MARTINEZ Donavyn E. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 27% | 4% |
| 58 | LIU Niles J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 31% | |
| 59 | CHEN Allen | 100% | 97% | 77% | 38% | 8% | - | |
| 60 | HODGES Carter F. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 44% | 11% |
| 61 | GRAHAM Roy J. | 100% | 92% | 64% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 62 | HU Oliver W. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 36% | 10% | 1% |
| 63 | LONG Quinton R. | 100% | 91% | 59% | 22% | 4% | - | - |
| 64 | XIAO EDWARD | 100% | 74% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 65 | CHENG Jonathan | 100% | 97% | 80% | 45% | 14% | 2% | - |
| 66 | WU Alexander | 100% | 94% | 69% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 67 | JANG Jaewon | 100% | 97% | 78% | 38% | 8% | 1% | |
| 68 | ACUNA Gabriel G. | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 16% | 2% | |
| 69 | CHEN Andrew | 100% | 93% | 65% | 26% | 5% | - | |
| 70 | FUKUDA Alessio R. | 100% | 88% | 52% | 16% | 2% | - | |
| 71 | OUELLETTE David M. | 100% | 97% | 76% | 36% | 7% | 1% | |
| 72 | KUMBLA Samarth | 100% | 95% | 74% | 38% | 11% | 1% | |
| 73 | OURSLER Jack | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 35% | 8% |
| 73 | DESERANNO Jeidus | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 45% | 11% |
| 75 | ZOBEL Eric H. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
| 76 | GIRALDO Pablo E. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 36% | 7% | - |
| 77 | DOBBINS Evan W. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 22% | 5% | - |
| 78 | LIANG Lixi (Henry) | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 31% | 7% | 1% |
| 79 | SONG Leonardo T. | 100% | 85% | 48% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 80 | LIU Justin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 32% | |
| 81 | ZHENG Alan H. | 100% | 92% | 65% | 29% | 7% | 1% | |
| 82 | ZHANG Andy W. | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 17% | 2% | |
| 83 | KIM Isaiah G. | 100% | 85% | 42% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 84 | BANERJEE ANUP | 100% | 99% | 90% | 59% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 85 | CAI Jason Zhicheng | 100% | 71% | 29% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 86 | DICKSON Farr R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 40% | 7% |
| 87 | FUKUDA Renzo K. | 100% | 98% | 85% | 49% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 88 | DAI Jonathan T. | 100% | 96% | 75% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 89 | LEWIS Paul D. | 100% | 95% | 74% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 90 | LEE Jacob J | 100% | 74% | 29% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 91 | FLANAGAN James | 100% | 98% | 83% | 45% | 12% | 1% | - |
| 91 | LEE Aidan | 100% | 93% | 65% | 26% | 5% | - | - |
| 93 | LEE Chris | 100% | 87% | 53% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 94 | HO Ryan J. | 100% | 98% | 83% | 51% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 95 | HONG Daniel | 100% | 96% | 69% | 29% | 5% | - | |
| 96 | MCCLAIN Bryce C. | 100% | 96% | 77% | 42% | 13% | 1% | |
| 96 | KWON Ethan | 100% | 86% | 46% | 13% | 1% | - | |
| 98 | JAUME Andrei | 100% | 90% | 50% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 99 | SONG Aiden S. | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 16% | 3% | - |
| 100 | WHITEHEAD Amir | 100% | 35% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 101 | KEE Andrew L. | 100% | 72% | 27% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 102 | BING Charles | 100% | 90% | 58% | 23% | 4% | - | - |
| 103 | REALS Alden D. | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 104 | LIN Dashiell | 100% | 92% | 66% | 31% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 105 | DIERKS Kian | 100% | 72% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 106 | KIM Aaron J. | 100% | 75% | 34% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 107 | CHIN Julian S. | 100% | 88% | 54% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
| 108 | JEON Caleb A. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 109 | HOOSHI Dylan M. | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 18% | 3% | |
| 110 | BAE Kevin | 100% | 94% | 59% | 21% | 4% | - | - |
| 111 | POPOKH Leo | 100% | 57% | 15% | 2% | - | - | |
| 111 | HAN Andersen Y. | 100% | 70% | 26% | 5% | - | - | |
| 113 | ZHANG Luke T. | 100% | 80% | 39% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 114 | SICHITIU Alexander | 100% | 66% | 22% | 3% | - | - | |
| 115 | NEWELL Ian A. | 100% | 48% | 11% | 1% | - | - | |
| 116 | SONG Dylan S. | 100% | 79% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 117 | GORBACHEV Alexander | 100% | 71% | 25% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 118 | LI Ryan Z. | 100% | 44% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 119 | FEDONCHIK Henry J. | 100% | 71% | 28% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 119 | HSIUNG Richie | 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.