The Fencing Center - San Jose, 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 | KIM Benjamin I. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 53% |
| 2 | ZHENG Haoran | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 21% |
| 3 | ZHANG Alec | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 22% |
| 3 | HUSSAIN Kamran | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 42% | 10% | |
| 5 | LIU Felix | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 35% | 8% |
| 6 | CHIRASHNYA Adam | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 49% | 14% | |
| 7 | JAIN Sarthak | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 33% |
| 8 | CHU Allan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 44% | 11% |
| 9 | LO Jake | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 52% | 13% |
| 10 | CHIRASHNYA Daniel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 32% | 5% |
| 11 | LIU Andrew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 22% |
| 12 | SARKAR Anish | 100% | 97% | 76% | 38% | 10% | 1% | |
| 13 | WANG owen | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 6% | |
| 14 | KUO Rylan | 100% | 88% | 55% | 20% | 4% | - | |
| 15 | KNUDSEN Travis | 100% | 99% | 87% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 16 | PAK Elliot | 100% | 95% | 65% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 17 | ULINICH Alexander | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 62% | 27% | 5% |
| 18 | ZAYDMAN David M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 74% | 37% | 6% |
| 19 | DOWDELL Riley | 100% | 98% | 83% | 50% | 18% | 3% | |
| 20 | MING Nathan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 16% | 2% |
| 21 | CASTELLY Luke | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 52% | 19% | 3% |
| 22 | LOWE-THORPE Tyler | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 68% | 32% | 7% |
| 22 | SARKAR Agniv | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 41% | 10% |
| 24 | SINHA Zaan | 100% | 94% | 71% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 25 | GREEN Jabreel | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 62% | 21% |
| 26 | PHUKAN Rohin | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 15% | |
| 27 | BRUSKOTTER Reiland | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 40% | 9% | |
| 28 | GOLDBERG Artie M. | 100% | 96% | 75% | 39% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 29 | CHEN Zhengyang | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 38% | 10% | 1% |
| 30 | YU Austin | 100% | 97% | 75% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 31 | WATT Darren | 100% | 97% | 80% | 47% | 16% | 2% | |
| 32 | BHARGAV Angad | 100% | 98% | 82% | 45% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 33 | WRIGHT Christopher | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 23% | |
| 34 | LEE Bryson | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 52% | 20% | 3% |
| 35 | HARGROVE Kai | 100% | 99% | 86% | 52% | 17% | 2% | |
| 36 | LEVENTAL Mark | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 15% | 2% |
| 37 | WONG Kevin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 30% | 6% |
| 38 | PRAKASH Hari | 100% | 96% | 76% | 39% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 39 | GUPTA Karan | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 16% | 2% |
| 40 | ZHANG Nathan | 100% | 94% | 70% | 34% | 9% | 1% | |
| 41 | RAJ Shrey | 100% | 78% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 42 | BURLING Trenor | 100% | 100% | 93% | 62% | 24% | 4% | - |
| 43 | LOMIO Nicholas A. | 100% | 97% | 78% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 44 | WONG Ethan | 100% | 53% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 45 | CHEN Bailey | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 29% | 6% | - |
| 46 | LIANG Eric | 100% | 80% | 29% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 47 | AHMED Saheer | 100% | 100% | 94% | 70% | 33% | 7% | |
| 48 | LOFTUS Luca | 100% | 93% | 66% | 30% | 7% | 1% | |
| 49 | GU Aidan | 100% | 93% | 67% | 30% | 7% | 1% | |
| 50 | YUEN Nathan | 100% | 78% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 51 | SCHNOLL Eli | 100% | 98% | 84% | 54% | 21% | 4% | |
| 52 | BHATT Arjun | 100% | 96% | 70% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 53 | TONG Samuel | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 54 | BARNETT Devin | 100% | 78% | 39% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
| 55 | KIM Sullivan | 100% | 99% | 87% | 57% | 24% | 5% | 1% |
| 56 | CHAKRAVARTHY Arjun | 100% | 48% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 57 | NG Biwon | 100% | 46% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 58 | MILSTEIN Nikolas | 100% | 46% | 10% | 1% | - | - | |
| 59 | LAU Christian | 100% | 82% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 60 | RICHARD silas | 100% | 45% | 9% | 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.