King of Prussia, PA - King of Prussia, PA, USA
Explore the pool victory probability density for each fencer, with their actual victories highlighted in a box. Learn more.
# | Name | Number of victories | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
1 | SINGH Dayaal | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 43% | 27% |
2 | CHEN Allen | - | 2% | 15% | 36% | 35% | 11% |
3 | SNYTSHEUVEL John Evan (Evan) | - | - | 1% | 10% | 37% | 51% |
3 | YU Vinni | - | - | 1% | 13% | 43% | 43% |
5 | ZHANG Andy W. | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 41% | 21% |
6 | CHEN Andrew | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 36% | 14% |
7 | LI Richard | - | 2% | 14% | 36% | 37% | 11% |
8 | BURKE Spencer W. | - | 1% | 7% | 29% | 43% | 20% |
9 | KASI Sanjay | - | - | 6% | 26% | 44% | 24% |
10 | LIANG Lixi (Henry) | - | 5% | 21% | 39% | 29% | 5% |
11 | CHIN Jason Y. | - | - | 6% | 30% | 47% | 17% |
12 | OURSLER Jack | - | - | - | 7% | 37% | 56% |
13 | LAURICELLA Douglas | - | - | 6% | 31% | 48% | 14% |
14 | ZHANG Henry C. | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 40% | 17% |
15 | GRAHAM Roy J. | - | 5% | 25% | 39% | 25% | 6% |
16 | STANLEY Mason B. | 1% | 9% | 32% | 41% | 18% | |
17 | GRIFFIN John O. | - | - | - | 5% | 30% | 65% |
18 | HUTH Mitchell | 1% | 14% | 37% | 36% | 11% | |
19 | KIM Nicholas W. | - | - | 3% | 18% | 43% | 35% |
20 | ZENG Lucas H. | - | 1% | 7% | 27% | 42% | 23% |
21 | HUTH Jacob | - | 2% | 15% | 44% | 32% | 6% |
22 | AUGUSTINE Ethan A. | - | - | 4% | 25% | 49% | 21% |
23 | GRANT Lachlan K. | - | 3% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 13% |
24 | CHENG Jonathan | - | 4% | 21% | 40% | 30% | 5% |
25 | FUKUDA Alessio R. | 1% | 17% | 39% | 33% | 9% | |
26 | DEGREMONT Henri S. | - | 5% | 22% | 38% | 28% | 7% |
27 | HORSLEY Alexander | - | 3% | 17% | 38% | 33% | 10% |
28 | HODGES Carter F. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 35% | 57% |
29 | YEROKHIN Michael N. | 1% | 6% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 7% |
30 | FOGELSON Frederick J. | - | 3% | 19% | 41% | 31% | 7% |
31 | DAI Jonathan T. | - | 6% | 27% | 39% | 23% | 5% |
32 | WANG Gerald Y. | 8% | 47% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - |
33 | DESERANNO Jeidus | - | - | 1% | 10% | 42% | 46% |
34 | FREEDMAN Samuel E. | 1% | 12% | 33% | 35% | 16% | 2% |
35 | SANTULLI Tristan | 4% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
36 | HO Ryan J. | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 43% | 22% |
37 | HOOSHI Dylan M. | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 42% | 30% |
38 | PYO Michael M. | - | 6% | 25% | 40% | 24% | 5% |
38 | KWON Ethan | - | 4% | 20% | 38% | 30% | 8% |
40 | KO Brian J. | - | - | 1% | 11% | 42% | 46% |
41 | BELLUOMO David C. | 1% | 19% | 41% | 29% | 9% | 1% |
42 | LOCKWOOD Owen | - | - | 6% | 31% | 47% | 16% |
43 | KIM Yonjae | 1% | 13% | 38% | 37% | 11% | |
44 | OH Samuel H. | 1% | 10% | 35% | 40% | 14% | |
45 | HOOSHI Jayden C. | - | 5% | 25% | 40% | 25% | 5% |
46 | LE Vyn A. | 4% | 30% | 41% | 21% | 4% | - |
47 | AHN Jun | - | 5% | 26% | 45% | 21% | 2% |
48 | HOBSON Aaron K. | 6% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% |
49 | BAE Kevin | - | 3% | 24% | 45% | 24% | 4% |
50 | FUKUDA Renzo K. | 1% | 12% | 33% | 37% | 16% | 2% |
51 | JOSEPH Dominic (Dom) | - | 2% | 10% | 29% | 39% | 21% |
52 | VAZQUEZ Zander | 1% | 16% | 43% | 32% | 7% | - |
53 | MAGIDSON Gabriel | 1% | 7% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 6% |
54 | LEE Aidan | 1% | 7% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 5% |
55 | CHENG Matthew S. | 3% | 20% | 39% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
56 | ALLAMPALLAM Maanav V. | 8% | 34% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - |
57 | LIAO Alex J. | 1% | 13% | 36% | 35% | 13% | 2% |
58 | CHAN Tyler | 1% | 10% | 29% | 37% | 20% | 3% |
59 | COSTELLO Chaissen F. | - | 3% | 18% | 38% | 32% | 9% |
60 | SCHENCK Koen M. | 2% | 19% | 40% | 31% | 8% | |
61 | REZNICK Nicholas J. | 8% | 39% | 38% | 13% | 2% | |
62 | SCHAEFER Joshua M. | 24% | 47% | 25% | 4% | - | - |
63 | BALL James T. | 1% | 11% | 30% | 37% | 18% | 2% |
64 | DOCTOR Aidan L. | 2% | 20% | 40% | 29% | 8% | 1% |
65 | ZELTSER Lawrence M. | 1% | 11% | 29% | 35% | 19% | 4% |
66 | XIAO EDWARD | 2% | 18% | 39% | 31% | 9% | 1% |
67 | WU Alexander | 3% | 17% | 36% | 32% | 12% | 1% |
68 | RINEHART Conner M. | 12% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - |
69 | DESOLA Aidan J. | 22% | 41% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - |
70 | GROSSMAN SMISEK Spencer E. | - | 5% | 25% | 44% | 25% | |
71 | SONG Leonardo T. | - | 4% | 20% | 40% | 29% | 7% |
72 | ANTON Nathaniel | - | 13% | 44% | 33% | 8% | 1% |
72 | HOWARD Michael | 4% | 27% | 45% | 21% | 3% | - |
74 | FEDONCHIK Henry J. | 12% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - |
75 | ZHAO Jason L. | - | 2% | 18% | 39% | 32% | 9% |
76 | BROWN Alexander R. | 25% | 50% | 21% | 3% | - | - |
76 | ACHILOV Sayid | 2% | 39% | 41% | 15% | 2% | - |
78 | MILLER Trent D. | - | 16% | 42% | 31% | 9% | 1% |
79 | STRAYER Andrew | 8% | 37% | 37% | 15% | 2% | - |
80 | DU Samuel R. | - | 7% | 32% | 43% | 16% | 2% |
81 | FU Yifan | 13% | 35% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - |
82 | KITAGAWA Eric S. | 58% | 34% | 7% | 1% | - | |
83 | DEEB Adam | 20% | 40% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - |
84 | WALTER Evran M. | 4% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 2% |
85 | LI Ryan Z. | 12% | 43% | 35% | 9% | 1% | - |
86 | ZHAO Jesse | 5% | 53% | 34% | 7% | - | - |
87 | SIMA Congyu Josh | 57% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
88 | BOOTSMA Shane-Anson | 28% | 43% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
89 | MCCORD Clark | 3% | 18% | 37% | 31% | 10% | 1% |
90 | BAUMANN Gunnar | 80% | 19% | 2% | - | - | - |
91 | MAGIDSON Josh | 72% | 25% | 3% | - | - | - |
92 | PIESNER Zachary C. | 20% | 50% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
93 | LEE Jacob J | 3% | 30% | 42% | 21% | 4% | - |
94 | CAI Oliver K. | 32% | 43% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
95 | SZE Timothy | 87% | 12% | - | - | - | - |
96 | MATHEWS Rocco J. | 2% | 18% | 39% | 31% | 9% | 1% |
96 | KALIPERSAD Neil A. | 31% | 46% | 20% | 2% | - | - |
98 | BAEK David | 17% | 41% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - |
98 | GOGOI Vir K. | 66% | 29% | 4% | - | - | - |
98 | REZA Farazi | 54% | 37% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
101 | WERWA Griffith | 68% | 28% | 4% | - | - | |
102 | LUM-DEBONO Alex | 42% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
103 | GUO Cheng Jin Morris | 60% | 33% | 6% | - | - | - |
104 | WANG Mason | 45% | 43% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
104 | VIVEROS Antonio | 90% | 9% | - | - | - | - |
106 | PO Oliver | 24% | 40% | 26% | 8% | 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.