San Jose, CA - 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 | WYMAN Julian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 81% |
| 2 | CANLAS Nathan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 38% | |
| 3 | WOO Christian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 93% | 59% | |
| 3 | SISINNI Riccardo | 100% | 92% | 61% | 23% | 4% | < 1% | |
| 5 | KIM Ryan Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 34% |
| 6 | NAYGAS LAWRENCE I. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 70% |
| 7 | HOSKERI Anik S. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 35% | 7% | |
| 8 | LLIDO Soren | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 54% | 15% | |
| 9 | SADOVSKY Leor B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 43% |
| 10 | ZHANG Aaron | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 72% | 28% | |
| 11 | LI Jett | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 36% | 8% |
| 12 | COELHO Cristiano P. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 48% |
| 13 | LEE Dylan | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 36% | 10% | 1% |
| 14 | MARTIN IV Elmer D. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 17% |
| 15 | PARK Sky | 100% | 74% | 32% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 16 | CO Dylan | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 36% | 7% | |
| 17 | MA Andrew | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 27% |
| 18 | MA Bryant | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 61% | 13% | |
| 19 | SHEN Owen | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 42% | 9% |
| 20 | WANG Ethan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 51% | 14% | 1% |
| 21 | LING Eddie | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 49% | 13% | |
| 22 | NICOLETTI Luca | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 40% | 9% | |
| 23 | KIM Daniel Y. | 100% | 99% | 90% | 63% | 27% | 6% | 1% |
| 24 | ZHANG Jiening G. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 31% |
| 25 | TONKOVICH Ryan | 100% | 100% | 94% | 72% | 36% | 9% | 1% |
| 25 | RUBIN Max | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 48% | 16% | 2% |
| 27 | RANJITH Yash M. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 48% | 16% | 2% |
| 28 | MORROW Brenden | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 59% | 18% | |
| 29 | CORTRIGHT Skipper | 100% | 99% | 87% | 56% | 21% | 3% | |
| 30 | LO Preston | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 41% | 12% | 1% |
| 31 | CHENG Jonathan | 100% | 99% | 89% | 57% | 20% | 3% | - |
| 32 | CHEN Justin K. | 100% | 98% | 86% | 53% | 17% | 2% | |
| 33 | ZHOU Hao Kai (Kevin) | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 24% | 4% |
| 34 | WU Alber Y. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 24% | 3% |
| 35 | RAUTUREAU Hugo | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 34% | 7% |
| 36 | ZHENG zhe | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 62% | 20% | |
| 37 | LI Matthew | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 49% | 14% | |
| 38 | WU Lucas | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 42% | 9% | |
| 39 | SEO Shawn | 100% | 97% | 78% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 40 | FUKUDA Diego | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 19% |
| 41 | YUE Jackson | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 33% | 7% | - |
| 42 | AGRAWAL Niki | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 43 | TULYAG Azim | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 34% | 9% | 1% |
| 44 | LE Jacob | 100% | 89% | 53% | 15% | 2% | - | |
| 45 | RASMUSSEN Sage | 100% | 100% | 93% | 69% | 30% | 5% | |
| 46 | MANIKTALA Suvir | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 20% | 1% |
| 47 | NGUYEN martin | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 34% | 8% | 1% |
| 48 | DULAI Angad | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 20% | 3% |
| 49 | KANG Anthony | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 17% | |
| 50 | DINSAY Kristjan | 100% | 97% | 79% | 43% | 13% | 2% | |
| 51 | REICHEL Ezra | 100% | 96% | 68% | 27% | 5% | - | |
| 52 | TUAN Evan | 100% | 97% | 81% | 44% | 12% | 1% | - |
| 53 | LAM Nicolas | 100% | 99% | 86% | 53% | 19% | 4% | - |
| 54 | ZENG Chuyi | 100% | 97% | 76% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 55 | YI William | 100% | 97% | 79% | 44% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 56 | TSAY Jordan R. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 28% | 6% | - |
| 57 | MAK Osman K. | 100% | 95% | 70% | 31% | 7% | 1% | |
| 58 | PONS Diego | 100% | 74% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 59 | FANG Jaden | 100% | 90% | 57% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 60 | PARK Ryan | 100% | 87% | 53% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 61 | HIRAMOTO Satoshi | 100% | 66% | 24% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 62 | UHLIG Cole | 100% | 99% | 91% | 66% | 32% | 8% | 1% |
| 63 | CHAN Connor | 100% | 58% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
| 64 | LYNCH Owen C. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 28% | 5% | |
| 65 | GREENEBAUM Oliver | 100% | 73% | 30% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 66 | KUNTSEVICH Ivan I. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 73% | 36% | 7% |
| 67 | SAH Steven | 100% | 99% | 88% | 58% | 23% | 4% | - |
| 68 | KALAMAS Nikolas | 100% | 75% | 27% | 4% | - | - | |
| 69 | EDISON Ansel | 100% | 93% | 63% | 25% | 5% | - | |
| 70 | KAREHT Kai | 100% | 80% | 37% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 71 | DERRICK Blake | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 54% | 21% | 3% |
| 72 | GORDON William L. | 100% | 79% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 73 | PARK Rion | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 31% | 6% | - |
| 74 | RAUTUREAU Arthur | 100% | 52% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 75 | JEONG Taewoo | 100% | 94% | 69% | 31% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 76 | CHOI Ethan | 100% | 47% | 11% | 1% | - | - | |
| 77 | NGAI Julian | 100% | 99% | 90% | 55% | 18% | 2% | |
| 77 | LI Richard | 100% | 96% | 73% | 31% | 4% | - | |
| 79 | BHOBE Arjun | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 6% | - |
| 79 | FOY Grant | 100% | 98% | 83% | 44% | 12% | 1% | - |
| 81 | ZHOU Ryan | 100% | 88% | 47% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 81 | KROVIDI Arush | 100% | 97% | 79% | 43% | 12% | 1% | - |
| 83 | PETROV Mikhail | 100% | 77% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 84 | PORTER Rory | 100% | 62% | 20% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 85 | KARPMAN Benny | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 27% | 5% | - |
| 86 | METIN Atlas | 100% | 96% | 68% | 26% | 4% | - | |
| 87 | CHUN Dashel | 100% | 58% | 17% | 2% | - | - | |
| 88 | ONG William | 100% | 72% | 28% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 89 | SHADDOCK Emmett | 100% | 90% | 42% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 90 | KIM Jonah | 100% | 94% | 67% | 27% | 4% | - | |
| 91 | UPENDER West | 100% | 53% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 92 | SISINNI Leonardo | 100% | 85% | 49% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
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.