PTBA Basketball Association - La Puente, 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 | LING Eddie | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 72% | 28% |
| 2 | WU Alber Y. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 36% |
| 3 | SOTO-ULEV Aden A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 57% | 17% |
| 3 | ZHANG Aaron | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 54% |
| 5 | CHOI Ethan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 63% |
| 6 | NICOLETTI Luca | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 70% | 24% |
| 6 | MORROW Brenden | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 46% |
| 8 | NGUYEN Martin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 55% | 15% |
| 9 | YUE Jackson | 100% | 100% | 97% | 79% | 42% | 11% | 1% |
| 10 | DERRICK Blake | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 64% | 21% |
| 10 | PARK Rion | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 47% | 16% | 2% |
| 12 | RASMUSSEN Sage | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 59% | 17% |
| 13 | KIM Daniel Y. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 25% | 4% |
| 14 | YI William | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 25% | 4% |
| 15 | CORTRIGHT Skipper | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 60% | 19% |
| 16 | KAWADA Sebastien | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 35% | 9% | 1% |
| 17 | PARK Sangmin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 42% | 9% |
| 18 | KUNTSEVICH Ivan I. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 58% | 17% |
| 19 | RAUTUREAU Arthur | 100% | 98% | 84% | 51% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 20 | GORDON William L. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 49% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 21 | LI Richard | 100% | 98% | 84% | 54% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 21 | TULYAG Azim | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 71% | 33% | 5% |
| 23 | WONG Evan | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 42% | 11% |
| 24 | YANG Charles | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 74% | 35% | 5% |
| 25 | RAUTUREAU Hugo | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 33% | 6% |
| 26 | MANIKTALA Suvir | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 55% | 19% | 2% |
| 27 | PARK William | 100% | 99% | 87% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 28 | LE Jacob | 100% | 100% | 94% | 70% | 27% | 5% | - |
| 29 | CHANG Jonathan | 100% | 97% | 78% | 38% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 30 | LIM Zachary | 100% | 59% | 17% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 31 | JEONG Taewoo | 100% | 89% | 50% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 32 | BURRES kenneth | 100% | 97% | 78% | 42% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 33 | PARK David | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 76% | 39% | 7% |
| 34 | BIELER Mason | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 35% | 8% | - |
| 35 | DENG David | 100% | 98% | 78% | 39% | 11% | 1% | - |
| 36 | CHEN Matthew | 100% | 85% | 43% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 37 | TAN Pyron | 100% | 91% | 55% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 38 | CHANG Eric Jonathan | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 53% | 18% | 2% |
| 39 | YU ShiYu (Henry) | 100% | 98% | 81% | 46% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 40 | CHOI Ethan | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 35% | 8% | 1% |
| 41 | CHANG Jeremy | 100% | 99% | 93% | 66% | 28% | 5% | - |
| 42 | ONG Nicholas | 100% | 90% | 60% | 25% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 43 | LIANG Ethan | 100% | 66% | 22% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 44 | MORROW Sean | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 41% | 12% | 1% |
| 45 | YU ShiLin (Harry) | 100% | 93% | 62% | 23% | 4% | - | - |
| 46 | SISINNI Leonardo | 100% | 93% | 64% | 25% | 5% | - | - |
| 47 | ZHONG Maxwell | 100% | 49% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 48 | WANG rainier | 100% | 95% | 66% | 24% | 5% | - | - |
| 49 | CHEN Andrew | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 50 | ZHANG Max | 100% | 90% | 55% | 17% | 2% | - | - |
| 51 | ZHANG Jacob | 100% | 56% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 52 | VAQUILAR Felix L. | 100% | 91% | 62% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 53 | CHEN David | 100% | 77% | 30% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 54 | FOY Grant | 100% | 43% | 9% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 55 | UPENDER West | 100% | 51% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 55 | PARK Roy | 100% | 70% | 26% | 4% | - | - | - |
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.