Minneapolis, MN, 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 | KOTOV Leonid | 100% | 99% | 94% | 76% | 44% | 15% | 2% |
2 | WU Roger (Mengke) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 31% | |
3 | HOUTZ Jackson | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 50% | 14% | |
3 | LIU kelly | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 50% | 15% |
5 | GREENBAUM Maxwell H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 31% |
6 | BERGER Oliver | 100% | 100% | 98% | 90% | 67% | 33% | 7% |
7 | YANG Ziyi | 100% | 100% | 99% | 96% | 80% | 49% | 15% |
8 | ESCUETA Tony V. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 50% | 15% | |
9 | MICHELL Bailey | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 20% | |
10 | BABAYEV Gabriel A. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 39% | 9% |
11 | SHAHZAD Azlan A. | 100% | 93% | 67% | 31% | 8% | 1% | |
12 | CHEONG Heonjae | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 14% | 2% | |
13 | YEN Preston | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 45% | 12% | |
14 | KIM-COGAN Ryan | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 56% | 24% | 5% |
15 | MARGULIES William | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 53% | 21% | 4% |
16 | PAN Alex | 100% | 88% | 54% | 20% | 4% | - | |
17 | REYES Xavier M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 66% | 32% | 7% |
18 | WOODWARD Dylan P. | 100% | 99% | 94% | 75% | 43% | 15% | 2% |
19 | WANG Eric Y. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 48% | 14% | |
20 | HONG Vincent Q. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 27% | |
21 | LINDHOLM Oliver S. | 100% | 98% | 87% | 58% | 23% | 4% | |
22 | LUO George F. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 50% | 14% | |
22 | NOBLE Colin | 100% | 100% | 95% | 78% | 44% | 12% | |
24 | PIWOWAR Alex | 100% | 87% | 54% | 21% | 5% | 1% | - |
25 | WOODWARD Connor | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 58% | 25% | 5% |
25 | VOCHOSKA Aidan F. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 37% | 9% |
27 | GUAN Luke | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 27% | 7% | 1% |
28 | RIGHTLER Samuel | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 16% | 2% | |
29 | FENG Leo | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 66% | 32% | 7% |
30 | KROON Lucas | 100% | 94% | 71% | 35% | 9% | 1% | |
31 | CHOI Silas | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 32% | 7% | |
32 | PANDEY Neil | 100% | 96% | 79% | 47% | 18% | 4% | - |
33 | WONG Ryan | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 5% | |
34 | XU Andrew | 100% | 99% | 93% | 74% | 42% | 14% | 2% |
35 | SCHERER Max | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 30% | 8% | 1% |
36 | CHANG Colin S. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 38% | 11% | 1% |
37 | YUN Jake | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 42% | 11% | |
38 | HONG Steven | 100% | 96% | 78% | 44% | 15% | 2% | |
39 | COLE Alexander | 100% | 99% | 88% | 57% | 21% | 3% | |
40 | FLOT Tai A. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 49% | 18% | 3% |
41 | EDELMAN Seth A. | 100% | 93% | 69% | 35% | 11% | 2% | - |
42 | POPE Nico | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 23% | |
43 | MICLAUS Justin | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 26% | 5% | |
44 | FALLICK Ozzie | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 62% | 17% | |
45 | PI Alexander | 100% | 88% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - | |
45 | LIU Mingyang Ryan | 100% | 92% | 65% | 29% | 7% | 1% | |
47 | CAISSE Simon B. | 100% | 96% | 74% | 34% | 7% | 1% | |
48 | SHOMAN Noah | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 29% | 6% | |
48 | LEITH Jack | 100% | 93% | 60% | 21% | 3% | - | |
50 | SHOMAN Zachary | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 30% | 6% | |
51 | EICHHORN Lukas H. | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 25% | 4% | |
52 | BAUER Hank E. | 100% | 98% | 84% | 55% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
53 | MURZYN III CJ | 100% | 98% | 84% | 56% | 24% | 6% | 1% |
54 | PRIMUS Nazir | 100% | 95% | 73% | 38% | 11% | 1% | |
55 | ZHOU Miles | 100% | 97% | 81% | 46% | 14% | 2% | |
56 | CHEN Evan P. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 63% | 28% | 6% | |
57 | MEDVEDEV Michail D. | 100% | 82% | 44% | 14% | 2% | - | |
58 | DOLAN Charles R. | 100% | 97% | 78% | 42% | 12% | 1% | |
59 | FREYRE DE ANDRADE Elian R. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 53% | 21% | 4% |
60 | DENG Andrew | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 64% | 30% | 7% |
61 | LOPEZ Lucas M. | 100% | 84% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
61 | SINGH Angadh | 100% | 93% | 69% | 35% | 11% | 2% | - |
63 | CORTEZ Christopher | 100% | 96% | 77% | 44% | 15% | 3% | - |
64 | PATIL Aaryan A. | 100% | 99% | 86% | 55% | 20% | 3% | |
65 | COVINGTON Max G. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 55% | 23% | 4% |
66 | KIM Alexander M. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 74% | 41% | 13% | 2% |
67 | CHAUDHURI Eeshaan A. | 100% | 97% | 83% | 52% | 20% | 4% | - |
68 | MORALES Jonathan | 100% | 90% | 61% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
69 | RHEE Ethan N. | 100% | 98% | 83% | 49% | 16% | 2% | |
70 | ZHU Charlie | 100% | 96% | 75% | 37% | 9% | 1% | |
71 | GLOZMAN Justin | 100% | 87% | 53% | 20% | 4% | - | |
72 | HONG Rubin | 100% | 95% | 72% | 37% | 11% | 1% | |
73 | CHAVES Matthew J. | 100% | 96% | 75% | 40% | 12% | 2% | |
74 | BULL Anderson | 100% | 98% | 85% | 55% | 22% | 4% | |
75 | BEITEL Noah | 100% | 94% | 69% | 33% | 8% | 1% | |
76 | DELARUE NELSON Y. | 100% | 96% | 76% | 42% | 13% | 2% | |
77 | HOLMES Aiden G. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 55% | 22% | 3% |
78 | CHEONG Heonjun | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 37% | 11% | 1% |
79 | SCHARDINE James | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 22% | 5% | - |
80 | RAMANAN Jaisimh | 100% | 71% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - | |
81 | SHANKAR Karthik | 100% | 62% | 21% | 4% | - | - | |
82 | HAN Daniel Y. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 59% | 24% | 4% | |
83 | GOLDIN Lucca | 100% | 82% | 41% | 11% | 2% | - | |
83 | KIM Matthew | 100% | 91% | 63% | 28% | 7% | 1% | |
85 | CHAN Aidan | 100% | 78% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - | |
86 | MCCARTHY Gabriel | 100% | 99% | 92% | 69% | 34% | 7% | |
87 | SOUTHWORTH Nathaniel | 100% | 88% | 57% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - |
88 | LIN Nick | 100% | 99% | 94% | 76% | 46% | 17% | 3% |
89 | FIELDS Matthew S. | 100% | 91% | 62% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
90 | HUANG Zekai | 100% | 91% | 63% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - |
91 | REN Richard | 100% | 94% | 72% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - |
92 | SHANAHAN Adam E. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 32% | 7% | |
93 | GRATHWOL-SEAR Oliver | 100% | 86% | 51% | 18% | 3% | - | |
94 | SHETTY VIVAN | 100% | 78% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | |
95 | AN Damon | 100% | 88% | 56% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
96 | WILKINSON James | 100% | 47% | 11% | 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.