VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

Virtua Fighter 5 REVO · v1.10 · Character Matchup Winrates

Akira vs Lau

Akira vs Lau in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Akira wins 47.5% of 10,038 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 0 of 10 tested stage gaps survive correction.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted10,038
Win rate47.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Akira's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence50.4%+2.90.059972
Low fence49.9%+2.30.1221,003
Rectangle48.5%+1.00.518954
Breakable full fence48.2%+0.70.6511,008
Single wall47.7%+0.10.930946
Octagon46.9%-0.60.6691,036
Half fence46.4%-1.10.442996
Full fence45.6%-1.90.1941,028
Open45.4%-2.10.1561,019
Fence and open44.1%-3.50.101533
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches: p on its own only, not corrected, coloured or ranked

Matchups with a stage played at least 80 times: 181. With a stage that survives correction: 13. Expected from chance alone: about 9.1.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Akira's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 12.46 on 9 df, p 0.189

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.6%1,028-2.60.241-0.80.731-4.80.032-4.20.056-2.00.361+1.50.564+0.20.933-2.90.195-1.30.557
Breakable full fence+2.60.24148.2%1,008+1.80.412-2.20.328-1.60.463+0.50.811+4.10.123+2.80.210-0.30.888+1.30.555
Half fence+0.80.731-1.80.41246.4%996-4.00.074-3.50.121-1.30.569+2.30.390+0.90.669-2.10.343-0.50.812
Breakable half fence+4.80.032+2.20.328+4.00.07450.4%972+0.60.803+2.70.231+6.30.019+5.00.026+1.90.410+3.50.117
Low fence+4.20.056+1.60.463+3.50.121-0.60.80349.9%1,003+2.20.337+5.80.031+4.40.047+1.30.560+2.90.184
Single wall+2.00.361-0.50.811+1.30.569-2.70.231-2.20.33747.7%946+3.60.184+2.20.320-0.90.708+0.80.734
Fence and open-1.50.564-4.10.123-2.30.390-6.30.019-5.80.031-3.60.18444.1%533-1.40.613-4.40.100-2.80.288
Open-0.20.933-2.80.210-0.90.669-5.00.026-4.40.047-2.20.320+1.40.61345.4%1,019-3.10.169-1.50.503
Rectangle+2.90.195+0.30.888+2.10.343-1.90.410-1.30.560+0.90.708+4.40.100+3.10.16948.5%954+1.60.469
Octagon+1.30.557-1.30.555+0.50.812-3.50.117-2.90.184-0.80.734+2.80.288+1.50.503-1.60.46946.9%1,036
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison

Matchups with two stages each played at least 80 times: 180. With a stage-against-stage difference that survives correction: 12. Expected from chance alone: about 9.0.

How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted4,264
Win rate46.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.8 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Akira's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence51.5%+4.80.030454
Fence and open50.2%+3.50.276231
Breakable full fence49.3%+2.60.247446
Single wall48.4%+1.70.473411
Low fence47.9%+1.10.654372
Open47.5%+0.80.736440
Rectangle46.7%-0.00.987394
Half fence43.7%-3.00.180437
Full fence42.6%-4.20.068432
Octagon42.0%-4.80.038424
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches: p on its own only, not corrected, coloured or ranked

Matchups with a stage played at least 80 times: 158. With a stage that survives correction: 14. Expected from chance alone: about 7.9.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Akira's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 15.71 on 9 df, p 0.073

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence42.6%432-6.70.045-1.10.740-8.90.008-5.30.135-5.80.089-7.60.060-4.90.145-4.10.235+0.60.856
Breakable full fence+6.70.04549.3%446+5.60.094-2.20.506+1.50.674+0.90.790-0.90.826+1.80.586+2.60.447+7.30.030
Half fence+1.10.740-5.60.09443.7%437-7.80.019-4.10.238-4.70.169-6.50.108-3.80.259-3.00.387+1.70.609
Breakable half fence+8.90.008+2.20.506+7.80.01951.5%454+3.70.291+3.10.359+1.30.743+4.00.227+4.80.160+9.60.005
Low fence+5.30.135-1.50.674+4.10.238-3.70.29147.9%372-0.60.874-2.40.572+0.30.921+1.10.750+5.90.097
Single wall+5.80.089-0.90.790+4.70.169-3.10.359+0.60.87448.4%411-1.80.662+0.90.789+1.70.626+6.40.062
Fence and open+7.60.060+0.90.826+6.50.108-1.30.743+2.40.572+1.80.66250.2%231+2.70.504+3.50.396+8.20.043
Open+4.90.145-1.80.586+3.80.259-4.00.227-0.30.921-0.90.789-2.70.50447.5%440+0.80.817+5.50.103
Rectangle+4.10.235-2.60.447+3.00.387-4.80.160-1.10.750-1.70.626-3.50.396-0.80.81746.7%394+4.70.175
Octagon-0.60.856-7.30.030-1.70.609-9.60.005-5.90.097-6.40.062-8.20.043-5.50.103-4.70.17542.0%424
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison

Matchups with two stages each played at least 80 times: 152. With a stage-against-stage difference that survives correction: 11. Expected from chance alone: about 7.6.

How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted4,648
Win rate48.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-8.4 pts
Survive correction2
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Akira's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Octagon51.8%+3.40.113498
Low fence51.4%+2.90.161520
Rectangle50.7%+2.20.323448
Full fence49.0%+0.50.806488
Breakable half fence48.8%+0.30.891408
Half fence48.7%+0.30.910427
Single wall48.1%-0.40.867441
Breakable full fence46.2%-2.20.320450
Open42.7%-5.80.010450
Fence and open40.0%-8.40.006250
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches: p on its own only, not corrected, coloured or ranked

Matchups with a stage played at least 80 times: 157. With a stage that survives correction: 11. Expected from chance alone: about 7.9.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Akira's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 18.93 on 9 df, p 0.026

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.0%488+2.80.399+0.30.937+0.20.952-2.40.452+0.90.783+9.00.021+6.30.053-1.70.605-2.80.374
Breakable full fence-2.80.39946.2%450-2.50.460-2.50.455-5.10.111-1.90.580+6.20.112+3.50.283-4.50.182-5.60.086
Half fence-0.30.937+2.50.46048.7%427-0.10.986-2.60.420+0.60.851+8.70.028+6.00.072-2.00.563-3.10.348
Breakable half fence-0.20.952+2.50.455+0.10.98648.8%408-2.60.437+0.70.838+8.80.028+6.10.073-1.90.580-3.00.364
Low fence+2.40.452+5.10.111+2.60.420+2.60.43751.4%520+3.30.312+11.30.003+8.70.007+0.70.834-0.50.883
Single wall-0.90.783+1.90.580-0.60.851-0.70.838-3.30.31248.1%441+8.10.040+5.40.105-2.60.439-3.70.253
Fence and open-9.00.021-6.20.112-8.70.028-8.80.028-11.30.003-8.10.04040.0%250-2.70.493-10.70.007-11.80.002
Open-6.30.053-3.50.283-6.00.072-6.10.073-8.70.007-5.40.105+2.70.49342.7%450-8.00.016-9.10.005
Rectangle+1.70.605+4.50.182+2.00.563+1.90.580-0.70.834+2.60.439+10.70.007+8.00.01650.7%448-1.10.727
Octagon+2.80.374+5.60.086+3.10.348+3.00.364+0.50.883+3.70.253+11.80.002+9.10.005+1.10.72751.8%498
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison

Matchups with two stages each played at least 80 times: 152. With a stage-against-stage difference that survives correction: 8. Expected from chance alone: about 7.6.

How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,126
Win rate46.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.0 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Akira's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence51.8%+5.00.267110
Breakable full fence51.8%+5.00.265112
Low fence49.5%+2.80.541111
Open48.1%+1.30.761129
Half fence47.7%+0.90.821132
Rectangle46.4%-0.40.933112
Octagon43.9%-2.90.506114
Full fence42.6%-4.20.356108
Single wall42.5%-4.20.38894
Fence and open36.5%-10.30.12952 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches: p on its own only, not corrected, coloured or ranked

Matchups with a stage played at least 80 times: 23. With a stage that survives correction: 1. Expected from chance alone: about 1.2.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Akira's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.75 on 9 df, p 0.664

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence42.6%108-9.20.172-5.10.427-9.20.173-7.00.302+0.00.995+6.00.465-5.50.400-3.80.567-1.30.849
Breakable full fence+9.20.17251.8%112+4.10.527-0.00.996+2.20.738+9.20.186+15.20.069+3.70.564+5.40.423+7.90.233
Half fence+5.10.427-4.10.52747.7%132-4.10.526-1.80.777+5.20.441+11.20.169-0.30.957+1.30.840+3.90.544
Breakable half fence+9.20.173+0.00.996+4.10.52651.8%110+2.30.736+9.30.187+15.30.069+3.80.563+5.40.422+8.00.233
Low fence+7.00.302-2.20.738+1.80.777-2.30.73649.5%111+7.00.317+13.00.120+1.50.818+3.10.641+5.70.392
Single wall-0.00.995-9.20.186-5.20.441-9.30.187-7.00.31742.5%94+6.00.478-5.50.415-3.90.577-1.30.850
Fence and open-6.00.465-15.20.069-11.20.169-15.30.069-13.00.120-6.00.47836.5%52-11.50.158-9.90.234-7.30.375
Open+5.50.400-3.70.564+0.30.957-3.80.563-1.50.818+5.50.415+11.50.15848.1%129+1.60.800+4.20.512
Rectangle+3.80.567-5.40.423-1.30.840-5.40.422-3.10.641+3.90.577+9.90.234-1.60.80046.4%112+2.60.698
Octagon+1.30.849-7.90.233-3.90.544-8.00.233-5.70.392+1.30.850+7.30.375-4.20.512-2.60.69843.9%114
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison

Matchups with two stages each played at least 80 times: 20. With a stage-against-stage difference that survives correction: 2. Expected from chance alone: about 1.0.

How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.