VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs El Blaze

Brad vs El Blaze in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 50.2% of 2,662 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 counted2,662
Win rate50.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence54.1%+4.00.175266
Octagon54.0%+3.80.181274
Open52.6%+2.40.440228
Fence and open52.5%+2.30.608122
Breakable full fence51.8%+1.60.593251
Breakable half fence50.4%+0.20.953282
Single wall49.3%-0.90.750280
Full fence48.8%-1.40.611281
Low fence45.9%-4.30.129281
Rectangle43.9%-6.30.029271
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.97 on 9 df, p 0.278

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.8%281-3.00.484-5.40.208-1.60.704+2.80.499-0.50.900-3.70.494-3.90.384+4.80.254-5.30.215
Breakable full fence+3.00.48451.8%251-2.40.594+1.40.740+5.90.175+2.50.564-0.70.904-0.80.854+7.90.072-2.20.610
Half fence+5.40.208+2.40.59454.1%266+3.80.376+8.20.054+4.80.257+1.70.759+1.50.738+10.20.018+0.10.978
Breakable half fence+1.60.704-1.40.740-3.80.37650.4%282+4.40.291+1.10.800-2.10.698-2.30.609+6.40.129-3.70.388
Low fence-2.80.499-5.90.175-8.20.054-4.40.29145.9%281-3.40.423-6.50.226-6.70.131+2.00.637-8.10.056
Single wall+0.50.900-2.50.564-4.80.257-1.10.800+3.40.42349.3%280-3.20.559-3.30.453+5.40.206-4.70.265
Fence and open+3.70.494+0.70.904-1.70.759+2.10.698+6.50.226+3.20.55952.5%122-0.20.975+8.60.116-1.60.774
Open+3.90.384+0.80.854-1.50.738+2.30.609+6.70.131+3.30.453+0.20.97552.6%228+8.70.052-1.40.757
Rectangle-4.80.254-7.90.072-10.20.018-6.40.129-2.00.637-5.40.206-8.60.116-8.70.05243.9%271-10.10.018
Octagon+5.30.215+2.20.610-0.10.978+3.70.388+8.10.056+4.70.265+1.60.774+1.40.757+10.10.01854.0%274
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 counted918
Win rate51.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches10.0 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Octagon61.8%+10.00.032102
Half fence57.7%+6.00.21297
Fence and open53.5%+1.80.81543 ·
Single wall52.6%+0.80.86297
Open52.6%+0.80.87978 ·
Breakable full fence51.6%-0.10.97993
Full fence51.1%-0.70.89492
Rectangle48.0%-3.70.49877 ·
Breakable half fence44.8%-7.00.128105
Low fence43.8%-7.90.11589
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.32 on 9 df, p 0.325

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.1%92-0.50.943-6.60.359+6.30.375+7.30.328-1.50.838-2.40.795-1.50.848+3.00.694-10.70.134
Breakable full fence+0.50.94351.6%93-6.10.397+6.80.336+7.80.293-1.00.894-1.90.839-0.90.901+3.60.644-10.20.153
Half fence+6.60.359+6.10.39757.7%97+13.00.065+13.90.058+5.20.470+4.20.640+5.20.494+9.70.204-4.00.562
Breakable half fence-6.30.375-6.80.336-13.00.06544.8%105+0.90.895-7.80.267-8.70.334-7.80.296-3.30.660-17.00.014
Low fence-7.30.328-7.80.293-13.90.058-0.90.89543.8%89-8.80.233-9.70.297-8.70.259-4.20.585-17.90.013
Single wall+1.50.838+1.00.894-5.20.470+7.80.267+8.80.23352.6%97-0.90.921+0.00.999+4.50.553-9.20.190
Fence and open+2.40.795+1.90.839-4.20.640+8.70.334+9.70.297+0.90.92153.5%43+0.90.922+5.40.568-8.30.354
Open+1.50.848+0.90.901-5.20.494+7.80.296+8.70.259-0.00.999-0.90.92252.6%78+4.50.574-9.20.216
Rectangle-3.00.694-3.60.644-9.70.204+3.30.660+4.20.585-4.50.553-5.40.568-4.50.57448.0%77-13.70.067
Octagon+10.70.134+10.20.153+4.00.562+17.00.014+17.90.013+9.20.190+8.30.354+9.20.216+13.70.06761.8%102
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 counted1,440
Win rate50.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence55.5%+5.50.178137
Breakable half fence52.6%+2.60.498156
Open52.1%+2.10.630117
Breakable full fence51.2%+1.20.782129
Octagon51.0%+1.00.796151
Fence and open50.8%+0.80.89661 ·
Low fence48.2%-1.80.619164
Full fence48.1%-1.90.613158
Single wall46.9%-3.10.431145
Rectangle44.5%-5.50.148155
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 5.28 on 9 df, p 0.810

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.1%158-3.10.606-7.40.206-4.50.429-0.10.990+1.20.834-2.70.718-4.00.508+3.60.525-2.90.611
Breakable full fence+3.10.60651.2%129-4.30.481-1.40.814+3.00.611+4.30.481+0.30.965-1.00.879+6.60.264+0.20.977
Half fence+7.40.206+4.30.48155.5%137+2.90.618+7.30.207+8.60.150+4.70.544+3.30.595+10.90.062+4.50.447
Breakable half fence+4.50.429+1.40.814-2.90.61852.6%156+4.40.432+5.70.326+1.70.817+0.40.944+8.00.156+1.60.783
Low fence+0.10.990-3.00.611-7.30.207-4.40.43248.2%164+1.30.823-2.60.724-4.00.512+3.60.513-2.80.617
Single wall-1.20.834-4.30.481-8.60.150-5.70.326-1.30.82346.9%145-3.90.607-5.20.399+2.40.679-4.10.481
Fence and open+2.70.718-0.30.965-4.70.544-1.70.817+2.60.724+3.90.60750.8%61-1.30.867+6.30.403-0.20.982
Open+4.00.508+1.00.879-3.30.595-0.40.944+4.00.512+5.20.399+1.30.86752.1%117+7.60.213+1.10.853
Rectangle-3.60.525-6.60.264-10.90.062-8.00.156-3.60.513-2.40.679-6.30.403-7.60.21344.5%155-6.50.257
Octagon+2.90.611-0.20.977-4.50.447-1.60.783+2.80.617+4.10.481+0.20.982-1.10.853+6.50.25751.0%151
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 counted304
Win rate46.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence61.9%+15.50.13921 ·
Fence and open55.6%+9.20.42118 ·
Breakable full fence55.2%+8.80.31829 ·
Open54.5%+8.20.31933 ·
Single wall50.0%+3.60.63338 ·
Full fence45.2%-1.20.88631 ·
Low fence39.3%-7.10.42928 ·
Octagon38.1%-8.30.43021 ·
Half fence37.5%-8.90.28732 ·
Rectangle33.3%-13.10.08039 ·
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

No stage in this matchup has been played 80 times yet, so none is tested 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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.48 on 9 df, p 0.394

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.2%31-10.00.438+7.70.537-16.70.236+5.90.648-4.80.689-10.40.483-9.40.453+11.80.313+7.10.613
Breakable full fence+10.00.43855.2%29+17.70.167-6.70.634+15.90.230+5.20.675-0.40.980+0.60.961+21.80.072+17.10.233
Half fence-7.70.537-17.70.16737.5%32-24.40.082-1.80.887-12.50.294-18.10.217-17.10.168+4.20.715-0.60.965
Breakable half fence+16.70.236+6.70.634+24.40.08261.9%21+22.60.117+11.90.380+6.30.688+7.30.594+28.60.033+23.80.123
Low fence-5.90.648-15.90.230+1.80.887-22.60.11739.3%28-10.70.388-16.30.280-15.30.234+6.00.616+1.20.933
Single wall+4.80.689-5.20.675+12.50.294-11.90.380+10.70.38850.0%38-5.60.698-4.50.702+16.70.138+11.90.380
Fence and open+10.40.483+0.40.980+18.10.217-6.30.688+16.30.280+5.60.69855.6%18+1.00.945+22.20.112+17.50.276
Open+9.40.453-0.60.961+17.10.168-7.30.594+15.30.234+4.50.702-1.00.94554.5%33+21.20.070+16.40.238
Rectangle-11.80.313-21.80.072-4.20.715-28.60.033-6.00.616-16.70.138-22.20.112-21.20.07033.3%39-4.80.712
Octagon-7.10.613-17.10.233+0.60.965-23.80.123-1.20.933-11.90.380-17.50.276-16.40.238+4.80.71238.1%21
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.