Virtua Fighter 5 REVO · v1.10 · Character Matchup Winrates
Brad vs Lau
Matches counted2,662
Win rate48.5%
Widest swing-3.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23
Where it was fought
Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere| Stage | Stage effect | Win % | Change | p | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breakable half fence | 51.5% | +3.1 | 0.264 | 293 | |
| Open | 49.8% | +1.3 | 0.659 | 247 | |
| Rectangle | 49.3% | +0.8 | 0.812 | 203 | |
| Low fence | 49.2% | +0.7 | 0.798 | 297 | |
| Full fence | 48.9% | +0.5 | 0.868 | 280 | |
| Single wall | 48.3% | -0.1 | 0.956 | 327 | |
| Fence and open | 48.0% | -0.5 | 0.916 | 125 | |
| Breakable full fence | 47.9% | -0.6 | 0.848 | 234 | |
| Half fence | 45.3% | -3.1 | 0.279 | 267 | |
| Octagon | 45.0% | -3.5 | 0.240 | 260 |
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
Stage against stage
Brad's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column'sAll ten shapes at once: chi-square 3.76 on 9 df, p 0.926
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 48.9%280 | +1.10.810 | +3.60.398 | -2.60.533 | -0.20.956 | +0.60.881 | +0.90.863 | -0.90.842 | -0.30.942 | +3.90.361 |
| Breakable full fence | -1.10.810 | 47.9%234 | +2.50.569 | -3.70.402 | -1.30.767 | -0.50.915 | -0.10.980 | -1.90.671 | -1.40.771 | +2.90.524 |
| Half fence | -3.60.398 | -2.50.569 | 45.3%267 | -6.20.141 | -3.80.362 | -3.00.466 | -2.70.620 | -4.50.310 | -3.90.396 | +0.30.941 |
| Breakable half fence | +2.60.533 | +3.70.402 | +6.20.141 | 51.5%293 | +2.40.564 | +3.20.424 | +3.50.508 | +1.70.687 | +2.30.618 | +6.50.125 |
| Low fence | +0.20.956 | +1.30.767 | +3.80.362 | -2.40.564 | 49.2%297 | +0.80.834 | +1.20.828 | -0.60.882 | -0.10.982 | +4.20.327 |
| Single wall | -0.60.881 | +0.50.915 | +3.00.466 | -3.20.424 | -0.80.834 | 48.3%327 | +0.30.952 | -1.50.726 | -0.90.833 | +3.30.424 |
| Fence and open | -0.90.863 | +0.10.980 | +2.70.620 | -3.50.508 | -1.20.828 | -0.30.952 | 48.0%125 | -1.80.743 | -1.30.824 | +3.00.580 |
| Open | +0.90.842 | +1.90.671 | +4.50.310 | -1.70.687 | +0.60.882 | +1.50.726 | +1.80.743 | 49.8%247 | +0.50.910 | +4.80.280 |
| Rectangle | +0.30.942 | +1.40.771 | +3.90.396 | -2.30.618 | +0.10.982 | +0.90.833 | +1.30.824 | -0.50.910 | 49.3%203 | +4.30.362 |
| Octagon | -3.90.361 | -2.90.524 | -0.30.941 | -6.50.125 | -4.20.327 | -3.30.424 | -3.00.580 | -4.80.280 | -4.30.362 | 45.0%260 |
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
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.
Matches counted2,121
Win rate49.7%
Widest swing4.9 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23
Where it was fought
Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere| Stage | Stage effect | Win % | Change | p | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open | 54.6% | +4.9 | 0.163 | 185 | |
| Breakable half fence | 53.4% | +3.7 | 0.211 | 249 | |
| Full fence | 50.5% | +0.8 | 0.812 | 224 | |
| Breakable full fence | 49.7% | +0.0 | 0.992 | 183 | |
| Fence and open | 49.5% | -0.2 | 0.972 | 105 | |
| Octagon | 49.2% | -0.4 | 0.896 | 201 | |
| Single wall | 48.1% | -1.6 | 0.583 | 266 | |
| Rectangle | 47.8% | -1.9 | 0.619 | 159 | |
| Low fence | 46.8% | -2.9 | 0.350 | 237 | |
| Half fence | 46.3% | -3.4 | 0.292 | 216 |
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
Stage against stage
Brad's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column'sAll ten shapes at once: chi-square 5.48 on 9 df, p 0.791
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 50.5%224 | +0.70.885 | +4.20.384 | -3.00.519 | +3.60.438 | +2.30.608 | +0.90.876 | -4.10.403 | +2.60.610 | +1.20.806 |
| Breakable full fence | -0.70.885 | 49.7%183 | +3.40.494 | -3.70.449 | +2.90.556 | +1.60.738 | +0.20.974 | -4.90.350 | +1.90.722 | +0.50.926 |
| Half fence | -4.20.384 | -3.40.494 | 46.3%216 | -7.10.126 | -0.50.909 | -1.80.690 | -3.20.587 | -8.30.098 | -1.50.773 | -3.00.546 |
| Breakable half fence | +3.00.519 | +3.70.449 | +7.10.126 | 53.4%249 | +6.60.147 | +5.30.230 | +3.90.503 | -1.20.807 | +5.60.268 | +4.20.380 |
| Low fence | -3.60.438 | -2.90.556 | +0.50.909 | -6.60.147 | 46.8%237 | -1.30.773 | -2.70.646 | -7.80.114 | -1.00.851 | -2.40.614 |
| Single wall | -2.30.608 | -1.60.738 | +1.80.690 | -5.30.230 | +1.30.773 | 48.1%266 | -1.40.807 | -6.50.176 | +0.30.949 | -1.10.808 |
| Fence and open | -0.90.876 | -0.20.974 | +3.20.587 | -3.90.503 | +2.70.646 | +1.40.807 | 49.5%105 | -5.10.406 | +1.70.784 | +0.30.964 |
| Open | +4.10.403 | +4.90.350 | +8.30.098 | +1.20.807 | +7.80.114 | +6.50.176 | +5.10.406 | 54.6%185 | +6.80.209 | +5.30.294 |
| Rectangle | -2.60.610 | -1.90.722 | +1.50.773 | -5.60.268 | +1.00.851 | -0.30.949 | -1.70.784 | -6.80.209 | 47.8%159 | -1.40.784 |
| Octagon | -1.20.806 | -0.50.926 | +3.00.546 | -4.20.380 | +2.40.614 | +1.10.808 | -0.30.964 | -5.30.294 | +1.40.784 | 49.2%201 |
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
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.
Matches counted541
Win rate43.6%
Widest swing14.7 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23
Where it was fought
Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere| Stage | Stage effect | Win % | Change | p | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low fence | 58.3% | +14.7 | 0.015 | 60 · | |
| Rectangle | 54.5% | +10.9 | 0.127 | 44 · | |
| Single wall | 49.2% | +5.6 | 0.353 | 61 · | |
| Full fence | 42.9% | -0.8 | 0.903 | 56 · | |
| Breakable full fence | 41.2% | -2.4 | 0.711 | 51 · | |
| Half fence | 41.2% | -2.4 | 0.711 | 51 · | |
| Breakable half fence | 40.9% | -2.7 | 0.705 | 44 · | |
| Fence and open | 40.0% | -3.6 | 0.739 | 20 · | |
| Open | 35.5% | -8.1 | 0.170 | 62 · | |
| Octagon | 30.5% | -13.1 | 0.031 | 59 · |
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
Stage against stage
Brad's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column'sAll ten shapes at once: chi-square 14.48 on 9 df, p 0.106
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 42.9%56 | +1.70.860 | +1.70.860 | +1.90.845 | -15.50.096 | -6.30.493 | +2.90.824 | +7.40.412 | -11.70.246 | +12.30.169 |
| Breakable full fence | -1.70.860 | 41.2%51 | +0.01.000 | +0.30.979 | -17.10.072 | -8.00.397 | +1.20.928 | +5.70.535 | -13.40.193 | +10.70.243 |
| Half fence | -1.70.860 | -0.01.000 | 41.2%51 | +0.30.979 | -17.10.072 | -8.00.397 | +1.20.928 | +5.70.535 | -13.40.193 | +10.70.243 |
| Breakable half fence | -1.90.845 | -0.30.979 | -0.30.979 | 40.9%44 | -17.40.079 | -8.30.401 | +0.90.945 | +5.40.570 | -13.60.200 | +10.40.273 |
| Low fence | +15.50.096 | +17.10.072 | +17.10.072 | +17.40.079 | 58.3%60 | +9.20.313 | +18.30.154 | +22.90.011 | +3.80.700 | +27.80.002 |
| Single wall | +6.30.493 | +8.00.397 | +8.00.397 | +8.30.401 | -9.20.313 | 49.2%61 | +9.20.475 | +13.70.124 | -5.40.587 | +18.70.037 |
| Fence and open | -2.90.824 | -1.20.928 | -1.20.928 | -0.90.945 | -18.30.154 | -9.20.475 | 40.0%20 | +4.50.715 | -14.60.281 | +9.50.435 |
| Open | -7.40.412 | -5.70.535 | -5.70.535 | -5.40.570 | -22.90.011 | -13.70.124 | -4.50.715 | 35.5%62 | -19.10.051 | +5.00.561 |
| Rectangle | +11.70.246 | +13.40.193 | +13.40.193 | +13.60.200 | -3.80.700 | +5.40.587 | +14.60.281 | +19.10.051 | 54.5%44 | +24.00.014 |
| Octagon | -12.30.169 | -10.70.243 | -10.70.243 | -10.40.273 | -27.80.002 | -18.70.037 | -9.50.435 | -5.00.561 | -24.00.014 | 30.5%59 |
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
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.