VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Lau

Brad vs Lau in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 49.9% of 4,125 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 counted4,125
Win rate49.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.5 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
Open53.9%+3.90.091416
Fence and open52.4%+2.50.463210
Single wall51.4%+1.40.500473
Breakable half fence51.1%+1.20.614409
Breakable full fence51.0%+1.10.645390
Full fence49.1%-0.80.743411
Low fence49.1%-0.90.709424
Half fence48.8%-1.10.629412
Rectangle48.5%-1.40.577379
Octagon45.4%-4.50.053414
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 7.98 on 9 df, p 0.537

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.1%411-1.90.595+0.40.917-1.90.576+0.10.979-2.20.509-3.20.446-4.70.177+0.60.866+3.70.282
Breakable full fence+1.90.59551.0%390+2.20.526-0.10.983+2.00.575-0.30.919-1.40.751-2.80.423+2.50.492+5.60.111
Half fence-0.40.917-2.20.52648.8%412-2.30.507-0.30.938-2.60.442-3.60.397-5.10.145+0.20.947+3.40.331
Breakable half fence+1.90.576+0.10.983+2.30.50751.1%409+2.00.555-0.30.935-1.30.763-2.80.430+2.50.474+5.70.102
Low fence-0.10.979-2.00.575+0.30.938-2.00.55549.1%424-2.30.488-3.30.431-4.80.165+0.50.886+3.60.291
Single wall+2.20.509+0.30.919+2.60.442+0.30.935+2.30.48851.4%473-1.00.808-2.50.461+2.80.412+6.00.076
Fence and open+3.20.446+1.40.751+3.60.397+1.30.763+3.30.431+1.00.80852.4%210-1.50.729+3.80.373+7.00.100
Open+4.70.177+2.80.423+5.10.145+2.80.430+4.80.165+2.50.461+1.50.72953.9%416+5.30.136+8.40.015
Rectangle-0.60.866-2.50.492-0.20.947-2.50.474-0.50.886-2.80.412-3.80.373-5.30.13648.5%379+3.10.376
Octagon-3.70.282-5.60.111-3.40.331-5.70.102-3.60.291-6.00.076-7.00.100-8.40.015-3.10.37645.4%414
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 counted980
Win rate54.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches8.3 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
Open63.0%+8.30.067108
Breakable full fence60.5%+5.90.193109
Low fence57.8%+3.10.54883
Half fence56.4%+1.70.72994
Single wall56.2%+1.60.725112
Fence and open54.5%-0.10.98255 ·
Full fence52.7%-2.00.72074 ·
Octagon51.4%-3.30.469107
Breakable half fence49.4%-5.30.30685
Rectangle48.8%-5.90.161121
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 8.23 on 9 df, p 0.511

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.7%74-7.80.292-3.70.634+3.30.679-5.10.519-3.50.634-1.90.836-10.30.167+3.90.593+1.30.863
Breakable full fence+7.80.29260.5%109+4.20.548+11.10.121+2.70.704+4.30.517+6.00.461-2.40.715+11.80.073+9.20.176
Half fence+3.70.634-4.20.54856.4%94+7.00.351-1.40.846+0.10.985+1.80.828-6.60.341+7.60.267+5.00.480
Breakable half fence-3.30.679-11.10.121-7.00.35149.4%85-8.40.274-6.80.341-5.10.553-13.60.059+0.70.927-2.00.784
Low fence+5.10.519-2.70.704+1.40.846+8.40.27457.8%83+1.60.825+3.30.703-5.10.472+9.10.203+6.40.378
Single wall+3.50.634-4.30.517-0.10.985+6.80.341-1.60.82556.2%112+1.70.835-6.70.310+7.50.253+4.80.472
Fence and open+1.90.836-6.00.461-1.80.828+5.10.553-3.30.703-1.70.83554.5%55-8.40.299+5.80.477+3.10.704
Open+10.30.167+2.40.715+6.60.341+13.60.059+5.10.472+6.70.310+8.40.29963.0%108+14.20.031+11.60.087
Rectangle-3.90.593-11.80.073-7.60.267-0.70.927-9.10.203-7.50.253-5.80.477-14.20.03148.8%121-2.60.691
Octagon-1.30.863-9.20.176-5.00.480+2.00.784-6.40.378-4.80.472-3.10.704-11.60.087+2.60.69151.4%107
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 counted2,491
Win rate49.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.3 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
Open54.2%+4.70.129236
Fence and open53.9%+4.30.313130
Breakable half fence53.5%+3.90.167273
Breakable full fence50.2%+0.70.830221
Single wall50.0%+0.50.867290
Full fence48.7%-0.80.774273
Half fence47.8%-1.80.561249
Rectangle47.2%-2.30.498199
Octagon46.8%-2.70.382237
Low fence44.3%-5.30.067271
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 9.30 on 9 df, p 0.410

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.7%273-1.50.739+0.90.832-4.80.266+4.40.299-1.30.761-5.10.336-5.50.214+1.50.750+1.90.671
Breakable full fence+1.50.73950.2%221+2.40.598-3.20.472+6.00.189+0.20.960-3.60.512-4.00.391+3.00.540+3.40.468
Half fence-0.90.832-2.40.59847.8%249-5.70.194+3.50.422-2.20.609-6.10.263-6.50.156+0.60.907+0.90.833
Breakable half fence+4.80.266+3.20.472+5.70.19453.5%273+9.20.032+3.50.409-0.40.945-0.80.864+6.20.180+6.60.134
Low fence-4.40.299-6.00.189-3.50.422-9.20.03244.3%271-5.70.175-9.60.073-10.00.025-3.00.525-2.60.564
Single wall+1.30.761-0.20.960+2.20.609-3.50.409+5.70.17550.0%290-3.90.466-4.20.333+2.80.548+3.20.470
Fence and open+5.10.336+3.60.512+6.10.263+0.40.945+9.60.073+3.90.46653.9%130-0.40.943+6.60.241+7.00.199
Open+5.50.214+4.00.391+6.50.156+0.80.864+10.00.025+4.20.333+0.40.94354.2%236+7.00.146+7.40.107
Rectangle-1.50.750-3.00.540-0.60.907-6.20.180+3.00.525-2.80.548-6.60.241-7.00.14647.2%199+0.40.933
Octagon-1.90.671-3.40.468-0.90.833-6.60.134+2.60.564-3.20.470-7.00.199-7.40.107-0.40.93346.8%237
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 counted654
Win rate44.2%
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
Low fence57.1%+12.90.02170 ·
Rectangle52.5%+8.30.17659 ·
Single wall49.3%+5.10.35971 ·
Full fence46.9%+2.70.64964 ·
Half fence42.0%-2.20.70269 ·
Breakable half fence41.2%-3.00.65251 ·
Fence and open40.0%-4.20.66725 ·
Open38.9%-5.30.33772 ·
Breakable full fence36.7%-7.50.21860 ·
Octagon31.4%-12.80.02370 ·
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 14.68 on 9 df, p 0.100

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.9%64+10.20.250+4.80.574+5.70.541-10.30.235-2.40.779+6.90.558+8.00.347-5.70.530+15.40.067
Breakable full fence-10.20.25036.7%60-5.40.534-4.50.627-20.50.020-12.60.146-3.30.773-2.20.793-15.90.081+5.20.529
Half fence-4.80.574+5.40.53442.0%69+0.80.925-15.10.075-7.30.388+2.00.860+3.10.704-10.50.235+10.60.195
Breakable half fence-5.70.541+4.50.627-0.80.92541.2%51-16.00.083-8.10.375+1.20.922+2.30.798-11.40.234+9.80.269
Low fence+10.30.235+20.50.020+15.10.075+16.00.08357.1%70+7.80.350+17.10.141+18.20.029+4.60.601+25.70.002
Single wall+2.40.779+12.60.146+7.30.388+8.10.375-7.80.35049.3%71+9.30.423+10.40.210-3.20.712+17.90.031
Fence and open-6.90.558+3.30.773-2.00.860-1.20.922-17.10.141-9.30.42340.0%25+1.10.922-12.50.293+8.60.436
Open-8.00.347+2.20.793-3.10.704-2.30.798-18.20.029-10.40.210-1.10.92238.9%72-13.70.118+7.50.352
Rectangle+5.70.530+15.90.081+10.50.235+11.40.234-4.60.601+3.20.712+12.50.293+13.70.11852.5%59+21.10.015
Octagon-15.40.067-5.20.529-10.60.195-9.80.269-25.70.002-17.90.031-8.60.436-7.50.352-21.10.01531.4%70
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.