Virtua Fighter 5 REVO · v1.10 · Character Matchup Winrates
Eileen vs Lau
Eileen vs Lau in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Eileen wins 50.2% of 1,722 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 0 of 10 tested stage gaps survive correction.
Matches counted1,722
Win rate50.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-8.4 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18
Where it was fought
Eileen's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere| Stage | Gap from usual | Win % | Change | p | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breakable full fence | 57.4% | +7.3 | 0.065 | 148 | |
| Breakable half fence | 57.4% | +7.2 | 0.048 | 169 | |
| Open | 54.1% | +3.9 | 0.261 | 183 | |
| Single wall | 52.2% | +2.0 | 0.592 | 159 | |
| Low fence | 49.7% | -0.5 | 0.897 | 155 | |
| Full fence | 49.2% | -0.9 | 0.781 | 201 | |
| Fence and open | 47.6% | -2.6 | 0.628 | 82 | |
| Rectangle | 46.2% | -3.9 | 0.220 | 212 | |
| Half fence | 46.1% | -4.1 | 0.266 | 165 | |
| Octagon | 41.8% | -8.4 | 0.021 | 170 |
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.
Stage against stage
Eileen's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column'sAll ten shapes at once: chi-square 15.59 on 9 df, p 0.076
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 49.2%201 | -8.20.130 | +3.20.543 | -8.20.118 | -0.40.937 | -3.00.579 | +1.70.796 | -4.80.343 | +3.00.538 | +7.50.149 |
| Breakable full fence | +8.20.130 | 57.4%148 | +11.40.044 | +0.00.995 | +7.80.176 | +5.20.358 | +9.90.150 | +3.30.544 | +11.20.036 | +15.70.005 |
| Half fence | -3.20.543 | -11.40.044 | 46.1%165 | -11.30.038 | -3.60.517 | -6.10.269 | -1.50.824 | -8.00.134 | -0.20.974 | +4.30.428 |
| Breakable half fence | +8.20.118 | -0.00.995 | +11.30.038 | 57.4%169 | +7.70.164 | +5.20.345 | +9.80.142 | +3.30.534 | +11.20.030 | +15.60.004 |
| Low fence | +0.40.937 | -7.80.176 | +3.60.517 | -7.70.164 | 49.7%155 | -2.50.655 | +2.10.757 | -4.40.418 | +3.50.513 | +7.90.153 |
| Single wall | +3.00.579 | -5.20.358 | +6.10.269 | -5.20.345 | +2.50.655 | 52.2%159 | +4.60.495 | -1.90.726 | +6.00.255 | +10.40.058 |
| Fence and open | -1.70.796 | -9.90.150 | +1.50.824 | -9.80.142 | -2.10.757 | -4.60.495 | 47.6%82 | -6.50.325 | +1.30.837 | +5.80.385 |
| Open | +4.80.343 | -3.30.544 | +8.00.134 | -3.30.534 | +4.40.418 | +1.90.726 | +6.50.325 | 54.1%183 | +7.90.119 | +12.30.020 |
| Rectangle | -3.00.538 | -11.20.036 | +0.20.974 | -11.20.030 | -3.50.513 | -6.00.255 | -1.30.837 | -7.90.119 | 46.2%212 | +4.50.383 |
| Octagon | -7.50.149 | -15.70.005 | -4.30.428 | -15.60.004 | -7.90.153 | -10.40.058 | -5.80.385 | -12.30.020 | -4.50.383 | 41.8%170 |
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.
Matches counted652
Win rate48.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-1.7 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18
Where it was fought
Eileen's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere| Stage | Gap from usual | Win % | Change | p | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single wall | 60.3% | +11.8 | 0.048 | 63 · | |
| Open | 52.7% | +4.2 | 0.439 | 74 · | |
| Breakable half fence | 52.5% | +4.1 | 0.511 | 59 · | |
| Full fence | 48.7% | +0.2 | 0.968 | 76 · | |
| Half fence | 47.1% | -1.3 | 0.815 | 70 · | |
| Rectangle | 46.8% | -1.7 | 0.728 | 94 | |
| Breakable full fence | 46.1% | -2.3 | 0.766 | 39 · | |
| Fence and open | 46.0% | -2.5 | 0.752 | 37 · | |
| Low fence | 44.9% | -3.6 | 0.603 | 49 · | |
| Octagon | 36.8% | -11.7 | 0.041 | 68 · |
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.
Stage against stage
Eileen's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column'sAll ten shapes at once: chi-square 8.77 on 9 df, p 0.458
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 48.7%76 | +2.50.797 | +1.50.852 | -3.90.657 | +3.80.679 | -11.60.171 | +2.70.784 | -4.00.623 | +1.90.808 | +11.90.149 |
| Breakable full fence | -2.50.797 | 46.1%39 | -1.00.921 | -6.40.536 | +1.20.906 | -14.20.162 | +0.20.985 | -6.50.508 | -0.70.945 | +9.40.340 |
| Half fence | -1.50.852 | +1.00.921 | 47.1%70 | -5.40.541 | +2.20.809 | -13.20.128 | +1.20.906 | -5.60.505 | +0.30.966 | +10.40.217 |
| Breakable half fence | +3.90.657 | +6.40.536 | +5.40.541 | 52.5%59 | +7.60.429 | -7.80.387 | +6.60.529 | -0.20.985 | +5.70.490 | +15.80.074 |
| Low fence | -3.80.679 | -1.20.906 | -2.20.809 | -7.60.429 | 44.9%49 | -15.40.105 | -1.10.923 | -7.80.397 | -1.90.828 | +8.10.376 |
| Single wall | +11.60.171 | +14.20.162 | +13.20.128 | +7.80.387 | +15.40.105 | 60.3%63 | +14.40.163 | +7.60.371 | +13.50.097 | +23.60.007 |
| Fence and open | -2.70.784 | -0.20.985 | -1.20.906 | -6.60.529 | +1.10.923 | -14.40.163 | 46.0%37 | -6.80.502 | -0.90.929 | +9.20.359 |
| Open | +4.00.623 | +6.50.508 | +5.60.505 | +0.20.985 | +7.80.397 | -7.60.371 | +6.80.502 | 52.7%74 | +5.90.448 | +15.90.057 |
| Rectangle | -1.90.808 | +0.70.945 | -0.30.966 | -5.70.490 | +1.90.828 | -13.50.097 | +0.90.929 | -5.90.448 | 46.8%94 | +10.10.202 |
| Octagon | -11.90.149 | -9.40.340 | -10.40.217 | -15.80.074 | -8.10.376 | -23.60.007 | -9.20.359 | -15.90.057 | -10.10.202 | 36.8%68 |
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.
Matches counted657
Win rate51.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.1 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18
Where it was fought
Eileen's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere| Stage | Gap from usual | Win % | Change | p | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breakable half fence | 57.3% | +6.3 | 0.243 | 75 · | |
| Low fence | 56.9% | +5.9 | 0.313 | 65 · | |
| Open | 56.1% | +5.1 | 0.323 | 82 | |
| Breakable full fence | 54.5% | +3.6 | 0.582 | 55 · | |
| Fence and open | 50.0% | -1.0 | 0.912 | 30 · | |
| Half fence | 50.0% | -1.0 | 0.863 | 68 · | |
| Full fence | 49.2% | -1.8 | 0.765 | 65 · | |
| Octagon | 48.1% | -2.9 | 0.662 | 52 · | |
| Single wall | 46.3% | -4.7 | 0.471 | 54 · | |
| Rectangle | 40.5% | -10.4 | 0.056 | 74 · |
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.
Stage against stage
Eileen's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column'sAll ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.26 on 9 df, p 0.610
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 49.2%65 | -5.30.562 | -0.80.929 | -8.10.338 | -7.70.380 | +2.90.750 | -0.80.944 | -6.90.407 | +8.70.304 | +1.10.901 |
| Breakable full fence | +5.30.562 | 54.5%55 | +4.50.616 | -2.80.752 | -2.40.794 | +8.20.389 | +4.50.688 | -1.60.858 | +14.00.115 | +6.50.503 |
| Half fence | +0.80.929 | -4.50.616 | 50.0%68 | -7.30.380 | -6.90.424 | +3.70.684 | +0.01.000 | -6.10.456 | +9.50.258 | +1.90.835 |
| Breakable half fence | +8.10.338 | +2.80.752 | +7.30.380 | 57.3%75 | +0.40.961 | +11.00.215 | +7.30.495 | +1.20.876 | +16.80.040 | +9.20.304 |
| Low fence | +7.70.380 | +2.40.794 | +6.90.424 | -0.40.961 | 56.9%65 | +10.60.248 | +6.90.529 | +0.80.920 | +16.40.054 | +8.80.341 |
| Single wall | -2.90.750 | -8.20.389 | -3.70.684 | -11.00.215 | -10.60.248 | 46.3%54 | -3.70.745 | -9.80.263 | +5.80.516 | -1.80.854 |
| Fence and open | +0.80.944 | -4.50.688 | -0.01.000 | -7.30.495 | -6.90.529 | +3.70.745 | 50.0%30 | -6.10.566 | +9.50.378 | +1.90.867 |
| Open | +6.90.407 | +1.60.858 | +6.10.456 | -1.20.876 | -0.80.920 | +9.80.263 | +6.10.566 | 56.1%82 | +15.60.052 | +8.00.365 |
| Rectangle | -8.70.304 | -14.00.115 | -9.50.258 | -16.80.040 | -16.40.054 | -5.80.516 | -9.50.378 | -15.60.052 | 40.5%74 | -7.50.401 |
| Octagon | -1.10.901 | -6.50.503 | -1.90.835 | -9.20.304 | -8.80.341 | +1.80.854 | -1.90.867 | -8.00.365 | +7.50.401 | 48.1%52 |
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.
Matches counted413
Win rate51.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18
Where it was fought
Eileen's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere| Stage | Gap from usual | Win % | Change | p | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breakable full fence | 68.5% | +16.9 | 0.008 | 54 · | |
| Breakable half fence | 65.7% | +14.1 | 0.080 | 35 · | |
| Rectangle | 54.5% | +3.0 | 0.676 | 44 · | |
| Open | 51.9% | +0.3 | 0.976 | 27 · | |
| Full fence | 50.0% | -1.6 | 0.792 | 60 · | |
| Single wall | 47.6% | -4.0 | 0.588 | 42 · | |
| Fence and open | 46.7% | -4.9 | 0.698 | 15 · | |
| Low fence | 43.9% | -7.7 | 0.300 | 41 · | |
| Octagon | 42.0% | -9.6 | 0.148 | 50 · | |
| Half fence | 33.3% | -18.2 | 0.050 | 27 · |
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.
Stage against stage
Eileen's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column'sAll ten shapes at once: chi-square 16.02 on 9 df, p 0.066
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 50.0%60 | -18.50.045 | +16.70.148 | -15.70.137 | +6.10.547 | +2.40.813 | +3.30.817 | -1.90.873 | -4.50.647 | +8.00.402 |
| Breakable full fence | +18.50.045 | 68.5%54 | +35.20.003 | +2.80.783 | +24.60.016 | +20.90.039 | +21.90.119 | +16.70.143 | +14.00.156 | +26.50.007 |
| Half fence | -16.70.148 | -35.20.003 | 33.3%27 | -32.40.011 | -10.60.383 | -14.30.241 | -13.30.394 | -18.50.169 | -21.20.082 | -8.70.457 |
| Breakable half fence | +15.70.137 | -2.80.783 | +32.40.011 | 65.7%35 | +21.80.057 | +18.10.111 | +19.00.208 | +13.90.270 | +11.20.315 | +23.70.031 |
| Low fence | -6.10.547 | -24.60.016 | +10.60.383 | -21.80.057 | 43.9%41 | -3.70.734 | -2.80.854 | -8.00.520 | -10.70.327 | +1.90.855 |
| Single wall | -2.40.813 | -20.90.039 | +14.30.241 | -18.10.111 | +3.70.734 | 47.6%42 | +0.90.949 | -4.20.731 | -6.90.521 | +5.60.589 |
| Fence and open | -3.30.817 | -21.90.119 | +13.30.394 | -19.00.208 | +2.80.854 | -0.90.949 | 46.7%15 | -5.20.747 | -7.90.598 | +4.70.749 |
| Open | +1.90.873 | -16.70.143 | +18.50.169 | -13.90.270 | +8.00.520 | +4.20.731 | +5.20.747 | 51.9%27 | -2.70.825 | +9.80.407 |
| Rectangle | +4.50.647 | -14.00.156 | +21.20.082 | -11.20.315 | +10.70.327 | +6.90.521 | +7.90.598 | +2.70.825 | 54.5%44 | +12.60.224 |
| Octagon | -8.00.402 | -26.50.007 | +8.70.457 | -23.70.031 | -1.90.855 | -5.60.589 | -4.70.749 | -9.80.407 | -12.60.224 | 42.0%50 |
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.