VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Jacky

El Blaze vs Jacky in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 53.1% of 5,776 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 counted5,776
Win rate53.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.9 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence56.8%+3.70.050618
Single wall55.2%+2.10.283565
Octagon54.5%+1.40.459585
Open54.3%+1.20.550575
Breakable full fence53.8%+0.70.718595
Rectangle53.2%+0.10.961598
Full fence51.8%-1.30.490620
Breakable half fence51.5%-1.60.471491
Low fence49.9%-3.20.114559
Fence and open49.2%-3.90.162301
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.34 on 9 df, p 0.324

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.8%620-2.00.484-5.00.076+0.20.935+1.90.523-3.50.235+2.60.458-2.50.390-1.40.624-2.80.338
Breakable full fence+2.00.48453.8%595-3.00.291+2.20.459+3.90.188-1.40.623+4.60.192-0.50.869+0.60.834-0.80.796
Half fence+5.00.076+3.00.29156.8%618+5.30.080+6.90.018+1.60.586+7.60.029+2.50.379+3.60.205+2.30.429
Breakable half fence-0.20.935-2.20.459-5.30.08051.5%491+1.60.601-3.70.230+2.40.519-2.70.373-1.60.588-3.00.326
Low fence-1.90.523-3.90.188-6.90.018-1.60.60149.9%559-5.30.075+0.70.836-4.30.143-3.30.267-4.60.118
Single wall+3.50.235+1.40.623-1.60.586+3.70.230+5.30.07555.2%565+6.00.089+1.00.745+2.00.484+0.70.814
Fence and open-2.60.458-4.60.192-7.60.029-2.40.519-0.70.836-6.00.08949.2%301-5.10.152-4.00.256-5.40.130
Open+2.50.390+0.50.869-2.50.379+2.70.373+4.30.143-1.00.745+5.10.15254.3%575+1.10.710-0.30.927
Rectangle+1.40.624-0.60.834-3.60.205+1.60.588+3.30.267-2.00.484+4.00.256-1.10.71053.2%598-1.40.641
Octagon+2.80.338+0.80.796-2.30.429+3.00.326+4.60.118-0.70.814+5.40.130+0.30.927+1.40.64154.5%585
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 counted2,470
Win rate51.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.0 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence56.1%+4.40.137253
Open55.8%+4.10.162258
Octagon54.6%+2.90.347240
Breakable full fence52.8%+1.10.701290
Full fence51.6%-0.10.975279
Single wall51.2%-0.50.870248
Low fence49.5%-2.20.505216
Rectangle47.9%-3.80.217236
Breakable half fence47.4%-4.30.190211
Fence and open45.7%-6.00.163127
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.89 on 9 df, p 0.360

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.6%279-1.10.784-4.50.297+4.20.355+2.10.647+0.40.926+5.90.267-4.20.329+3.70.399-3.00.499
Breakable full fence+1.10.78452.8%290-3.40.432+5.40.236+3.20.473+1.60.720+7.10.183-3.00.474+4.90.266-1.80.675
Half fence+4.50.297+3.40.43256.1%253+8.70.061+6.60.154+4.90.270+10.50.054+0.30.943+8.20.068+1.60.730
Breakable half fence-4.20.355-5.40.236-8.70.06147.4%211-2.10.658-3.80.415+1.70.758-8.40.069-0.50.918-7.20.127
Low fence-2.10.647-3.20.473-6.60.154+2.10.65849.5%216-1.70.719+3.90.489-6.30.173+1.70.725-5.00.281
Single wall-0.40.926-1.60.720-4.90.270+3.80.415+1.70.71951.2%248+5.50.310-4.60.299+3.30.464-3.40.455
Fence and open-5.90.267-7.10.183-10.50.054-1.70.758-3.90.489-5.50.31045.7%127-10.10.061-2.20.687-8.90.104
Open+4.20.329+3.00.474-0.30.943+8.40.069+6.30.173+4.60.299+10.10.06155.8%258+7.90.078+1.20.783
Rectangle-3.70.399-4.90.266-8.20.068+0.50.918-1.70.725-3.30.464+2.20.687-7.90.07847.9%236-6.70.144
Octagon+3.00.499+1.80.675-1.60.730+7.20.127+5.00.281+3.40.455+8.90.104-1.20.783+6.70.14454.6%240
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 counted2,772
Win rate53.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.7 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall58.7%+5.00.087269
Rectangle57.4%+3.60.193291
Breakable full fence55.6%+1.90.524266
Octagon55.3%+1.50.578291
Breakable half fence55.0%+1.20.694240
Half fence54.1%+0.30.908305
Full fence52.7%-1.10.698279
Open52.6%-1.10.697264
Fence and open51.4%-2.40.553144
Low fence47.1%-6.70.015291
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.75 on 9 df, p 0.293

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.7%279-3.00.490-1.40.733-2.30.598+5.60.181-6.00.154+1.30.800+0.00.993-4.70.259-2.60.528
Breakable full fence+3.00.49055.6%266+1.50.712+0.60.885+8.60.044-3.10.469+4.20.410+3.00.490-1.80.677+0.30.941
Half fence+1.40.733-1.50.71254.1%305-0.90.834+7.00.087-4.60.264+2.70.591+1.40.730-3.30.419-1.20.763
Breakable half fence+2.30.598-0.60.885+0.90.83455.0%240+7.90.069-3.70.395+3.60.492+2.40.597-2.40.581-0.30.940
Low fence-5.60.181-8.60.044-7.00.087-7.90.06947.1%291-11.70.006-4.30.397-5.60.190-10.30.013-8.20.047
Single wall+6.00.154+3.10.469+4.60.264+3.70.395+11.70.00658.7%269+7.30.152+6.10.157+1.40.747+3.40.416
Fence and open-1.30.800-4.20.410-2.70.591-3.60.492+4.30.397-7.30.15251.4%144-1.30.807-6.00.236-3.90.438
Open-0.00.993-3.00.490-1.40.730-2.40.597+5.60.190-6.10.157+1.30.80752.6%264-4.70.262-2.70.528
Rectangle+4.70.259+1.80.677+3.30.419+2.40.581+10.30.013-1.40.747+6.00.236+4.70.26257.4%291+2.10.616
Octagon+2.60.528-0.30.941+1.20.763+0.30.940+8.20.047-3.40.416+3.90.438+2.70.528-2.10.61655.3%291
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 counted534
Win rate55.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence73.3%+17.50.00460 ·
Low fence67.3%+11.50.07952 ·
Single wall56.2%+0.40.94848 ·
Open54.7%-1.10.86753 ·
Rectangle53.5%-2.30.67771 ·
Fence and open53.3%-2.50.77930 ·
Breakable half fence52.5%-3.30.66240 ·
Octagon50.0%-5.80.36554 ·
Breakable full fence48.7%-7.10.35539 ·
Full fence48.4%-7.40.21162 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 13.61 on 9 df, p 0.137

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.4%62-0.30.974-24.90.005-4.10.685-18.90.042-7.90.413-4.90.656-6.30.498-5.10.555-1.60.862
Breakable full fence+0.30.97448.7%39-24.60.013-3.80.737-18.60.074-7.50.484-4.60.704-6.00.569-4.80.630-1.30.903
Half fence+24.90.005+24.60.01373.3%60+20.80.032+6.00.485+17.10.063+20.00.058+18.60.039+19.80.020+23.30.010
Breakable half fence+4.10.685+3.80.737-20.80.03252.5%40-14.80.149-3.80.725-0.80.945-2.20.832-1.00.918+2.50.811
Low fence+18.90.042+18.60.074-6.00.485+14.80.14967.3%52+11.10.255+14.00.209+12.60.186+13.80.124+17.30.071
Single wall+7.90.413+7.50.484-17.10.063+3.80.725-11.10.25556.2%48+2.90.801+1.50.877+2.70.769+6.20.528
Fence and open+4.90.656+4.60.704-20.00.058+0.80.945-14.00.209-2.90.80153.3%30-1.40.903-0.20.986+3.30.770
Open+6.30.498+6.00.569-18.60.039+2.20.832-12.60.186-1.50.877+1.40.90354.7%53+1.20.895+4.70.625
Rectangle+5.10.555+4.80.630-19.80.020+1.00.918-13.80.124-2.70.769+0.20.986-1.20.89553.5%71+3.50.696
Octagon+1.60.862+1.30.903-23.30.010-2.50.811-17.30.071-6.20.528-3.30.770-4.70.625-3.50.69650.0%54
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.