VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Jacky

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted2,807
Win rate53.8%
Widest swing4.9 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall58.6%+4.90.086278
Half fence58.0%+4.30.113305
Breakable full fence55.5%+1.70.549274
Breakable half fence55.2%+1.50.624248
Rectangle54.2%+0.40.876286
Octagon53.6%-0.20.955278
Fence and open53.1%-0.70.860162
Open51.2%-2.50.399248
Full fence51.0%-2.80.296310
Low fence49.3%-4.50.111286
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
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 9.34 on 9 df, p 0.407

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.0%310-4.50.276-7.10.079-4.30.315+1.70.684-7.70.062-2.10.662-0.20.955-3.20.430-2.60.524
Breakable full fence+4.50.27655.5%274-2.60.535+0.20.957+6.20.144-3.20.453+2.40.628+4.30.329+1.30.761+1.90.658
Half fence+7.10.079+2.60.53558.0%305+2.80.510+8.70.033-0.60.883+4.90.305+6.80.109+3.80.347+4.40.281
Breakable half fence+4.30.315-0.20.957-2.80.51055.2%248+5.90.170-3.40.433+2.10.668+4.00.368+1.00.809+1.60.705
Low fence-1.70.684-6.20.144-8.70.033-5.90.17049.3%286-9.30.026-3.80.441-1.90.660-4.90.241-4.30.307
Single wall+7.70.062+3.20.453+0.60.883+3.40.433+9.30.02658.6%278+5.50.258+7.40.087+4.40.288+5.00.232
Fence and open+2.10.662-2.40.628-4.90.305-2.10.668+3.80.441-5.50.25853.1%162+1.90.710-1.10.821-0.50.918
Open+0.20.955-4.30.329-6.80.109-4.00.368+1.90.660-7.40.087-1.90.71051.2%248-3.00.491-2.40.584
Rectangle+3.20.430-1.30.761-3.80.347-1.00.809+4.90.241-4.40.288+1.10.821+3.00.49154.2%286+0.60.887
Octagon+2.60.524-1.90.658-4.40.281-1.60.705+4.30.307-5.00.232+0.50.918+2.40.584-0.60.88753.6%278
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.
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted2,327
Win rate53.4%
Widest swing-8.0 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall59.2%+5.80.057238
Breakable full fence56.1%+2.70.379237
Breakable half fence55.8%+2.40.476208
Half fence55.6%+2.20.448257
Rectangle54.5%+1.10.724220
Octagon54.3%+0.90.774232
Fence and open52.6%-0.80.852133
Full fence51.8%-1.60.585251
Open50.5%-2.90.384202
Low fence45.5%-8.00.009242
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
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 12.22 on 9 df, p 0.201

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.8%251-4.30.338-3.90.384-4.00.395+6.30.159-7.50.098-0.80.876+1.30.784-2.80.550-2.50.580
Breakable full fence+4.30.33856.1%237+0.50.915+0.30.941+10.70.020-3.10.491+3.50.518+5.60.239+1.60.735+1.80.694
Half fence+3.90.384-0.50.91555.6%257-0.10.978+10.20.023-3.60.418+3.00.571+5.10.273+1.10.810+1.30.768
Breakable half fence+4.00.395-0.30.941+0.10.97855.8%208+10.30.029-3.50.459+3.10.570+5.30.285+1.20.799+1.50.759
Low fence-6.30.159-10.70.020-10.20.023-10.30.02945.5%242-13.80.002-7.20.183-5.00.290-9.10.051-8.90.054
Single wall+7.50.098+3.10.491+3.60.418+3.50.459+13.80.00259.2%238+6.60.217+8.70.066+4.70.310+4.90.280
Fence and open+0.80.876-3.50.518-3.00.571-3.10.570+7.20.183-6.60.21752.6%133+2.10.702-1.90.727-1.70.757
Open-1.30.784-5.60.239-5.10.273-5.30.285+5.00.290-8.70.066-2.10.70250.5%202-4.00.405-3.80.427
Rectangle+2.80.550-1.60.735-1.10.810-1.20.799+9.10.051-4.70.310+1.90.727+4.00.40554.5%220+0.20.960
Octagon+2.50.580-1.80.694-1.30.768-1.50.759+8.90.054-4.90.280+1.70.757+3.80.427-0.20.96054.3%232
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.
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted480
Win rate55.4%
Widest swing15.4 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence70.8%+15.40.02448 ·
Low fence70.5%+15.00.03544 ·
Fence and open55.2%-0.20.97829 ·
Single wall55.0%-0.40.95640 ·
Open54.4%-1.10.87846 ·
Rectangle53.0%-2.40.67566 ·
Breakable half fence52.5%-2.90.69840 ·
Breakable full fence51.4%-4.10.60537 ·
Octagon50.0%-5.40.43746 ·
Full fence47.5%-8.00.18959 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
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 11.26 on 9 df, p 0.259

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.5%59-3.90.710-23.40.015-5.00.622-23.00.020-7.50.461-7.70.496-6.90.484-5.60.534-2.50.796
Breakable full fence+3.90.71051.4%37-19.50.066-1.10.920-19.10.078-3.60.749-3.80.758-3.00.786-1.70.870+1.40.903
Half fence+23.40.015+19.50.06670.8%48+18.30.077+0.40.968+15.80.124+15.70.163+16.50.098+17.80.055+20.80.039
Breakable half fence+5.00.622+1.10.920-18.30.07752.5%40-17.90.091-2.50.823-2.70.826-1.90.864-0.50.958+2.50.817
Low fence+23.00.020+19.10.078-0.40.968+17.90.09170.5%44+15.40.143+15.30.182+16.10.115+17.40.068+20.40.048
Single wall+7.50.461+3.60.749-15.80.124+2.50.823-15.40.14355.0%40-0.20.989+0.70.952+2.00.844+5.00.643
Fence and open+7.70.496+3.80.758-15.70.163+2.70.826-15.30.182+0.20.98955.2%29+0.80.944+2.10.847+5.20.662
Open+6.90.484+3.00.786-16.50.098+1.90.864-16.10.115-0.70.952-0.80.94454.4%46+1.30.891+4.30.676
Rectangle+5.60.534+1.70.870-17.80.055+0.50.958-17.40.068-2.00.844-2.10.847-1.30.89153.0%66+3.00.752
Octagon+2.50.796-1.40.903-20.80.039-2.50.817-20.40.048-5.00.643-5.20.662-4.30.676-3.00.75250.0%46
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.