VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Lau

El Blaze vs Lau in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 50.4% of 3,412 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 counted3,412
Win rate50.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.2 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
Octagon53.7%+3.30.221313
Rectangle52.9%+2.50.357316
Breakable half fence52.6%+2.20.397325
Single wall51.9%+1.60.530360
Full fence50.6%+0.20.924417
Open49.9%-0.50.837341
Low fence49.4%-1.00.706324
Fence and open49.2%-1.20.738181
Breakable full fence48.7%-1.70.511351
Half fence45.2%-5.20.054310
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 7.17 on 9 df, p 0.620

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.6%417+1.90.603+5.40.147-2.00.586+1.20.742-1.30.708+1.40.748+0.80.838-2.20.546-3.10.411
Breakable full fence-1.90.60348.7%351+3.60.361-3.90.311-0.70.863-3.20.390-0.50.921-1.10.765-4.10.287-5.00.202
Half fence-5.40.147-3.60.36145.2%310-7.50.060-4.20.287-6.80.080-4.00.390-4.70.231-7.70.054-8.50.034
Breakable half fence+2.00.586+3.90.311+7.50.06052.6%325+3.20.410+0.70.861+3.50.457+2.80.476-0.20.953-1.10.789
Low fence-1.20.742+0.70.863+4.20.287-3.20.41049.4%324-2.60.503+0.20.964-0.50.903-3.50.381-4.30.279
Single wall+1.30.708+3.20.390+6.80.080-0.70.861+2.60.50351.9%360+2.80.543+2.10.580-0.90.814-1.70.654
Fence and open-1.40.748+0.50.921+4.00.390-3.50.457-0.20.964-2.80.54349.2%181-0.70.882-3.70.430-4.50.334
Open-0.80.838+1.10.765+4.70.231-2.80.476+0.50.903-2.10.580+0.70.88249.9%341-3.00.443-3.80.329
Rectangle+2.20.546+4.10.287+7.70.054+0.20.953+3.50.381+0.90.814+3.70.430+3.00.44352.9%316-0.80.836
Octagon+3.10.411+5.00.202+8.50.034+1.10.789+4.30.279+1.70.654+4.50.334+3.80.329+0.80.83653.7%313
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 counted942
Win rate49.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches13.0 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
Breakable half fence62.8%+13.00.01186
Full fence52.7%+2.90.477131
Single wall51.8%+2.00.652112
Breakable full fence50.6%+0.80.87785
Octagon50.0%+0.20.96784
Open49.4%-0.40.94183
Low fence48.4%-1.40.77391
Rectangle45.2%-4.60.41573 ·
Half fence44.7%-5.10.29794
Fence and open38.5%-11.30.09352 ·
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 10.77 on 9 df, p 0.292

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.7%131+2.10.765+8.00.237-10.10.141+4.30.527+0.90.890+14.20.083+3.30.641+7.50.307+2.70.702
Breakable full fence-2.10.76550.6%85+5.90.429-12.20.107+2.20.767-1.20.868+12.10.167+1.20.877+5.40.500+0.60.939
Half fence-8.00.237-5.90.42944.7%94-18.10.015-3.70.617-7.10.310+6.20.467-4.70.530-0.50.946-5.30.478
Breakable half fence+10.10.141+12.20.107+18.10.01562.8%86+14.40.053+11.00.121+24.30.005+13.40.079+17.60.026+12.80.093
Low fence-4.30.527-2.20.767+3.70.617-14.40.05348.4%91-3.40.626+9.90.253-1.10.890+3.10.688-1.60.827
Single wall-0.90.890+1.20.868+7.10.310-11.00.121+3.40.62651.8%112+13.30.112+2.40.742+6.60.382+1.80.805
Fence and open-14.20.083-12.10.167-6.20.467-24.30.005-9.90.253-13.30.11238.5%52-10.90.214-6.80.452-11.50.189
Open-3.30.641-1.20.877+4.70.530-13.40.079+1.10.890-2.40.742+10.90.21449.4%83+4.20.601-0.60.938
Rectangle-7.50.307-5.40.500+0.50.946-17.60.026-3.10.688-6.60.382+6.80.452-4.20.60145.2%73-4.80.549
Octagon-2.70.702-0.60.939+5.30.478-12.80.093+1.60.827-1.80.805+11.50.189+0.60.938+4.80.54950.0%84
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 counted1,640
Win rate51.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.6 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 wall58.9%+7.60.040163
Octagon57.6%+6.30.102151
Rectangle55.5%+4.20.288146
Fence and open53.3%+2.00.68990
Breakable half fence50.0%-1.30.728166
Open49.1%-2.20.551171
Half fence49.0%-2.30.560143
Low fence48.9%-2.30.560141
Full fence48.5%-2.70.401206
Breakable full fence45.5%-5.80.090187
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 11.60 on 9 df, p 0.237

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.5%206+3.10.540-0.40.940-1.50.780-0.40.943-10.40.048-4.80.448-0.60.911-6.90.200-9.10.090
Breakable full fence-3.10.54045.5%187-3.50.528-4.50.393-3.50.532-13.40.012-7.90.219-3.70.487-10.00.069-12.20.026
Half fence+0.40.940+3.50.52849.0%143-1.10.854+0.00.998-9.90.081-4.40.515-0.20.976-6.50.267-8.70.137
Breakable half fence+1.50.780+4.50.393+1.10.85450.0%166+1.10.853-8.90.105-3.30.610+0.90.872-5.50.333-7.60.174
Low fence+0.40.943+3.50.532-0.00.998-1.10.85348.9%141-10.00.082-4.40.514-0.20.974-6.50.267-8.70.137
Single wall+10.40.048+13.40.012+9.90.081+8.90.105+10.00.08258.9%163+5.60.392+9.80.073+3.40.544+1.30.818
Fence and open+4.80.448+7.90.219+4.40.515+3.30.610+4.40.514-5.60.39253.3%90+4.20.518-2.10.748-4.30.517
Open+0.60.911+3.70.487+0.20.976-0.90.872+0.20.974-9.80.073-4.20.51849.1%171-6.40.259-8.50.128
Rectangle+6.90.200+10.00.069+6.50.267+5.50.333+6.50.267-3.40.544+2.10.748+6.40.25955.5%146-2.10.710
Octagon+9.10.090+12.20.026+8.70.137+7.60.174+8.70.137-1.30.818+4.30.517+8.50.128+2.10.71057.6%151
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 counted830
Win rate49.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-10.5 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
Rectangle54.6%+5.40.26197
Breakable full fence54.4%+5.20.33579 ·
Fence and open53.9%+4.60.55939 ·
Full fence52.5%+3.20.54480
Open51.7%+2.40.62987
Low fence51.1%+1.80.71392
Octagon50.0%+0.70.89378 ·
Breakable half fence46.6%-2.70.62973 ·
Single wall38.8%-10.50.04285
Half fence38.4%-10.90.05173 ·
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: 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 10.37 on 9 df, p 0.321

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.5%80-1.90.807+14.10.079+5.90.464+1.40.853+13.70.078-1.40.890+0.80.920-2.10.776+2.50.753
Breakable full fence+1.90.80754.4%79+16.10.047+7.80.333+3.30.662+15.60.045+0.60.952+2.70.727-0.20.978+4.40.578
Half fence-14.10.079-16.10.04738.4%73-8.20.315-12.70.103-0.50.952-15.50.115-13.40.091-16.30.035-11.60.150
Breakable half fence-5.90.464-7.80.333+8.20.31546.6%73-4.50.565+7.80.326-7.30.463-5.10.516-8.10.298-3.40.674
Low fence-1.40.853-3.30.662+12.70.103+4.50.56551.1%92+12.30.101-2.80.773-0.60.932-3.50.625+1.10.888
Single wall-13.70.078-15.60.045+0.50.952-7.80.326-12.30.10138.8%85-15.00.117-12.90.089-15.80.033-11.20.151
Fence and open+1.40.890-0.60.952+15.50.115+7.30.463+2.80.773+15.00.11753.9%39+2.10.825-0.80.933+3.90.695
Open-0.80.920-2.70.727+13.40.091+5.10.516+0.60.932+12.90.089-2.10.82551.7%87-2.90.692+1.70.825
Rectangle+2.10.776+0.20.978+16.30.035+8.10.298+3.50.625+15.80.033+0.80.933+2.90.69254.6%97+4.60.541
Octagon-2.50.753-4.40.578+11.60.150+3.40.674-1.10.888+11.20.151-3.90.695-1.70.825-4.60.54150.0%78
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.