VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Pai

El Blaze vs Pai in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 50.3% of 3,500 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 counted3,500
Win rate50.3%
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
Rectangle54.2%+3.90.116373
Low fence53.4%+3.10.241320
Breakable full fence53.4%+3.10.209365
Fence and open53.0%+2.70.476166
Octagon52.0%+1.70.484367
Single wall51.2%+0.90.725320
Full fence48.5%-1.80.488338
Half fence48.4%-1.90.455345
Open46.9%-3.40.199324
Breakable half fence45.1%-5.20.038359
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 12.14 on 9 df, p 0.206

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.5%338-4.90.194+0.10.976+3.40.369-4.90.207-2.70.484-4.50.343+1.60.679-5.60.133-3.50.350
Breakable full fence+4.90.19453.4%365+5.00.181+8.30.026-0.00.997+2.20.570+0.40.930+6.50.088-0.70.842+1.40.708
Half fence-0.10.976-5.00.18148.4%345+3.30.383-5.00.195-2.80.464-4.60.329+1.50.699-5.80.124-3.60.332
Breakable half fence-3.40.369-8.30.026-3.30.38345.1%359-8.30.031-6.10.111-7.90.092-1.80.640-9.00.015-6.90.062
Low fence+4.90.207+0.00.997+5.00.195+8.30.03153.4%320+2.20.580+0.40.929+6.50.098-0.70.850+1.40.715
Single wall+2.70.484-2.20.570+2.80.464+6.10.111-2.20.58051.2%320-1.80.712+4.30.271-2.90.445-0.80.836
Fence and open+4.50.343-0.40.930+4.60.329+7.90.092-0.40.929+1.80.71253.0%166+6.10.201-1.10.806+1.00.836
Open-1.60.679-6.50.088-1.50.699+1.80.640-6.50.098-4.30.271-6.10.20146.9%324-7.20.056-5.10.178
Rectangle+5.60.133+0.70.842+5.80.124+9.00.015+0.70.850+2.90.445+1.10.806+7.20.05654.2%373+2.10.565
Octagon+3.50.350-1.40.708+3.60.332+6.90.062-1.40.715+0.80.836-1.00.836+5.10.178-2.10.56552.0%367
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 counted1,787
Win rate50.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.8 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
Fence and open56.6%+5.80.28283
Low fence56.2%+5.30.144169
Rectangle55.1%+4.30.206194
Breakable full fence53.7%+2.80.428175
Octagon52.0%+1.20.728196
Single wall51.2%+0.40.919160
Full fence49.4%-1.40.689174
Half fence47.0%-3.90.293164
Breakable half fence46.3%-4.50.168205
Open45.3%-5.50.141161
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 9.92 on 9 df, p 0.357

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.4%174-4.30.423+2.50.649+3.10.549-6.80.208-1.80.739-7.20.280+4.10.455-5.70.272-2.60.615
Breakable full fence+4.30.42353.7%175+6.80.213+7.40.152-2.50.641+2.50.652-2.90.661+8.40.125-1.40.781+1.70.747
Half fence-2.50.649-6.80.21347.0%164+0.60.907-9.30.091-4.30.439-9.70.151+1.60.771-8.20.122-5.10.336
Breakable half fence-3.10.549-7.40.152-0.60.90746.3%205-9.90.057-4.90.352-10.30.114+1.00.849-8.80.078-5.70.254
Low fence+6.80.208+2.50.641+9.30.091+9.90.05756.2%169+5.00.367-0.40.950+10.90.048+1.10.840+4.20.425
Single wall+1.80.739-2.50.652+4.30.439+4.90.352-5.00.36751.2%160-5.40.426+5.90.290-3.90.464-0.80.882
Fence and open+7.20.280+2.90.661+9.70.151+10.30.114+0.40.950+5.40.42656.6%83+11.30.095+1.50.821+4.60.483
Open-4.10.455-8.40.125-1.60.771-1.00.849-10.90.048-5.90.290-11.30.09545.3%161-9.80.066-6.70.208
Rectangle+5.70.272+1.40.781+8.20.122+8.80.078-1.10.840+3.90.464-1.50.821+9.80.06655.1%194+3.10.538
Octagon+2.60.615-1.70.747+5.10.336+5.70.254-4.20.425+0.80.882-4.60.483+6.70.208-3.10.53852.0%196
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 counted1,457
Win rate49.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.9 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
Octagon53.9%+4.00.320143
Rectangle53.4%+3.50.346163
Single wall52.6%+2.70.511135
Breakable full fence51.3%+1.40.714156
Low fence50.8%+0.90.836132
Fence and open50.8%+0.80.88767 ·
Half fence49.0%-0.90.815147
Open49.0%-0.90.813145
Breakable half fence45.3%-4.60.277128
Full fence45.0%-4.90.223140
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 4.74 on 9 df, p 0.857

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.0%140-6.30.280-4.00.500-0.30.959-5.80.342-7.60.208-5.80.438-4.00.503-8.40.146-8.80.137
Breakable full fence+6.30.28051.3%156+2.30.689+6.00.317+0.50.929-1.30.823+0.50.942+2.30.688-2.10.708-2.60.657
Half fence+4.00.500-2.30.68949.0%147+3.70.543-1.80.767-3.60.544-1.80.811+0.00.998-4.40.440-4.90.407
Breakable half fence+0.30.959-6.00.317-3.70.54345.3%128-5.50.380-7.30.238-5.40.470-3.70.546-8.10.172-8.50.161
Low fence+5.80.342-0.50.929+1.80.767+5.50.38050.8%132-1.80.764+0.00.999+1.80.766-2.60.655-3.10.608
Single wall+7.60.208+1.30.823+3.60.544+7.30.238+1.80.76452.6%135+1.80.805+3.60.544-0.80.893-1.30.834
Fence and open+5.80.438-0.50.942+1.80.811+5.40.470-0.00.999-1.80.80550.8%67+1.80.809-2.60.717-3.10.675
Open+4.00.503-2.30.688-0.00.998+3.70.546-1.80.766-3.60.544-1.80.80949.0%145-4.40.440-4.90.407
Rectangle+8.40.146+2.10.708+4.40.440+8.10.172+2.60.655+0.80.893+2.60.717+4.40.44053.4%163-0.50.934
Octagon+8.80.137+2.60.657+4.90.407+8.50.161+3.10.608+1.30.834+3.10.675+4.90.407+0.50.93453.9%143
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 counted256
Win rate48.8%
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
Full fence62.5%+13.70.15924 ·
Breakable full fence61.8%+12.90.10534 ·
Half fence52.9%+4.10.60634 ·
Rectangle50.0%+1.20.92316 ·
Low fence47.4%-1.50.89519 ·
Open44.4%-4.40.70018 ·
Single wall44.0%-4.80.61125 ·
Fence and open43.8%-5.10.67516 ·
Octagon42.9%-6.00.50328 ·
Breakable half fence34.6%-14.20.12626 ·
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 7.35 on 9 df, p 0.600

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence62.5%24+0.70.955+9.60.469+27.90.049+15.10.321+18.50.195+18.80.243+18.10.245+12.50.433+19.60.158
Breakable full fence-0.70.95561.8%34+8.80.462+27.10.037+14.40.311+17.80.176+18.00.231+17.30.232+11.80.432+18.90.138
Half fence-9.60.469-8.80.46252.9%34+18.30.157+5.60.697+8.90.497+9.20.544+8.50.560+2.90.846+10.10.429
Breakable half fence-27.90.049-27.10.037-18.30.15734.6%26-12.80.388-9.40.493-9.10.554-9.80.510-15.40.324-8.20.535
Low fence-15.10.321-14.40.311-5.60.697+12.80.38847.4%19+3.40.824+3.60.830+2.90.858-2.60.877+4.50.760
Single wall-18.50.195-17.80.176-8.90.497+9.40.493-3.40.82444.0%25+0.20.987-0.40.977-6.00.707+1.10.933
Fence and open-18.80.243-18.00.231-9.20.544+9.10.554-3.60.830-0.20.98743.8%16-0.70.968-6.20.723+0.90.954
Open-18.10.245-17.30.232-8.50.560+9.80.510-2.90.858+0.40.977+0.70.96844.4%18-5.60.746+1.60.916
Rectangle-12.50.433-11.80.432-2.90.846+15.40.324+2.60.877+6.00.707+6.20.723+5.60.74650.0%16+7.10.647
Octagon-19.60.158-18.90.138-10.10.429+8.20.535-4.50.760-1.10.933-0.90.954-1.60.916-7.10.64742.9%28
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.