VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Pai

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,452
Win rate48.9%
Widest swing-4.5 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
Rectangle51.7%+2.80.474151
Breakable full fence51.5%+2.60.475163
Open50.7%+1.80.651140
Octagon50.4%+1.50.721133
Low fence50.4%+1.50.719135
Fence and open49.3%+0.40.94969 ·
Single wall48.9%+0.00.992141
Half fence48.7%-0.20.965158
Full fence45.7%-3.20.452129
Breakable half fence44.4%-4.50.272133
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 2.88 on 9 df, p 0.969

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.7%129-5.80.325-3.00.613+1.40.823-4.60.451-3.20.599-3.50.634-5.00.414-5.90.323-4.60.452
Breakable full fence+5.80.32551.5%163+2.80.616+7.20.219+1.20.841+2.60.651+2.20.753+0.80.887-0.10.983+1.10.843
Half fence+3.00.613-2.80.61648.7%158+4.40.456-1.60.780-0.20.972-0.60.940-2.00.733-2.90.608-1.60.780
Breakable half fence-1.40.823-7.20.219-4.40.45644.4%133-6.00.325-4.60.448-4.90.506-6.30.293-7.30.220-6.00.326
Low fence+4.60.451-1.20.841+1.60.780+6.00.32550.4%135+1.40.812+1.10.882-0.30.955-1.30.828-0.00.999
Single wall+3.20.599-2.60.651+0.20.972+4.60.448-1.40.81248.9%141-0.30.963-1.80.766-2.70.642-1.40.812
Fence and open+3.50.634-2.20.753+0.60.940+4.90.506-1.10.882+0.30.96349.3%69-1.40.845-2.40.743-1.10.882
Open+5.00.414-0.80.887+2.00.733+6.30.293+0.30.955+1.80.766+1.40.84550.7%140-0.90.872+0.30.955
Rectangle+5.90.323+0.10.983+2.90.608+7.30.220+1.30.828+2.70.642+2.40.743+0.90.87251.7%151+1.30.830
Octagon+4.60.452-1.10.843+1.60.780+6.00.326+0.00.999+1.40.812+1.10.882-0.30.955-1.30.83050.4%133
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 counted1,247
Win rate49.2%
Widest swing-5.8 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
Rectangle53.2%+4.00.309141
Open52.4%+3.30.444124
Fence and open51.9%+2.70.68654 ·
Octagon51.7%+2.50.562118
Low fence50.4%+1.20.770123
Single wall50.0%+0.80.849116
Breakable full fence49.2%+0.10.984132
Half fence47.2%-2.00.644125
Breakable half fence46.1%-3.10.489115
Full fence43.4%-5.80.196113
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 4.10 on 9 df, p 0.905

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence43.4%113-5.90.358-3.80.553-2.70.679-7.00.279-6.60.314-8.50.303-9.10.163-9.80.119-8.30.205
Breakable full fence+5.90.35849.2%132+2.00.743+3.10.620-1.20.853-0.80.905-2.60.747-3.20.611-4.00.514-2.50.699
Half fence+3.80.553-2.00.74347.2%125+1.10.863-3.20.613-2.80.664-4.70.568-5.20.410-6.00.329-4.50.484
Breakable half fence+2.70.679-3.10.620-1.10.86346.1%115-4.30.505-3.90.552-5.80.484-6.30.328-7.10.258-5.60.392
Low fence+7.00.279+1.20.853+3.20.613+4.30.50550.4%123+0.40.950-1.40.859-2.00.752-2.80.651-1.30.841
Single wall+6.60.314+0.80.905+2.80.664+3.90.552-0.40.95050.0%116-1.90.822-2.40.708-3.20.610-1.70.795
Fence and open+8.50.303+2.60.747+4.70.568+5.80.484+1.40.859+1.90.82251.9%54-0.60.944-1.30.867+0.20.985
Open+9.10.163+3.20.611+5.20.410+6.30.328+2.00.752+2.40.708+0.60.94452.4%124-0.80.900+0.70.910
Rectangle+9.80.119+4.00.514+6.00.329+7.10.258+2.80.651+3.20.610+1.30.867+0.80.90053.2%141+1.50.810
Octagon+8.30.205+2.50.699+4.50.484+5.60.392+1.30.841+1.70.795-0.20.985-0.70.910-1.50.81051.7%118
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 counted205
Win rate47.3%
Widest swing-17.3 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
Full fence62.5%+15.20.20516 ·
Breakable full fence61.3%+14.00.09131 ·
Half fence54.5%+7.20.36433 ·
Low fence50.0%+2.70.84812 ·
Single wall44.0%-3.30.72325 ·
Fence and open40.0%-7.30.55515 ·
Octagon40.0%-7.30.55515 ·
Open37.5%-9.80.41316 ·
Breakable half fence33.3%-14.00.21318 ·
Rectangle30.0%-17.30.26110 ·
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 8.61 on 9 df, p 0.474

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence62.5%16+1.20.936+8.00.598+29.20.089+12.50.508+18.50.248+22.50.210+25.00.157+32.50.107+22.50.210
Breakable full fence-1.20.93661.3%31+6.70.585+28.00.059+11.30.501+17.30.197+21.30.174+23.80.121+31.30.084+21.30.174
Half fence-8.00.598-6.70.58554.5%33+21.20.147+4.50.787+10.60.426+14.60.350+17.10.263+24.60.174+14.60.350
Breakable half fence-29.20.089-28.00.059-21.20.14733.3%18-16.70.361-10.70.480-6.70.692-4.20.800+3.30.856-6.70.692
Low fence-12.50.508-11.30.501-4.50.787+16.70.36150.0%12+6.00.732+10.00.603+12.50.508+20.00.342+10.00.603
Single wall-18.50.248-17.30.197-10.60.426+10.70.480-6.00.73244.0%25+4.00.804+6.50.680+14.00.445+4.00.804
Fence and open-22.50.210-21.30.174-14.60.350+6.70.692-10.00.603-4.00.80440.0%15+2.50.886+10.00.610+0.01.000
Open-25.00.157-23.80.121-17.10.263+4.20.800-12.50.508-6.50.680-2.50.88637.5%16+7.50.696-2.50.886
Rectangle-32.50.107-31.30.084-24.60.174-3.30.856-20.00.342-14.00.445-10.00.610-7.50.69630.0%10-10.00.610
Octagon-22.50.210-21.30.174-14.60.350+6.70.692-10.00.603-4.00.804-0.01.000+2.50.886+10.00.61040.0%15
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.