VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Taka

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted500
Win rate47.2%
Widest swing-21.2 pts
Survive correction1
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
Open57.8%+10.60.06964 ·
Single wall53.0%+5.80.30866 ·
Rectangle52.2%+5.00.47846 ·
Breakable full fence51.2%+4.00.58643 ·
Octagon50.9%+3.70.56453 ·
Full fence49.2%+2.00.72565 ·
Half fence40.6%-6.60.44132 ·
Low fence36.1%-11.10.16736 ·
Fence and open30.0%-17.20.11620 ·
Breakable half fence26.0%-21.20.00250 ·
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 18.63 on 9 df, p 0.029

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.2%65-1.90.844+8.60.424+23.20.011+13.10.204-3.80.664+19.20.130-8.60.329-2.90.760-1.70.853
Breakable full fence+1.90.84451.2%43+10.50.366+25.20.013+15.10.180-1.90.849+21.20.116-6.70.498-1.00.924+0.20.983
Half fence-8.60.424-10.50.36640.6%32+14.60.165+4.50.702-12.40.249+10.60.439-17.20.112-11.60.315-10.30.356
Breakable half fence-23.20.011-25.20.013-14.60.16526.0%50-10.10.314-27.00.003-4.00.734-31.8<0.001-26.20.008-24.90.009
Low fence-13.10.204-15.10.180-4.50.702+10.10.31436.1%36-16.90.102+6.10.644-21.70.037-16.10.147-14.80.167
Single wall+3.80.664+1.90.849+12.40.249+27.00.003+16.90.10253.0%66+23.00.071-4.80.583+0.90.929+2.10.821
Fence and open-19.20.130-21.20.116-10.60.439+4.00.734-6.10.644-23.00.07130.0%20-27.80.030-22.20.096-20.90.109
Open+8.60.329+6.70.498+17.20.112+31.8<0.001+21.70.037+4.80.583+27.80.03057.8%64+5.60.557+6.90.457
Rectangle+2.90.760+1.00.924+11.60.315+26.20.008+16.10.147-0.90.929+22.20.096-5.60.55752.2%46+1.20.903
Octagon+1.70.853-0.20.983+10.30.356+24.90.009+14.80.167-2.10.821+20.90.109-6.90.457-1.20.90350.9%53
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 counted409
Win rate49.9%
Widest swing-24.9 pts
Survive correction1
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
Rectangle59.5%+9.60.22237 ·
Octagon59.0%+9.10.23239 ·
Open58.0%+8.10.22050 ·
Full fence57.7%+7.80.22852 ·
Single wall53.3%+3.50.56260 ·
Breakable full fence51.5%+1.60.84433 ·
Half fence46.1%-3.70.69526 ·
Low fence32.1%-17.70.05228 ·
Fence and open31.6%-18.30.10219 ·
Breakable half fence25.0%-24.9<0.00140 ·
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 21.65 on 9 df, p 0.010

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence57.7%52+6.20.577+11.50.335+32.70.002+25.60.029+4.40.644+26.10.051-0.30.975-1.80.868-1.30.902
Breakable full fence-6.20.57751.5%33+5.40.683+26.50.020+19.40.127-1.80.867+19.90.163-6.50.561-7.90.504-7.50.526
Half fence-11.50.335-5.40.68346.1%26+21.10.075+14.00.291-7.20.541+14.60.324-11.80.326-13.30.297-12.80.310
Breakable half fence-32.70.002-26.50.020-21.10.07525.0%40-7.10.518-28.30.005-6.60.595-33.00.002-34.50.002-34.00.002
Low fence-25.60.029-19.40.127-14.00.291+7.10.51832.1%28-21.20.063+0.60.968-25.90.028-27.30.029-26.80.030
Single wall-4.40.644+1.80.867+7.20.541+28.30.005+21.20.06353.3%60+21.80.098-4.70.624-6.10.555-5.60.581
Fence and open-26.10.051-19.90.163-14.60.324+6.60.595-0.60.968-21.80.09831.6%19-26.40.050-27.90.048-27.40.050
Open+0.30.975+6.50.561+11.80.326+33.00.002+25.90.028+4.70.624+26.40.05058.0%50-1.50.891-1.00.926
Rectangle+1.80.868+7.90.504+13.30.297+34.50.002+27.30.029+6.10.555+27.90.048+1.50.89159.5%37+0.50.966
Octagon+1.30.902+7.50.526+12.80.310+34.00.002+26.80.030+5.60.581+27.40.050+1.00.926-0.50.96659.0%39
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 counted91
Win rate35.2%
Widest swing-35.2 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
Open57.1%+22.00.06114 ·
Breakable full fence50.0%+14.80.29810 ·
Low fence50.0%+14.80.3578 ·
Single wall50.0%+14.80.4316 ·
Breakable half fence30.0%-5.20.71710 ·
Octagon28.6%-6.60.57414 ·
Rectangle22.2%-12.90.3929 ·
Half fence16.7%-18.50.3266 ·
Full fence15.4%-19.80.10713 ·
Fence and open0.0%-35.20.4591 ·
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 10.00 on 9 df, p 0.350

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence15.4%13-34.60.074-1.30.943-14.60.400-34.60.088-34.60.111+15.40.672-41.80.025-6.80.683-13.20.410
Breakable full fence+34.60.07450.0%10+33.30.182+20.00.361+0.01.000+0.01.000+50.00.338-7.10.729+27.80.210+21.40.285
Half fence+1.30.943-33.30.18216.7%6-13.30.551-33.30.198-33.30.221+16.70.659-40.50.095-5.50.792-11.90.573
Breakable half fence+14.60.400-20.00.361+13.30.55130.0%10-20.00.387-20.00.424+30.00.521-27.10.188+7.80.701+1.40.939
Low fence+34.60.088-0.01.000+33.30.198+20.00.38750.0%8+0.01.000+50.00.343-7.10.746+27.80.232+21.40.315
Single wall+34.60.111-0.01.000+33.30.221+20.00.424-0.01.00050.0%6+50.00.350-7.10.769+27.80.264+21.40.357
Fence and open-15.40.672-50.00.338-16.70.659-30.00.521-50.00.343-50.00.3500.0%1-57.10.268-22.20.598-28.60.533
Open+41.80.025+7.10.729+40.50.095+27.10.188+7.10.746+7.10.769+57.10.26857.1%14+34.90.099+28.60.127
Rectangle+6.80.683-27.80.210+5.50.792-7.80.701-27.80.232-27.80.264+22.20.598-34.90.09922.2%9-6.30.735
Octagon+13.20.410-21.40.285+11.90.573-1.40.939-21.40.315-21.40.357+28.60.533-28.60.127+6.30.73528.6%14
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.