VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Wolf

El Blaze vs Wolf in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 51.8% of 4,482 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 counted4,482
Win rate51.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.4 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 full fence54.6%+2.80.235401
Half fence54.6%+2.80.198467
Breakable half fence54.0%+2.20.330456
Full fence53.9%+2.10.350434
Single wall52.8%+1.00.654426
Fence and open51.8%-0.00.996226
Rectangle51.7%-0.00.983489
Open49.8%-2.00.346500
Low fence49.2%-2.60.254439
Octagon48.4%-3.40.136428
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 8.44 on 9 df, p 0.491

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.9%434-0.70.840-0.70.836-0.00.993+4.70.163+1.10.746+2.10.600+4.10.209+2.20.508+5.60.103
Breakable full fence+0.70.84054.6%401+0.00.998+0.70.845+5.40.117+1.80.605+2.80.493+4.80.151+2.90.392+6.20.072
Half fence+0.70.836-0.00.99854.6%467+0.70.841+5.40.104+1.80.593+2.80.483+4.80.135+2.90.375+6.20.062
Breakable half fence+0.00.993-0.70.845-0.70.84154.0%456+4.80.156+1.10.737+2.20.592+4.20.200+2.20.497+5.60.097
Low fence-4.70.163-5.40.117-5.40.104-4.80.15649.2%439-3.60.288-2.60.531-0.60.855-2.50.441+0.80.805
Single wall-1.10.746-1.80.605-1.80.593-1.10.737+3.60.28852.8%426+1.10.799+3.00.360+1.10.745+4.50.193
Fence and open-2.10.600-2.80.493-2.80.483-2.20.592+2.60.531-1.10.79951.8%226+2.00.623+0.00.994+3.40.407
Open-4.10.209-4.80.151-4.80.135-4.20.200+0.60.855-3.00.360-2.00.62349.8%500-1.90.542+1.40.663
Rectangle-2.20.508-2.90.392-2.90.375-2.20.497+2.50.441-1.10.745-0.00.994+1.90.54251.7%489+3.40.308
Octagon-5.60.103-6.20.072-6.20.062-5.60.097-0.80.805-4.50.193-3.40.407-1.40.663-3.40.30848.4%428
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 counted2,503
Win rate50.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.4 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 wall55.1%+4.60.140234
Half fence54.1%+3.50.208283
Breakable half fence53.4%+2.90.339249
Rectangle52.5%+2.00.486280
Breakable full fence51.8%+1.20.720199
Low fence50.8%+0.20.939262
Full fence50.4%-0.10.963250
Fence and open45.7%-4.80.263129
Octagon45.6%-4.90.130217
Open45.1%-5.40.056277
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 11.27 on 9 df, p 0.258

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.4%250-1.40.775-3.70.398-3.00.501-0.40.934-4.70.298+4.70.389+5.30.226-2.10.629+4.80.303
Breakable full fence+1.40.77551.8%199-2.30.618-1.60.727+1.00.832-3.40.484+6.00.287+6.60.153-0.70.873+6.10.211
Half fence+3.70.398+2.30.61854.1%283+0.70.881+3.30.441-1.10.809+8.30.117+8.90.034+1.60.710+8.40.061
Breakable half fence+3.00.501+1.60.727-0.70.88153.4%249+2.60.549-1.70.705+7.70.157+8.30.058+0.90.834+7.80.093
Low fence+0.40.934-1.00.832-3.30.441-2.60.54950.8%262-4.40.331+5.00.350+5.60.190-1.70.686+5.10.262
Single wall+4.70.298+3.40.484+1.10.809+1.70.705+4.40.33155.1%234+9.40.087+10.00.024+2.60.552+9.50.044
Fence and open-4.70.389-6.00.287-8.30.117-7.70.157-5.00.350-9.40.08745.7%129+0.60.908-6.80.204+0.10.984
Open-5.30.226-6.60.153-8.90.034-8.30.058-5.60.190-10.00.024-0.60.90845.1%277-7.40.082-0.50.913
Rectangle+2.10.629+0.70.873-1.60.710-0.90.834+1.70.686-2.60.552+6.80.204+7.40.08252.5%280+6.90.128
Octagon-4.80.303-6.10.211-8.40.061-7.80.093-5.10.262-9.50.044-0.10.984+0.50.913-6.90.12845.6%217
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 counted1,758
Win rate52.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches8.6 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
Fence and open61.2%+8.60.10385
Full fence58.3%+5.70.125163
Breakable full fence56.2%+3.60.308178
Breakable half fence54.8%+2.30.500197
Open54.4%+1.80.587193
Half fence52.2%-0.30.931157
Octagon50.8%-1.80.599193
Rectangle50.0%-2.60.473176
Single wall50.0%-2.60.482170
Low fence45.9%-6.70.078159
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 10.12 on 9 df, p 0.341

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence58.3%163+2.10.695+6.00.276+3.50.510+12.40.026+8.30.130-2.90.660+3.90.462+8.30.126+7.50.157
Breakable full fence-2.10.69556.2%178+4.00.469+1.40.792+10.30.060+6.20.248-5.00.443+1.80.731+6.20.244+5.40.297
Half fence-6.00.276-4.00.46952.2%157-2.60.627+6.30.261+2.20.687-8.90.181-2.20.685+2.20.685+1.40.787
Breakable half fence-3.50.510-1.40.792+2.60.62754.8%197+8.90.095+4.80.356-6.40.323+0.40.934+4.80.352+4.00.424
Low fence-12.40.026-10.30.060-6.30.261-8.90.09545.9%159-4.10.458-15.30.023-8.50.113-4.10.455-4.90.363
Single wall-8.30.130-6.20.248-2.20.687-4.80.356+4.10.45850.0%170-11.20.092-4.40.402+0.01.000-0.80.883
Fence and open+2.90.660+5.00.443+8.90.181+6.40.323+15.30.023+11.20.09261.2%85+6.80.294+11.20.090+10.40.109
Open-3.90.462-1.80.731+2.20.685-0.40.934+8.50.113+4.40.402-6.80.29454.4%193+4.40.398+3.60.476
Rectangle-8.30.126-6.20.244-2.20.685-4.80.352+4.10.455-0.01.000-11.20.090-4.40.39850.0%176-0.80.881
Octagon-7.50.157-5.40.297-1.40.787-4.00.424+4.90.363+0.80.883-10.40.109-3.60.476+0.80.88150.8%193
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 counted221
Win rate59.7%
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
Half fence74.1%+14.30.10527 ·
Breakable full fence66.7%+6.90.46324 ·
Open63.3%+3.60.66530 ·
Full fence61.9%+2.20.83121 ·
Low fence55.6%-4.20.70618 ·
Octagon55.6%-4.20.70618 ·
Rectangle54.5%-5.20.51033 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%-9.70.52110 ·
Fence and open50.0%-9.70.48012 ·
Single wall50.0%-9.70.32722 ·
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 5.34 on 9 df, p 0.803

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence61.9%21-4.80.739-12.20.367+11.90.530+6.30.688+11.90.432+11.90.506-1.40.917+7.30.594+6.30.688
Breakable full fence+4.80.73966.7%24-7.40.562+16.70.362+11.10.463+16.70.251+16.70.334+3.30.799+12.10.357+11.10.463
Half fence+12.20.367+7.40.56274.1%27+24.10.165+18.50.197+24.10.082+24.10.141+10.70.384+19.50.118+18.50.197
Breakable half fence-11.90.530-16.70.362-24.10.16550.0%10-5.60.778+0.01.000+0.01.000-13.30.456-4.50.801-5.60.778
Low fence-6.30.688-11.10.463-18.50.197+5.60.77855.6%18+5.60.726+5.60.765-7.80.594+1.00.945+0.01.000
Single wall-11.90.432-16.70.251-24.10.082-0.01.000-5.60.72650.0%22+0.01.000-13.30.336-4.50.741-5.60.726
Fence and open-11.90.506-16.70.334-24.10.141-0.01.000-5.60.765-0.01.00050.0%12-13.30.426-4.50.787-5.60.765
Open+1.40.917-3.30.799-10.70.384+13.30.456+7.80.594+13.30.336+13.30.42663.3%30+8.80.479+7.80.594
Rectangle-7.30.594-12.10.357-19.50.118+4.50.801-1.00.945+4.50.741+4.50.787-8.80.47954.5%33-1.00.945
Octagon-6.30.688-11.10.463-18.50.197+5.60.778-0.01.000+5.60.726+5.60.765-7.80.594+1.00.94555.6%18
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.