VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jean vs Lau

Jean vs Lau in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jean wins 47.5% of 4,171 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 counted4,171
Win rate47.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.1 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jean's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence53.6%+6.10.005459
Low fence52.3%+4.80.029455
Open49.5%+2.00.387406
Half fence47.4%-0.10.973422
Fence and open46.6%-0.90.804191
Single wall46.4%-1.10.626425
Rectangle45.5%-2.00.410387
Octagon45.2%-2.20.319440
Breakable half fence43.6%-3.90.117365
Breakable full fence42.9%-4.60.049415
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

Jean's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 19.35 on 9 df, p 0.022

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.6%459+10.70.002+6.20.066+10.00.004+1.30.697+7.20.031+7.00.104+4.10.230+8.10.019+8.40.012
Breakable full fence-10.70.00242.9%415-4.50.191-0.70.850-9.40.005-3.50.313-3.70.393-6.60.057-2.60.461-2.30.492
Half fence-6.20.066+4.50.19147.4%422+3.80.282-4.90.146+1.00.762+0.80.855-2.10.543+1.90.585+2.20.524
Breakable half fence-10.00.004+0.70.850-3.80.28243.6%365-8.80.013-2.80.432-3.00.494-6.00.098-1.90.597-1.70.636
Low fence-1.30.697+9.40.005+4.90.146+8.80.01352.3%455+6.00.077+5.70.185+2.80.412+6.80.048+7.10.034
Single wall-7.20.031+3.50.313-1.00.762+2.80.432-6.00.07746.4%425-0.20.955-3.20.363+0.90.803+1.10.740
Fence and open-7.00.104+3.70.393-0.80.855+3.00.494-5.70.185+0.20.95546.6%191-2.90.507+1.10.800+1.40.751
Open-4.10.230+6.60.057+2.10.543+6.00.098-2.80.412+3.20.363+2.90.50749.5%406+4.00.256+4.30.213
Rectangle-8.10.019+2.60.461-1.90.585+1.90.597-6.80.048-0.90.803-1.10.800-4.00.25645.5%387+0.20.942
Octagon-8.40.012+2.30.492-2.20.524+1.70.636-7.10.034-1.10.740-1.40.751-4.30.213-0.20.94245.2%440
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 counted1,166
Win rate51.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.8 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jean's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence57.9%+6.80.097133
Low fence55.3%+4.20.268150
Open54.8%+3.70.430104
Fence and open51.6%+0.50.94164 ·
Single wall50.5%-0.70.886109
Rectangle48.3%-2.80.519116
Half fence47.7%-3.40.455109
Breakable full fence47.3%-3.80.397110
Breakable half fence47.0%-4.10.43583
Octagon46.9%-4.20.309128
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

Jean's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.12 on 9 df, p 0.625

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence57.9%133+10.60.099+10.20.114+10.90.118+2.60.664+7.40.248+6.30.402+3.10.634+9.60.129+11.00.075
Breakable full fence-10.60.09947.3%110-0.40.949+0.30.969-8.10.199-3.20.637-4.30.585-7.50.270-1.00.880+0.40.951
Half fence-10.20.114+0.40.94947.7%109+0.70.921-7.60.225-2.80.684-3.90.624-7.10.300-0.60.932+0.80.898
Breakable half fence-10.90.118-0.30.969-0.70.92147.0%83-8.30.222-3.50.634-4.60.582-7.80.288-1.30.858+0.10.987
Low fence-2.60.664+8.10.199+7.60.225+8.30.22255.3%150+4.90.438+3.80.612+0.50.934+7.00.253+8.40.160
Single wall-7.40.248+3.20.637+2.80.684+3.50.634-4.90.43850.5%109-1.10.888-4.30.525+2.20.743+3.60.582
Fence and open-6.30.402+4.30.585+3.90.624+4.60.582-3.80.612+1.10.88851.6%64-3.20.682+3.30.673+4.70.540
Open-3.10.634+7.50.270+7.10.300+7.80.288-0.50.934+4.30.525+3.20.68254.8%104+6.50.333+7.90.229
Rectangle-9.60.129+1.00.880+0.60.932+1.30.858-7.00.253-2.20.743-3.30.673-6.50.33348.3%116+1.40.827
Octagon-11.00.075-0.40.951-0.80.898-0.10.987-8.40.160-3.60.582-4.70.540-7.90.229-1.40.82746.9%128
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 counted2,663
Win rate47.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jean's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence52.9%+5.50.039308
Low fence51.9%+4.50.121270
Half fence49.6%+2.20.439268
Open48.5%+1.10.703266
Fence and open46.0%-1.40.756111
Single wall45.6%-1.80.531287
Octagon45.4%-2.00.482284
Rectangle44.8%-2.60.395239
Breakable half fence44.5%-2.90.356238
Breakable full fence42.6%-4.80.103265
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

Jean's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 11.32 on 9 df, p 0.254

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.9%308+10.30.014+3.30.430+8.40.052+1.10.797+7.30.076+7.00.207+4.40.290+8.20.059+7.50.068
Breakable full fence-10.30.01442.6%265-7.00.106-1.90.668-9.20.033-3.00.478-3.30.556-5.90.176-2.10.630-2.80.512
Half fence-3.30.430+7.00.10649.6%268+5.10.252-2.20.606+4.00.348+3.70.514+1.10.794+4.90.274+4.20.323
Breakable half fence-8.40.052+1.90.668-5.10.25244.5%238-7.30.100-1.10.800-1.40.805-4.00.374-0.20.959-0.90.840
Low fence-1.10.797+9.20.033+2.20.606+7.30.10051.9%270+6.20.143+5.90.295+3.40.437+7.10.111+6.40.130
Single wall-7.30.076+3.00.478-4.00.348+1.10.800-6.20.14345.6%287-0.30.957-2.90.502+0.90.841+0.20.958
Fence and open-7.00.207+3.30.556-3.70.514+1.40.805-5.90.295+0.30.95746.0%111-2.50.651+1.20.837+0.50.925
Open-4.40.290+5.90.176-1.10.794+4.00.374-3.40.437+2.90.502+2.50.65148.5%266+3.70.402+3.10.470
Rectangle-8.20.059+2.10.630-4.90.274+0.20.959-7.10.111-0.90.841-1.20.837-3.70.40244.8%239-0.70.881
Octagon-7.50.068+2.80.512-4.20.323+0.90.840-6.40.130-0.20.958-0.50.925-3.10.470+0.70.88145.4%284
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 counted342
Win rate35.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jean's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Low fence42.9%+7.20.34935 ·
Open41.7%+6.00.42736 ·
Rectangle40.6%+5.00.53932 ·
Single wall37.9%+2.30.79129 ·
Octagon35.7%+0.00.99628 ·
Full fence33.3%-2.30.83118 ·
Half fence33.3%-2.30.72545 ·
Breakable full fence32.5%-3.20.65640 ·
Breakable half fence31.8%-3.90.56744 ·
Fence and open31.2%-4.40.70516 ·
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

Jean's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 2.45 on 9 df, p 0.982

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence33.3%18+0.80.950+0.01.000+1.50.908-9.50.502-4.60.750+2.10.897-8.30.554-7.30.610-2.40.869
Breakable full fence-0.80.95032.5%40-0.80.935+0.70.947-10.40.355-5.40.640+1.20.928-9.20.408-8.10.476-3.20.783
Half fence-0.01.000+0.80.93533.3%45+1.50.879-9.50.383-4.60.686+2.10.879-8.30.440-7.30.512-2.40.835
Breakable half fence-1.50.908-0.70.947-1.50.87931.8%44-11.00.312-6.10.590+0.60.967-9.80.362-8.80.428-3.90.732
Low fence+9.50.502+10.40.355+9.50.383+11.00.31242.9%35+4.90.690+11.60.431+1.20.919+2.20.853+7.20.565
Single wall+4.60.750+5.40.640+4.60.686+6.10.590-4.90.69037.9%29+6.70.654-3.70.760-2.70.830+2.20.862
Fence and open-2.10.897-1.20.928-2.10.879-0.60.967-11.60.431-6.70.65431.2%16-10.40.476-9.40.527-4.50.764
Open+8.30.554+9.20.408+8.30.440+9.80.362-1.20.919+3.70.760+10.40.47641.7%36+1.10.931+6.00.628
Rectangle+7.30.610+8.10.476+7.30.512+8.80.428-2.20.853+2.70.830+9.40.527-1.10.93140.6%32+4.90.696
Octagon+2.40.869+3.20.783+2.40.835+3.90.732-7.20.565-2.20.862+4.50.764-6.00.628-4.90.69635.7%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.