VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jeffry vs Lau

Jeffry vs Lau in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jeffry wins 49.4% of 4,920 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 counted4,920
Win rate49.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.6 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence53.9%+4.60.040458
Octagon52.8%+3.40.086551
Fence and open52.8%+3.40.286235
Half fence49.1%-0.30.899501
Breakable half fence49.0%-0.40.844533
Low fence48.9%-0.40.842468
Rectangle47.7%-1.70.416516
Open47.5%-1.80.396490
Breakable full fence47.3%-2.10.333474
Single wall47.2%-2.20.327466
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.53 on 9 df, p 0.309

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.9%458+6.70.042+4.80.135+5.00.119+5.00.128+6.70.041+1.20.771+6.40.050+6.30.051+1.10.723
Breakable full fence-6.70.04247.3%474-1.80.565-1.70.588-1.70.607+0.10.988-5.50.167-0.30.927-0.40.896-5.50.076
Half fence-4.80.135+1.80.56549.1%501+0.10.966+0.20.958+1.90.556-3.70.354+1.60.625+1.40.649-3.70.229
Breakable half fence-5.00.119+1.70.588-0.10.96649.0%533+0.00.991+1.80.579-3.80.332+1.40.650+1.30.675-3.80.206
Low fence-5.00.128+1.70.607-0.20.958-0.00.99148.9%468+1.70.599-3.80.337+1.40.669+1.30.693-3.90.217
Single wall-6.70.041-0.10.988-1.90.556-1.80.579-1.70.59947.2%466-5.60.165-0.30.916-0.50.884-5.60.075
Fence and open-1.20.771+5.50.167+3.70.354+3.80.332+3.80.337+5.60.16552.8%235+5.20.189+5.10.196-0.00.990
Open-6.40.050+0.30.927-1.60.625-1.40.650-1.40.669+0.30.916-5.20.18947.5%490-0.10.969-5.30.090
Rectangle-6.30.051+0.40.896-1.40.649-1.30.675-1.30.693+0.50.884-5.10.196+0.10.96947.7%516-5.10.093
Octagon-1.10.723+5.50.076+3.70.229+3.80.206+3.90.217+5.60.075+0.00.990+5.30.090+5.10.09352.8%551
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 counted1,764
Win rate52.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-9.0 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence60.5%+8.30.024167
Fence and open59.0%+6.80.158100
Octagon57.7%+5.50.084215
Low fence54.4%+2.30.565147
Single wall54.3%+2.10.569164
Half fence52.6%+0.50.901173
Breakable half fence50.5%-1.60.634190
Breakable full fence48.5%-3.60.319171
Rectangle46.3%-5.90.076201
Open43.1%-9.00.016160
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 18.83 on 9 df, p 0.027

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence60.5%167+11.90.028+7.90.143+9.90.059+6.10.278+6.20.253+1.50.811+17.40.002+14.20.007+2.80.581
Breakable full fence-11.90.02848.5%171-4.10.451-2.00.706-5.90.295-5.70.294-10.50.096+5.40.323+2.30.662-9.10.074
Half fence-7.90.143+4.10.45152.6%173+2.10.693-1.80.745-1.70.759-6.40.306+9.50.084+6.30.222-5.10.318
Breakable half fence-9.90.059+2.00.706-2.10.69350.5%190-3.90.478-3.70.482-8.50.169+7.40.167+4.30.400-7.10.150
Low fence-6.10.278+5.90.295+1.80.745+3.90.47854.4%147+0.10.978-4.60.476+11.30.048+8.20.133-3.20.540
Single wall-6.20.253+5.70.294+1.70.759+3.70.482-0.10.97854.3%164-4.70.452+11.20.045+8.00.128-3.40.508
Fence and open-1.50.811+10.50.096+6.40.306+8.50.169+4.60.476+4.70.45259.0%100+15.90.013+12.70.037+1.30.824
Open-17.40.002-5.40.323-9.50.084-7.40.167-11.30.048-11.20.045-15.90.01343.1%160-3.10.551-14.60.005
Rectangle-14.20.007-2.30.662-6.30.222-4.30.400-8.20.133-8.00.128-12.70.037+3.10.55146.3%201-11.40.020
Octagon-2.80.581+9.10.074+5.10.318+7.10.150+3.20.540+3.40.508-1.30.824+14.60.005+11.40.02057.7%215
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 counted2,791
Win rate49.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.9 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Octagon52.4%+3.10.253294
Breakable half fence50.8%+1.60.556305
Open50.5%+1.30.643293
Full fence50.4%+1.10.694266
Fence and open50.0%+0.80.867114
Rectangle48.9%-0.30.904268
Breakable full fence48.5%-0.70.804268
Half fence47.8%-1.40.605297
Low fence47.2%-2.00.472288
Single wall45.4%-3.90.193260
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 4.14 on 9 df, p 0.902

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.4%266+1.90.666+2.60.543-0.40.916+3.20.458+5.00.252+0.40.946-0.10.974+1.50.730-2.00.635
Breakable full fence-1.90.66648.5%268+0.70.869-2.30.581+1.30.762+3.10.472-1.50.789-2.00.635-0.40.931-3.90.359
Half fence-2.60.543-0.70.86947.8%297-3.00.460+0.60.887+2.40.567-2.20.691-2.70.512-1.10.800-4.60.267
Breakable half fence+0.40.916+2.30.581+3.00.46050.8%305+3.60.381+5.40.198+0.80.881+0.30.940+1.90.643-1.60.702
Low fence-3.20.458-1.30.762-0.60.887-3.60.38147.2%288+1.80.667-2.80.615-3.30.428-1.70.696-5.20.213
Single wall-5.00.252-3.10.472-2.40.567-5.40.198-1.80.66745.4%260-4.60.410-5.10.228-3.50.421-7.00.100
Fence and open-0.40.946+1.50.789+2.20.691-0.80.881+2.80.615+4.60.41050.0%114-0.50.926+1.10.841-2.40.666
Open+0.10.974+2.00.635+2.70.512-0.30.940+3.30.428+5.10.228+0.50.92650.5%293+1.60.699-1.90.651
Rectangle-1.50.730+0.40.931+1.10.800-1.90.643+1.70.696+3.50.421-1.10.841-1.60.69948.9%268-3.50.407
Octagon+2.00.635+3.90.359+4.60.267+1.60.702+5.20.213+7.00.100+2.40.666+1.90.651+3.50.40752.4%294
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 counted365
Win rate37.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence48.0%+11.00.23725 ·
Rectangle46.8%+9.80.13547 ·
Open43.2%+6.20.40637 ·
Half fence41.9%+5.00.55131 ·
Low fence39.4%+2.40.76433 ·
Fence and open38.1%+1.10.91421 ·
Breakable full fence31.4%-5.60.47435 ·
Octagon30.9%-6.00.38942 ·
Single wall30.9%-6.00.38942 ·
Breakable half fence26.3%-10.70.15038 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.87 on 9 df, p 0.547

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.0%25+16.60.193+6.10.650+21.70.077+8.60.512+17.10.163+9.90.500+4.80.712+1.20.923+17.10.163
Breakable full fence-16.60.19331.4%35-10.50.376+5.10.630-8.00.492+0.50.964-6.70.610-11.80.301-15.40.160+0.50.964
Half fence-6.10.650+10.50.37641.9%31+15.60.171+2.50.836+11.00.333+3.80.782-1.30.914-4.90.672+11.00.333
Breakable half fence-21.70.077-5.10.630-15.60.17126.3%38-13.10.240-4.60.647-11.80.347-16.90.124-20.50.053-4.60.647
Low fence-8.60.512+8.00.492-2.50.836+13.10.24039.4%33+8.40.446+1.30.924-3.90.744-7.40.510+8.40.446
Single wall-17.10.163-0.50.964-11.00.333+4.60.647-8.40.44630.9%42-7.20.571-12.30.258-15.90.126+0.01.000
Fence and open-9.90.500+6.70.610-3.80.782+11.80.347-1.30.924+7.20.57138.1%21-5.10.702-8.70.504+7.20.571
Open-4.80.712+11.80.301+1.30.914+16.90.124+3.90.744+12.30.258+5.10.70243.2%37-3.60.744+12.30.258
Rectangle-1.20.923+15.40.160+4.90.672+20.50.053+7.40.510+15.90.126+8.70.504+3.60.74446.8%47+15.90.126
Octagon-17.10.163-0.50.964-11.00.333+4.60.647-8.40.446-0.01.000-7.20.571-12.30.258-15.90.12630.9%42
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.