VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lau vs Lei Fei

Lau vs Lei Fei in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lau wins 52.0% of 3,056 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 counted3,056
Win rate52.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lau's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Octagon56.0%+4.00.161284
Open55.6%+3.60.176322
Breakable full fence55.2%+3.20.232317
Low fence55.1%+3.00.271296
Rectangle52.7%+0.70.803294
Fence and open50.6%-1.40.696172
Breakable half fence50.5%-1.50.608273
Full fence49.0%-3.00.271294
Half fence48.4%-3.60.175314
Single wall46.6%-5.50.039322
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 12.80 on 9 df, p 0.172

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.0%294-6.20.124+0.60.888-1.60.709-6.10.139+2.40.552-1.60.739-6.60.101-3.70.364-7.00.092
Breakable full fence+6.20.12455.2%317+6.80.088+4.70.259+0.10.973+8.60.029+4.60.328-0.40.922+2.50.538-0.80.847
Half fence-0.60.888-6.80.08848.4%314-2.10.605-6.70.100+1.80.645-2.20.647-7.20.070-4.30.288-7.60.064
Breakable half fence+1.60.709-4.70.259+2.10.60550.5%273-4.50.281+4.00.335-0.00.995-5.00.219-2.20.605-5.40.199
Low fence+6.10.139-0.10.973+6.70.100+4.50.28155.1%296+8.50.035+4.50.348-0.50.896+2.40.568-0.90.824
Single wall-2.40.552-8.60.029-1.80.645-4.00.335-8.50.03546.6%322-4.00.397-9.00.022-6.10.128-9.40.021
Fence and open+1.60.739-4.60.328+2.20.647+0.00.995-4.50.348+4.00.39750.6%172-5.00.287-2.10.656-5.40.262
Open+6.60.101+0.40.922+7.20.070+5.00.219+0.50.896+9.00.022+5.00.28755.6%322+2.90.475-0.40.922
Rectangle+3.70.364-2.50.538+4.30.288+2.20.605-2.40.568+6.10.128+2.10.656-2.90.47552.7%294-3.30.431
Octagon+7.00.092+0.80.847+7.60.064+5.40.199+0.90.824+9.40.021+5.40.262+0.40.922+3.30.43156.0%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: 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 counted763
Win rate53.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-10.7 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lau's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Octagon68.0%+14.30.03650 ·
Breakable full fence65.6%+11.90.04664 ·
Breakable half fence57.7%+4.00.45978 ·
Open57.0%+3.30.464107
Half fence52.8%-1.00.84091
Fence and open51.1%-2.70.70547 ·
Single wall50.6%-3.20.53087
Low fence50.0%-3.70.51170 ·
Full fence48.9%-4.80.50145 ·
Rectangle43.0%-10.70.03486
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 13.97 on 9 df, p 0.123

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.9%45-16.70.081-3.90.672-8.80.345-1.10.907-1.70.854-2.20.835-8.10.359+5.90.522-19.10.059
Breakable full fence+16.70.08165.6%64+12.90.110+7.90.334+15.60.068+15.10.065+14.60.123+8.60.265+22.60.006-2.40.790
Half fence+3.90.672-12.90.11052.8%91-4.90.519+2.80.730+2.20.772+1.70.851-4.30.548+9.70.196-15.20.079
Breakable half fence+8.80.345-7.90.334+4.90.51957.7%78+7.70.348+7.10.360+6.60.470+0.70.926+14.70.061-10.30.242
Low fence+1.10.907-15.60.068-2.80.730-7.70.34850.0%70-0.60.943-1.10.910-7.00.360+7.00.385-18.00.049
Single wall+1.70.854-15.10.065-2.20.772-7.10.360+0.60.94350.6%87-0.50.957-6.40.371+7.50.320-17.40.047
Fence and open+2.20.835-14.60.123-1.70.851-6.60.470+1.10.910+0.50.95751.1%47-6.00.494+8.00.374-16.90.089
Open+8.10.359-8.60.265+4.30.548-0.70.926+7.00.360+6.40.371+6.00.49457.0%107+14.00.053-11.00.189
Rectangle-5.90.522-22.60.006-9.70.196-14.70.061-7.00.385-7.50.320-8.00.374-14.00.05343.0%86-25.00.005
Octagon+19.10.059+2.40.790+15.20.079+10.30.242+18.00.049+17.40.047+16.90.089+11.00.189+25.00.00568.0%50
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 counted1,727
Win rate51.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.2 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lau's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Rectangle57.5%+5.50.172141
Breakable full fence56.0%+4.10.231191
Low fence55.7%+3.80.308167
Open55.3%+3.30.373161
Fence and open54.0%+2.10.671100
Full fence51.3%-0.60.853191
Octagon50.3%-1.70.636181
Breakable half fence47.3%-4.70.237146
Half fence47.1%-4.80.180174
Single wall45.7%-6.20.071186
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.84 on 9 df, p 0.287

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.3%191-4.70.356+4.20.425+4.00.461-4.40.407+5.60.276-2.70.662-4.00.457-6.10.267+1.00.842
Breakable full fence+4.70.35656.0%191+8.90.089+8.80.111+0.30.950+10.30.045+2.00.742+0.70.889-1.40.796+5.70.267
Half fence-4.20.425-8.90.08947.1%174-0.10.981-8.60.114+1.40.786-6.90.273-8.20.136-10.30.068-3.10.553
Breakable half fence-4.00.461-8.80.111+0.10.98147.3%146-8.40.137+1.60.777-6.70.299-8.00.160-10.20.084-3.00.588
Low fence+4.40.407-0.30.950+8.60.114+8.40.13755.7%167+10.00.061+1.70.788+0.40.941-1.80.756+5.40.312
Single wall-5.60.276-10.30.045-1.40.786-1.60.777-10.00.06145.7%186-8.30.180-9.60.075-11.80.035-4.60.380
Fence and open+2.70.662-2.00.742+6.90.273+6.70.299-1.70.788+8.30.18054.0%100-1.30.840-3.50.595+3.70.550
Open+4.00.457-0.70.889+8.20.136+8.00.160-0.40.941+9.60.075+1.30.84055.3%161-2.20.705+5.00.355
Rectangle+6.10.267+1.40.796+10.30.068+10.20.084+1.80.756+11.80.035+3.50.595+2.20.70557.5%141+7.20.201
Octagon-1.00.842-5.70.267+3.10.553+3.00.588-5.40.312+4.60.380-3.70.550-5.00.355-7.20.20150.3%181
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 counted566
Win rate50.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lau's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Octagon64.2%+14.20.03053 ·
Low fence59.3%+9.30.13059 ·
Rectangle55.2%+5.20.36267 ·
Open53.7%+3.70.56754 ·
Breakable half fence49.0%-1.00.88149 ·
Half fence44.9%-5.10.45549 ·
Single wall42.9%-7.10.29549 ·
Breakable full fence41.9%-8.10.17862 ·
Full fence41.4%-8.60.16658 ·
Fence and open36.0%-14.00.15225 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 14.13 on 9 df, p 0.118

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence41.4%58-0.60.951-3.50.714-7.60.431-17.90.052-1.50.877+5.40.646-12.30.192-13.80.123-22.80.016
Breakable full fence+0.60.95141.9%62-3.00.754-7.00.459-17.40.056-0.90.922+5.90.609-11.80.205-13.30.131-22.20.017
Half fence+3.50.714+3.00.75444.9%49-4.10.686-14.40.135+2.00.839+8.90.463-8.80.372-10.30.272-19.20.051
Breakable half fence+7.60.431+7.00.459+4.10.68649.0%49-10.30.282+6.10.543+13.00.288-4.70.632-6.20.506-15.20.122
Low fence+17.90.052+17.40.056+14.40.135+10.30.28259.3%59+16.50.088+23.30.050+5.60.547+4.10.643-4.80.600
Single wall+1.50.877+0.90.922-2.00.839-6.10.543-16.50.08842.9%49+6.90.570-10.80.271-12.40.188-21.30.031
Fence and open-5.40.646-5.90.609-8.90.463-13.00.288-23.30.050-6.90.57036.0%25-17.70.143-19.20.101-28.10.020
Open+12.30.192+11.80.205+8.80.372+4.70.632-5.60.547+10.80.271+17.70.14353.7%54-1.50.867-10.40.272
Rectangle+13.80.123+13.30.131+10.30.272+6.20.506-4.10.643+12.40.188+19.20.101+1.50.86755.2%67-8.90.323
Octagon+22.80.016+22.20.017+19.20.051+15.20.122+4.80.600+21.30.031+28.10.020+10.40.272+8.90.32364.2%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

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.