VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lau vs Lion

Lau vs Lion in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lau wins 50.9% of 4,910 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 counted4,910
Win rate50.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.5 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
Fence and open57.3%+6.50.050218
Octagon54.3%+3.40.119466
Full fence52.8%+1.90.380466
Single wall51.4%+0.50.819481
Breakable half fence51.2%+0.30.890475
Rectangle50.8%-0.10.978502
Half fence50.5%-0.40.846541
Low fence49.9%-1.00.645525
Breakable full fence48.1%-2.70.170565
Open46.1%-4.80.035449
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 12.58 on 9 df, p 0.183

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.8%466+4.70.137+2.30.461+1.60.616+2.90.364+1.40.658-4.50.266+6.70.043+2.00.535-1.50.646
Breakable full fence-4.70.13748.1%565-2.30.440-3.00.332-1.80.561-3.20.301-9.20.021+2.00.518-2.70.387-6.20.049
Half fence-2.30.461+2.30.44050.5%541-0.70.825+0.60.856-0.90.777-6.90.086+4.40.172-0.30.914-3.80.225
Breakable half fence-1.60.616+3.00.332+0.70.82551.2%475+1.30.692-0.20.952-6.20.130+5.10.124+0.40.910-3.10.336
Low fence-2.90.364+1.80.561-0.60.856-1.30.69249.9%525-1.40.647-7.40.065+3.80.236-0.90.775-4.40.168
Single wall-1.40.658+3.20.301+0.90.777+0.20.952+1.40.64751.4%481-6.00.142+5.20.110+0.60.862-2.90.365
Fence and open+4.50.266+9.20.021+6.90.086+6.20.130+7.40.065+6.00.14257.3%218+11.20.006+6.50.106+3.00.455
Open-6.70.043-2.00.518-4.40.172-5.10.124-3.80.236-5.20.110-11.20.00646.1%449-4.70.148-8.20.013
Rectangle-2.00.535+2.70.387+0.30.914-0.40.910+0.90.775-0.60.862-6.50.106+4.70.14850.8%502-3.50.277
Octagon+1.50.646+6.20.049+3.80.225+3.10.336+4.40.168+2.90.365-3.00.455+8.20.013+3.50.27754.3%466
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 counted1,368
Win rate48.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.6 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
Fence and open56.9%+8.40.16665 ·
Single wall55.1%+6.60.104136
Octagon50.8%+2.30.596124
Full fence50.0%+1.50.756104
Breakable full fence49.3%+0.80.836150
Low fence49.3%+0.80.852140
Rectangle47.8%-0.80.850134
Half fence44.7%-3.80.285170
Open44.7%-3.90.333141
Breakable half fence43.1%-5.40.168146
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 8.19 on 9 df, p 0.515

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.0%104+0.70.917+5.30.394+6.80.284+0.70.912-5.20.429-6.90.381+5.30.410+2.20.732-0.80.903
Breakable full fence-0.70.91749.3%150+4.60.408+6.20.286+0.00.994-5.80.326-7.60.306+4.70.427+1.60.791-1.50.808
Half fence-5.30.394-4.60.40844.7%170+1.60.781-4.60.421-10.40.069-12.20.094+0.00.996-3.00.596-6.10.301
Breakable half fence-6.80.284-6.20.286-1.60.78143.1%146-6.10.298-12.00.044-13.80.064-1.50.794-4.60.439-7.70.209
Low fence-0.70.912-0.00.994+4.60.421+6.10.29849.3%140-5.90.330-7.60.309+4.60.439+1.50.801-1.50.805
Single wall+5.20.429+5.80.326+10.40.069+12.00.044+5.90.33055.1%136-1.80.813+10.50.082+7.40.225+4.30.484
Fence and open+6.90.381+7.60.306+12.20.094+13.80.064+7.60.309+1.80.81356.9%65+12.20.102+9.20.225+6.10.424
Open-5.30.410-4.70.427-0.00.996+1.50.794-4.60.439-10.50.082-12.20.10244.7%141-3.10.609-6.10.319
Rectangle-2.20.732-1.60.791+3.00.596+4.60.439-1.50.801-7.40.225-9.20.225+3.10.60947.8%134-3.00.625
Octagon+0.80.903+1.50.808+6.10.301+7.70.209+1.50.805-4.30.484-6.10.424+6.10.319+3.00.62550.8%124
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 counted2,314
Win rate50.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches8.5 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
Fence and open58.6%+8.50.08499
Breakable half fence54.3%+4.20.202210
Low fence52.2%+2.10.482253
Full fence51.6%+1.50.616256
Rectangle51.0%+0.90.756243
Octagon50.5%+0.40.908218
Half fence48.9%-1.10.710235
Open46.4%-3.70.280192
Breakable full fence45.2%-4.90.074290
Single wall45.2%-4.90.127217
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 11.15 on 9 df, p 0.265

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.6%256+6.40.136+2.60.561-2.70.558-0.60.890+6.40.165-7.00.234+5.20.275+0.50.905+1.10.811
Breakable full fence-6.40.13645.2%290-3.80.390-9.10.044-7.00.103+0.00.998-13.40.021-1.20.799-5.90.178-5.30.238
Half fence-2.60.561+3.80.39048.9%235-5.30.260-3.20.475+3.80.422-9.70.107+2.60.595-2.10.647-1.50.746
Breakable half fence+2.70.558+9.10.044+5.30.26054.3%210+2.10.650+9.10.059-4.30.478+7.90.112+3.30.489+3.80.428
Low fence+0.60.890+7.00.103+3.20.475-2.10.65052.2%253+7.00.129-6.40.278+5.80.224+1.10.799+1.70.710
Single wall-6.40.165-0.00.998-3.80.422-9.10.059-7.00.12945.2%217-13.40.027-1.20.809-5.90.209-5.30.269
Fence and open+7.00.234+13.40.021+9.70.107+4.30.478+6.40.278+13.40.02758.6%99+12.20.048+7.60.204+8.10.179
Open-5.20.275+1.20.799-2.60.595-7.90.112-5.80.224+1.20.809-12.20.04846.4%192-4.70.333-4.10.407
Rectangle-0.50.905+5.90.178+2.10.647-3.30.489-1.10.799+5.90.209-7.60.204+4.70.33351.0%243+0.60.903
Octagon-1.10.811+5.30.238+1.50.746-3.80.428-1.70.710+5.30.269-8.10.179+4.10.407-0.60.90350.5%218
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 counted1,228
Win rate54.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches9.6 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
Octagon64.5%+9.60.023124
Half fence60.3%+5.40.179136
Full fence58.5%+3.60.435106
Single wall57.8%+2.90.482128
Fence and open55.6%+0.70.91954 ·
Breakable half fence55.5%+0.60.894119
Breakable full fence53.6%-1.30.760125
Rectangle53.6%-1.30.760125
Open47.4%-7.50.089116
Low fence46.2%-8.70.034132
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: 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 14.02 on 9 df, p 0.122

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence58.5%106+4.90.456-1.80.777+3.00.647+12.30.060+0.70.917+2.90.723+11.10.099+4.90.456-6.00.349
Breakable full fence-4.90.45653.6%125-6.70.275-1.90.770+7.40.236-4.20.500-2.00.810+6.20.337+0.01.000-10.90.080
Half fence+1.80.777+6.70.27560.3%136+4.80.435+14.10.021+2.50.682+4.70.549+12.90.041+6.70.275-4.20.483
Breakable half fence-3.00.647+1.90.770-4.80.43555.5%119+9.20.143-2.40.710-0.10.991+8.10.217+1.90.770-9.10.150
Low fence-12.30.060-7.40.236-14.10.021-9.20.14346.2%132-11.60.061-9.30.247-1.20.850-7.40.236-18.30.003
Single wall-0.70.917+4.20.500-2.50.682+2.40.710+11.60.06157.8%128+2.20.779+10.40.104+4.20.500-6.70.275
Fence and open-2.90.723+2.00.810-4.70.549+0.10.991+9.30.247-2.20.77955.6%54+8.20.323+2.00.810-9.00.258
Open-11.10.099-6.20.337-12.90.041-8.10.217+1.20.850-10.40.104-8.20.32347.4%116-6.20.337-17.10.008
Rectangle-4.90.456-0.01.000-6.70.275-1.90.770+7.40.236-4.20.500-2.00.810+6.20.33753.6%125-10.90.080
Octagon+6.00.349+10.90.080+4.20.483+9.10.150+18.30.003+6.70.275+9.00.258+17.10.008+10.90.08064.5%124
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.