VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lau vs Pai

Lau vs Pai in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lau wins 52.0% of 5,114 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 counted5,114
Win rate52.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.5 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
Rectangle54.9%+2.90.165521
Single wall53.4%+1.40.511498
Full fence53.3%+1.30.557469
Octagon52.8%+0.80.688549
Fence and open52.5%+0.50.874261
Breakable full fence52.4%+0.40.847563
Low fence51.1%-0.90.679520
Open50.1%-1.90.375487
Breakable half fence48.8%-3.20.116523
Half fence48.5%-3.50.110480
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 7.93 on 9 df, p 0.541

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.3%469+0.90.771+4.80.142+4.50.153+2.10.499-0.10.973+0.80.833+3.20.322-1.60.616+0.50.878
Breakable full fence-0.90.77152.4%563+3.90.214+3.60.231+1.20.682-1.00.741-0.10.980+2.30.458-2.50.410-0.40.887
Half fence-4.80.142-3.90.21448.5%480-0.20.946-2.60.409-4.90.128-4.00.304-1.60.627-6.30.044-4.30.171
Breakable half fence-4.50.153-3.60.231+0.20.94648.8%523-2.40.439-4.70.137-3.70.325-1.30.669-6.10.047-4.10.183
Low fence-2.10.499-1.20.682+2.60.409+2.40.43951.1%520-2.30.471-1.30.724+1.10.739-3.70.227-1.70.585
Single wall+0.10.973+1.00.741+4.90.128+4.70.137+2.30.47153.4%498+0.90.809+3.30.298-1.50.635+0.60.848
Fence and open-0.80.833+0.10.980+4.00.304+3.70.325+1.30.724-0.90.80952.5%261+2.40.534-2.40.525-0.30.929
Open-3.20.322-2.30.458+1.60.627+1.30.669-1.10.739-3.30.298-2.40.53450.1%487-4.80.128-2.70.382
Rectangle+1.60.616+2.50.410+6.30.044+6.10.047+3.70.227+1.50.635+2.40.525+4.80.12854.9%521+2.10.497
Octagon-0.50.878+0.40.887+4.30.171+4.10.183+1.70.585-0.60.848+0.30.929+2.70.382-2.10.49752.8%549
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 counted2,103
Win rate51.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.5 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 open56.1%+4.90.249130
Rectangle55.2%+3.90.227212
Breakable full fence54.7%+3.50.301201
Single wall54.0%+2.80.382224
Octagon53.3%+2.10.495240
Full fence49.5%-1.80.604194
Breakable half fence48.3%-2.90.411180
Low fence47.3%-4.00.211220
Open45.9%-5.40.103205
Half fence44.8%-6.50.060192
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 12.36 on 9 df, p 0.194

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.5%194-5.20.297+4.70.356+1.10.824+2.20.653-4.50.355-6.70.239+3.60.468-5.70.250-3.90.425
Breakable full fence+5.20.29754.7%201+9.90.049+6.40.213+7.50.127+0.70.884-1.40.799+8.90.074-0.50.925+1.40.770
Half fence-4.70.356-9.90.04944.8%192-3.50.494-2.50.614-9.20.061-11.40.045-1.10.832-10.40.037-8.50.078
Breakable half fence-1.10.824-6.40.213+3.50.49448.3%180+1.10.833-5.70.256-7.80.174+2.50.627-6.90.176-5.00.310
Low fence-2.20.653-7.50.127+2.50.614-1.10.83347.3%220-6.80.155-8.90.108+1.40.769-7.90.100-6.10.194
Single wall+4.50.355-0.70.884+9.20.061+5.70.256+6.80.15554.0%224-2.10.697+8.20.091-1.20.806+0.70.883
Fence and open+6.70.239+1.40.799+11.40.045+7.80.174+8.90.108+2.10.69756.1%130+10.30.066+1.00.862+2.80.603
Open-3.60.468-8.90.074+1.10.832-2.50.627-1.40.769-8.20.091-10.30.06645.9%205-9.30.057-7.50.116
Rectangle+5.70.250+0.50.925+10.40.037+6.90.176+7.90.100+1.20.806-1.00.862+9.30.05755.2%212+1.90.693
Octagon+3.90.425-1.40.770+8.50.078+5.00.310+6.10.194-0.70.883-2.80.603+7.50.116-1.90.69353.3%240
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 counted2,161
Win rate51.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.3 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
Low fence55.5%+4.30.181220
Half fence53.8%+2.60.406223
Rectangle53.4%+2.20.499204
Full fence52.8%+1.60.639199
Single wall51.7%+0.50.871203
Open51.2%-0.00.996215
Octagon50.0%-1.20.725202
Fence and open47.7%-3.50.50786
Breakable half fence47.5%-3.70.227242
Breakable full fence47.1%-4.10.146272
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 6.54 on 9 df, p 0.685

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.8%199+5.70.221-1.10.829+5.20.273-2.70.581+1.00.835+5.10.430+1.60.745-0.70.893+2.80.580
Breakable full fence-5.70.22147.1%272-6.80.135-0.50.917-8.40.064-4.70.314-0.60.921-4.10.368-6.40.169-2.90.526
Half fence+1.10.829+6.80.13553.8%223+6.30.175-1.60.728+2.10.666+6.10.333+2.60.579+0.40.937+3.80.432
Breakable half fence-5.20.273+0.50.917-6.30.17547.5%242-7.90.088-4.20.377-0.10.980-3.60.437-5.90.214-2.50.603
Low fence+2.70.581+8.40.064+1.60.728+7.90.08855.5%220+3.70.442+7.80.220+4.30.370+2.00.676+5.50.262
Single wall-1.00.835+4.70.314-2.10.666+4.20.377-3.70.44251.7%203+4.00.529+0.60.909-1.70.730+1.70.729
Fence and open-5.10.430+0.60.921-6.10.333+0.10.980-7.80.220-4.00.52947.7%86-3.50.585-5.80.370-2.30.718
Open-1.60.745+4.10.368-2.60.579+3.60.437-4.30.370-0.60.909+3.50.58551.2%215-2.30.642+1.20.812
Rectangle+0.70.893+6.40.169-0.40.937+5.90.214-2.00.676+1.70.730+5.80.370+2.30.64253.4%204+3.40.489
Octagon-2.80.580+2.90.526-3.80.432+2.50.603-5.50.262-1.70.729+2.30.718-1.20.812-3.40.48950.0%202
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 counted850
Win rate56.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.3 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
Full fence64.5%+8.50.11976 ·
Breakable full fence63.3%+7.30.13890
Open59.7%+3.70.52567 ·
Rectangle57.1%+1.10.801105
Octagon57.0%+1.00.822107
Single wall56.3%+0.30.95271 ·
Breakable half fence52.5%-3.50.447101
Fence and open51.1%-4.90.49745 ·
Low fence50.0%-6.00.25680
Half fence41.5%-14.50.01565 ·
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 12.25 on 9 df, p 0.199

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence64.5%76+1.10.879+22.90.006+12.00.110+14.50.068+8.10.313+13.40.148+4.80.557+7.30.320+7.50.310
Breakable full fence-1.10.87963.3%90+21.80.007+10.80.130+13.30.080+7.00.368+12.20.173+3.60.643+6.20.379+6.30.367
Half fence-22.90.006-21.80.00741.5%65-10.90.169-8.50.309-14.80.085-9.60.322-18.20.037-15.60.048-15.50.049
Breakable half fence-12.00.110-10.80.130+10.90.16952.5%101+2.50.741-3.90.617+1.40.879-7.20.356-4.70.501-4.50.511
Low fence-14.50.068-13.30.080+8.50.309-2.50.74150.0%80-6.30.436-1.10.905-9.70.239-7.10.334-7.00.341
Single wall-8.10.313-7.00.368+14.80.085+3.90.617+6.30.43656.3%71+5.20.582-3.40.689-0.80.916-0.70.929
Fence and open-13.40.148-12.20.173+9.60.322-1.40.879+1.10.905-5.20.58251.1%45-8.60.369-6.00.496-5.90.504
Open-4.80.557-3.60.643+18.20.037+7.20.356+9.70.239+3.40.689+8.60.36959.7%67+2.60.740+2.70.726
Rectangle-7.30.320-6.20.379+15.60.048+4.70.501+7.10.334+0.80.916+6.00.496-2.60.74057.1%105+0.10.984
Octagon-7.50.310-6.30.367+15.50.049+4.50.511+7.00.341+0.70.929+5.90.504-2.70.726-0.10.98457.0%107
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.