Virtua Fighter 5 REVO · v1.10 · Character Matchup Winrates
Lau vs Sarah
Matches counted2,313
Win rate50.7%
Widest swing-5.9 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23
Where it was fought
Lau's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere| Stage | Stage effect | Win % | Change | p | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low fence | 56.0% | +5.3 | 0.074 | 250 | |
| Fence and open | 55.4% | +4.7 | 0.250 | 139 | |
| Breakable full fence | 53.9% | +3.2 | 0.372 | 182 | |
| Rectangle | 52.7% | +2.1 | 0.467 | 275 | |
| Half fence | 50.4% | -0.3 | 0.929 | 248 | |
| Octagon | 49.1% | -1.6 | 0.622 | 214 | |
| Open | 48.9% | -1.8 | 0.574 | 227 | |
| Single wall | 48.7% | -2.0 | 0.527 | 224 | |
| Full fence | 47.9% | -2.8 | 0.367 | 238 | |
| Breakable half fence | 44.7% | -5.9 | 0.088 | 190 |
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
Stage against stage
Lau's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column'sAll ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.56 on 9 df, p 0.387
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 47.9%238 | -6.00.227 | -2.50.581 | +3.20.515 | -8.10.073 | -0.80.870 | -7.50.160 | -1.00.829 | -4.80.275 | -1.20.804 |
| Breakable full fence | +6.00.227 | 53.9%182 | +3.50.480 | +9.10.079 | -2.10.657 | +5.20.299 | -1.60.782 | +5.00.320 | +1.10.814 | +4.80.343 |
| Half fence | +2.50.581 | -3.50.480 | 50.4%248 | +5.70.239 | -5.60.211 | +1.70.705 | -5.00.346 | +1.50.743 | -2.30.595 | +1.30.774 |
| Breakable half fence | -3.20.515 | -9.10.079 | -5.70.239 | 44.7%190 | -11.30.019 | -3.90.425 | -10.70.056 | -4.20.396 | -8.00.090 | -4.30.384 |
| Low fence | +8.10.073 | +2.10.657 | +5.60.211 | +11.30.019 | 56.0%250 | +7.30.110 | +0.60.908 | +7.10.121 | +3.30.452 | +6.90.136 |
| Single wall | +0.80.870 | -5.20.299 | -1.70.705 | +3.90.425 | -7.30.110 | 48.7%224 | -6.70.212 | -0.20.960 | -4.10.366 | -0.40.933 |
| Fence and open | +7.50.160 | +1.60.782 | +5.00.346 | +10.70.056 | -0.60.908 | +6.70.212 | 55.4%139 | +6.50.227 | +2.70.607 | +6.30.245 |
| Open | +1.00.829 | -5.00.320 | -1.50.743 | +4.20.396 | -7.10.121 | +0.20.960 | -6.50.227 | 48.9%227 | -3.80.393 | -0.20.972 |
| Rectangle | +4.80.275 | -1.10.814 | +2.30.595 | +8.00.090 | -3.30.452 | +4.10.366 | -2.70.607 | +3.80.393 | 52.7%275 | +3.70.422 |
| Octagon | +1.20.804 | -4.80.343 | -1.30.774 | +4.30.384 | -6.90.136 | +0.40.933 | -6.30.245 | +0.20.972 | -3.70.422 | 49.1%214 |
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
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.
Matches counted1,926
Win rate50.5%
Widest swing-7.6 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23
Where it was fought
Lau's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere| Stage | Stage effect | Win % | Change | p | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low fence | 56.9% | +6.3 | 0.061 | 197 | |
| Fence and open | 56.7% | +6.2 | 0.164 | 120 | |
| Breakable full fence | 51.9% | +1.4 | 0.720 | 160 | |
| Half fence | 51.4% | +0.9 | 0.778 | 208 | |
| Rectangle | 51.4% | +0.9 | 0.788 | 218 | |
| Octagon | 49.7% | -0.8 | 0.821 | 185 | |
| Single wall | 49.0% | -1.5 | 0.650 | 198 | |
| Open | 48.7% | -1.9 | 0.593 | 187 | |
| Full fence | 47.2% | -3.3 | 0.328 | 199 | |
| Breakable half fence | 43.0% | -7.6 | 0.049 | 156 |
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
Stage against stage
Lau's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column'sAll ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.15 on 9 df, p 0.338
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 47.2%199 | -4.60.382 | -4.20.396 | +4.30.421 | -9.60.055 | -1.80.727 | -9.40.103 | -1.40.779 | -4.10.398 | -2.50.625 |
| Breakable full fence | +4.60.382 | 51.9%160 | +0.40.934 | +8.90.112 | -5.00.347 | +2.90.587 | -4.80.426 | +3.20.551 | +0.50.924 | +2.10.691 |
| Half fence | +4.20.396 | -0.40.934 | 51.4%208 | +8.50.108 | -5.40.275 | +2.50.621 | -5.20.361 | +2.80.581 | +0.10.989 | +1.70.735 |
| Breakable half fence | -4.30.421 | -8.90.112 | -8.50.108 | 43.0%156 | -13.90.009 | -6.00.258 | -13.70.024 | -5.70.290 | -8.40.108 | -6.80.211 |
| Low fence | +9.60.055 | +5.00.347 | +5.40.275 | +13.90.009 | 56.9%197 | +7.90.117 | +0.20.974 | +8.20.108 | +5.50.264 | +7.10.163 |
| Single wall | +1.80.727 | -2.90.587 | -2.50.621 | +6.00.258 | -7.90.117 | 49.0%198 | -7.70.184 | +0.30.949 | -2.40.627 | -0.70.885 |
| Fence and open | +9.40.103 | +4.80.426 | +5.20.361 | +13.70.024 | -0.20.974 | +7.70.184 | 56.7%120 | +8.00.171 | +5.30.351 | +6.90.236 |
| Open | +1.40.779 | -3.20.551 | -2.80.581 | +5.70.290 | -8.20.108 | -0.30.949 | -8.00.171 | 48.7%187 | -2.70.586 | -1.10.837 |
| Rectangle | +4.10.398 | -0.50.924 | -0.10.989 | +8.40.108 | -5.50.264 | +2.40.627 | -5.30.351 | +2.70.586 | 51.4%218 | +1.60.742 |
| Octagon | +2.50.625 | -2.10.691 | -1.70.735 | +6.80.211 | -7.10.163 | +0.70.885 | -6.90.236 | +1.10.837 | -1.60.742 | 49.7%185 |
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
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.
Matches counted387
Win rate51.4%
Widest swing16.8 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23
Where it was fought
Lau's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere| Stage | Stage effect | Win % | Change | p | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breakable full fence | 68.2% | +16.8 | 0.105 | 22 · | |
| Rectangle | 57.9% | +6.5 | 0.290 | 57 · | |
| Breakable half fence | 52.9% | +1.5 | 0.853 | 34 · | |
| Low fence | 52.8% | +1.4 | 0.825 | 53 · | |
| Full fence | 51.3% | -0.1 | 0.985 | 39 · | |
| Open | 50.0% | -1.4 | 0.849 | 40 · | |
| Fence and open | 47.4% | -4.0 | 0.717 | 19 · | |
| Single wall | 46.1% | -5.3 | 0.578 | 26 · | |
| Half fence | 45.0% | -6.4 | 0.391 | 40 · | |
| Octagon | 44.8% | -6.6 | 0.460 | 29 · |
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
Stage against stage
Lau's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column'sAll ten shapes at once: chi-square 5.10 on 9 df, p 0.826
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 51.3%39 | -16.90.200 | +6.30.576 | -1.70.887 | -1.60.883 | +5.10.685 | +3.90.780 | +1.30.909 | -6.60.522 | +6.50.598 |
| Breakable full fence | +16.90.200 | 68.2%22 | +23.20.080 | +15.20.258 | +15.30.221 | +22.00.125 | +20.80.177 | +18.20.167 | +10.30.401 | +23.40.097 |
| Half fence | -6.30.576 | -23.20.080 | 45.0%40 | -7.90.496 | -7.80.455 | -1.10.927 | -2.40.865 | -5.00.654 | -12.90.211 | +0.20.989 |
| Breakable half fence | +1.70.887 | -15.20.258 | +7.90.496 | 52.9%34 | +0.10.992 | +6.80.602 | +5.60.697 | +2.90.801 | -5.00.645 | +8.10.521 |
| Low fence | +1.60.883 | -15.30.221 | +7.80.455 | -0.10.992 | 52.8%53 | +6.70.577 | +5.50.683 | +2.80.787 | -5.10.593 | +8.00.488 |
| Single wall | -5.10.685 | -22.00.125 | +1.10.927 | -6.80.602 | -6.70.577 | 46.1%26 | -1.20.936 | -3.90.760 | -11.70.319 | +1.30.921 |
| Fence and open | -3.90.780 | -20.80.177 | +2.40.865 | -5.60.697 | -5.50.683 | +1.20.936 | 47.4%19 | -2.60.850 | -10.50.424 | +2.50.863 |
| Open | -1.30.909 | -18.20.167 | +5.00.654 | -2.90.801 | -2.80.787 | +3.90.760 | +2.60.850 | 50.0%40 | -7.90.442 | +5.20.671 |
| Rectangle | +6.60.522 | -10.30.401 | +12.90.211 | +5.00.645 | +5.10.593 | +11.70.319 | +10.50.424 | +7.90.442 | 57.9%57 | +13.10.251 |
| Octagon | -6.50.598 | -23.40.097 | -0.20.989 | -8.10.521 | -8.00.488 | -1.30.921 | -2.50.863 | -5.20.671 | -13.10.251 | 44.8%29 |
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
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.