VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lau vs Shun

Lau vs Shun in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lau wins 51.4% of 4,994 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 counted4,994
Win rate51.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.0 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 fence54.0%+2.60.204528
Fence and open53.9%+2.50.419245
Single wall52.6%+1.20.568481
Breakable half fence52.3%+0.90.668480
Breakable full fence51.7%+0.30.877503
Low fence51.5%+0.10.967482
Open51.1%-0.30.884560
Octagon50.6%-0.80.719500
Rectangle50.5%-0.80.706469
Half fence47.3%-4.00.061486
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 5.97 on 9 df, p 0.742

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.0%528+2.30.462+6.70.034+1.70.592+2.50.422+1.40.661+0.10.979+2.90.337+3.50.277+3.40.279
Breakable full fence-2.30.46251.7%503+4.40.170-0.60.850+0.20.941-0.90.775-2.20.574+0.60.840+1.20.718+1.10.730
Half fence-6.70.034-4.40.17047.3%486-5.00.123-4.10.199-5.30.101-6.50.094-3.70.227-3.20.321-3.30.304
Breakable half fence-1.70.592+0.60.850+5.00.12352.3%480+0.80.794-0.30.924-1.60.686+1.20.695+1.80.588+1.70.596
Low fence-2.50.422-0.20.941+4.10.199-0.80.79451.5%482-1.10.722-2.40.536+0.40.902+0.90.777+0.80.789
Single wall-1.40.661+0.90.775+5.30.101+0.30.924+1.10.72252.6%481-1.30.744+1.50.623+2.10.524+2.00.531
Fence and open-0.10.979+2.20.574+6.50.094+1.60.686+2.40.536+1.30.74453.9%245+2.80.463+3.40.396+3.30.400
Open-2.90.337-0.60.840+3.70.227-1.20.695-0.40.902-1.50.623-2.80.46351.1%560+0.50.863+0.50.878
Rectangle-3.50.277-1.20.718+3.20.321-1.80.588-0.90.777-2.10.524-3.40.396-0.50.86350.5%469-0.10.983
Octagon-3.40.279-1.10.730+3.30.304-1.70.596-0.80.789-2.00.531-3.30.400-0.50.878+0.10.98350.6%500
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 counted1,737
Win rate51.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.2 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
Low fence55.0%+3.70.311171
Octagon52.7%+1.40.708169
Breakable full fence52.2%+0.90.815161
Single wall52.1%+0.80.809188
Fence and open51.7%+0.40.94089
Open51.0%-0.30.916210
Rectangle50.3%-1.00.784169
Breakable half fence50.0%-1.30.729162
Full fence48.7%-2.60.446189
Half fence47.1%-4.20.305140
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 2.80 on 9 df, p 0.972

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.7%189-3.50.514+1.50.783-1.30.805-6.30.233-3.50.503-3.00.640-2.30.650-1.60.760-4.00.451
Breakable full fence+3.50.51452.2%161+5.00.384+2.20.696-2.80.610+0.00.993+0.50.941+1.20.816+1.90.733-0.50.929
Half fence-1.50.783-5.00.38447.1%140-2.90.620-7.80.169-5.00.372-4.50.503-3.80.485-3.20.581-5.50.334
Breakable half fence+1.30.805-2.20.696+2.90.62050.0%162-5.00.364-2.10.691-1.70.798-0.90.855-0.30.957-2.70.628
Low fence+6.30.233+2.80.610+7.80.169+5.00.36455.0%171+2.80.590+3.30.614+4.00.435+4.70.388+2.30.670
Single wall+3.50.503-0.00.993+5.00.372+2.10.691-2.80.59052.1%188+0.40.945+1.20.815+1.80.730-0.50.919
Fence and open+3.00.640-0.50.941+4.50.503+1.70.798-3.30.614-0.40.94551.7%89+0.70.908+1.40.832-1.00.881
Open+2.30.650-1.20.816+3.80.485+0.90.855-4.00.435-1.20.815-0.70.90851.0%210+0.70.899-1.70.740
Rectangle+1.60.760-1.90.733+3.20.581+0.30.957-4.70.388-1.80.730-1.40.832-0.70.89950.3%169-2.40.663
Octagon+4.00.451+0.50.929+5.50.334+2.70.628-2.30.670+0.50.919+1.00.881+1.70.740+2.40.66352.7%169
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 counted2,525
Win rate50.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.8 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 fence56.0%+5.80.042275
Breakable half fence52.4%+2.20.463246
Open51.4%+1.20.666278
Rectangle50.7%+0.50.885219
Fence and open50.5%+0.20.959109
Breakable full fence49.8%-0.40.888283
Low fence49.4%-0.80.784239
Single wall48.2%-2.00.531226
Octagon48.0%-2.20.460250
Half fence46.5%-3.70.196273
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 6.77 on 9 df, p 0.661

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.0%275+6.20.144+9.50.026+3.60.415+6.60.133+7.80.083+5.50.326+4.60.282+5.30.239+8.00.067
Breakable full fence-6.20.14449.8%283+3.30.436-2.60.548+0.50.918+1.60.721-0.60.910-1.60.702-0.90.848+1.80.674
Half fence-9.50.026-3.30.43646.5%273-5.90.178-2.90.519-1.70.703-3.90.486-4.90.248-4.20.358-1.50.735
Breakable half fence-3.60.415+2.60.548+5.90.17852.4%246+3.10.499+4.20.361+2.00.731+1.00.819+1.80.706+4.40.323
Low fence-6.60.133-0.50.918+2.90.519-3.10.49949.4%239+1.10.805-1.10.851-2.10.639-1.30.779+1.40.762
Single wall-7.80.083-1.60.721+1.70.703-4.20.361-1.10.80548.2%226-2.20.702-3.20.474-2.50.605+0.20.960
Fence and open-5.50.326+0.60.910+3.90.486-2.00.731+1.10.851+2.20.70250.5%109-1.00.862-0.20.969+2.50.668
Open-4.60.282+1.60.702+4.90.248-1.00.819+2.10.639+3.20.474+1.00.86251.4%278+0.80.867+3.40.430
Rectangle-5.30.239+0.90.848+4.20.358-1.80.706+1.30.779+2.50.605+0.20.969-0.80.86750.7%219+2.70.562
Octagon-8.00.067-1.80.674+1.50.735-4.40.323-1.40.762-0.20.960-2.50.668-3.40.430-2.70.56248.0%250
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 counted732
Win rate55.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.8 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
Single wall68.7%+13.20.02367 ·
Fence and open66.0%+10.50.13547 ·
Full fence60.9%+5.50.35664 ·
Breakable full fence59.3%+3.90.53459 ·
Breakable half fence56.9%+1.50.79072 ·
Octagon54.3%-1.10.82681
Half fence50.7%-4.80.38773 ·
Rectangle50.6%-4.80.35281
Low fence50.0%-5.50.32672 ·
Open50.0%-5.50.32672 ·
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 11.16 on 9 df, p 0.265

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence60.9%64+1.60.855+10.30.228+4.00.637+10.90.201-7.70.355-5.00.588+10.90.201+10.30.215+6.60.424
Breakable full fence-1.60.85559.3%59+8.60.322+2.40.784+9.30.287-9.30.275-6.60.484+9.30.287+8.70.307+5.00.556
Half fence-10.30.228-8.60.32250.7%73-6.30.450+0.70.934-18.00.031-15.30.099+0.70.934+0.10.993-3.60.652
Breakable half fence-4.00.637-2.40.784+6.30.45056.9%72+6.90.404-11.70.154-9.00.326+6.90.404+6.30.433+2.60.744
Low fence-10.90.201-9.30.287-0.70.934-6.90.40450.0%72-18.70.025-16.00.086+0.01.000-0.60.939-4.30.593
Single wall+7.70.355+9.30.275+18.00.031+11.70.154+18.70.02568.7%67+2.70.762+18.70.025+18.00.026+14.30.075
Fence and open+5.00.588+6.60.484+15.30.099+9.00.326+16.00.086-2.70.76266.0%47+16.00.086+15.30.092+11.60.198
Open-10.90.201-9.30.287-0.70.934-6.90.404-0.01.000-18.70.025-16.00.08650.0%72-0.60.939-4.30.593
Rectangle-10.30.215-8.70.307-0.10.993-6.30.433+0.60.939-18.00.026-15.30.092+0.60.93950.6%81-3.70.637
Octagon-6.60.424-5.00.556+3.60.652-2.60.744+4.30.593-14.30.075-11.60.198+4.30.593+3.70.63754.3%81
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.