VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lau vs Taka

Lau vs Taka in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lau wins 49.4% of 1,579 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 0 of 9 tested stage gaps survive correction.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,579
Win rate49.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-7.0 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
Open55.2%+5.80.159134
Fence and open53.0%+3.60.54766 ·
Breakable half fence52.8%+3.40.334178
Rectangle52.4%+3.00.383191
Full fence51.0%+1.60.680149
Low fence50.9%+1.50.682163
Octagon47.0%-2.40.539151
Single wall46.2%-3.10.401160
Breakable full fence42.8%-6.60.093145
Half fence42.5%-7.00.086139
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 10.19 on 9 df, p 0.335

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.0%149+8.20.157+8.60.146-1.80.745+0.10.988+4.80.403-2.00.784-4.20.478-1.40.805+4.00.490
Breakable full fence-8.20.15742.8%145+0.30.958-10.10.072-8.20.152-3.50.540-10.30.165-12.50.037-9.60.081-4.30.461
Half fence-8.60.146-0.30.95842.5%139-10.40.067-8.50.141-3.80.509-10.60.155-12.80.035-9.90.075-4.60.434
Breakable half fence+1.80.745+10.10.072+10.40.06752.8%178+1.90.727+6.60.229-0.20.975-2.40.672+0.50.931+5.80.295
Low fence-0.10.988+8.20.152+8.50.141-1.90.72750.9%163+4.70.401-2.10.772-4.30.460-1.40.788+3.90.490
Single wall-4.80.403+3.50.540+3.80.509-6.60.229-4.70.40146.2%160-6.80.354-9.00.125-6.10.254-0.80.892
Fence and open+2.00.784+10.30.165+10.60.155+0.20.975+2.10.772+6.80.35453.0%66-2.20.770+0.70.925+6.00.415
Open+4.20.478+12.50.037+12.80.035+2.40.672+4.30.460+9.00.125+2.20.77055.2%134+2.90.610+8.20.167
Rectangle+1.40.805+9.60.081+9.90.075-0.50.931+1.40.788+6.10.254-0.70.925-2.90.61052.4%191+5.30.327
Octagon-4.00.490+4.30.461+4.60.434-5.80.295-3.90.490+0.80.892-6.00.415-8.20.167-5.30.32747.0%151
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 counted521
Win rate48.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.5 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
Open58.5%+10.00.18341 ·
Rectangle53.1%+4.50.37581
Fence and open52.9%+4.40.71317 ·
Octagon51.9%+3.40.60952 ·
Low fence50.0%+1.40.86632 ·
Breakable half fence49.2%+0.60.91861 ·
Full fence40.4%-8.20.21452 ·
Half fence40.4%-8.20.21452 ·
Single wall39.2%-9.30.16051 ·
Breakable full fence39.0%-9.50.20341 ·
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 8.47 on 9 df, p 0.488

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence40.4%52+1.40.894+0.01.000-8.80.349-9.60.389+1.20.904-12.60.365-18.20.082-12.70.153-11.50.238
Breakable full fence-1.40.89439.0%41-1.40.894-10.20.312-11.00.348-0.20.985-13.90.330-19.50.077-14.10.142-12.90.215
Half fence-0.01.000+1.40.89440.4%52-8.80.349-9.60.389+1.20.904-12.60.365-18.20.082-12.70.153-11.50.238
Breakable half fence+8.80.349+10.20.312+8.80.34949.2%61-0.80.940+10.00.291-3.80.784-9.40.353-3.90.645-2.70.771
Low fence+9.60.389+11.00.348+9.60.389+0.80.94050.0%32+10.80.335-2.90.845-8.50.467-3.10.767-1.90.864
Single wall-1.20.904+0.20.985-1.20.904-10.00.291-10.80.33539.2%51-13.70.322-19.30.065-13.90.120-12.70.195
Fence and open+12.60.365+13.90.330+12.60.365+3.80.784+2.90.845+13.70.32252.9%17-5.60.695-0.10.991+1.00.942
Open+18.20.082+19.50.077+18.20.082+9.40.353+8.50.467+19.30.065+5.60.69558.5%41+5.50.568+6.60.525
Rectangle+12.70.153+14.10.142+12.70.153+3.90.645+3.10.767+13.90.120+0.10.991-5.50.56853.1%81+1.20.896
Octagon+11.50.238+12.90.215+11.50.238+2.70.771+1.90.864+12.70.195-1.00.942-6.60.525-1.20.89651.9%52
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 counted773
Win rate48.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.2 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
Fence and open58.1%+9.80.18843 ·
Breakable half fence55.6%+7.20.14790
Full fence55.6%+7.20.20172 ·
Open54.4%+6.00.34657 ·
Octagon47.8%-0.60.91567 ·
Rectangle46.8%-1.50.77179 ·
Breakable full fence45.5%-2.90.58877 ·
Single wall45.5%-2.90.55988
Low fence41.8%-6.60.17891
Half fence40.9%-7.50.20466 ·
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 9.51 on 9 df, p 0.392

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence55.6%72+10.10.218+14.70.085+0.01.000+13.80.080+10.10.204-2.60.787+1.20.894+8.70.284+7.80.358
Breakable full fence-10.10.21845.5%77+4.50.585-10.10.193+3.70.630+0.01.000-12.70.183-8.90.307-1.40.863-2.30.782
Half fence-14.70.085-4.50.58540.9%66-14.70.071-0.80.915-4.50.573-17.20.078-13.50.135-5.90.474-6.80.426
Breakable half fence-0.01.000+10.10.193+14.70.07155.6%90+13.80.063+10.10.178-2.60.779+1.20.890+8.70.258+7.80.334
Low fence-13.80.080-3.70.630+0.80.915-13.80.06341.8%91-3.70.618-16.40.076-12.60.134-5.10.506-6.00.453
Single wall-10.10.204-0.01.000+4.50.573-10.10.178+3.70.61845.5%88-12.70.173-8.90.293-1.40.858-2.30.775
Fence and open+2.60.787+12.70.183+17.20.078+2.60.779+16.40.076+12.70.17358.1%43+3.80.708+11.30.233+10.40.288
Open-1.20.894+8.90.307+13.50.135-1.20.890+12.60.134+8.90.293-3.80.70854.4%57+7.50.385+6.60.462
Rectangle-8.70.284+1.40.863+5.90.474-8.70.258+5.10.506+1.40.858-11.30.233-7.50.38546.8%79-0.90.911
Octagon-7.80.358+2.30.782+6.80.426-7.80.334+6.00.453+2.30.775-10.40.288-6.60.462+0.90.91147.8%67
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 counted285
Win rate53.7%
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
Low fence72.5%+18.80.01040 ·
Single wall66.7%+13.00.21521 ·
Rectangle64.5%+10.80.20031 ·
Full fence60.0%+6.30.50725 ·
Open52.8%-0.90.90736 ·
Half fence52.4%-1.30.90121 ·
Breakable half fence51.9%-1.80.84127 ·
Breakable full fence40.7%-12.90.15627 ·
Octagon37.5%-16.20.05132 ·
Fence and open16.7%-37.00.0666 ·
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 17.46 on 9 df, p 0.042

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence60.0%25+19.30.165+7.60.604+8.20.554-12.50.294-6.70.641+43.30.056+7.20.576-4.50.729+22.50.091
Breakable full fence-19.30.16540.7%27-11.60.422-11.10.413-31.80.009-25.90.074+24.10.268-12.00.344-23.80.070+3.20.799
Half fence-7.60.604+11.60.42252.4%21+0.50.971-20.10.116-14.30.346+35.70.121-0.40.977-12.10.382+14.90.285
Breakable half fence-8.20.554+11.10.413-0.50.97151.9%27-20.60.084-14.80.302+35.20.117-0.90.942-12.70.329+14.30.269
Low fence+12.50.294+31.80.009+20.10.116+20.60.08472.5%40+5.80.635+55.80.007+19.70.075+8.00.471+35.00.003
Single wall+6.70.641+25.90.074+14.30.346+14.80.302-5.80.63566.7%21+50.00.030+13.90.306+2.10.873+29.20.038
Fence and open-43.30.056-24.10.268-35.70.121-35.20.117-55.80.007-50.00.03016.7%6-36.10.101-47.90.030-20.80.324
Open-7.20.576+12.00.344+0.40.977+0.90.942-19.70.075-13.90.306+36.10.10152.8%36-11.70.331+15.30.207
Rectangle+4.50.729+23.80.070+12.10.382+12.70.329-8.00.471-2.10.873+47.90.030+11.70.33164.5%31+27.00.032
Octagon-22.50.091-3.20.799-14.90.285-14.30.269-35.00.003-29.20.038+20.80.324-15.30.207-27.00.03237.5%32
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.