VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lau vs Vanessa

Lau vs Vanessa in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lau wins 54.2% of 3,053 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 1 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 counted3,053
Win rate54.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-9.8 pts
Survive correction1
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
Octagon57.7%+3.50.184324
Open56.9%+2.70.341281
Full fence56.6%+2.40.401279
Low fence56.2%+2.00.410368
Breakable full fence55.2%+1.00.721286
Single wall55.2%+1.00.737279
Breakable half fence53.6%-0.70.795323
Half fence53.2%-1.10.710282
Fence and open49.7%-4.50.231163
Rectangle44.4%-9.8<0.001322
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 17.88 on 9 df, p 0.036

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.6%279+1.40.740+3.40.413+3.10.450+0.40.923+1.40.733+6.90.158-0.30.941+12.20.003-1.10.788
Breakable full fence-1.40.74055.2%286+2.00.623+1.70.677-1.00.797+0.00.991+5.50.257-1.70.684+10.80.008-2.50.539
Half fence-3.40.413-2.00.62353.2%282-0.40.928-3.10.437-2.00.634+3.50.477-3.80.371+8.80.031-4.50.263
Breakable half fence-3.10.450-1.70.677+0.40.92853.6%323-2.70.478-1.60.688+3.90.420-3.40.405+9.20.020-4.20.287
Low fence-0.40.923+1.00.797+3.10.437+2.70.47856.2%368+1.10.789+6.60.162-0.70.861+11.80.002-1.50.698
Single wall-1.40.733-0.00.991+2.00.634+1.60.688-1.10.78955.2%279+5.50.263-1.70.678+10.80.008-2.50.534
Fence and open-6.90.158-5.50.257-3.50.477-3.90.420-6.60.162-5.50.26349.7%163-7.20.140+5.30.270-8.00.093
Open+0.30.941+1.70.684+3.80.371+3.40.405+0.70.861+1.70.678+7.20.14056.9%281+12.50.002-0.80.847
Rectangle-12.20.003-10.80.008-8.80.031-9.20.020-11.80.002-10.80.008-5.30.270-12.50.00244.4%322-13.3<0.001
Octagon+1.10.788+2.50.539+4.50.263+4.20.287+1.50.698+2.50.534+8.00.093+0.80.847+13.3<0.00157.7%324
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 counted945
Win rate53.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-14.4 pts
Survive correction1
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 fence61.9%+8.90.08784
Octagon60.5%+7.50.14786
Open57.5%+4.50.321106
Single wall56.5%+3.50.50485
Low fence55.7%+2.70.503131
Half fence54.0%+0.90.86576 ·
Breakable full fence49.4%-3.70.50177 ·
Fence and open48.8%-4.20.57941 ·
Breakable half fence47.9%-5.20.29294
Rectangle38.6%-14.40.001114
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 17.50 on 9 df, p 0.042

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence61.9%84+12.60.109+8.00.308+14.00.061+6.20.370+5.40.472+13.10.163+4.30.543+23.30.001+1.40.847
Breakable full fence-12.60.10949.4%77-4.60.569+1.50.847-6.40.374-7.10.364+0.60.953-8.20.272+10.80.141-11.10.154
Half fence-8.00.308+4.60.56954.0%76+6.10.431-1.80.804-2.50.748+5.20.593-3.60.629+15.30.037-6.50.402
Breakable half fence-14.00.061-1.50.847-6.10.43147.9%94-7.90.245-8.60.250-0.90.923-9.70.171+9.30.178-12.60.090
Low fence-6.20.370+6.40.374+1.80.804+7.90.24555.7%131-0.70.914+7.00.436-1.80.778+17.10.007-4.70.490
Single wall-5.40.472+7.10.364+2.50.748+8.60.250+0.70.91456.5%85+7.70.417-1.10.881+17.90.012-4.00.596
Fence and open-13.10.163-0.60.953-5.20.593+0.90.923-7.00.436-7.70.41748.8%41-8.80.338+10.20.256-11.70.214
Open-4.30.543+8.20.272+3.60.629+9.70.171+1.80.778+1.10.881+8.80.33857.5%106+18.90.005-2.90.683
Rectangle-23.30.001-10.80.141-15.30.037-9.30.178-17.10.007-17.90.012-10.20.256-18.90.00538.6%114-21.90.002
Octagon-1.40.847+11.10.154+6.50.402+12.60.090+4.70.490+4.00.596+11.70.214+2.90.683+21.90.00260.5%86
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 counted1,499
Win rate53.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.9 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
Breakable half fence59.0%+5.60.138156
Octagon55.8%+2.50.505163
Full fence55.6%+2.30.582133
Open55.1%+1.80.663136
Breakable full fence54.7%+1.30.737150
Low fence53.6%+0.30.940179
Single wall52.8%-0.60.890142
Fence and open48.3%-5.10.32489
Half fence47.4%-5.90.117156
Rectangle46.4%-6.90.084140
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 8.72 on 9 df, p 0.463

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence55.6%133+1.00.870+8.20.164-3.30.568+2.00.725+2.80.639+7.30.284+0.50.935+9.20.128-0.20.974
Breakable full fence-1.00.87054.7%150+7.20.206-4.30.447+1.00.851+1.90.751+6.40.342-0.50.935+8.20.161-1.20.836
Half fence-8.20.164-7.20.20647.4%156-11.50.041-6.20.258-5.40.353-0.90.895-7.70.189+1.00.862-8.40.134
Breakable half fence+3.30.568+4.30.447+11.50.04159.0%156+5.30.326+6.20.285+10.70.107+3.80.510+12.50.031+3.10.570
Low fence-2.00.725-1.00.851+6.20.258-5.30.32653.6%179+0.80.885+5.30.412-1.50.789+7.20.202-2.20.684
Single wall-2.80.639-1.90.751+5.40.353-6.20.285-0.80.88552.8%142+4.50.505-2.30.697+6.40.283-3.00.598
Fence and open-7.30.284-6.40.342+0.90.895-10.70.107-5.30.412-4.50.50548.3%89-6.80.316+1.90.780-7.50.253
Open-0.50.935+0.50.935+7.70.189-3.80.510+1.50.789+2.30.697+6.80.31655.1%136+8.70.147-0.70.906
Rectangle-9.20.128-8.20.161-1.00.862-12.50.031-7.20.202-6.40.283-1.90.780-8.70.14746.4%140-9.40.103
Octagon+0.20.974+1.20.836+8.40.134-3.10.570+2.20.684+3.00.598+7.50.253+0.70.906+9.40.10355.8%163
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 counted609
Win rate58.3%
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
Half fence70.0%+11.70.08050 ·
Low fence65.5%+7.20.24158 ·
Breakable full fence64.4%+6.10.31659 ·
Open61.5%+3.20.67139 ·
Single wall59.6%+1.30.84052 ·
Octagon58.7%+0.40.94475 ·
Fence and open54.5%-3.70.65433 ·
Full fence51.6%-6.70.26062 ·
Rectangle50.0%-8.30.14168 ·
Breakable half fence49.3%-9.00.09773 ·
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 10.81 on 9 df, p 0.289

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.6%62-12.80.154-18.40.048+2.30.790-13.90.123-8.00.392-2.90.785-9.90.329+1.60.854-7.10.408
Breakable full fence+12.80.15464.4%59-5.60.536+15.10.082-1.10.900+4.80.603+9.90.353+2.90.773+14.40.102+5.70.498
Half fence+18.40.048+5.60.53670.0%50+20.70.023+4.50.620+10.40.273+15.40.151+8.50.402+20.00.029+11.30.198
Breakable half fence-2.30.790-15.10.082-20.70.02349.3%73-16.20.063-10.30.255-5.20.618-12.20.217-0.70.935-9.30.254
Low fence+13.90.123+1.10.900-4.50.620+16.20.06365.5%58+5.90.523+11.00.301+4.00.689+15.50.079+6.80.420
Single wall+8.00.392-4.80.603-10.40.273+10.30.255-5.90.52359.6%52+5.10.645-1.90.853+9.60.295+0.90.915
Fence and open+2.90.785-9.90.353-15.40.151+5.20.618-11.00.301-5.10.64554.5%33-7.00.549+4.50.668-4.10.690
Open+9.90.329-2.90.773-8.50.402+12.20.217-4.00.689+1.90.853+7.00.54961.5%39+11.50.249+2.90.767
Rectangle-1.60.854-14.40.102-20.00.029+0.70.935-15.50.079-9.60.295-4.50.668-11.50.24950.0%68-8.70.299
Octagon+7.10.408-5.70.498-11.30.198+9.30.254-6.80.420-0.90.915+4.10.690-2.90.767+8.70.29958.7%75
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.