Virtua Fighter 5 REVO · v1.10 · Character Matchup Winrates
Lau vs Vanessa
Matches counted1,858
Win rate54.3%
Widest swing-8.3 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 | 57.8% | +3.5 | 0.309 | 185 | |
| Breakable half fence | 57.2% | +2.9 | 0.372 | 208 | |
| Octagon | 56.5% | +2.2 | 0.510 | 200 | |
| Low fence | 55.7% | +1.4 | 0.657 | 219 | |
| Open | 54.9% | +0.6 | 0.877 | 153 | |
| Full fence | 54.5% | +0.2 | 0.946 | 176 | |
| Single wall | 54.5% | +0.2 | 0.960 | 167 | |
| Fence and open | 51.4% | -2.9 | 0.535 | 107 | |
| Half fence | 50.0% | -4.3 | 0.228 | 176 | |
| Rectangle | 46.0% | -8.3 | 0.016 | 187 |
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 9.06 on 9 df, p 0.431
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 54.5%176 | -3.30.529 | +4.50.393 | -2.70.600 | -1.20.817 | +0.10.992 | +3.10.607 | -0.30.948 | +8.60.103 | -1.90.703 |
| Breakable full fence | +3.30.529 | 57.8%185 | +7.80.135 | +0.60.900 | +2.10.667 | +3.40.527 | +6.40.286 | +2.90.588 | +11.80.022 | +1.30.791 |
| Half fence | -4.50.393 | -7.80.135 | 50.0%176 | -7.20.158 | -5.70.259 | -4.50.405 | -1.40.819 | -4.90.375 | +4.00.445 | -6.50.207 |
| Breakable half fence | +2.70.600 | -0.60.900 | +7.20.158 | 57.2%208 | +1.50.754 | +2.70.598 | +5.80.326 | +2.30.662 | +11.20.026 | +0.70.885 |
| Low fence | +1.20.817 | -2.10.667 | +5.70.259 | -1.50.754 | 55.7%219 | +1.20.812 | +4.30.464 | +0.80.878 | +9.70.051 | -0.80.870 |
| Single wall | -0.10.992 | -3.40.527 | +4.50.405 | -2.70.598 | -1.20.812 | 54.5%167 | +3.10.617 | -0.40.941 | +8.50.110 | -2.00.700 |
| Fence and open | -3.10.607 | -6.40.286 | +1.40.819 | -5.80.326 | -4.30.464 | -3.10.617 | 51.4%107 | -3.50.578 | +5.40.371 | -5.10.392 |
| Open | +0.30.948 | -2.90.588 | +4.90.375 | -2.30.662 | -0.80.878 | +0.40.941 | +3.50.578 | 54.9%153 | +8.90.102 | -1.60.764 |
| Rectangle | -8.60.103 | -11.80.022 | -4.00.445 | -11.20.026 | -9.70.051 | -8.50.110 | -5.40.371 | -8.90.102 | 46.0%187 | -10.50.039 |
| Octagon | +1.90.703 | -1.30.791 | +6.50.207 | -0.70.885 | +0.80.870 | +2.00.700 | +5.10.392 | +1.60.764 | +10.50.039 | 56.5%200 |
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 counted1,337
Win rate53.1%
Widest swing-8.7 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 half fence | 60.6% | +7.5 | 0.060 | 142 | |
| Breakable full fence | 55.2% | +2.1 | 0.604 | 134 | |
| Full fence | 55.2% | +2.1 | 0.640 | 116 | |
| Octagon | 54.9% | +1.8 | 0.655 | 144 | |
| Open | 54.2% | +1.1 | 0.796 | 118 | |
| Low fence | 52.4% | -0.7 | 0.841 | 168 | |
| Single wall | 51.6% | -1.5 | 0.727 | 124 | |
| Fence and open | 50.6% | -2.5 | 0.657 | 77 · | |
| Half fence | 46.4% | -6.7 | 0.094 | 138 | |
| Rectangle | 44.4% | -8.7 | 0.041 | 126 |
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 10.38 on 9 df, p 0.320
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 55.2%116 | -0.10.993 | +8.80.163 | -5.40.383 | +2.80.643 | +3.60.581 | +4.50.537 | +0.90.886 | +10.70.095 | +0.30.960 |
| Breakable full fence | +0.10.993 | 55.2%134 | +8.80.145 | -5.30.369 | +2.80.623 | +3.60.561 | +4.60.521 | +1.00.875 | +10.80.082 | +0.40.952 |
| Half fence | -8.80.163 | -8.80.145 | 46.4%138 | -14.20.017 | -6.00.296 | -5.20.397 | -4.30.548 | -7.90.210 | +1.90.753 | -8.50.154 |
| Breakable half fence | +5.40.383 | +5.30.369 | +14.20.017 | 60.6%142 | +8.20.148 | +8.90.142 | +9.90.157 | +6.30.304 | +16.10.008 | +5.70.329 |
| Low fence | -2.80.643 | -2.80.623 | +6.00.296 | -8.20.148 | 52.4%168 | +0.80.897 | +1.70.801 | -1.90.757 | +7.90.178 | -2.50.661 |
| Single wall | -3.60.581 | -3.60.561 | +5.20.397 | -8.90.142 | -0.80.897 | 51.6%124 | +1.00.894 | -2.60.683 | +7.20.257 | -3.20.595 |
| Fence and open | -4.50.537 | -4.60.521 | +4.30.548 | -9.90.157 | -1.70.801 | -1.00.894 | 50.6%77 | -3.60.624 | +6.20.390 | -4.20.550 |
| Open | -0.90.886 | -1.00.875 | +7.90.210 | -6.30.304 | +1.90.757 | +2.60.683 | +3.60.624 | 54.2%118 | +9.80.126 | -0.60.920 |
| Rectangle | -10.70.095 | -10.80.082 | -1.90.753 | -16.10.008 | -7.90.178 | -7.20.257 | -6.20.390 | -9.80.126 | 44.4%126 | -10.40.088 |
| Octagon | -0.30.960 | -0.40.952 | +8.50.154 | -5.70.329 | +2.50.661 | +3.20.595 | +4.20.550 | +0.60.920 | +10.40.088 | 54.9%144 |
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 counted521
Win rate57.4%
Widest swing9.3 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 | 66.7% | +9.3 | 0.158 | 51 · | |
| Breakable full fence | 64.7% | +7.3 | 0.266 | 51 · | |
| Half fence | 63.2% | +5.8 | 0.455 | 38 · | |
| Single wall | 62.8% | +5.4 | 0.455 | 43 · | |
| Octagon | 60.7% | +3.3 | 0.594 | 56 · | |
| Open | 57.1% | -0.2 | 0.976 | 35 · | |
| Full fence | 53.3% | -4.1 | 0.499 | 60 · | |
| Fence and open | 53.3% | -4.1 | 0.644 | 30 · | |
| Breakable half fence | 50.0% | -7.4 | 0.194 | 66 · | |
| Rectangle | 49.2% | -8.2 | 0.168 | 61 · |
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 7.96 on 9 df, p 0.539
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 53.3%60 | -11.40.225 | -9.80.338 | +3.30.708 | -13.30.154 | -9.50.339 | +0.01.000 | -3.80.719 | +4.20.648 | -7.40.422 |
| Breakable full fence | +11.40.225 | 64.7%51 | +1.60.880 | +14.70.112 | -2.00.835 | +1.90.847 | +11.40.312 | +7.60.479 | +15.50.099 | +4.00.670 |
| Half fence | +9.80.338 | -1.60.880 | 63.2%38 | +13.20.194 | -3.50.731 | +0.40.973 | +9.80.414 | +6.00.600 | +14.00.174 | +2.50.811 |
| Breakable half fence | -3.30.708 | -14.70.112 | -13.20.194 | 50.0%66 | -16.70.071 | -12.80.190 | -3.30.762 | -7.10.494 | +0.80.926 | -10.70.236 |
| Low fence | +13.30.154 | +2.00.835 | +3.50.731 | +16.70.071 | 66.7%51 | +3.90.695 | +13.30.233 | +9.50.369 | +17.50.063 | +6.00.523 |
| Single wall | +9.50.339 | -1.90.847 | -0.40.973 | +12.80.190 | -3.90.695 | 62.8%43 | +9.50.419 | +5.70.612 | +13.60.170 | +2.10.833 |
| Fence and open | -0.01.000 | -11.40.312 | -9.80.414 | +3.30.762 | -13.30.233 | -9.50.419 | 53.3%30 | -3.80.758 | +4.20.710 | -7.40.508 |
| Open | +3.80.719 | -7.60.479 | -6.00.600 | +7.10.494 | -9.50.369 | -5.70.612 | +3.80.758 | 57.1%35 | +8.00.452 | -3.60.736 |
| Rectangle | -4.20.648 | -15.50.099 | -14.00.174 | -0.80.926 | -17.50.063 | -13.60.170 | -4.20.710 | -8.00.452 | 49.2%61 | -11.50.211 |
| Octagon | +7.40.422 | -4.00.670 | -2.50.811 | +10.70.236 | -6.00.523 | -2.10.833 | +7.40.508 | +3.60.736 | +11.50.211 | 60.7%56 |
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.