VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lau vs Wolf

Lau vs Wolf in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lau wins 52.5% of 5,595 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 counted5,595
Win rate52.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.8 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
Rectangle57.0%+4.50.027549
Breakable full fence54.9%+2.40.251517
Breakable half fence54.8%+2.30.263540
Octagon54.6%+2.10.306527
Fence and open53.3%+0.80.786270
Single wall52.0%-0.50.785577
Full fence51.6%-0.90.618628
Half fence50.9%-1.60.405570
Open48.7%-3.80.062534
Low fence46.7%-5.80.003591
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 19.80 on 9 df, p 0.019

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.6%628-3.30.260+0.70.805-3.20.271+4.90.088-0.40.889-1.70.632+2.90.324-5.40.063-3.10.300
Breakable full fence+3.30.26054.9%517+4.00.181+0.10.969+8.20.006+2.90.331+1.60.669+6.20.043-2.10.494+0.30.927
Half fence-0.70.805-4.00.18150.9%570-3.90.189+4.20.155-1.10.705-2.50.506+2.20.467-6.10.040-3.80.211
Breakable half fence+3.20.271-0.10.969+3.90.18954.8%540+8.10.006+2.80.345+1.50.690+6.10.045-2.20.465+0.20.957
Low fence-4.90.088-8.20.006-4.20.155-8.10.00646.7%591-5.30.070-6.60.071-2.00.505-10.3<0.001-8.00.008
Single wall+0.40.889-2.90.331+1.10.705-2.80.345+5.30.07052.0%577-1.30.716+3.30.271-5.00.091-2.70.377
Fence and open+1.70.632-1.60.669+2.50.506-1.50.690+6.60.071+1.30.71653.3%270+4.60.214-3.70.319-1.30.724
Open-2.90.324-6.20.043-2.20.467-6.10.045+2.00.505-3.30.271-4.60.21448.7%534-8.30.006-6.00.052
Rectangle+5.40.063+2.10.494+6.10.040+2.20.465+10.3<0.001+5.00.091+3.70.319+8.30.00657.0%549+2.40.435
Octagon+3.10.300-0.30.927+3.80.211-0.20.957+8.00.008+2.70.377+1.30.724+6.00.052-2.40.43554.6%527
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 counted2,453
Win rate52.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-9.3 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
Rectangle59.3%+6.70.019270
Fence and open57.0%+4.50.312121
Octagon55.1%+2.60.427214
Breakable half fence54.5%+1.90.524246
Breakable full fence54.4%+1.80.559228
Half fence52.8%+0.20.938233
Full fence49.8%-2.70.333279
Single wall49.6%-2.90.321254
Low fence48.6%-3.90.184259
Open43.3%-9.30.003238
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 18.46 on 9 df, p 0.030

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.8%279-4.60.306-3.00.503-4.70.287+1.20.786+0.20.961-7.20.185+6.50.137-9.40.026-5.30.241
Breakable full fence+4.60.30654.4%228+1.60.731-0.10.985+5.70.206+4.80.294-2.60.637+11.10.016-4.90.274-0.80.874
Half fence+3.00.503-1.60.73152.8%233-1.70.712+4.10.359+3.20.483-4.20.448+9.50.039-6.50.145-2.40.618
Breakable half fence+4.70.287+0.10.985+1.70.71254.5%246+5.80.191+4.90.276-2.50.644+11.20.014-4.80.273-0.70.886
Low fence-1.20.786-5.70.206-4.10.359-5.80.19148.6%259-1.00.828-8.40.128+5.40.230-10.60.014-6.50.160
Single wall-0.20.961-4.80.294-3.20.483-4.90.276+1.00.82849.6%254-7.40.179+6.30.160-9.70.027-5.50.233
Fence and open+7.20.185+2.60.637+4.20.448+2.50.644+8.40.128+7.40.17957.0%121+13.70.014-2.20.678+1.90.739
Open-6.50.137-11.10.016-9.50.039-11.20.014-5.40.230-6.30.160-13.70.01443.3%238-16.0<0.001-11.90.012
Rectangle+9.40.026+4.90.274+6.50.145+4.80.273+10.60.014+9.70.027+2.20.678+16.0<0.00159.3%270+4.10.363
Octagon+5.30.241+0.80.874+2.40.618+0.70.886+6.50.160+5.50.233-1.90.739+11.90.012-4.10.36355.1%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

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 counted2,735
Win rate52.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-7.1 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 fence56.6%+4.00.171263
Single wall54.8%+2.10.438292
Rectangle54.5%+1.80.560235
Breakable full fence54.0%+1.30.653265
Full fence53.6%+0.90.726306
Octagon53.4%+0.70.801266
Fence and open53.2%+0.50.904126
Open52.3%-0.30.918256
Half fence48.9%-3.70.190276
Low fence45.5%-7.10.010290
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 10.37 on 9 df, p 0.321

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.6%306-0.40.930+4.70.259-3.10.465+8.10.049-1.20.769+0.40.937+1.20.767-0.90.840+0.20.960
Breakable full fence+0.40.93054.0%265+5.00.240-2.70.534+8.40.047-0.80.844+0.80.884+1.60.711-0.50.910+0.60.894
Half fence-4.70.259-5.00.24048.9%276-7.70.072+3.40.419-5.90.161-4.30.428-3.40.429-5.60.210-4.50.298
Breakable half fence+3.10.465+2.70.534+7.70.07256.6%263+11.10.009+1.90.660+3.50.518+4.30.324+2.20.624+3.30.450
Low fence-8.10.049-8.40.047-3.40.419-11.10.00945.5%290-9.30.025-7.70.151-6.80.111-8.90.041-7.90.064
Single wall+1.20.769+0.80.844+5.90.161-1.90.660+9.30.02554.8%292+1.60.760+2.50.566+0.30.940+1.40.738
Fence and open-0.40.937-0.80.884+4.30.428-3.50.518+7.70.151-1.60.76053.2%126+0.80.878-1.30.814-0.20.969
Open-1.20.767-1.60.711+3.40.429-4.30.324+6.80.111-2.50.566-0.80.87852.3%256-2.10.637-1.00.812
Rectangle+0.90.840+0.50.910+5.60.210-2.20.624+8.90.041-0.30.940+1.30.814+2.10.63754.5%235+1.10.808
Octagon-0.20.960-0.60.894+4.50.298-3.30.450+7.90.064-1.40.738+0.20.969+1.00.812-1.10.80853.4%266
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 counted407
Win rate51.6%
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
Breakable full fence70.8%+19.20.05224 ·
Octagon59.6%+8.00.24547 ·
Open57.5%+5.90.43140 ·
Rectangle56.8%+5.20.46344 ·
Half fence52.5%+0.90.88461 ·
Full fence48.8%-2.80.70243 ·
Single wall45.2%-6.40.45631 ·
Low fence42.9%-8.70.23142 ·
Breakable half fence41.9%-9.70.26331 ·
Fence and open34.8%-16.80.09723 ·
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 11.50 on 9 df, p 0.243

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.8%43-22.00.081-3.60.716+6.90.557+6.00.580+3.70.755+14.10.273-8.70.429-8.00.456-10.70.307
Breakable full fence+22.00.08170.8%24+18.40.123+28.90.033+28.00.028+25.70.057+36.00.013+13.30.286+14.00.256+11.30.352
Half fence+3.60.716-18.40.12352.5%61+10.50.340+9.60.338+7.30.508+17.70.148-5.00.619-4.40.658-7.10.461
Breakable half fence-6.90.557-28.90.033-10.50.34041.9%31-0.90.937-3.20.798+7.20.594-15.60.193-14.90.204-17.60.127
Low fence-6.00.580-28.00.028-9.60.338+0.90.93742.9%42-2.30.845+8.10.525-14.60.185-14.00.196-16.70.115
Single wall-3.70.755-25.70.057-7.30.508+3.20.798+2.30.84545.2%31+10.40.443-12.30.302-11.70.320-14.40.211
Fence and open-14.10.273-36.00.013-17.70.148-7.20.594-8.10.525-10.40.44334.8%23-22.70.082-22.00.087-24.80.051
Open+8.70.429-13.30.286+5.00.619+15.60.193+14.60.185+12.30.302+22.70.08257.5%40+0.70.950-2.10.845
Rectangle+8.00.456-14.00.256+4.40.658+14.90.204+14.00.196+11.70.320+22.00.087-0.70.95056.8%44-2.80.790
Octagon+10.70.307-11.30.352+7.10.461+17.60.127+16.70.115+14.40.211+24.80.051+2.10.845+2.80.79059.6%47
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.