VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lei Fei vs Pai

Lei Fei vs Pai in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lei Fei wins 47.8% of 3,159 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 counted3,159
Win rate47.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.2 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lei Fei's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable full fence52.0%+4.20.110321
Single wall51.0%+3.20.207339
Fence and open49.7%+1.90.631155
Low fence49.7%+1.90.503294
Full fence48.0%+0.20.942300
Breakable half fence47.7%-0.10.967325
Rectangle47.4%-0.40.874346
Half fence46.6%-1.20.645322
Open46.3%-1.50.622259
Octagon41.6%-6.20.019322
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

Lei Fei's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.70 on 9 df, p 0.376

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.0%300-4.00.316+1.40.724+0.30.939-1.70.686-3.00.444-1.70.734+1.70.694+0.60.879+6.40.109
Breakable full fence+4.00.31652.0%321+5.40.168+4.30.271+2.40.558+1.00.799+2.30.631+5.70.173+4.60.233+10.40.008
Half fence-1.40.724-5.40.16846.6%322-1.10.778-3.10.445-4.50.253-3.10.526+0.20.952-0.80.833+5.00.204
Breakable half fence-0.30.939-4.30.271+1.10.77847.7%325-2.00.625-3.30.389-2.00.684+1.40.744+0.30.939+6.10.120
Low fence+1.70.686-2.40.558+3.10.445+2.00.62549.7%294-1.40.730-0.00.997+3.30.434+2.30.568+8.10.045
Single wall+3.00.444-1.00.799+4.50.253+3.30.389+1.40.73051.0%339+1.40.780+4.70.255+3.60.342+9.40.015
Fence and open+1.70.734-2.30.631+3.10.526+2.00.684+0.00.997-1.40.78049.7%155+3.40.509+2.30.637+8.10.097
Open-1.70.694-5.70.173-0.20.952-1.40.744-3.30.434-4.70.255-3.40.50946.3%259-1.10.795+4.70.255
Rectangle-0.60.879-4.60.233+0.80.833-0.30.939-2.30.568-3.60.342-2.30.637+1.10.79547.4%346+5.80.133
Octagon-6.40.109-10.40.008-5.00.204-6.10.120-8.10.045-9.40.015-8.10.097-4.70.255-5.80.13341.6%322
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 counted1,398
Win rate47.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.0 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lei Fei's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable full fence52.5%+5.00.212139
Low fence51.8%+4.20.342114
Single wall49.4%+1.90.605164
Fence and open48.6%+1.10.85370 ·
Rectangle47.8%+0.30.942157
Full fence47.6%+0.10.968149
Breakable half fence47.3%-0.20.960129
Half fence46.5%-1.00.806144
Open46.2%-1.30.785106
Octagon42.8%-4.70.228145
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

Lei Fei's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 3.81 on 9 df, p 0.924

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.6%149-4.90.409+1.10.847+0.40.952-4.10.510-1.70.758-0.90.899+1.40.822-0.10.983+4.90.399
Breakable full fence+4.90.40952.5%139+6.00.314+5.20.392+0.80.904+3.10.587+4.00.590+6.30.329+4.80.415+9.80.100
Half fence-1.10.847-6.00.31446.5%144-0.80.900-5.20.404-2.90.616-2.00.779+0.30.962-1.20.829+3.80.519
Breakable half fence-0.40.952-5.20.392+0.80.90047.3%129-4.50.487-2.10.721-1.30.862+1.10.871-0.50.935+4.50.452
Low fence+4.10.510-0.80.904+5.20.404+4.50.48751.8%114+2.40.698+3.20.675+5.50.412+4.00.517+9.00.150
Single wall+1.70.758-3.10.587+2.90.616+2.10.721-2.40.69849.4%164+0.80.909+3.20.611+1.60.772+6.60.243
Fence and open+0.90.899-4.00.590+2.00.779+1.30.862-3.20.675-0.80.90948.6%70+2.30.760+0.80.911+5.80.422
Open-1.40.822-6.30.329-0.30.962-1.10.871-5.50.412-3.20.611-2.30.76046.2%106-1.50.806+3.50.585
Rectangle+0.10.983-4.80.415+1.20.829+0.50.935-4.00.517-1.60.772-0.80.911+1.50.80647.8%157+5.00.382
Octagon-4.90.399-9.80.100-3.80.519-4.50.452-9.00.150-6.60.243-5.80.422-3.50.585-5.00.38242.8%145
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 counted1,418
Win rate46.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-8.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lei Fei's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall52.6%+6.30.125135
Fence and open51.4%+5.10.38170 ·
Open49.6%+3.30.453121
Breakable full fence47.0%+0.60.878132
Rectangle46.3%-0.10.985147
Low fence45.8%-0.60.879153
Breakable half fence45.2%-1.10.767157
Half fence44.1%-2.20.576145
Full fence43.2%-3.10.497111
Octagon38.1%-8.30.029155
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

Lei Fei's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 8.39 on 9 df, p 0.496

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence43.2%111-3.70.561-0.90.886-2.00.748-2.50.686-9.30.144-8.20.282-6.30.333-3.00.630+5.20.396
Breakable full fence+3.70.56147.0%132+2.80.636+1.80.767+1.20.837-5.60.358-4.50.546-2.60.677+0.70.905+8.90.128
Half fence+0.90.886-2.80.63644.1%145-1.10.850-1.60.780-8.40.157-7.30.315-5.50.375-2.10.716+6.10.285
Breakable half fence+2.00.748-1.80.767+1.10.85045.2%157-0.50.926-7.40.209-6.20.387-4.40.470-1.00.856+7.20.200
Low fence+2.50.686-1.20.837+1.60.780+0.50.92645.8%153-6.80.246-5.70.431-3.80.528-0.50.930+7.70.172
Single wall+9.30.144+5.60.358+8.40.157+7.40.209+6.80.24652.6%135+1.20.874+3.00.631+6.30.288+14.50.013
Fence and open+8.20.282+4.50.546+7.30.315+6.20.387+5.70.431-1.20.87451.4%70+1.80.806+5.20.476+13.40.060
Open+6.30.333+2.60.677+5.50.375+4.40.470+3.80.528-3.00.631-1.80.80649.6%121+3.30.587+11.50.055
Rectangle+3.00.630-0.70.905+2.10.716+1.00.856+0.50.930-6.30.288-5.20.476-3.30.58746.3%147+8.20.149
Octagon-5.20.396-8.90.128-6.10.285-7.20.200-7.70.172-14.50.013-13.40.060-11.50.055-8.20.14938.1%155
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 counted343
Win rate55.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lei Fei's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable full fence64.0%+8.90.17150 ·
Low fence63.0%+7.90.39227 ·
Full fence62.5%+7.40.31740 ·
Octagon59.1%+4.00.69722 ·
Breakable half fence59.0%+3.90.60639 ·
Half fence57.6%+2.50.76433 ·
Single wall52.5%-2.60.72540 ·
Rectangle50.0%-5.10.47842 ·
Fence and open46.7%-8.40.50215 ·
Open34.4%-20.70.01332 ·
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

Lei Fei's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.15 on 9 df, p 0.339

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence62.5%40-1.50.883+4.90.669+3.50.748-0.50.969+10.00.366+15.80.289+28.10.018+12.50.254+3.40.792
Breakable full fence+1.50.88364.0%50+6.40.556+5.00.628+1.00.928+11.50.271+17.30.229+29.60.009+14.00.176+4.90.692
Half fence-4.90.669-6.40.55657.6%33-1.40.905-5.40.672+5.10.665+10.90.482+23.20.061+7.60.514-1.50.911
Breakable half fence-3.50.748-5.00.628+1.40.90559.0%39-4.00.744+6.50.562+12.30.415+24.60.039+9.00.418-0.10.993
Low fence+0.50.969-1.00.928+5.40.672+4.00.74463.0%27+10.50.397+16.30.307+28.60.028+13.00.291+3.90.782
Single wall-10.00.366-11.50.271-5.10.665-6.50.562-10.50.39752.5%40+5.80.700+18.10.124+2.50.821-6.60.618
Fence and open-15.80.289-17.30.229-10.90.482-12.30.415-16.30.307-5.80.70046.7%15+12.30.419-3.30.825-12.40.457
Open-28.10.018-29.60.009-23.20.061-24.60.039-28.60.028-18.10.124-12.30.41934.4%32-15.60.179-24.70.073
Rectangle-12.50.254-14.00.176-7.60.514-9.00.418-13.00.291-2.50.821+3.30.825+15.60.17950.0%42-9.10.489
Octagon-3.40.792-4.90.692+1.50.911+0.10.993-3.90.782+6.60.618+12.40.457+24.70.073+9.10.48959.1%22
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.