VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lion vs Pai

Lion vs Pai in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lion wins 51.6% of 4,629 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 counted4,629
Win rate51.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.4 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lion's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence56.1%+4.40.048453
Breakable half fence55.5%+3.90.077472
Fence and open54.0%+2.30.461239
Half fence51.8%+0.20.939438
Rectangle51.7%+0.00.994449
Single wall51.5%-0.20.928480
Octagon51.1%-0.50.813446
Breakable full fence49.9%-1.80.410493
Open49.9%-1.80.424463
Low fence48.3%-3.30.124476
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.16 on 9 df, p 0.337

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.1%453+6.20.057+4.20.204+0.60.863+7.80.018+4.60.158+2.10.598+6.20.061+4.40.185+5.00.137
Breakable full fence-6.20.05749.9%493-1.90.557-5.60.081+1.60.623-1.60.627-4.10.301+0.00.998-1.80.587-1.20.708
Half fence-4.20.204+1.90.55751.8%438-3.70.266+3.50.289+0.40.911-2.10.593+1.90.562+0.20.963+0.70.834
Breakable half fence-0.60.863+5.60.081+3.70.26655.5%472+7.20.027+4.00.210+1.50.698+5.60.085+3.80.243+4.40.183
Low fence-7.80.018-1.60.623-3.50.289-7.20.02748.3%476-3.10.332-5.70.154-1.60.630-3.40.308-2.80.395
Single wall-4.60.158+1.60.627-0.40.911-4.00.210+3.10.33251.5%480-2.50.524+1.60.631-0.20.948+0.30.918
Fence and open-2.10.598+4.10.301+2.10.593-1.50.698+5.70.154+2.50.52454.0%239+4.10.305+2.30.564+2.90.476
Open-6.20.061-0.00.998-1.90.562-5.60.085+1.60.630-1.60.631-4.10.30549.9%463-1.80.591-1.20.711
Rectangle-4.40.185+1.80.587-0.20.963-3.80.243+3.40.308+0.20.948-2.30.564+1.80.59151.7%449+0.60.869
Octagon-5.00.137+1.20.708-0.70.834-4.40.183+2.80.395-0.30.918-2.90.476+1.20.711-0.60.86951.1%446
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 counted2,343
Win rate50.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.9 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lion's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence58.4%+7.90.015214
Breakable half fence56.1%+5.70.062244
Half fence53.9%+3.40.260243
Fence and open52.0%+1.50.732127
Rectangle51.3%+0.80.789224
Low fence50.2%-0.30.928235
Octagon47.2%-3.30.312214
Breakable full fence46.7%-3.80.198259
Open45.3%-5.20.094234
Single wall44.3%-6.20.040244
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 18.52 on 9 df, p 0.030

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence58.4%214+11.70.011+4.50.333+2.30.625+8.20.082+14.20.003+6.40.247+13.10.006+7.10.137+11.20.020
Breakable full fence-11.70.01146.7%259-7.20.107-9.40.034-3.50.438+2.50.580-5.20.332+1.40.752-4.60.311-0.50.917
Half fence-4.50.333+7.20.10753.9%243-2.20.620+3.70.419+9.70.033+1.90.722+8.60.060+2.60.578+6.70.152
Breakable half fence-2.30.625+9.40.034+2.20.62056.1%244+5.90.193+11.90.009+4.20.443+10.80.018+4.80.297+8.90.056
Low fence-8.20.082+3.50.438-3.70.419-5.90.19350.2%235+6.00.192-1.80.750+4.90.287-1.10.809+3.00.523
Single wall-14.20.003-2.50.580-9.70.033-11.90.009-6.00.19244.3%244-7.70.158-1.00.820-7.10.126-2.90.529
Fence and open-6.40.247+5.20.332-1.90.722-4.20.443+1.80.750+7.70.15852.0%127+6.70.226+0.60.910+4.80.394
Open-13.10.006-1.40.752-8.60.060-10.80.018-4.90.287+1.00.820-6.70.22645.3%234-6.00.196-1.90.687
Rectangle-7.10.137+4.60.311-2.60.578-4.80.297+1.10.809+7.10.126-0.60.910+6.00.19651.3%224+4.10.386
Octagon-11.20.020+0.50.917-6.70.152-8.90.056-3.00.523+2.90.529-4.80.394+1.90.687-4.10.38647.2%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 counted1,840
Win rate53.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lion's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall60.7%+7.50.023201
Open56.7%+3.50.307187
Octagon56.4%+3.20.349188
Fence and open56.3%+3.20.54487
Breakable half fence55.1%+1.90.592178
Breakable full fence54.6%+1.40.678185
Full fence51.9%-1.20.723183
Rectangle51.6%-1.50.657186
Half fence47.2%-6.00.113161
Low fence46.5%-6.60.055187
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 12.77 on 9 df, p 0.173

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.9%183-2.70.606+4.70.384-3.10.549+5.40.300-8.80.083-4.40.497-4.80.357+0.30.954-4.50.388
Breakable full fence+2.70.60654.6%185+7.40.170-0.50.930+8.10.120-6.10.225-1.70.789-2.10.685+3.00.565-1.80.728
Half fence-4.70.384-7.40.17047.2%161-7.90.149+0.70.899-13.50.010-9.10.171-9.50.078-4.40.413-9.20.087
Breakable half fence+3.10.549+0.50.930+7.90.14955.1%178+8.50.103-5.60.267-1.30.846-1.60.754+3.50.510-1.30.798
Low fence-5.40.300-8.10.120-0.70.899-8.50.10346.5%187-14.20.005-9.80.131-10.20.049-5.10.326-9.90.056
Single wall+8.80.083+6.10.225+13.50.010+5.60.267+14.20.00560.7%201+4.40.488+4.00.422+9.10.072+4.30.388
Fence and open+4.40.497+1.70.789+9.10.171+1.30.846+9.80.131-4.40.48856.3%87-0.40.955+4.70.468-0.10.992
Open+4.80.357+2.10.685+9.50.078+1.60.754+10.20.049-4.00.422+0.40.95556.7%187+5.10.326+0.30.953
Rectangle-0.30.954-3.00.565+4.40.413-3.50.510+5.10.326-9.10.072-4.70.468-5.10.32651.6%186-4.80.355
Octagon+4.50.388+1.80.728+9.20.087+1.30.798+9.90.056-4.30.388+0.10.992-0.30.953+4.80.35556.4%188
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 counted446
Win rate51.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lion's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence60.7%+9.10.14356 ·
Half fence58.8%+7.20.37934 ·
Fence and open56.0%+4.40.64825 ·
Breakable half fence54.0%+2.40.71550 ·
Rectangle53.9%+2.30.76639 ·
Breakable full fence49.0%-2.60.70149 ·
Single wall48.6%-3.00.71235 ·
Octagon47.7%-3.80.59144 ·
Low fence46.3%-5.30.40854 ·
Open45.2%-6.30.38842 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 4.77 on 9 df, p 0.854

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence60.7%56+11.70.228+1.90.859+6.70.485+14.40.130+12.10.256+4.70.690+15.50.128+6.90.505+13.00.195
Breakable full fence-11.70.22849.0%49-9.80.377-5.00.617+2.70.785+0.40.971-7.00.568+3.70.722-4.90.650+1.20.904
Half fence-1.90.859+9.80.37758.8%34+4.80.662+12.50.252+10.20.393+2.80.828+13.60.239+5.00.669+11.10.330
Breakable half fence-6.70.485+5.00.617-4.80.66254.0%50+7.70.432+5.40.622-2.00.870+8.80.402+0.10.988+6.30.544
Low fence-14.40.130-2.70.785-12.50.252-7.70.43246.3%54-2.30.834-9.70.422+1.10.918-7.50.472-1.40.888
Single wall-12.10.256-0.40.971-10.20.393-5.40.622+2.30.83448.6%35-7.40.570+3.30.770-5.30.650+0.80.941
Fence and open-4.70.690+7.00.568-2.80.828+2.00.870+9.70.422+7.40.57056.0%25+10.80.394+2.10.866+8.30.509
Open-15.50.128-3.70.722-13.60.239-8.80.402-1.10.918-3.30.770-10.80.39445.2%42-8.60.439-2.50.817
Rectangle-6.90.505+4.90.650-5.00.669-0.10.988+7.50.472+5.30.650-2.10.866+8.60.43953.9%39+6.10.578
Octagon-13.00.195-1.20.904-11.10.330-6.30.544+1.40.888-0.80.941-8.30.509+2.50.817-6.10.57847.7%44
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.