PHL UNO II
Advanced · All seasons
Every rate on this page shows its denominator in the column beside it. A percentage drawn from fewer than 10 games (or 5 series) is still shown, marked like this — it is a real figure, it just should not be read as confidently as one built on eighty.
Series shape
| Format | Series | W–L | Avg games | Swept opp. | Were swept | Went the distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best of 3 | 41 | 16–25 | 2.49 | 8 | 13 | 20 |
| Best of 5 | 59 | 24–35 | 3.92 | 4 | 18 | 17 |
One row per format, never pooled. A career average across formats measures which seasons a club played, not how it plays: Seasons 0 and 2 ran best-of-3 regular seasons and the rest best-of-5. Sweeps and going the distance are counted against each format’s own target, so they do compare.
Home and away
| Side | Games | W–L | Win % | Stock diff | Series | Series W–L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home | 170 | 80–90 | 47.1% | -22 | 50 | 25–25 |
| Away | 163 | 59–104 | 36.2% | -85 | 50 | 15–35 |
Read a gap here cautiously. Across all 1,146 games in league history the home side has won 51.9%, which is not distinguishable from a coin flip, and Season 3 leans the other way. One club’s split is a few dozen games a side.
With the series on the line
| Situation | Games | W–L | Win % | Stock diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facing eliminationA loss ends the series | 107 | 47–60 | 43.9% | -37 |
| On series pointA win ends the series | 81 | 40–41 | 49.4% | -9 |
| Winner take allThe last game of a full-length series | 37 | 19–18 | 51.4% | -7 |
| ClutchGame 3 or later | 133 | 60–73 | 45.1% | -34 |
| Leading the seriesAhead going into the game | 63 | 31–32 | 49.2% | -1 |
| Series tiedLevel going into the game | 160 | 66–94 | 41.3% | -55 |
| Trailing the seriesBehind going into the game | 110 | 42–68 | 38.2% | -51 |
The state of the series going intoeach game. The last three rows partition every game; the first four overlap each other and them — a winner-take-all game is also facing elimination, on series point and clutch. Clutch is game 3 or later, the league’s own definition. Whether a game is on the brink is judged by the wins that actually took the series, not by the stored best-of, which is wrong for seven Season 1 playoff series.
After game 1
| Series state | Series | W–L | Conversion |
|---|---|---|---|
| After winning game 1Series taken from an opening win | 37 | 26–11 | 70.3% |
| After losing game 1Series taken from an opening loss | 63 | 14–49 | 22.2% |
| After leading by twoSeries where this club went two games clear | 25 | 24–1 | 96.0% |
| After trailing by twoSeries where this club fell two games behind | 45 | 2–43 | 4.4% |
Series, not games. Comebacks are rare everywhere — league-wide only about one series in twenty is won from two games down — so a club’s own count is usually a handful, and most conversion rates here will carry the small-sample mark.
By game in the series
Where PHL UNO II wins and loses within a series. Bars are scaled to the busiest position, so length reads as how often and the split as how it went.
Character deployment
| Character | Games | W | L | Win % | Opens | Closes | Stock diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 0 | 3 | 0.0% (small sample) | 267% | 00% | -7 | |
| 9 | 3 | 6 | 33.3% (small sample) | 556% | 111% | -5 | |
| 5 | 0 | 5 | 0.0% (small sample) | 240% | 120% | -8 | |
| 14 | 4 | 10 | 28.6% | 536% | 214% | -14 | |
| 16 | 5 | 11 | 31.3% | 319% | 531% | -11 | |
| 17 | 7 | 10 | 41.2% | 16% | 635% | -4 | |
| 62 | 28 | 34 | 45.2% | 3556% | 813% | -6 | |
| 30 | 14 | 16 | 46.7% | 620% | 827% | -4 | |
| 27 | 10 | 17 | 37.0% | 726% | 933% | -16 | |
| 72 | 40 | 32 | 55.6% | 1115% | 1926% | +4 | |
| 78 | 28 | 50 | 35.9% | 2329% | 2026% | -36 |
Opens is game 1; closes is the game that ended a series of three or more. These are real roles rather than trivia, because of a league rule visible nowhere in the data: a character that wins a game does not play again in that series — league-wide a winner is followed by a different character 99.9% of the time, a loser only 68%. A club cannot ride its best pick, so something else has to close.
Stage by character
| Stage | Character | Games | W | L | Win % | Stock diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small Battlefield | 23 | 6 | 17 | 26.1% | -14 | |
| Pokémon Stadium 2 | 22 | 12 | 10 | 54.5% | +4 | |
| Small Battlefield | 17 | 4 | 13 | 23.5% | -14 | |
| Dreamland | 16 | 6 | 10 | 37.5% | -8 | |
| Dreamland | 14 | 8 | 6 | 57.1% | -3 | |
| Town and City | 13 | 8 | 5 | 61.5% | +4 | |
| Kalos Pokémon League | 12 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | -5 | |
| Pokémon Stadium 2 | 12 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | -9 | |
| Pokémon Stadium 2 | 11 | 4 | 7 | 36.4% | -7 | |
| Town and City | 10 | 5 | 5 | 50.0% | +3 | |
| Pokémon Stadium 2 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 44.4% (small sample) | -2 | |
| Final Destination | 7 | 5 | 2 | 71.4% (small sample) | +5 | |
| Hollow Bastion | 7 | 2 | 5 | 28.6% (small sample) | -4 | |
| Kalos Pokémon League | 7 | 4 | 3 | 57.1% (small sample) | +2 | |
| Small Battlefield | 6 | 4 | 2 | 66.7% (small sample) | +3 | |
| Battlefield | 5 | 2 | 3 | 40.0% (small sample) | -2 | |
| Dreamland | 5 | 3 | 2 | 60.0% (small sample) | 0 | |
| Kalos Pokémon League | 5 | 1 | 4 | 20.0% (small sample) | -5 | |
| Pokémon Stadium 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 40.0% (small sample) | -2 | |
| Smashville | 5 | 3 | 2 | 60.0% (small sample) | +3 | |
| Smashville | 5 | 2 | 3 | 40.0% (small sample) | -1 | |
| Dreamland | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0.0% (small sample) | -5 | |
| Final Destination | 4 | 2 | 2 | 50.0% (small sample) | +1 | |
| Kalos Pokémon League | 4 | 2 | 2 | 50.0% (small sample) | -1 |
The interaction the overview’s stage table cannot show: which stage a particular pick actually wins on. Cells go thin fast — league-wide only about a tenth of character-by-stage combinations reach 10 games — so most rates here carry the small-sample mark. Showing the top 24 of 73 combinations for the current sort, so re-sorting changes which rows appear. The club’s plain stage splits are on the overview.