VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Eileen

Brad vs Eileen in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 48.2% of 1,311 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 0 of 9 tested stage gaps survive correction.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,311
Win rate48.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.9 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open53.2%+5.00.48647 ·
Half fence53.1%+4.90.242130
Breakable full fence50.4%+2.20.595135
Rectangle48.8%+0.60.885127
Open48.3%+0.10.988116
Low fence47.9%-0.30.930140
Single wall47.3%-0.90.808146
Full fence46.4%-1.80.656140
Breakable half fence43.9%-4.30.331114
Octagon43.8%-4.50.288128
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 4.07 on 9 df, p 0.907

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.4%140-3.90.513-6.70.275+2.60.682-1.40.811-0.80.888-6.80.422-1.90.768-2.40.696+2.70.660
Breakable full fence+3.90.51350.4%135-2.70.659+6.50.305+2.50.677+3.10.602-2.80.739+2.10.741+1.60.802+6.60.282
Half fence+6.70.275+2.70.65953.1%130+9.20.151+5.20.391+5.80.335-0.10.989+4.80.452+4.30.495+9.30.134
Breakable half fence-2.60.682-6.50.305-9.20.15143.9%114-4.00.525-3.40.585-9.30.280-4.40.502-5.00.441+0.10.986
Low fence+1.40.811-2.50.677-5.20.391+4.00.52547.9%140+0.60.920-5.30.527-0.40.947-1.00.875+4.10.500
Single wall+0.80.888-3.10.602-5.80.335+3.40.585-0.60.92047.3%146-5.90.479-1.00.870-1.60.797+3.50.561
Fence and open+6.80.422+2.80.739+0.10.989+9.30.280+5.30.527+5.90.47953.2%47+4.90.570+4.40.609+9.40.267
Open+1.90.768-2.10.741-4.80.452+4.40.502+0.40.947+1.00.870-4.90.57048.3%116-0.50.933+4.50.479
Rectangle+2.40.696-1.60.802-4.30.495+5.00.441+1.00.875+1.60.797-4.40.609+0.50.93348.8%127+5.10.417
Octagon-2.70.660-6.60.282-9.30.134-0.10.986-4.10.500-3.50.561-9.40.267-4.50.479-5.10.41743.8%128
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 counted521
Win rate46.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open60.0%+13.20.22920 ·
Rectangle51.9%+5.00.43554 ·
Single wall51.4%+4.50.40074 ·
Low fence48.6%+1.70.83135 ·
Full fence46.9%+0.10.98849 ·
Octagon45.9%-0.90.87761 ·
Breakable full fence43.3%-3.50.56460 ·
Open43.2%-3.60.61244 ·
Half fence39.3%-7.50.21261 ·
Breakable half fence38.2%-8.60.29934 ·
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: 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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 5.48 on 9 df, p 0.790

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.9%49+3.60.707+7.60.424+8.70.431-1.60.883-4.40.632-13.10.325+3.80.716-4.90.618+1.00.914
Breakable full fence-3.60.70743.3%60+4.00.656+5.10.630-5.20.621-8.00.355-16.70.196+0.10.988-8.50.363-2.60.776
Half fence-7.60.424-4.00.65639.3%61+1.10.915-9.20.379-12.00.164-20.70.107-3.80.693-12.50.179-6.60.464
Breakable half fence-8.70.431-5.10.630-1.10.91538.2%34-10.30.387-13.10.205-21.80.121-4.90.660-13.60.212-7.70.470
Low fence+1.60.883+5.20.621+9.20.379+10.30.38748.6%35-2.80.786-11.40.414+5.40.633-3.30.762+2.70.801
Single wall+4.40.632+8.00.355+12.00.164+13.10.205+2.80.78651.4%74-8.70.492+8.20.390-0.50.955+5.50.528
Fence and open+13.10.325+16.70.196+20.70.107+21.80.121+11.40.414+8.70.49260.0%20+16.80.212+8.20.532+14.10.274
Open-3.80.716-0.10.988+3.80.693+4.90.660-5.40.633-8.20.390-16.80.21243.2%44-8.70.393-2.70.782
Rectangle+4.90.618+8.50.363+12.50.179+13.60.212+3.30.762+0.50.955-8.20.532+8.70.39351.9%54+6.00.524
Octagon-1.00.914+2.60.776+6.60.464+7.70.470-2.70.801-5.50.528-14.10.274+2.70.782-6.00.52445.9%61
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 counted538
Win rate48.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence57.8%+9.30.19445 ·
Breakable full fence56.1%+7.60.22357 ·
Full fence52.5%+4.00.51259 ·
Open51.1%+2.60.71645 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%+1.50.81456 ·
Fence and open50.0%+1.50.89818 ·
Single wall49.0%+0.50.93951 ·
Rectangle43.4%-5.10.43253 ·
Low fence42.7%-5.80.27575 ·
Octagon32.6%-15.90.02446 ·
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: 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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.68 on 9 df, p 0.377

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.5%59-3.60.697-5.20.595+2.50.785+9.90.256+3.50.712+2.50.850+1.40.885+9.10.333+19.90.041
Breakable full fence+3.60.69756.1%57-1.60.868+6.10.513+13.50.125+7.10.459+6.10.648+5.00.613+12.70.182+23.50.017
Half fence+5.20.595+1.60.86857.8%45+7.80.436+15.10.109+8.80.391+7.80.575+6.70.525+14.40.156+25.20.016
Breakable half fence-2.50.785-6.10.513-7.80.43650.0%56+7.30.405+1.00.919+0.01.000-1.10.912+6.60.490+17.40.077
Low fence-9.90.256-13.50.125-15.10.109-7.30.40542.7%75-6.30.482-7.30.574-8.40.369-0.70.935+10.10.270
Single wall-3.50.712-7.10.459-8.80.391-1.00.919+6.30.48249.0%51-1.00.943-2.10.838+5.60.565+16.40.101
Fence and open-2.50.850-6.10.648-7.80.575-0.01.000+7.30.574+1.00.94350.0%18-1.10.936+6.60.627+17.40.196
Open-1.40.885-5.00.613-6.70.525+1.10.912+8.40.369+2.10.838+1.10.93651.1%45+7.70.446+18.50.074
Rectangle-9.10.333-12.70.182-14.40.156-6.60.490+0.70.935-5.60.565-6.60.627-7.70.44643.4%53+10.80.271
Octagon-19.90.041-23.50.017-25.20.016-17.40.077-10.10.270-16.40.101-17.40.196-18.50.074-10.80.27132.6%46
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 counted252
Win rate50.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence79.2%+28.80.00324 ·
Octagon61.9%+11.50.27121 ·
Low fence60.0%+9.60.26230 ·
Breakable full fence55.6%+5.20.65018 ·
Rectangle55.0%+4.60.66820 ·
Open51.9%+1.40.87327 ·
Fence and open44.4%-6.00.7169 ·
Breakable half fence37.5%-12.90.18424 ·
Full fence34.4%-16.00.05232 ·
Single wall28.6%-21.80.03721 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 19.55 on 9 df, p 0.021

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence34.4%32-21.20.145-44.8<0.001-3.10.809-25.60.043+5.80.658-10.10.580-17.50.176-20.60.143-27.50.049
Breakable full fence+21.20.14555.6%18-23.60.101+18.10.245-4.40.762+27.00.088+11.10.586+3.70.807+0.60.973-6.30.688
Half fence+44.8<0.001+23.60.10179.2%24+41.70.003+19.20.132+50.6<0.001+34.70.053+27.30.042+24.20.087+17.30.202
Breakable half fence+3.10.809-18.10.245-41.70.00337.5%24-22.50.100+8.90.526-6.90.716-14.30.304-17.50.246-24.40.102
Low fence+25.60.043+4.40.762-19.20.132+22.50.10060.0%30+31.40.027+15.60.409+8.20.536+5.00.726-1.90.891
Single wall-5.80.658-27.00.088-50.6<0.001-8.90.526-31.40.02728.6%21-15.90.398-23.30.105-26.40.086-33.30.030
Fence and open+10.10.580-11.10.586-34.70.053+6.90.716-15.60.409+15.90.39844.4%9-7.40.700-10.60.599-17.50.376
Open+17.50.176-3.70.807-27.30.042+14.30.304-8.20.536+23.30.105+7.40.70051.9%27-3.10.831-10.10.486
Rectangle+20.60.143-0.60.973-24.20.087+17.50.246-5.00.726+26.40.086+10.60.599+3.10.83155.0%20-6.90.654
Octagon+27.50.049+6.30.688-17.30.202+24.40.102+1.90.891+33.30.030+17.50.376+10.10.486+6.90.65461.9%21
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.