VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Goh

Brad vs Goh in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 50.9% of 3,978 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 counted3,978
Win rate50.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.8 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
Half fence57.7%+6.80.009345
Full fence56.1%+5.20.034374
Fence and open52.0%+1.10.750196
Breakable full fence51.9%+1.00.669416
Single wall50.8%-0.20.938402
Rectangle49.9%-1.10.660389
Open49.0%-1.90.415408
Low fence48.4%-2.60.261428
Breakable half fence47.1%-3.80.117382
Octagon47.0%-3.90.091423
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 17.27 on 9 df, p 0.045

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.1%374+4.20.234-1.50.679+9.00.013+7.80.028+5.40.132+4.10.349+7.10.046+6.30.082+9.10.010
Breakable full fence-4.20.23451.9%416-5.80.112+4.80.175+3.60.301+1.20.736-0.10.978+2.90.405+2.00.561+4.90.158
Half fence+1.50.679+5.80.11257.7%345+10.60.004+9.30.010+6.90.058+5.60.204+8.70.018+7.80.034+10.60.003
Breakable half fence-9.00.013-4.80.175-10.60.00447.1%382-1.20.723-3.60.310-4.90.263-1.90.593-2.80.445+0.10.983
Low fence-7.80.028-3.60.301-9.30.010+1.20.72348.4%428-2.40.493-3.70.394-0.70.850-1.50.667+1.30.700
Single wall-5.40.132-1.20.736-6.90.058+3.60.310+2.40.49350.8%402-1.30.766+1.70.623+0.90.806+3.70.288
Fence and open-4.10.349+0.10.978-5.60.204+4.90.263+3.70.394+1.30.76652.0%196+3.00.487+2.20.620+5.00.247
Open-7.10.046-2.90.405-8.70.018+1.90.593+0.70.850-1.70.623-3.00.48749.0%408-0.80.810+2.00.569
Rectangle-6.30.082-2.00.561-7.80.034+2.80.445+1.50.667-0.90.806-2.20.620+0.80.81049.9%389+2.80.421
Octagon-9.10.010-4.90.158-10.60.003-0.10.983-1.30.700-3.70.288-5.00.247-2.00.569-2.80.42147.0%423
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 counted1,393
Win rate51.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.8 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 open61.9%+10.50.08863 ·
Half fence57.2%+5.80.137145
Full fence56.7%+5.30.258104
Rectangle56.0%+4.60.339100
Breakable half fence51.2%-0.10.968160
Open49.2%-2.20.602132
Breakable full fence49.0%-2.40.532153
Single wall47.4%-4.00.293154
Low fence46.2%-5.20.165158
Octagon45.9%-5.50.159146
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 11.81 on 9 df, p 0.224

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.7%104+7.70.225-0.50.936+5.50.383+10.50.095+9.30.141-5.20.510+7.50.253+0.70.916+10.80.091
Breakable full fence-7.70.22549.0%153-8.20.155-2.20.693+2.80.619+1.60.777-12.90.085-0.20.970-7.00.277+3.10.588
Half fence+0.50.936+8.20.15557.2%145+6.00.294+11.00.055+9.80.089-4.70.530+8.00.183+1.20.847+11.30.053
Breakable half fence-5.50.383+2.20.693-6.00.29451.2%160+5.00.368+3.90.495-10.70.150+2.00.733-4.80.455+5.40.349
Low fence-10.50.095-2.80.619-11.00.055-5.00.36846.2%158-1.20.832-15.70.035-3.00.606-9.80.125+0.30.956
Single wall-9.30.141-1.60.777-9.80.089-3.90.495+1.20.83247.4%154-14.50.052-1.80.756-8.60.181+1.50.793
Fence and open+5.20.510+12.90.085+4.70.530+10.70.150+15.70.035+14.50.05261.9%63+12.70.097+5.90.457+16.00.034
Open-7.50.253+0.20.970-8.00.183-2.00.733+3.00.606+1.80.756-12.70.09749.2%132-6.80.308+3.40.576
Rectangle-0.70.916+7.00.277-1.20.847+4.80.455+9.80.125+8.60.181-5.90.457+6.80.30856.0%100+10.10.119
Octagon-10.80.091-3.10.588-11.30.053-5.40.349-0.30.956-1.50.793-16.00.034-3.40.576-10.10.11945.9%146
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 counted2,378
Win rate50.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.7 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
Half fence56.7%+6.70.057187
Full fence56.1%+6.10.040255
Single wall52.2%+2.20.488230
Breakable full fence52.0%+2.00.504250
Low fence49.6%-0.40.894254
Open48.6%-1.40.644257
Octagon47.6%-2.40.422250
Rectangle46.1%-3.90.184254
Breakable half fence44.8%-5.20.123203
Fence and open43.4%-6.60.137122
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 14.57 on 9 df, p 0.103

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.1%255+4.10.358-0.60.899+11.20.017+6.50.144+3.90.389+12.60.022+7.40.092+10.00.024+8.50.057
Breakable full fence-4.10.35852.0%250-4.70.331+7.20.129+2.40.591-0.20.970+8.60.121+3.40.449+5.90.183+4.40.325
Half fence+0.60.899+4.70.33156.7%187+11.80.019+7.10.141+4.50.358+13.20.023+8.00.094+10.60.027+9.10.060
Breakable half fence-11.20.017-7.20.129-11.80.01944.8%203-4.80.309-7.30.127+1.40.808-3.80.416-1.20.792-2.80.556
Low fence-6.50.144-2.40.591-7.10.141+4.80.30949.6%254-2.60.573+6.20.263+1.00.827+3.50.424+2.00.652
Single wall-3.90.389+0.20.970-4.50.358+7.30.127+2.60.57352.2%230+8.70.119+3.50.436+6.10.179+4.60.317
Fence and open-12.60.022-8.60.121-13.20.023-1.40.808-6.20.263-8.70.11943.4%122-5.20.344-2.60.633-4.20.450
Open-7.40.092-3.40.449-8.00.094+3.80.416-1.00.827-3.50.436+5.20.34448.6%257+2.60.560+1.00.815
Rectangle-10.00.024-5.90.183-10.60.027+1.20.792-3.50.424-6.10.179+2.60.633-2.60.56046.1%254-1.50.730
Octagon-8.50.057-4.40.325-9.10.060+2.80.556-2.00.652-4.60.317+4.20.450-1.00.815+1.50.73047.6%250
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 counted207
Win rate58.5%
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
Fence and open90.9%+32.50.02511 ·
Breakable full fence84.6%+26.20.04813 ·
Half fence76.9%+18.50.16313 ·
Single wall61.1%+2.70.81118 ·
Rectangle60.0%+1.60.83935 ·
Full fence53.3%-5.10.67615 ·
Open52.6%-5.80.58919 ·
Low fence50.0%-8.40.47516 ·
Octagon48.1%-10.30.24427 ·
Breakable half fence36.8%-21.60.04519 ·
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 16.10 on 9 df, p 0.065

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.3%15-31.30.077-23.60.194+16.50.336+3.30.853-7.80.653-37.60.040+0.70.968-6.70.662+5.20.747
Breakable full fence+31.30.07784.6%13+7.70.619+47.80.007+34.60.051+23.50.155-6.30.642+32.00.061+24.60.108+36.50.027
Half fence+23.60.194-7.70.61976.9%13+40.10.026+26.90.137+15.80.353-14.00.360+24.30.163+16.90.276+28.80.085
Breakable half fence-16.50.336-47.80.007-40.10.02636.8%19-13.20.433-24.30.140-54.10.004-15.80.328-23.20.104-11.30.446
Low fence-3.30.853-34.60.051-26.90.137+13.20.43350.0%16-11.10.515-40.90.027-2.60.877-10.00.503+1.90.907
Single wall+7.80.653-23.50.155-15.80.353+24.30.140+11.10.51561.1%18-29.80.081+8.50.603+1.10.938+13.00.393
Fence and open+37.60.040+6.30.642+14.00.360+54.10.004+40.90.027+29.80.08190.9%11+38.30.032+30.90.056+42.80.014
Open-0.70.968-32.00.061-24.30.163+15.80.328+2.60.877-8.50.603-38.30.03252.6%19-7.40.601+4.50.765
Rectangle+6.70.662-24.60.108-16.90.276+23.20.104+10.00.503-1.10.938-30.90.056+7.40.60160.0%35+11.80.352
Octagon-5.20.747-36.50.027-28.80.085+11.30.446-1.90.907-13.00.393-42.80.014-4.50.765-11.80.35248.1%27
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.