VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Jacky

Brad vs Jacky in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 53.0% of 6,771 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 counted6,771
Win rate53.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.2 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
Octagon55.7%+2.80.119718
Full fence55.0%+2.00.259678
Single wall54.7%+1.70.353664
Low fence53.9%+0.90.623674
Open53.1%+0.20.932674
Breakable full fence53.0%+0.00.996606
Breakable half fence51.9%-1.00.567697
Fence and open51.0%-1.90.460343
Rectangle50.8%-2.20.240648
Half fence49.7%-3.20.071692
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 9.32 on 9 df, p 0.408

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence55.0%678+2.00.463+5.30.049+3.10.253+1.10.669+0.30.899+4.00.227+1.90.484+4.20.122-0.70.794
Breakable full fence-2.00.46353.0%606+3.30.241+1.00.709-0.90.751-1.70.544+1.90.563-0.10.958+2.20.436-2.70.319
Half fence-5.30.049-3.30.24149.7%692-2.20.407-4.20.125-5.00.068-1.30.692-3.40.208-1.10.698-6.00.024
Breakable half fence-3.10.253-1.00.709+2.20.40751.9%697-1.90.476-2.70.313+0.90.781-1.20.662+1.20.669-3.80.155
Low fence-1.10.669+0.90.751+4.20.125+1.90.47653.9%674-0.80.766+2.80.391+0.70.785+3.10.261-1.90.488
Single wall-0.30.899+1.70.544+5.00.068+2.70.313+0.80.76654.7%664+3.60.271+1.60.569+3.90.157-1.00.697
Fence and open-4.00.227-1.90.563+1.30.692-0.90.781-2.80.391-3.60.27151.0%343-2.10.527+0.20.941-4.70.152
Open-1.90.484+0.10.958+3.40.208+1.20.662-0.70.785-1.60.569+2.10.52753.1%674+2.40.394-2.60.331
Rectangle-4.20.122-2.20.436+1.10.698-1.20.669-3.10.261-3.90.157-0.20.941-2.40.39450.8%648-4.90.068
Octagon+0.70.794+2.70.319+6.00.024+3.80.155+1.90.488+1.00.697+4.70.152+2.60.331+4.90.06855.7%718
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 counted2,214
Win rate51.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.4 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
Octagon56.8%+5.40.070250
Full fence56.1%+4.70.140221
Low fence56.0%+4.60.164209
Open52.0%+0.60.866204
Breakable half fence51.6%+0.20.934242
Breakable full fence51.3%-0.10.986187
Fence and open49.6%-1.80.683119
Half fence48.0%-3.40.282225
Rectangle47.2%-4.20.196216
Single wall46.5%-5.00.130211
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 11.39 on 9 df, p 0.250

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.1%221+4.80.335+8.10.087+4.50.337+0.10.979+9.70.045+6.50.249+4.20.391+8.90.063-0.70.880
Breakable full fence-4.80.33551.3%187+3.30.500-0.30.948-4.60.355+4.90.330+1.80.764-0.60.902+4.10.410-5.50.257
Half fence-8.10.087-3.30.50048.0%225-3.60.430-8.00.096+1.60.745-1.60.780-4.00.413+0.80.870-8.80.055
Breakable half fence-4.50.337+0.30.948+3.60.43051.6%242-4.30.358+5.20.269+2.10.711-0.30.948+4.40.344-5.20.252
Low fence-0.10.979+4.60.355+8.00.096+4.30.35856.0%209+9.50.051+6.40.264+4.00.412+8.80.071-0.80.860
Single wall-9.70.045-4.90.330-1.60.745-5.20.269-9.50.05146.5%211-3.10.584-5.50.261-0.80.872-10.30.027
Fence and open-6.50.249-1.80.764+1.60.780-2.10.711-6.40.264+3.10.58449.6%119-2.40.680+2.40.679-7.20.193
Open-4.20.391+0.60.902+4.00.413+0.30.948-4.00.412+5.50.261+2.40.68052.0%204+4.70.332-4.80.303
Rectangle-8.90.063-4.10.410-0.80.870-4.40.344-8.80.071+0.80.872-2.40.679-4.70.33247.2%216-9.60.039
Octagon+0.70.880+5.50.257+8.80.055+5.20.252+0.80.860+10.30.027+7.20.193+4.80.303+9.60.03956.8%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: 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 counted3,958
Win rate54.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.4 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
Single wall60.9%+6.40.009373
Octagon56.7%+2.20.348388
Breakable full fence55.5%+1.00.678355
Full fence54.7%+0.20.913426
Open54.0%-0.40.855422
Fence and open53.9%-0.60.873193
Low fence52.8%-1.60.493405
Breakable half fence52.5%-2.00.412385
Rectangle52.2%-2.20.365379
Half fence51.0%-3.50.141404
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 10.91 on 9 df, p 0.282

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.7%426-0.80.823+3.70.285+2.20.525+1.90.592-6.20.079+0.80.852+0.70.846+2.50.486-2.00.565
Breakable full fence+0.80.82355.5%355+4.50.215+3.00.409+2.60.464-5.40.142+1.60.718+1.50.683+3.20.377-1.20.740
Half fence-3.70.285-4.50.21551.0%404-1.50.678-1.90.599-9.90.006-2.90.508-3.00.382-1.20.726-5.70.107
Breakable half fence-2.20.525-3.00.409+1.50.67852.5%385-0.40.917-8.40.020-1.40.747-1.60.657+0.20.950-4.20.237
Low fence-1.90.592-2.60.464+1.90.599+0.40.91752.8%405-8.00.024-1.10.811-1.20.732+0.60.867-3.90.275
Single wall+6.20.079+5.40.142+9.90.006+8.40.020+8.00.02460.9%373+7.00.111+6.80.052+8.60.017+4.20.244
Fence and open-0.80.852-1.60.718+2.90.508+1.40.747+1.10.811-7.00.11153.9%193-0.10.974+1.60.710-2.80.520
Open-0.70.846-1.50.683+3.00.382+1.60.657+1.20.732-6.80.052+0.10.97454.0%422+1.80.613-2.70.445
Rectangle-2.50.486-3.20.377+1.20.726-0.20.950-0.60.867-8.60.017-1.60.710-1.80.61352.2%379-4.50.215
Octagon+2.00.565+1.20.740+5.70.107+4.20.237+3.90.275-4.20.244+2.80.520+2.70.445+4.50.21556.7%388
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 counted599
Win rate48.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-1.4 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
Rectangle54.7%+5.80.37653 ·
Low fence53.3%+4.40.47060 ·
Full fence51.6%+2.70.75831 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%+1.10.84770 ·
Open50.0%+1.10.87548 ·
Half fence47.6%-1.30.82863 ·
Octagon47.5%-1.40.78680
Single wall47.5%-1.40.78680
Breakable full fence43.8%-5.20.38264 ·
Fence and open38.7%-10.20.24331 ·
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: 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 3.46 on 9 df, p 0.943

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.6%31+7.90.471+4.00.716+1.60.881-1.70.876+4.10.697+12.90.307+1.60.889-3.10.783+4.10.697
Breakable full fence-7.90.47143.8%64-3.90.662-6.20.469-9.60.286-3.80.654+5.00.641-6.20.512-11.00.237-3.80.654
Half fence-4.00.716+3.90.66247.6%63-2.40.784-5.70.526+0.10.989+8.90.414-2.40.804-7.10.446+0.10.989
Breakable half fence-1.60.881+6.20.469+2.40.78450.0%70-3.30.705+2.50.760+11.30.294+0.01.000-4.70.604+2.50.760
Low fence+1.70.876+9.60.286+5.70.526+3.30.70553.3%60+5.80.495+14.60.186+3.30.730-1.40.883+5.80.495
Single wall-4.10.697+3.80.654-0.10.989-2.50.760-5.80.49547.5%80+8.80.404-2.50.784-7.20.415+0.01.000
Fence and open-12.90.307-5.00.641-8.90.414-11.30.294-14.60.186-8.80.40438.7%31-11.30.325-16.00.157-8.80.404
Open-1.60.889+6.20.512+2.40.804-0.01.000-3.30.730+2.50.784+11.30.32550.0%48-4.70.635+2.50.784
Rectangle+3.10.783+11.00.237+7.10.446+4.70.604+1.40.883+7.20.415+16.00.157+4.70.63554.7%53+7.20.415
Octagon-4.10.697+3.80.654-0.10.989-2.50.760-5.80.495-0.01.000+8.80.404-2.50.784-7.20.41547.5%80
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.