VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Kage

Brad vs Kage in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 48.5% of 4,444 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 counted4,444
Win rate48.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-1.9 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
Octagon49.6%+1.20.597433
Open49.6%+1.10.602474
Low fence49.1%+0.60.786430
Half fence48.3%-0.20.943468
Breakable full fence48.2%-0.20.922452
Single wall48.1%-0.30.888426
Breakable half fence47.7%-0.70.739459
Rectangle47.5%-0.90.703408
Full fence47.5%-0.90.681444
Fence and open46.6%-1.90.587206
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 1.24 on 9 df, p 0.999

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.5%444-0.70.832-0.80.816-0.20.954-1.60.647-0.60.860+0.90.827-2.10.533-0.00.994-2.10.528
Breakable full fence+0.70.83248.2%452-0.10.985+0.50.876-0.80.803+0.10.974+1.60.698-1.40.682+0.70.842-1.40.672
Half fence+0.80.816+0.10.98548.3%468+0.60.860-0.80.815+0.20.960+1.70.686-1.30.693+0.70.827-1.40.683
Breakable half fence+0.20.954-0.50.876-0.60.86047.7%459-1.40.686-0.40.903+1.10.791-1.90.569+0.20.962-1.90.562
Low fence+1.60.647+0.80.803+0.80.815+1.40.68649.1%430+0.90.781+2.50.560-0.50.879+1.50.660-0.60.864
Single wall+0.60.860-0.10.974-0.20.960+0.40.903-0.90.78148.1%426+1.50.720-1.50.663+0.60.868-1.50.653
Fence and open-0.90.827-1.60.698-1.70.686-1.10.791-2.50.560-1.50.72046.6%206-3.00.476-0.90.824-3.00.471
Open+2.10.533+1.40.682+1.30.693+1.90.569+0.50.879+1.50.663+3.00.47649.6%474+2.00.548-0.10.982
Rectangle+0.00.994-0.70.842-0.70.827-0.20.962-1.50.660-0.60.868+0.90.824-2.00.54847.5%408-2.10.542
Octagon+2.10.528+1.40.672+1.40.683+1.90.562+0.60.864+1.50.653+3.00.471+0.10.982+2.10.54249.6%433
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 counted1,035
Win rate50.0%
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
Breakable half fence56.9%+6.80.131109
Low fence54.3%+4.20.360105
Octagon51.9%+1.80.689106
Full fence49.5%-0.60.90899
Rectangle48.9%-1.10.82092
Breakable full fence48.9%-1.20.81890
Fence and open48.6%-1.40.86237 ·
Single wall47.9%-2.10.618119
Half fence47.4%-2.60.547116
Open45.0%-5.00.265111
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 4.72 on 9 df, p 0.858

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.5%99+0.60.934+2.10.761-7.40.286-4.80.494+1.60.814+0.80.930+4.40.519+0.60.936-2.40.732
Breakable full fence-0.60.93448.9%90+1.50.834-8.00.261-5.40.452+1.00.887+0.20.980+3.80.587-0.00.997-3.00.676
Half fence-2.10.761-1.50.83447.4%116-9.50.155-6.90.308-0.50.941-1.20.896+2.40.720-1.50.830-4.50.506
Breakable half fence+7.40.286+8.00.261+9.50.15556.9%109+2.60.702+9.00.175+8.20.385+11.80.079+8.00.259+5.00.462
Low fence+4.80.494+5.40.452+6.90.308-2.60.70254.3%105+6.40.340+5.60.555+9.20.175+5.40.451+2.40.727
Single wall-1.60.814-1.00.887+0.50.941-9.00.175-6.40.34047.9%119-0.80.936+2.90.665-1.00.884-4.00.550
Fence and open-0.80.930-0.20.980+1.20.896-8.20.385-5.60.555+0.80.93648.6%37+3.60.703-0.30.978-3.20.734
Open-4.40.519-3.80.587-2.40.720-11.80.079-9.20.175-2.90.665-3.60.70345.0%111-3.90.582-6.80.313
Rectangle-0.60.936+0.00.997+1.50.830-8.00.259-5.40.451+1.00.884+0.30.978+3.90.58248.9%92-3.00.676
Octagon+2.40.732+3.00.676+4.50.506-5.00.462-2.40.727+4.00.550+3.20.734+6.80.313+3.00.67651.9%106
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 counted2,795
Win rate47.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.9 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
Open51.0%+3.40.202308
Octagon50.5%+3.00.290283
Single wall48.4%+0.80.778250
Rectangle48.0%+0.40.886248
Fence and open47.5%-0.10.980137
Breakable full fence47.1%-0.40.886280
Half fence47.1%-0.40.886280
Low fence45.4%-2.10.459273
Full fence45.0%-2.50.373282
Breakable half fence42.7%-4.90.077293
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 6.52 on 9 df, p 0.687

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.0%282-2.10.616-2.10.616+2.40.566-0.40.927-3.40.438-2.40.642-5.90.149-2.90.497-5.50.191
Breakable full fence+2.10.61647.1%280+0.01.000+4.50.281+1.70.685-1.30.772-0.30.954-3.80.353-0.80.847-3.40.421
Half fence+2.10.616-0.01.00047.1%280+4.50.281+1.70.685-1.30.772-0.30.954-3.80.353-0.80.847-3.40.421
Breakable half fence-2.40.566-4.50.281-4.50.28142.7%293-2.80.509-5.70.181-4.80.352-8.30.041-5.30.215-7.90.058
Low fence+0.40.927-1.70.685-1.70.685+2.80.50945.4%273-3.00.495-2.00.698-5.50.181-2.60.558-5.10.228
Single wall+3.40.438+1.30.772+1.30.772+5.70.181+3.00.49548.4%250+0.90.857-2.60.545+0.40.926-2.10.624
Fence and open+2.40.642+0.30.954+0.30.954+4.80.352+2.00.698-0.90.85747.5%137-3.50.492-0.50.919-3.10.553
Open+5.90.149+3.80.353+3.80.353+8.30.041+5.50.181+2.60.545+3.50.49251.0%308+3.00.483+0.40.914
Rectangle+2.90.497+0.80.847+0.80.847+5.30.215+2.60.558-0.40.926+0.50.919-3.00.48348.0%248-2.50.558
Octagon+5.50.191+3.40.421+3.40.421+7.90.058+5.10.228+2.10.624+3.10.553-0.40.914+2.50.55850.5%283
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 counted614
Win rate49.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches1.4 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
Low fence57.7%+7.80.23652 ·
Breakable half fence56.1%+6.30.31857 ·
Full fence55.6%+5.70.33863 ·
Half fence54.2%+4.30.43472 ·
Breakable full fence51.2%+1.40.78882
Open50.9%+1.10.86855 ·
Single wall47.4%-2.50.69657 ·
Rectangle44.1%-5.70.31768 ·
Fence and open40.6%-9.20.28432 ·
Octagon38.6%-11.20.12344 ·
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 7.90 on 9 df, p 0.544

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence55.6%63+4.30.604+1.40.871-0.60.949-2.10.818+8.20.370+14.90.169+4.70.614+11.40.191+16.90.085
Breakable full fence-4.30.60451.2%82-3.00.715-4.90.567-6.50.464+3.90.655+10.60.309+0.30.972+7.10.386+12.60.177
Half fence-1.40.871+3.00.71554.2%72-2.00.823-3.50.697+6.80.443+13.60.202+3.30.716+10.10.235+15.50.104
Breakable half fence+0.60.949+4.90.567+2.00.82356.1%57-1.60.870+8.80.349+15.50.160+5.20.579+12.00.181+17.50.081
Low fence+2.10.818+6.50.464+3.50.697+1.60.87057.7%52+10.30.281+17.10.129+6.80.482+13.60.141+19.10.063
Single wall-8.20.370-3.90.655-6.80.443-8.80.349-10.30.28147.4%57+6.80.539-3.50.708+3.20.716+8.70.380
Fence and open-14.90.169-10.60.309-13.60.202-15.50.160-17.10.129-6.80.53940.6%32-10.30.354-3.50.742+2.00.861
Open-4.70.614-0.30.972-3.30.716-5.20.579-6.80.482+3.50.708+10.30.35450.9%55+6.80.453+12.30.223
Rectangle-11.40.191-7.10.386-10.10.235-12.00.181-13.60.141-3.20.716+3.50.742-6.80.45344.1%68+5.50.566
Octagon-16.90.085-12.60.177-15.50.104-17.50.081-19.10.063-8.70.380-2.00.861-12.30.223-5.50.56638.6%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.