VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Pai

Brad vs Pai in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 50.3% of 3,906 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 counted3,906
Win rate50.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.3 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 open57.6%+7.30.038191
Single wall53.5%+3.20.200359
Octagon53.0%+2.70.273372
Low fence52.0%+1.70.484385
Open51.9%+1.60.460447
Rectangle50.6%+0.30.889439
Breakable full fence49.6%-0.70.789361
Breakable half fence47.3%-3.00.206404
Full fence45.3%-5.00.044369
Half fence45.0%-5.20.029391
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 17.11 on 9 df, p 0.047

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.3%369-4.30.242+0.20.946-2.00.574-6.70.066-8.20.026-12.30.006-6.60.059-5.30.132-7.70.036
Breakable full fence+4.30.24249.6%361+4.60.210+2.30.524-2.40.519-3.90.295-8.00.073-2.30.512-1.00.782-3.40.361
Half fence-0.20.946-4.60.21045.0%391-2.30.522-6.90.053-8.50.020-12.60.004-6.90.047-5.60.110-8.00.028
Breakable half fence+2.00.574-2.30.524+2.30.52247.3%404-4.70.190-6.20.087-10.30.019-4.60.178-3.30.339-5.70.114
Low fence+6.70.066+2.40.519+6.90.053+4.70.19052.0%385-1.50.675-5.60.201+0.10.989+1.40.693-1.00.781
Single wall+8.20.026+3.90.295+8.50.020+6.20.087+1.50.67553.5%359-4.10.356+1.60.655+2.90.413+0.50.887
Fence and open+12.30.006+8.00.073+12.60.004+10.30.019+5.60.201+4.10.35657.6%191+5.70.187+7.00.105+4.60.296
Open+6.60.059+2.30.512+6.90.047+4.60.178-0.10.989-1.60.655-5.70.18751.9%447+1.30.692-1.10.763
Rectangle+5.30.132+1.00.782+5.60.110+3.30.339-1.40.693-2.90.413-7.00.105-1.30.69250.6%439-2.40.498
Octagon+7.70.036+3.40.361+8.00.028+5.70.114+1.00.781-0.50.887-4.60.296+1.10.763+2.40.49853.0%372
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 counted1,671
Win rate50.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-10.7 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
Octagon56.5%+6.50.061186
Fence and open55.4%+5.50.30883
Single wall54.6%+4.70.195172
Low fence54.1%+4.10.295146
Open52.1%+2.10.535194
Rectangle51.9%+2.00.576181
Breakable full fence47.7%-2.30.558153
Half fence46.4%-3.60.310181
Breakable half fence41.7%-8.20.027163
Full fence39.3%-10.70.007145
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 19.50 on 9 df, p 0.021

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence39.3%145-8.40.144-7.10.199-2.40.668-14.80.011-15.30.006-16.10.019-12.80.020-12.60.023-17.10.002
Breakable full fence+8.40.14447.7%153+1.30.812+6.00.284-6.40.269-6.90.212-7.70.258-4.30.421-4.20.442-8.70.109
Half fence+7.10.199-1.30.81246.4%181+4.70.382-7.70.166-8.20.122-9.00.174-5.70.274-5.50.293-10.00.054
Breakable half fence+2.40.668-6.00.284-4.70.38241.7%163-12.40.029-12.90.018-13.70.042-10.30.051-10.20.058-14.70.006
Low fence+14.80.011+6.40.269+7.70.166+12.40.02954.1%146-0.50.923-1.30.848+2.00.708+2.20.695-2.30.670
Single wall+15.30.006+6.90.212+8.20.122+12.90.018+0.50.92354.6%172-0.80.908+2.60.620+2.70.609-1.80.732
Fence and open+16.10.019+7.70.258+9.00.174+13.70.042+1.30.848+0.80.90855.4%83+3.40.608+3.50.598-1.00.875
Open+12.80.020+4.30.421+5.70.274+10.30.051-2.00.708-2.60.620-3.40.60852.1%194+0.10.980-4.40.391
Rectangle+12.60.023+4.20.442+5.50.293+10.20.058-2.20.695-2.70.609-3.50.598-0.10.98051.9%181-4.50.385
Octagon+17.10.002+8.70.109+10.00.054+14.70.006+2.30.670+1.80.732+1.00.875+4.40.391+4.50.38556.5%186
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 counted2,013
Win rate51.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.0 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 open58.2%+7.00.15398
Breakable full fence54.1%+3.00.398183
Open53.0%+1.90.550213
Breakable half fence52.1%+1.00.759213
Rectangle51.5%+0.40.906237
Octagon50.6%-0.50.899158
Single wall50.6%-0.60.881174
Low fence50.0%-1.10.720228
Full fence48.6%-2.50.435210
Half fence44.7%-6.40.064188
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 6.81 on 9 df, p 0.657

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.6%210-5.50.274+3.90.437-3.50.466-1.40.765-2.00.696-9.60.117-4.50.357-2.90.540-2.10.695
Breakable full fence+5.50.27454.1%183+9.40.070+2.00.693+4.10.409+3.50.505-4.10.513+1.10.835+2.60.594+3.50.523
Half fence-3.90.437-9.40.07044.7%188-7.40.137-5.30.280-5.90.262-13.50.030-8.40.094-6.80.164-6.00.269
Breakable half fence+3.50.466-2.00.693+7.40.13752.1%213+2.10.657+1.50.763-6.00.320-0.90.846+0.60.893+1.50.778
Low fence+1.40.765-4.10.409+5.30.280-2.10.65750.0%228-0.60.909-8.20.176-3.00.522-1.50.750-0.60.903
Single wall+2.00.696-3.50.505+5.90.262-1.50.763+0.60.90950.6%174-7.60.228-2.50.628-0.90.857-0.10.992
Fence and open+9.60.117+4.10.513+13.50.030+6.00.320+8.20.176+7.60.22858.2%98+5.10.400+6.70.264+7.50.240
Open+4.50.357-1.10.835+8.40.094+0.90.846+3.00.522+2.50.628-5.10.40053.0%213+1.60.738+2.40.645
Rectangle+2.90.540-2.60.594+6.80.164-0.60.893+1.50.750+0.90.857-6.70.264-1.60.73851.5%237+0.80.869
Octagon+2.10.695-3.50.523+6.00.269-1.50.778+0.60.903+0.10.992-7.50.240-2.40.645-0.80.86950.6%158
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 counted222
Win rate44.6%
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
Single wall76.9%+32.30.01613 ·
Fence and open70.0%+25.40.09810 ·
Low fence63.6%+19.10.19211 ·
Full fence57.1%+12.60.32914 ·
Open45.0%+0.40.95540 ·
Breakable half fence42.9%-1.70.84328 ·
Octagon42.9%-1.70.84328 ·
Half fence36.4%-8.20.41322 ·
Rectangle28.6%-16.00.12121 ·
Breakable full fence28.0%-16.60.07625 ·
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 16.24 on 9 df, p 0.062

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence57.1%14+29.10.073+20.80.221+14.30.382-6.50.742-19.80.276-12.90.521+12.10.434+28.60.091+14.30.382
Breakable full fence-29.10.07328.0%25-8.40.539-14.90.260-35.60.043-48.90.004-42.00.022-17.00.171-0.60.966-14.90.260
Half fence-20.80.221+8.40.53936.4%22-6.50.642-27.30.138-40.60.020-33.60.077-8.60.510+7.80.586-6.50.642
Breakable half fence-14.30.382+14.90.260+6.50.64242.9%28-20.80.243-34.10.042-27.10.141-2.10.861+14.30.305+0.01.000
Low fence+6.50.742+35.60.043+27.30.138+20.80.24363.6%11-13.30.476-6.40.757+18.60.274+35.10.055+20.80.243
Single wall+19.80.276+48.90.004+40.60.020+34.10.042+13.30.47676.9%13+6.90.708+31.90.045+48.40.006+34.10.042
Fence and open+12.90.521+42.00.022+33.60.077+27.10.141+6.40.757-6.90.70870.0%10+25.00.157+41.40.029+27.10.141
Open-12.10.434+17.00.171+8.60.510+2.10.861-18.60.274-31.90.045-25.00.15745.0%40+16.40.212+2.10.861
Rectangle-28.60.091+0.60.966-7.80.586-14.30.305-35.10.055-48.40.006-41.40.029-16.40.21228.6%21-14.30.305
Octagon-14.30.382+14.90.260+6.50.642-0.01.000-20.80.243-34.10.042-27.10.141-2.10.861+14.30.30542.9%28
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.