VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Wolf

Brad vs Wolf in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 53.9% of 4,535 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 counted4,535
Win rate53.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.1 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 fence57.0%+3.10.188400
Breakable half fence55.9%+2.00.340492
Rectangle55.8%+1.90.380477
Octagon55.8%+1.90.372495
Half fence55.3%+1.40.518452
Full fence53.8%-0.10.955467
Breakable full fence53.0%-0.90.701434
Fence and open51.7%-2.20.491236
Single wall51.6%-2.30.320417
Open48.8%-5.10.030412
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 9.89 on 9 df, p 0.360

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.8%467+0.80.821-1.60.634-2.10.504-3.20.337+2.20.515+2.10.607+5.00.142-2.00.533-2.00.531
Breakable full fence-0.80.82153.0%434-2.30.489-2.90.377-4.00.246+1.40.675+1.30.747+4.20.221-2.80.402-2.80.399
Half fence+1.60.634+2.30.48955.3%452-0.60.857-1.70.620+3.80.268+3.60.366+6.50.055-0.50.889-0.50.890
Breakable half fence+2.10.504+2.90.377+0.60.85755.9%492-1.10.741+4.30.191+4.20.287+7.10.033+0.10.968+0.10.966
Low fence+3.20.337+4.00.246+1.70.620+1.10.74157.0%400+5.40.119+5.30.194+8.20.019+1.20.713+1.20.709
Single wall-2.20.515-1.40.675-3.80.268-4.30.191-5.40.11951.6%417-0.10.973+2.80.425-4.20.208-4.20.205
Fence and open-2.10.607-1.30.747-3.60.366-4.20.287-5.30.194+0.10.97351.7%236+2.90.476-4.10.304-4.10.302
Open-5.00.142-4.20.221-6.50.055-7.10.033-8.20.019-2.80.425-2.90.47648.8%412-7.00.038-7.00.036
Rectangle+2.00.533+2.80.402+0.50.889-0.10.968-1.20.713+4.20.208+4.10.304+7.00.03855.8%477+0.00.998
Octagon+2.00.531+2.80.399+0.50.890-0.10.966-1.20.709+4.20.205+4.10.302+7.00.036-0.00.99855.8%495
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 counted1,883
Win rate54.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.5 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 fence60.9%+6.50.066179
Full fence60.2%+5.90.112166
Breakable full fence58.0%+3.60.297188
Rectangle55.9%+1.50.658186
Half fence54.0%-0.30.925185
Breakable half fence53.9%-0.50.869208
Fence and open53.3%-1.10.824105
Octagon49.8%-4.60.155209
Open48.9%-5.50.121178
Single wall48.2%-6.20.095164
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 13.11 on 9 df, p 0.158

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence60.2%166+2.30.666+6.20.242+6.40.215-0.70.901+12.10.028+6.90.262+11.40.034+4.30.412+10.50.043
Breakable full fence-2.30.66658.0%188+3.90.445+4.10.408-2.90.570+9.80.066+4.70.442+9.10.081+2.10.687+8.20.101
Half fence-6.20.242-3.90.44554.0%185+0.20.967-6.80.187+5.90.272+0.70.906+5.20.324-1.90.719+4.30.395
Breakable half fence-6.40.215-4.10.408-0.20.96753.9%208-7.00.162+5.70.277+0.50.932+5.00.330-2.10.681+4.10.404
Low fence+0.70.901+2.90.570+6.80.187+7.00.16260.9%179+12.70.018+7.60.213+12.00.023+5.00.335+11.10.028
Single wall-12.10.028-9.80.066-5.90.272-5.70.277-12.70.01848.2%164-5.20.409-0.70.896-7.70.148-1.60.760
Fence and open-6.90.262-4.70.442-0.70.906-0.50.932-7.60.213+5.20.40953.3%105+4.50.469-2.60.671+3.60.550
Open-11.40.034-9.10.081-5.20.324-5.00.330-12.00.023+0.70.896-4.50.46948.9%178-7.00.179-0.90.862
Rectangle-4.30.412-2.10.687+1.90.719+2.10.681-5.00.335+7.70.148+2.60.671+7.00.17955.9%186+6.20.221
Octagon-10.50.043-8.20.101-4.30.395-4.10.404-11.10.028+1.60.760-3.60.550+0.90.862-6.20.22149.8%209
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 counted2,291
Win rate53.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.9 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
Octagon59.5%+5.90.053242
Breakable half fence58.1%+4.50.132253
Rectangle57.7%+4.10.175246
Half fence55.6%+2.00.537223
Single wall55.5%+1.80.571220
Low fence53.7%+0.10.982188
Fence and open50.4%-3.20.479115
Full fence49.8%-3.80.182267
Breakable full fence48.4%-5.30.103215
Open47.8%-5.90.080201
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 14.82 on 9 df, p 0.096

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.8%267+1.40.753-5.80.201-8.30.058-3.90.411-5.60.215-0.60.911+2.00.660-7.90.073-9.70.028
Breakable full fence-1.40.75348.4%215-7.20.130-9.70.035-5.30.284-7.10.139-2.10.721+0.60.901-9.30.045-11.10.017
Half fence+5.80.201+7.20.13055.6%223-2.50.583+1.90.703+0.20.975+5.20.366+7.80.106-2.10.644-3.90.395
Breakable half fence+8.30.058+9.70.035+2.50.58358.1%253+4.40.359+2.60.562+7.70.170+10.30.028+0.40.932-1.40.752
Low fence+3.90.411+5.30.284-1.90.703-4.40.35953.7%188-1.70.726+3.30.578+6.00.240-4.00.405-5.80.230
Single wall+5.60.215+7.10.139-0.20.975-2.60.562+1.70.72655.5%220+5.00.382+7.70.115-2.30.622-4.00.379
Fence and open+0.60.911+2.10.721-5.20.366-7.70.170-3.30.578-5.00.38250.4%115+2.70.647-7.30.194-9.10.106
Open-2.00.660-0.60.901-7.80.106-10.30.028-6.00.240-7.70.115-2.70.64747.8%201-10.00.036-11.70.014
Rectangle+7.90.073+9.30.045+2.10.644-0.40.932+4.00.405+2.30.622+7.30.194+10.00.03657.7%246-1.80.690
Octagon+9.70.028+11.10.017+3.90.395+1.40.752+5.80.230+4.00.379+9.10.106+11.70.014+1.80.69059.5%242
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 counted361
Win rate52.6%
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
Octagon63.6%+11.00.11944 ·
Half fence59.1%+6.50.36044 ·
Breakable full fence54.8%+2.20.79731 ·
Low fence54.5%+1.90.81733 ·
Open54.5%+1.90.81733 ·
Full fence52.9%+0.30.97034 ·
Breakable half fence51.6%-1.00.90531 ·
Fence and open50.0%-2.60.82916 ·
Rectangle44.4%-8.20.24045 ·
Single wall42.4%-10.20.21833 ·
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 5.64 on 9 df, p 0.775

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.9%34-1.90.878-6.20.587+1.30.915-1.60.895+10.50.389+2.90.846-1.60.895+8.50.454-10.70.341
Breakable full fence+1.90.87854.8%31-4.20.714+3.20.799+0.30.981+12.40.321+4.80.753+0.30.981+10.40.373-8.80.444
Half fence+6.20.587+4.20.71459.1%44+7.50.521+4.50.690+16.70.147+9.10.530+4.50.690+14.70.167-4.50.661
Breakable half fence-1.30.915-3.20.799-7.50.52151.6%31-2.90.814+9.20.462+1.60.917-2.90.814+7.20.538-12.00.298
Low fence+1.60.895-0.30.981-4.50.690+2.90.81454.5%33+12.10.325+4.50.765+0.01.000+10.10.378-9.10.421
Single wall-10.50.389-12.40.321-16.70.147-9.20.462-12.10.32542.4%33-7.60.617-12.10.325-2.00.859-21.20.064
Fence and open-2.90.846-4.80.753-9.10.530-1.60.917-4.50.765+7.60.61750.0%16-4.50.765+5.60.702-13.60.340
Open+1.60.895-0.30.981-4.50.690+2.90.814-0.01.000+12.10.325+4.50.76554.5%33+10.10.378-9.10.421
Rectangle-8.50.454-10.40.373-14.70.167-7.20.538-10.10.378+2.00.859-5.60.702-10.10.37844.4%45-19.20.069
Octagon+10.70.341+8.80.444+4.50.661+12.00.298+9.10.421+21.20.064+13.60.340+9.10.421+19.20.06963.6%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.