VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Dural vs Goh

Dural vs Goh in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Dural wins 52.2% of 851 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 0 of 6 tested stage gaps survive correction.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted851
Win rate52.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches9.7 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Dural's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence61.9%+9.70.04397
Single wall58.5%+6.30.19294
Breakable full fence53.0%+0.80.87283
Rectangle52.9%+0.80.88185
Low fence50.5%-1.60.73893
Breakable half fence50.0%-2.20.69176 ·
Open49.3%-2.90.60973 ·
Full fence46.5%-5.70.31671 ·
Octagon46.1%-6.00.190104
Fence and open42.9%-9.30.21542 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.53 on 9 df, p 0.390

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.5%71-6.50.419-15.40.048-3.50.669-4.10.606-12.00.125+3.60.708-2.80.733-6.50.421+0.30.966
Breakable full fence+6.50.41953.0%83-8.80.231+3.00.704+2.50.743-5.50.462+10.20.283+3.70.645+0.10.993+6.90.351
Half fence+15.40.048+8.80.23161.9%97+11.90.118+11.30.116+3.40.637+19.00.038+12.50.103+8.90.225+15.70.026
Breakable half fence+3.50.669-3.00.704-11.90.11850.0%76-0.50.945-8.50.268+7.10.457+0.70.933-2.90.709+3.90.610
Low fence+4.10.606-2.50.743-11.30.116+0.50.94550.5%93-8.00.274+7.70.408+1.20.876-2.40.749+4.40.539
Single wall+12.00.125+5.50.462-3.40.637+8.50.268+8.00.27458.5%94+15.70.091+9.20.237+5.60.454+12.40.082
Fence and open-3.60.708-10.20.283-19.00.038-7.10.457-7.70.408-15.70.09142.9%42-6.50.504-10.10.285-3.30.717
Open+2.80.733-3.70.645-12.50.103-0.70.933-1.20.876-9.20.237+6.50.50449.3%73-3.60.649+3.20.678
Rectangle+6.50.421-0.10.993-8.90.225+2.90.709+2.40.749-5.60.454+10.10.285+3.60.64952.9%85+6.80.353
Octagon-0.30.966-6.90.351-15.70.026-3.90.610-4.40.539-12.40.082+3.30.717-3.20.678-6.80.35346.1%104
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 counted283
Win rate58.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Dural's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall68.4%+10.50.16038 ·
Half fence67.7%+9.70.22234 ·
Low fence60.0%+2.00.81030 ·
Breakable half fence58.6%+0.70.93829 ·
Open57.1%-0.80.92728 ·
Rectangle53.6%-4.40.62128 ·
Full fence53.1%-4.80.55732 ·
Breakable full fence50.0%-8.00.50716 ·
Octagon48.0%-9.90.29125 ·
Fence and open41.7%-16.30.24312 ·
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: 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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.33 on 9 df, p 0.706

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.1%32+3.10.838-14.50.228-5.50.666-6.90.585-15.30.190+11.40.498-4.00.755-0.50.972+5.10.701
Breakable full fence-3.10.83850.0%16-17.60.230-8.60.577-10.00.515-18.40.201+8.30.662-7.10.647-3.60.820+2.00.901
Half fence+14.50.228+17.60.23067.7%34+9.00.458+7.70.525-0.80.944+26.00.113+10.50.394+14.10.257+19.60.129
Breakable half fence+5.50.666+8.60.577-9.00.45858.6%29-1.40.914-9.80.407+16.90.322+1.50.910+5.00.701+10.60.435
Low fence+6.90.585+10.00.515-7.70.525+1.40.91460.0%30-8.40.471+18.30.281+2.90.825+6.40.621+12.00.373
Single wall+15.30.190+18.40.201+0.80.944+9.80.407+8.40.47168.4%38+26.80.096+11.30.347+14.80.219+20.40.105
Fence and open-11.40.498-8.30.662-26.00.113-16.90.322-18.30.281-26.80.09641.7%12-15.50.369-11.90.490-6.30.717
Open+4.00.755+7.10.647-10.50.394-1.50.910-2.90.825-11.30.347+15.50.36957.1%28+3.60.788+9.10.506
Rectangle+0.50.972+3.60.820-14.10.257-5.00.701-6.40.621-14.80.219+11.90.490-3.60.78853.6%28+5.60.685
Octagon-5.10.701-2.00.901-19.60.129-10.60.435-12.00.373-20.40.105+6.30.717-9.10.506-5.60.68548.0%25
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 counted540
Win rate49.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Dural's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence60.3%+10.70.08458 ·
Rectangle54.5%+4.90.44255 ·
Breakable full fence53.1%+3.50.55164 ·
Single wall51.9%+2.20.73154 ·
Breakable half fence47.7%-1.90.79244 ·
Octagon44.7%-4.90.35776 ·
Open44.4%-5.20.46745 ·
Fence and open43.3%-6.30.47830 ·
Low fence43.1%-6.50.29358 ·
Full fence42.9%-6.80.40735 ·
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: 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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.95 on 9 df, p 0.643

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence42.9%35-10.30.329-17.50.101-4.90.666-0.20.981-9.00.407-0.50.969-1.60.887-11.70.280-1.90.853
Breakable full fence+10.30.32953.1%64-7.20.422+5.40.581+10.00.269+1.30.890+9.80.376+8.70.372-1.40.877+8.40.323
Half fence+17.50.101+7.20.42260.3%58+12.60.205+17.20.063+8.50.365+17.00.129+15.90.109+5.80.533+15.60.073
Breakable half fence+4.90.666-5.40.581-12.60.20547.7%44+4.60.642-4.10.685+4.40.710+3.30.756-6.80.500+3.00.751
Low fence+0.20.981-10.00.269-17.20.063-4.60.64243.1%58-8.80.354-0.20.984-1.30.892-11.40.224-1.60.850
Single wall+9.00.407-1.30.890-8.50.365+4.10.685+8.80.35451.9%54+8.50.454+7.40.463-2.70.778+7.10.423
Fence and open+0.50.969-9.80.376-17.00.129-4.40.710+0.20.984-8.50.45443.3%30-1.10.924-11.20.323-1.40.896
Open+1.60.887-8.70.372-15.90.109-3.30.756+1.30.892-7.40.463+1.10.92444.4%45-10.10.315-0.30.975
Rectangle+11.70.280+1.40.877-5.80.533+6.80.500+11.40.224+2.70.778+11.20.323+10.10.31554.5%55+9.80.268
Octagon+1.90.853-8.40.323-15.60.073-3.00.751+1.60.850-7.10.423+1.40.896+0.30.975-9.80.26844.7%76
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 counted28
Win rate42.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Dural's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Low fence80.0%+37.10.0645 ·
Breakable full fence66.7%+23.80.3783 ·
Octagon66.7%+23.80.3783 ·
Single wall50.0%+7.10.8322 ·
Half fence40.0%-2.90.8875 ·
Full fence25.0%-17.90.4364 ·
Breakable half fence0.0%-42.90.1123 ·
Rectangle0.0%-42.90.2042 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 8.44 on 7 df, p 0.296

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallRectOct
Full fence25.0%4-41.70.270-15.00.635+25.00.350-55.00.099-25.00.540+25.00.439-41.70.270
Breakable full fence+41.70.27066.7%3+26.70.465+66.70.083-13.30.673+16.70.709+66.70.136+0.01.000
Half fence+15.00.635-26.70.46540.0%5+40.00.206-40.00.197-10.00.809+40.00.290-26.70.465
Breakable half fence-25.00.350-66.70.083-40.00.2060.0%3-80.00.028-50.00.171+0.01.000-66.70.083
Low fence+55.00.099+13.30.673+40.00.197+80.00.02880.0%5+30.00.427+80.00.053+13.30.673
Single wall+25.00.540-16.70.709+10.00.809+50.00.171-30.00.42750.0%2+50.00.248-16.70.709
Rectangle-25.00.439-66.70.136-40.00.290-0.01.000-80.00.053-50.00.2480.0%2-66.70.136
Octagon+41.70.270-0.01.000+26.70.465+66.70.083-13.30.673+16.70.709+66.70.13666.7%3
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.