VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Dural vs Jean

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted425
Win rate52.9%
Widest swing11.2 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Dural's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence64.1%+11.20.14339 ·
Breakable full fence61.4%+8.40.23744 ·
Octagon59.4%+6.40.44832 ·
Single wall53.2%+0.20.97147 ·
Full fence52.8%-0.20.98436 ·
Fence and open52.4%-0.60.95821 ·
Open50.0%-2.90.65052 ·
Low fence47.9%-5.00.45948 ·
Half fence44.9%-8.00.23049 ·
Rectangle44.2%-8.80.22543 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
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 6.97 on 9 df, p 0.640

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.8%36-8.60.440+7.90.473-11.30.320+4.90.659-0.40.970+0.40.977+2.80.798+8.60.447-6.60.584
Breakable full fence+8.60.44061.4%44+16.50.112-2.70.797+13.40.196+8.20.431+9.00.492+11.40.265+17.20.109+2.00.861
Half fence-7.90.473-16.50.11244.9%49-19.20.073-3.00.766-8.30.416-7.50.565-5.10.608+0.70.945-14.50.203
Breakable half fence+11.30.320+2.70.797+19.20.07364.1%39+16.20.131+10.90.307+11.70.377+14.10.180+19.90.071+4.70.683
Low fence-4.90.659-13.40.196+3.00.766-16.20.13147.9%48-5.30.607-4.50.733-2.10.835+3.70.722-11.50.315
Single wall+0.40.970-8.20.431+8.30.416-10.90.307+5.30.60753.2%47+0.80.951+3.20.751+9.00.393-6.20.587
Fence and open-0.40.977-9.00.492+7.50.565-11.70.377+4.50.733-0.80.95152.4%21+2.40.854+8.20.537-7.00.615
Open-2.80.798-11.40.265+5.10.608-14.10.180+2.10.835-3.20.751-2.40.85450.0%52+5.80.572-9.40.403
Rectangle-8.60.447-17.20.109-0.70.945-19.90.071-3.70.722-9.00.393-8.20.537-5.80.57244.2%43-15.20.193
Octagon+6.60.584-2.00.861+14.50.203-4.70.683+11.50.315+6.20.587+7.00.615+9.40.403+15.20.19359.4%32
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
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 counted413
Win rate52.5%
Widest swing8.6 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Dural's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence61.1%+8.60.28136 ·
Breakable full fence61.0%+8.40.25541 ·
Octagon59.4%+6.80.42032 ·
Single wall53.2%+0.70.92547 ·
Full fence52.8%+0.20.97636 ·
Fence and open52.4%-0.20.98821 ·
Low fence48.9%-3.60.60345 ·
Open48.0%-4.50.49350 ·
Rectangle45.2%-7.30.31742 ·
Half fence44.9%-7.60.25449 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
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 5.51 on 9 df, p 0.788

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.8%36-8.20.468+7.90.473-8.30.475+3.90.728-0.40.970+0.40.977+4.80.662+7.50.507-6.60.584
Breakable full fence+8.20.46861.0%41+16.10.128-0.10.990+12.10.261+7.80.462+8.60.516+13.00.217+15.70.151+1.60.890
Half fence-7.90.473-16.10.12844.9%49-16.20.139-4.00.698-8.30.416-7.50.565-3.10.757-0.30.974-14.50.203
Breakable half fence+8.30.475+0.10.990+16.20.13961.1%36+12.20.273+7.90.471+8.70.520+13.10.229+15.90.162+1.70.884
Low fence-3.90.728-12.10.261+4.00.698-12.20.27348.9%45-4.30.680-3.50.792+0.90.931+3.60.733-10.50.363
Single wall+0.40.970-7.80.462+8.30.416-7.90.471+4.30.68053.2%47+0.80.951+5.20.609+8.00.454-6.20.587
Fence and open-0.40.977-8.60.516+7.50.565-8.70.520+3.50.792-0.80.95152.4%21+4.40.736+7.10.593-7.00.615
Open-4.80.662-13.00.217+3.10.757-13.10.229-0.90.931-5.20.609-4.40.73648.0%50+2.80.791-11.40.314
Rectangle-7.50.507-15.70.151+0.30.974-15.90.162-3.60.733-8.00.454-7.10.593-2.80.79145.2%42-14.10.228
Octagon+6.60.584-1.60.890+14.50.203-1.70.884+10.50.363+6.20.587+7.00.615+11.40.314+14.10.22859.4%32
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
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 counted12
Win rate66.7%
Widest swing-66.7 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Dural's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence100.0%+33.30.1573 ·
Open100.0%+33.30.2732 ·
Breakable full fence66.7%+0.01.0003 ·
Low fence33.3%-33.30.1573 ·
Rectangle0.0%-66.70.1401 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
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 6.00 on 4 df, p 0.199

StageBreak. fullBreak. halfLowOpenRect
Breakable full fence66.7%3-33.30.273+33.30.414-33.30.361+66.70.248
Breakable half fence+33.30.273100.0%3+66.70.083+0.01.000+100.00.046
Low fence-33.30.414-66.70.08333.3%3-66.70.136+33.30.505
Open+33.30.361-0.01.000+66.70.136100.0%2+100.00.083
Rectangle-66.70.248-100.00.046-33.30.505-100.00.0830.0%1
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
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.