VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Goh vs Jeffry

Goh vs Jeffry in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Goh wins 49.1% of 5,163 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 counted5,163
Win rate49.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.6 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Goh's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Octagon52.9%+3.80.073493
Fence and open51.8%+2.70.356284
Single wall51.6%+2.50.222517
Open51.2%+2.10.301529
Low fence50.0%+0.90.677484
Breakable full fence49.0%-0.10.963447
Full fence47.2%-1.90.368525
Breakable half fence46.8%-2.40.242554
Rectangle46.5%-2.60.210508
Half fence44.5%-4.60.023544
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 14.15 on 9 df, p 0.117

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.2%525-1.80.585+2.80.367+0.50.873-2.80.381-4.40.155-4.50.219-4.00.195+0.80.801-5.70.069
Breakable full fence+1.80.58549.0%447+4.50.157+2.20.480-1.00.759-2.60.412-2.80.466-2.20.486+2.50.434-4.00.227
Half fence-2.80.367-4.50.15744.5%544-2.30.451-5.50.077-7.20.020-7.30.046-6.70.027-2.00.521-8.40.007
Breakable half fence-0.50.873-2.20.480+2.30.45146.8%554-3.20.296-4.90.109-5.00.170-4.50.141+0.30.924-6.20.046
Low fence+2.80.381+1.00.759+5.50.077+3.20.29650.0%484-1.60.603-1.80.638-1.20.696+3.50.264-2.90.358
Single wall+4.40.155+2.60.412+7.20.020+4.90.109+1.60.60351.6%517-0.10.975+0.40.893+5.20.097-1.30.680
Fence and open+4.50.219+2.80.466+7.30.046+5.00.170+1.80.638+0.10.97551.8%284+0.50.885+5.30.152-1.20.751
Open+4.00.195+2.20.486+6.70.027+4.50.141+1.20.696-0.40.893-0.50.88551.2%529+4.80.124-1.70.584
Rectangle-0.80.801-2.50.434+2.00.521-0.30.924-3.50.264-5.20.097-5.30.152-4.80.12446.5%508-6.50.040
Octagon+5.70.069+4.00.227+8.40.007+6.20.046+2.90.358+1.30.680+1.20.751+1.70.584+6.50.04052.9%493
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 counted2,343
Win rate49.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.8 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Goh's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall52.8%+3.70.215254
Fence and open52.3%+3.30.448128
Full fence52.3%+3.20.319218
Open50.6%+1.60.616231
Low fence49.8%+0.70.829221
Octagon48.6%-0.50.877210
Breakable full fence48.1%-1.00.767212
Half fence47.3%-1.80.563243
Rectangle46.4%-2.70.397220
Breakable half fence45.3%-3.80.182278
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 5.70 on 9 df, p 0.769

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.3%218+4.20.386+5.00.287+7.00.123+2.50.597-0.50.920-0.10.993+1.60.728+5.90.215+3.70.441
Breakable full fence-4.20.38648.1%212+0.80.867+2.80.540-1.70.730-4.70.318-4.20.450-2.50.594+1.80.716-0.50.925
Half fence-5.00.287-0.80.86747.3%243+2.00.648-2.40.598-5.40.226-5.00.358-3.30.469+1.00.836-1.20.791
Breakable half fence-7.00.123-2.80.540-2.00.64845.3%278-4.50.323-7.40.087-7.00.188-5.30.231-1.00.817-3.20.476
Low fence-2.50.597+1.70.730+2.40.598+4.50.32349.8%221-3.00.517-2.60.644-0.90.852+3.40.474+1.20.803
Single wall+0.50.920+4.70.318+5.40.226+7.40.087+3.00.51752.8%254+0.40.939+2.10.643+6.40.165+4.20.369
Fence and open+0.10.993+4.20.450+5.00.358+7.00.188+2.60.644-0.40.93952.3%128+1.70.758+6.00.282+3.80.501
Open-1.60.728+2.50.594+3.30.469+5.30.231+0.90.852-2.10.643-1.70.75850.6%231+4.30.363+2.10.663
Rectangle-5.90.215-1.80.716-1.00.836+1.00.817-3.40.474-6.40.165-6.00.282-4.30.36346.4%220-2.20.647
Octagon-3.70.441+0.50.925+1.20.791+3.20.476-1.20.803-4.20.369-3.80.501-2.10.663+2.20.64748.6%210
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 counted2,710
Win rate49.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-7.4 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Goh's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Octagon56.5%+6.90.015278
Fence and open52.0%+2.40.547154
Open51.8%+2.20.440284
Single wall51.2%+1.60.593248
Breakable full fence50.5%+0.90.790222
Low fence50.4%+0.80.789254
Breakable half fence48.9%-0.70.801262
Rectangle47.0%-2.60.356283
Full fence44.9%-4.70.087292
Half fence42.2%-7.40.008289
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 16.17 on 9 df, p 0.063

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence44.9%292-5.60.209+2.60.520-4.00.347-5.50.197-6.30.141-7.10.154-6.90.098-2.10.608-11.60.006
Breakable full fence+5.60.20950.5%222+8.20.064+1.60.726+0.10.990-0.80.869-1.50.775-1.30.770+3.50.441-6.00.179
Half fence-2.60.520-8.20.06442.2%289-6.60.118-8.20.056-9.00.037-9.70.050-9.60.022-4.80.250-14.3<0.001
Breakable half fence+4.00.347-1.60.726+6.60.11848.9%262-1.50.727-2.40.595-3.10.542-2.90.498+1.90.664-7.60.076
Low fence+5.50.197-0.10.990+8.20.056+1.50.72750.4%254-0.80.855-1.60.761-1.40.752+3.40.432-6.10.160
Single wall+6.30.141+0.80.869+9.00.037+2.40.595+0.80.85551.2%248-0.70.885-0.60.899+4.20.333-5.30.226
Fence and open+7.10.154+1.50.775+9.70.050+3.10.542+1.60.761+0.70.88552.0%154+0.20.970+5.00.323-4.50.365
Open+6.90.098+1.30.770+9.60.022+2.90.498+1.40.752+0.60.899-0.20.97051.8%284+4.80.257-4.70.262
Rectangle+2.10.608-3.50.441+4.80.250-1.90.664-3.40.432-4.20.333-5.00.323-4.80.25747.0%283-9.50.025
Octagon+11.60.006+6.00.179+14.3<0.001+7.60.076+6.10.160+5.30.226+4.50.365+4.70.262+9.50.02556.5%278
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 counted110
Win rate37.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Goh's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Open50.0%+12.70.29214 ·
Low fence44.4%+7.20.6429 ·
Half fence41.7%+4.40.73912 ·
Octagon40.0%+2.70.8975 ·
Single wall40.0%+2.70.81415 ·
Breakable full fence38.5%+1.20.92513 ·
Breakable half fence35.7%-1.60.89714 ·
Full fence20.0%-17.30.13715 ·
Rectangle20.0%-17.30.4145 ·
Fence and open0.0%-37.30.2712 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 5.11 on 9 df, p 0.824

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence20.0%15-18.50.281-21.70.221-15.70.344-24.40.202-20.00.232+20.00.486-30.00.089+0.01.000-20.00.371
Breakable full fence+18.50.28138.5%13-3.20.870+2.80.883-6.00.779-1.50.934+38.50.283-11.50.547+18.50.457-1.50.952
Half fence+21.70.221+3.20.87041.7%12+6.00.756-2.80.899+1.70.930+41.70.255-8.30.671+21.70.394+1.70.949
Breakable half fence+15.70.344-2.80.883-6.00.75635.7%14-8.70.675-4.30.812+35.70.308-14.30.445+15.70.516-4.30.865
Low fence+24.40.202+6.00.779+2.80.899+8.70.67544.4%9+4.40.831+44.40.237-5.60.795+24.40.360+4.40.872
Single wall+20.00.232+1.50.934-1.70.930+4.30.812-4.40.83140.0%15+40.00.266-10.00.588+20.00.417+0.01.000
Fence and open-20.00.486-38.50.283-41.70.255-35.70.308-44.40.237-40.00.2660.0%2-50.00.182-20.00.495-40.00.290
Open+30.00.089+11.50.547+8.30.671+14.30.445+5.60.795+10.00.588+50.00.18250.0%14+30.00.243+10.00.701
Rectangle-0.01.000-18.50.457-21.70.394-15.70.516-24.40.360-20.00.417+20.00.495-30.00.24320.0%5-20.00.490
Octagon+20.00.371+1.50.952-1.70.949+4.30.865-4.40.872-0.01.000+40.00.290-10.00.701+20.00.49040.0%5
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.