VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Goh vs Lau

Goh vs Lau in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Goh wins 47.6% of 4,631 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 counted4,631
Win rate47.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.0 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 wall52.7%+5.00.025448
Open50.6%+3.00.167478
Half fence48.6%+0.90.674455
Low fence48.1%+0.40.847464
Breakable half fence47.9%+0.20.907518
Full fence47.9%+0.20.920422
Breakable full fence46.3%-1.30.547460
Rectangle46.2%-1.40.513476
Octagon44.2%-3.40.125448
Fence and open41.7%-6.00.057240
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 12.75 on 9 df, p 0.174

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.9%422+1.60.642-0.70.835-0.00.998-0.20.954-4.80.156+6.20.124-2.80.408+1.60.621+3.70.278
Breakable full fence-1.60.64246.3%460-2.30.492-1.60.623-1.80.593-6.40.055+4.60.241-4.30.185+0.10.979+2.10.523
Half fence+0.70.835+2.30.49248.6%455+0.70.829+0.50.877-4.10.217+6.90.083-2.10.530+2.40.472+4.40.187
Breakable half fence+0.00.998+1.60.623-0.70.82947.9%518-0.20.954-4.80.137+6.20.111-2.80.386+1.70.601+3.70.253
Low fence+0.20.954+1.80.593-0.50.877+0.20.95448.1%464-4.60.163+6.40.107-2.60.431+1.80.572+3.90.242
Single wall+4.80.156+6.40.055+4.10.217+4.80.137+4.60.16352.7%448+11.00.006+2.00.533+6.50.050+8.50.011
Fence and open-6.20.124-4.60.241-6.90.083-6.20.111-6.40.107-11.00.00641.7%240-9.00.023-4.50.247-2.50.523
Open+2.80.408+4.30.185+2.10.530+2.80.386+2.60.431-2.00.533+9.00.02350.6%478+4.40.173+6.40.050
Rectangle-1.60.621-0.10.979-2.40.472-1.70.601-1.80.572-6.50.050+4.50.247-4.40.17346.2%476+2.00.537
Octagon-3.70.278-2.10.523-4.40.187-3.70.253-3.90.242-8.50.011+2.50.523-6.40.050-2.00.53744.2%448
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 counted1,526
Win rate48.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-10.8 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
Half fence56.2%+7.70.052144
Breakable full fence54.2%+5.70.138153
Low fence52.3%+3.70.294174
Open50.6%+2.10.579162
Single wall49.4%+0.80.827160
Rectangle48.1%-0.40.912162
Full fence47.2%-1.40.767106
Breakable half fence47.0%-1.60.685149
Octagon41.2%-7.30.051160
Fence and open37.8%-10.80.04582
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 14.04 on 9 df, p 0.121

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.2%106-7.10.262-9.10.155+0.20.976-5.10.405-2.20.725+9.40.198-3.50.581-1.00.875+5.90.340
Breakable full fence+7.10.26254.2%153-2.00.729+7.30.207+1.90.724+4.90.388+16.40.016+3.60.519+6.10.279+13.00.021
Half fence+9.10.155+2.00.72956.2%144+9.30.112+4.00.482+6.90.231+18.40.008+5.60.324+8.10.157+15.00.009
Breakable half fence-0.20.976-7.30.207-9.30.11247.0%149-5.30.341-2.40.674+9.20.179-3.60.521-1.20.837+5.70.311
Low fence+5.10.405-1.90.724-4.00.482+5.30.34152.3%174+2.90.593+14.50.030+1.70.758+4.20.447+11.10.043
Single wall+2.20.725-4.90.388-6.90.231+2.40.674-2.90.59349.4%160+11.60.087-1.20.824+1.20.826+8.10.144
Fence and open-9.40.198-16.40.016-18.40.008-9.20.179-14.50.030-11.60.08737.8%82-12.80.058-10.30.125-3.50.605
Open+3.50.581-3.60.519-5.60.324+3.60.521-1.70.758+1.20.824+12.80.05850.6%162+2.50.657+9.40.092
Rectangle+1.00.875-6.10.279-8.10.157+1.20.837-4.20.447-1.20.826+10.30.125-2.50.65748.1%162+6.90.213
Octagon-5.90.340-13.00.021-15.00.009-5.70.311-11.10.043-8.10.144+3.50.605-9.40.092-6.90.21341.2%160
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 counted2,575
Win rate48.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.1 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 wall54.1%+6.10.044244
Breakable half fence51.0%+3.00.258312
Full fence49.8%+1.90.533257
Open49.4%+1.40.625255
Octagon47.9%-0.10.979236
Low fence45.9%-2.10.493242
Half fence45.7%-2.20.451258
Rectangle45.6%-2.30.424263
Breakable full fence43.0%-5.00.097249
Fence and open42.9%-5.10.226133
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 10.74 on 9 df, p 0.294

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.8%257+6.80.123+4.10.355-1.10.784+3.90.379-4.30.336+7.00.193+0.40.929+4.20.340+1.90.669
Breakable full fence-6.80.12343.0%249-2.80.531-8.00.060-2.90.518-11.10.013+0.10.983-6.40.147-2.70.545-4.90.278
Half fence-4.10.355+2.80.53145.7%258-5.20.214-0.10.977-8.40.061+2.90.588-3.70.405+0.10.980-2.10.633
Breakable half fence+1.10.784+8.00.060+5.20.21451.0%312+5.10.234-3.10.462+8.10.117+1.60.713+5.30.202+3.10.475
Low fence-3.90.379+2.90.518+0.10.977-5.10.23445.9%242-8.20.070+3.00.575-3.50.429+0.20.957-2.00.659
Single wall+4.30.336+11.10.013+8.40.061+3.10.462+8.20.07054.1%244+11.20.037+4.70.295+8.50.057+6.20.173
Fence and open-7.00.193-0.10.983-2.90.588-8.10.117-3.00.575-11.20.03742.9%133-6.50.220-2.80.601-5.00.353
Open-0.40.929+6.40.147+3.70.405-1.60.713+3.50.429-4.70.295+6.50.22049.4%255+3.80.389+1.50.735
Rectangle-4.20.340+2.70.545-0.10.980-5.30.202-0.20.957-8.50.057+2.80.601-3.80.38945.6%263-2.20.614
Octagon-1.90.669+4.90.278+2.10.633-3.10.475+2.00.659-6.20.173+5.00.353-1.50.735+2.20.61447.9%236
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 counted530
Win rate43.4%
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
Single wall56.8%+13.40.06144 ·
Open55.7%+12.30.03961 ·
Fence and open48.0%+4.60.63425 ·
Low fence43.8%+0.30.95948 ·
Rectangle43.1%-0.30.96951 ·
Half fence41.5%-1.90.77053 ·
Full fence40.7%-2.70.65559 ·
Breakable full fence39.7%-3.70.54258 ·
Octagon36.5%-6.90.29352 ·
Breakable half fence33.3%-10.10.10557 ·
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 11.15 on 9 df, p 0.266

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence40.7%59+1.00.910-0.80.929+7.30.413-3.10.749-16.10.105-7.30.535-15.10.099-2.50.794+4.10.655
Breakable full fence-1.00.91039.7%58-1.90.842+6.30.481-4.10.670-17.20.085-8.30.480-16.10.079-3.50.713+3.10.737
Half fence+0.80.929+1.90.84241.5%53+8.20.376-2.20.820-15.30.133-6.50.590-14.20.130-1.60.867+5.00.602
Breakable half fence-7.30.413-6.30.481-8.20.37633.3%57-10.40.274-23.50.018-14.70.207-22.40.014-9.80.295-3.20.726
Low fence+3.10.749+4.10.670+2.20.820+10.40.27443.8%48-13.10.210-4.20.729-12.00.214+0.60.951+7.20.462
Single wall+16.10.105+17.20.085+15.30.133+23.50.018+13.10.21056.8%44+8.80.480+1.10.912+13.70.184+20.30.047
Fence and open+7.30.535+8.30.480+6.50.590+14.70.207+4.20.729-8.80.48048.0%25-7.70.514+4.90.689+11.50.337
Open+15.10.099+16.10.079+14.20.130+22.40.014+12.00.214-1.10.912+7.70.51455.7%61+12.60.184+19.20.042
Rectangle+2.50.794+3.50.713+1.60.867+9.80.295-0.60.951-13.70.184-4.90.689-12.60.18443.1%51+6.60.494
Octagon-4.10.655-3.10.737-5.00.602+3.20.726-7.20.462-20.30.047-11.50.337-19.20.042-6.60.49436.5%52
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.