VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Goh vs Lei Fei

Goh vs Lei Fei in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Goh wins 47.4% of 2,986 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 counted2,986
Win rate47.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.6 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
Fence and open52.0%+4.60.295125
Breakable half fence50.2%+2.80.338273
Single wall49.5%+2.10.453295
Rectangle49.1%+1.60.577265
Open47.9%+0.50.856353
Low fence47.5%+0.00.991314
Full fence46.7%-0.70.806274
Half fence46.5%-0.90.734333
Octagon44.4%-3.00.263302
Breakable full fence43.0%-4.40.106300
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 6.34 on 9 df, p 0.706

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.7%274+3.70.371+0.20.967-3.50.417-0.70.858-2.80.508-5.30.327-1.20.773-2.30.586+2.40.573
Breakable full fence-3.70.37143.0%300-3.50.370-7.20.085-4.50.268-6.50.112-9.00.090-4.90.213-6.10.149-1.40.735
Half fence-0.20.967+3.50.37046.5%333-3.60.373-0.90.818-2.90.461-5.50.298-1.30.728-2.50.542+2.20.582
Breakable half fence+3.50.417+7.20.085+3.60.37350.2%273+2.70.509+0.70.869-1.80.736+2.30.567+1.10.794+5.80.163
Low fence+0.70.858+4.50.268+0.90.818-2.70.50947.5%314-2.00.615-4.50.390-0.40.913-1.60.700+3.10.443
Single wall+2.80.508+6.50.112+2.90.461-0.70.869+2.00.61549.5%295-2.50.638+1.60.682+0.40.918+5.10.210
Fence and open+5.30.327+9.00.090+5.50.298+1.80.736+4.50.390+2.50.63852.0%125+4.10.428+2.90.587+7.60.150
Open+1.20.773+4.90.213+1.30.728-2.30.567+0.40.913-1.60.682-4.10.42847.9%353-1.20.771+3.50.370
Rectangle+2.30.586+6.10.149+2.50.542-1.10.794+1.60.700-0.40.918-2.90.587+1.20.77149.1%265+4.70.264
Octagon-2.40.573+1.40.735-2.20.582-5.80.163-3.10.443-5.10.210-7.60.150-3.50.370-4.70.26444.4%302
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 counted1,054
Win rate47.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches10.9 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 wall58.2%+10.90.015110
Breakable half fence50.5%+3.30.50693
Fence and open50.0%+2.80.70246 ·
Rectangle47.7%+0.40.93486
Half fence47.5%+0.30.945122
Breakable full fence47.1%-0.10.98187
Low fence45.1%-2.10.634113
Octagon44.4%-2.90.492124
Open42.3%-4.90.217137
Full fence37.2%-10.00.05286
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 11.19 on 9 df, p 0.263

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence37.2%86-9.90.187-10.30.139-13.30.073-7.90.261-21.00.004-12.80.156-5.10.448-10.50.165-7.10.301
Breakable full fence+9.90.18747.1%87-0.40.953-3.40.647+2.00.779-11.10.122-2.90.752+4.80.482-0.50.942+2.80.691
Half fence+10.30.139+0.40.95347.5%122-3.00.663+2.40.711-10.60.105-2.50.776+5.20.400-0.10.985+3.20.616
Breakable half fence+13.30.073+3.40.647+3.00.66350.5%93+5.40.440-7.60.276+0.50.952+8.20.220+2.90.702+6.20.366
Low fence+7.90.261-2.00.779-2.40.711-5.40.44045.1%113-13.10.051-4.90.577+2.80.657-2.50.722+0.80.904
Single wall+21.00.004+11.10.122+10.60.105+7.60.276+13.10.05158.2%110+8.20.348+15.80.013+10.50.143+13.80.035
Fence and open+12.80.156+2.90.752+2.50.776-0.50.952+4.90.577-8.20.34850.0%46+7.70.365+2.30.799+5.70.512
Open+5.10.448-4.80.482-5.20.400-8.20.220-2.80.657-15.80.013-7.70.36542.3%137-5.30.435-2.00.742
Rectangle+10.50.165+0.50.942+0.10.985-2.90.702+2.50.722-10.50.143-2.30.799+5.30.43547.7%86+3.30.635
Octagon+7.10.301-2.80.691-3.20.616-6.20.366-0.80.904-13.80.035-5.70.512+2.00.742-3.30.63544.4%124
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 counted1,793
Win rate48.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.4 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
Fence and open56.3%+7.90.17671 ·
Open52.5%+4.10.226198
Full fence52.2%+3.80.288178
Low fence50.5%+2.10.550186
Breakable half fence49.7%+1.20.738167
Rectangle49.1%+0.60.863167
Half fence47.9%-0.60.872192
Octagon45.3%-3.20.400159
Single wall43.9%-4.60.195180
Breakable full fence43.1%-5.40.111195
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 8.96 on 9 df, p 0.441

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.2%178+9.20.076+4.30.405+2.50.636+1.70.744+8.40.114-4.10.559-0.30.957+3.10.559+7.00.202
Breakable full fence-9.20.07643.1%195-4.80.339-6.60.208-7.50.145-0.80.874-13.30.055-9.40.061-6.00.251-2.20.678
Half fence-4.30.405+4.80.33947.9%192-1.80.736-2.60.610+4.00.436-8.40.225-4.60.363-1.20.823+2.60.623
Breakable half fence-2.50.636+6.60.208+1.80.73649.7%167-0.80.875+5.80.278-6.60.348-2.80.591+0.60.913+4.40.425
Low fence-1.70.744+7.50.145+2.60.610+0.80.87550.5%186+6.70.203-5.80.405-2.00.697+1.40.788+5.30.330
Single wall-8.40.114+0.80.874-4.00.436-5.80.278-6.70.20343.9%180-12.40.075-8.60.093-5.20.331-1.40.797
Fence and open+4.10.559+13.30.055+8.40.225+6.60.348+5.80.405+12.40.07556.3%71+3.80.581+7.20.307+11.10.121
Open+0.30.957+9.40.061+4.60.363+2.80.591+2.00.697+8.60.093-3.80.58152.5%198+3.40.515+7.20.174
Rectangle-3.10.559+6.00.251+1.20.823-0.60.913-1.40.788+5.20.331-7.20.307-3.40.51549.1%167+3.80.490
Octagon-7.00.202+2.20.678-2.60.623-4.40.425-5.30.330+1.40.797-11.10.121-7.20.174-3.80.49045.3%159
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 counted139
Win rate35.2%
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 wall60.0%+24.80.2385 ·
Rectangle58.3%+23.10.08012 ·
Breakable half fence53.9%+18.60.14113 ·
Open38.9%+3.60.72918 ·
Octagon36.8%+1.60.87619 ·
Full fence30.0%-5.20.71810 ·
Low fence26.7%-8.60.46115 ·
Half fence26.3%-8.90.38019 ·
Fence and open25.0%-10.20.5328 ·
Breakable full fence22.2%-13.00.21518 ·
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 9.14 on 9 df, p 0.425

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence30.0%10+7.80.649+3.70.833-23.90.253+3.30.856-30.00.264+5.00.814-8.90.638-28.30.184-6.80.713
Breakable full fence-7.80.64922.2%18-4.10.772-31.60.069-4.50.767-37.80.104-2.80.877-16.70.278-36.10.044-14.60.331
Half fence-3.70.833+4.10.77226.3%19-27.50.114-0.30.982-33.70.155+1.30.943-12.60.414-32.00.075-10.50.485
Breakable half fence+23.90.253+31.60.069+27.50.11453.9%13+27.20.142-6.20.814+28.90.195+15.00.409-4.50.821+17.00.341
Low fence-3.30.856+4.50.767+0.30.982-27.20.14226.7%15-33.30.176+1.70.931-12.20.458-31.70.096-10.20.529
Single wall+30.00.264+37.80.104+33.70.155+6.20.814+33.30.17660.0%5+35.00.207+21.10.400+1.70.949+23.20.350
Fence and open-5.00.814+2.80.877-1.30.943-28.90.195-1.70.931-35.00.20725.0%8-13.90.492-33.30.142-11.80.551
Open+8.90.638+16.70.278+12.60.414-15.00.409+12.20.458-21.10.400+13.90.49238.9%18-19.40.296+2.00.898
Rectangle+28.30.184+36.10.044+32.00.075+4.50.821+31.70.096-1.70.949+33.30.142+19.40.29658.3%12+21.50.242
Octagon+6.80.713+14.60.331+10.50.485-17.00.341+10.20.529-23.20.350+11.80.551-2.00.898-21.50.24236.8%19
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.