VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Goh vs Lion

Goh vs Lion in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Goh wins 48.5% of 4,520 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 counted4,520
Win rate48.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.1 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
Breakable full fence52.9%+4.50.042463
Half fence51.9%+3.50.124447
Rectangle50.8%+2.30.300441
Low fence50.6%+2.20.318464
Octagon48.4%-0.00.990444
Full fence47.0%-1.40.510491
Breakable half fence47.0%-1.50.488475
Single wall46.3%-2.20.341428
Fence and open45.8%-2.70.382247
Open43.3%-5.10.029411
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 14.38 on 9 df, p 0.110

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.0%491-5.90.070-4.80.137+0.10.975-3.60.266+0.80.812+1.30.739+3.70.261-3.70.253-1.40.674
Breakable full fence+5.90.07052.9%463+1.00.759+6.00.068+2.30.489+6.70.047+7.20.069+9.60.005+2.10.523+4.50.176
Half fence+4.80.137-1.00.75951.9%447+5.00.133+1.20.705+5.60.095+6.20.121+8.60.012+1.10.741+3.50.299
Breakable half fence-0.10.975-6.00.068-5.00.13347.0%475-3.70.257+0.70.837+1.20.759+3.60.278-3.80.245-1.50.654
Low fence+3.60.266-2.30.489-1.20.705+3.70.25750.6%464+4.40.191+4.90.214+7.30.030-0.10.965+2.20.503
Single wall-0.80.812-6.70.047-5.60.095-0.70.837-4.40.19146.3%428+0.50.898+3.00.390-4.50.181-2.20.523
Fence and open-1.30.739-7.20.069-6.20.121-1.20.759-4.90.214-0.50.89845.8%247+2.40.542-5.00.204-2.70.500
Open-3.70.261-9.60.005-8.60.012-3.60.278-7.30.030-3.00.390-2.40.54243.3%411-7.50.029-5.10.134
Rectangle+3.70.253-2.10.523-1.10.741+3.80.245+0.10.965+4.50.181+5.00.204+7.50.02950.8%441+2.40.481
Octagon+1.40.674-4.50.176-3.50.299+1.50.654-2.20.503+2.20.523+2.70.500+5.10.134-2.40.48148.4%444
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 counted1,994
Win rate51.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.3 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 fence54.8%+3.80.269188
Rectangle54.7%+3.80.246212
Breakable full fence53.5%+2.50.447200
Octagon53.4%+2.40.462208
Low fence53.3%+2.40.466210
Breakable half fence49.5%-1.40.658220
Fence and open48.8%-2.10.68886
Single wall48.1%-2.80.418189
Full fence47.4%-3.60.273209
Open45.6%-5.30.130182
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 7.85 on 9 df, p 0.549

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.4%209-6.10.215-7.40.140-2.20.652-6.00.222-0.80.876-1.50.818+1.80.727-7.30.132-6.00.221
Breakable full fence+6.10.21553.5%200-1.30.799+4.00.418+0.20.973+5.30.291+4.70.469+7.90.123-1.20.804+0.10.978
Half fence+7.40.140+1.30.79954.8%188+5.20.291+1.50.771+6.60.197+6.00.360+9.20.077+0.10.989+1.40.777
Breakable half fence+2.20.652-4.00.418-5.20.29149.5%220-3.80.432+1.40.778+0.70.911+4.00.431-5.20.282-3.80.429
Low fence+6.00.222-0.20.973-1.50.771+3.80.43253.3%210+5.20.301+4.50.482+7.70.127-1.40.776-0.00.995
Single wall+0.80.876-5.30.291-6.60.197-1.40.778-5.20.30148.1%189-0.70.916+2.50.624-6.60.189-5.20.299
Fence and open+1.50.818-4.70.469-6.00.360-0.70.911-4.50.482+0.70.91648.8%86+3.20.620-5.90.357-4.50.480
Open-1.80.727-7.90.123-9.20.077-4.00.431-7.70.127-2.50.624-3.20.62045.6%182-9.10.071-7.80.126
Rectangle+7.30.132+1.20.804-0.10.989+5.20.282+1.40.776+6.60.189+5.90.357+9.10.07154.7%212+1.40.781
Octagon+6.00.221-0.10.978-1.40.777+3.80.429+0.00.995+5.20.299+4.50.480+7.80.126-1.40.78153.4%208
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 counted2,176
Win rate46.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.5 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
Breakable full fence53.0%+6.50.042219
Half fence49.5%+3.10.327224
Low fence48.9%+2.40.453219
Rectangle48.4%+2.00.571190
Full fence45.9%-0.50.860246
Single wall45.9%-0.50.872209
Fence and open44.0%-2.50.570125
Breakable half fence43.8%-2.60.398226
Octagon43.6%-2.90.381211
Open42.7%-3.80.266199
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 8.14 on 9 df, p 0.520

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.9%246-7.00.130-3.60.433+2.10.642-2.90.529+0.01.000+1.90.723+3.20.497-2.50.606+2.30.617
Breakable full fence+7.00.13053.0%219+3.40.472+9.20.053+4.10.390+7.00.146+9.00.110+10.30.036+4.50.359+9.40.052
Half fence+3.60.433-3.40.47249.5%224+5.70.222+0.70.884+3.60.451+5.50.319+6.80.159+1.10.818+6.00.214
Breakable half fence-2.10.642-9.20.053-5.70.22243.8%226-5.00.285-2.10.656-0.20.972+1.10.821-4.60.347+0.20.966
Low fence+2.90.529-4.10.390-0.70.884+5.00.28548.9%219+2.90.545+4.90.385+6.20.208+0.40.930+5.30.274
Single wall-0.01.000-7.00.146-3.60.451+2.10.656-2.90.54545.9%209+1.90.731+3.20.513-2.50.619+2.30.631
Fence and open-1.90.723-9.00.110-5.50.319+0.20.972-4.90.385-1.90.73144.0%125+1.30.820-4.40.442+0.40.943
Open-3.20.497-10.30.036-6.80.159-1.10.821-6.20.208-3.20.513-1.30.82042.7%199-5.70.258-0.90.856
Rectangle+2.50.606-4.50.359-1.10.818+4.60.347-0.40.930+2.50.619+4.40.442+5.70.25848.4%190+4.80.334
Octagon-2.30.617-9.40.052-6.00.214-0.20.966-5.30.274-2.30.631-0.40.943+0.90.856-4.80.33443.6%211
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 counted350
Win rate46.6%
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
Full fence52.8%+6.20.43136 ·
Breakable half fence51.7%+5.20.56129 ·
Half fence51.4%+4.90.54435 ·
Breakable full fence50.0%+3.40.62644 ·
Octagon48.0%+1.40.88225 ·
Low fence45.7%-0.90.91535 ·
Fence and open44.4%-2.10.78736 ·
Rectangle41.0%-5.50.46139 ·
Single wall36.7%-9.90.25530 ·
Open33.3%-13.20.12830 ·
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 5.20 on 9 df, p 0.817

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.8%36+2.80.805+1.40.909+1.10.933+7.10.552+16.10.191+8.30.479+19.40.113+11.80.308+4.80.714
Breakable full fence-2.80.80550.0%44-1.40.900-1.70.885+4.30.705+13.30.257+5.60.621+16.70.155+9.00.413+2.00.873
Half fence-1.40.909+1.40.90051.4%35-0.30.981+5.70.632+14.80.233+7.00.556+18.10.142+10.40.370+3.40.793
Breakable half fence-1.10.933+1.70.885+0.30.98151.7%29+6.00.632+15.10.244+7.30.559+18.40.153+10.70.381+3.70.785
Low fence-7.10.552-4.30.705-5.70.632-6.00.63245.7%35+9.00.461+1.30.914+12.40.310+4.70.684-2.30.861
Single wall-16.10.191-13.30.257-14.80.233-15.10.244-9.00.46136.7%30-7.80.522+3.30.787-4.40.713-11.30.396
Fence and open-8.30.479-5.60.621-7.00.556-7.30.559-1.30.914+7.80.52244.4%36+11.10.358+3.40.765-3.60.784
Open-19.40.113-16.70.155-18.10.142-18.40.153-12.40.310-3.30.787-11.10.35833.3%30-7.70.513-14.70.269
Rectangle-11.80.308-9.00.413-10.40.370-10.70.381-4.70.684+4.40.713-3.40.765+7.70.51341.0%39-7.00.583
Octagon-4.80.714-2.00.873-3.40.793-3.70.785+2.30.861+11.30.396+3.60.784+14.70.269+7.00.58348.0%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: 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.