VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Goh vs Sarah

Goh vs Sarah in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Goh wins 50.5% of 5,221 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 counted5,221
Win rate50.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-2.4 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
Half fence52.5%+2.00.327531
Open51.8%+1.30.529515
Rectangle51.7%+1.20.527605
Breakable full fence51.6%+1.10.607539
Low fence51.4%+0.80.692518
Full fence50.1%-0.40.837517
Octagon49.5%-1.10.631463
Breakable half fence48.5%-2.00.326548
Single wall48.5%-2.10.321518
Fence and open48.1%-2.40.446239
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 4.51 on 9 df, p 0.875

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.1%517-1.50.631-2.40.428+1.60.612-1.20.686+1.60.597+2.00.613-1.70.574-1.60.584+0.60.842
Breakable full fence+1.50.63151.6%539-1.00.752+3.00.317+0.20.942+3.10.310+3.50.373-0.30.931-0.20.957+2.10.504
Half fence+2.40.428+1.00.75252.5%531+4.00.189+1.20.699+4.10.186+4.40.256+0.70.821+0.80.786+3.10.332
Breakable half fence-1.60.612-3.00.317-4.00.18948.5%548-2.80.359+0.10.978+0.40.913-3.30.282-3.20.278-0.90.771
Low fence+1.20.686-0.20.942-1.20.699+2.80.35951.4%518+2.90.351+3.20.408-0.50.874-0.40.898+1.90.554
Single wall-1.60.597-3.10.310-4.10.186-0.10.978-2.90.35148.5%518+0.30.931-3.40.276-3.30.273-1.00.753
Fence and open-2.00.613-3.50.373-4.40.256-0.40.913-3.20.408-0.30.93148.1%239-3.70.341-3.60.343-1.30.736
Open+1.70.574+0.30.931-0.70.821+3.30.282+0.50.874+3.40.276+3.70.34151.8%515+0.10.971+2.40.456
Rectangle+1.60.584+0.20.957-0.80.786+3.20.278+0.40.898+3.30.273+3.60.343-0.10.97151.7%605+2.30.461
Octagon-0.60.842-2.10.504-3.10.332+0.90.771-1.90.554+1.00.753+1.30.736-2.40.456-2.30.46149.5%463
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 counted2,660
Win rate50.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.5 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 fence53.5%+2.90.311275
Half fence51.9%+1.30.649264
Rectangle51.6%+1.00.719287
Open51.5%+0.90.752272
Full fence50.8%+0.20.936248
Single wall50.6%+0.00.999265
Octagon50.0%-0.60.866206
Fence and open48.9%-1.60.691141
Low fence48.6%-2.00.482284
Breakable half fence47.0%-3.50.206287
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 3.36 on 9 df, p 0.948

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.8%248-2.60.545-1.10.806+3.80.385+2.20.610+0.20.957+1.90.723-0.70.880-0.80.861+0.80.864
Breakable full fence+2.60.54553.5%275+1.60.717+6.40.128+4.90.250+2.90.502+4.50.383+2.00.642+1.90.654+3.50.453
Half fence+1.10.806-1.60.71751.9%264+4.80.255+3.30.440+1.30.760+3.00.571+0.40.922+0.30.939+1.90.684
Breakable half fence-3.80.385-6.40.128-4.80.25547.0%287-1.60.710-3.50.407-1.90.712-4.40.295-4.50.278-3.00.516
Low fence-2.20.610-4.90.250-3.30.440+1.60.71048.6%284-2.00.644-0.30.947-2.90.497-3.00.477-1.40.758
Single wall-0.20.957-2.90.502-1.30.760+3.50.407+2.00.64450.6%265+1.60.754-0.90.834-1.00.814+0.60.903
Fence and open-1.90.723-4.50.383-3.00.571+1.90.712+0.30.947-1.60.75448.9%141-2.50.625-2.60.609-1.10.846
Open+0.70.880-2.00.642-0.40.922+4.40.295+2.90.497+0.90.834+2.50.62551.5%272-0.10.982+1.50.750
Rectangle+0.80.861-1.90.654-0.30.939+4.50.278+3.00.477+1.00.814+2.60.609+0.10.98251.6%287+1.60.731
Octagon-0.80.864-3.50.453-1.90.684+3.00.516+1.40.758-0.60.903+1.10.846-1.50.750-1.60.73150.0%206
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 counted2,350
Win rate49.6%
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
Low fence54.3%+4.80.139219
Half fence52.2%+2.70.377245
Open51.9%+2.30.482216
Rectangle51.0%+1.40.598306
Breakable half fence49.6%+0.00.998230
Breakable full fence48.6%-1.00.740245
Full fence48.4%-1.20.687242
Octagon47.9%-1.60.588240
Single wall44.7%-4.90.114235
Fence and open43.5%-6.00.25685
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 7.38 on 9 df, p 0.598

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.4%242-0.20.961-3.90.390-1.20.791-6.00.199+3.70.422+4.80.444-3.50.454-2.60.540+0.40.925
Breakable full fence+0.20.96148.6%245-3.70.416-1.00.829-5.80.215+3.90.393+5.00.422-3.30.482-2.40.574+0.70.885
Half fence+3.90.390+3.70.41652.2%245+2.70.559-2.10.652+7.60.097+8.70.166+0.40.933+1.30.768+4.30.341
Breakable half fence+1.20.791+1.00.829-2.70.55949.6%230-4.80.312+4.90.291+6.00.341-2.30.629-1.40.746+1.60.721
Low fence+6.00.199+5.80.215+2.10.652+4.80.31254.3%219+9.70.040+10.80.091+2.50.603+3.40.448+6.40.169
Single wall-3.70.422-3.90.393-7.60.097-4.90.291-9.70.04044.7%235+1.10.855-7.20.128-6.30.146-3.20.479
Fence and open-4.80.444-5.00.422-8.70.166-6.00.341-10.80.091-1.10.85543.5%85-8.30.194-7.50.224-4.40.486
Open+3.50.454+3.30.482-0.40.933+2.30.629-2.50.603+7.20.128+8.30.19451.9%216+0.90.844+3.90.401
Rectangle+2.60.540+2.40.574-1.30.768+1.40.746-3.40.448+6.30.146+7.50.224-0.90.84451.0%306+3.10.477
Octagon-0.40.925-0.70.885-4.30.341-1.60.721-6.40.169+3.20.479+4.40.486-3.90.401-3.10.47747.9%240
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 counted211
Win rate60.7%
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
Rectangle75.0%+14.30.29512 ·
Fence and open69.2%+8.60.51413 ·
Single wall66.7%+6.00.58618 ·
Octagon64.7%+4.00.72217 ·
Half fence63.6%+3.00.76322 ·
Breakable full fence63.2%+2.50.81619 ·
Low fence60.0%-0.70.95615 ·
Full fence59.3%-1.40.87327 ·
Open55.6%-5.10.56127 ·
Breakable half fence54.8%-5.80.47231 ·
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 2.65 on 9 df, p 0.977

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence59.3%27-3.90.790-4.40.754+4.40.735-0.70.963-7.40.616-10.00.542+3.70.783-15.70.344-5.50.718
Breakable full fence+3.90.79063.2%19-0.50.975+8.30.563+3.20.851-3.50.823-6.10.722+7.60.606-11.80.492-1.60.923
Half fence+4.40.754+0.50.97563.6%22+8.80.522+3.60.823-3.00.842-5.60.736+8.10.567-11.40.498-1.10.945
Breakable half fence-4.40.735-8.30.563-8.80.52254.8%31-5.20.741-11.80.417-14.40.376-0.70.956-20.20.225-9.90.507
Low fence+0.70.963-3.20.851-3.60.823+5.20.74160.0%15-6.70.692-9.20.611+4.40.780-15.00.411-4.70.784
Single wall+7.40.616+3.50.823+3.00.842+11.80.417+6.70.69266.7%18-2.60.880+11.10.456-8.30.626+2.00.903
Fence and open+10.00.542+6.10.722+5.60.736+14.40.376+9.20.611+2.60.88069.2%13+13.70.408-5.80.748+4.50.794
Open-3.70.783-7.60.606-8.10.567+0.70.956-4.40.780-11.10.456-13.70.40855.6%27-19.40.249-9.20.548
Rectangle+15.70.344+11.80.492+11.40.498+20.20.225+15.00.411+8.30.626+5.80.748+19.40.24975.0%12+10.30.555
Octagon+5.50.718+1.60.923+1.10.945+9.90.507+4.70.784-2.00.903-4.50.794+9.20.548-10.30.55564.7%17
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.