VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Goh vs Taka

Goh vs Taka in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Goh wins 43.9% of 1,551 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 counted1,551
Win rate43.9%
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
Fence and open50.0%+6.10.21994
Open47.8%+3.90.339136
Breakable half fence46.3%+2.40.534149
Low fence45.6%+1.70.665138
Full fence44.8%+0.90.832134
Rectangle42.3%-1.60.674149
Octagon42.0%-1.90.599169
Half fence41.3%-2.60.462179
Breakable full fence40.3%-3.60.302181
Single wall38.2%-5.80.133152
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 6.55 on 9 df, p 0.684

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence44.8%134+4.50.430+3.40.543-1.50.796-0.90.885+6.60.257-5.20.437-3.00.619+2.50.673+2.80.630
Breakable full fence-4.50.43040.3%181-1.00.846-6.00.275-5.30.341+2.20.686-9.70.125-7.50.185-1.90.720-1.70.750
Half fence-3.40.543+1.00.84641.3%179-5.00.366-4.30.442+3.20.556-8.70.171-6.50.253-0.90.863-0.70.899
Breakable half fence+1.50.796+6.00.275+5.00.36646.3%149+0.70.911+8.20.152-3.70.575-1.50.802+4.00.484+4.30.441
Low fence+0.90.885+5.30.341+4.30.442-0.70.91145.6%138+7.50.196-4.30.515-2.10.722+3.40.565+3.60.522
Single wall-6.60.257-2.20.686-3.20.556-8.20.152-7.50.19638.2%152-11.80.068-9.60.099-4.10.466-3.90.482
Fence and open+5.20.437+9.70.125+8.70.171+3.70.575+4.30.515+11.80.06850.0%94+2.20.742+7.70.239+8.00.212
Open+3.00.619+7.50.185+6.50.253+1.50.802+2.10.722+9.60.099-2.20.74247.8%136+5.50.350+5.80.313
Rectangle-2.50.673+1.90.720+0.90.863-4.00.484-3.40.565+4.10.466-7.70.239-5.50.35042.3%149+0.30.961
Octagon-2.80.630+1.70.750+0.70.899-4.30.441-3.60.522+3.90.482-8.00.212-5.80.313-0.30.96142.0%169
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 counted701
Win rate44.5%
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
Open50.9%+6.30.30659 ·
Breakable half fence50.8%+6.20.28067 ·
Full fence50.0%+5.50.37160 ·
Fence and open50.0%+5.50.47240 ·
Low fence47.5%+3.00.61861 ·
Single wall43.6%-0.90.86378 ·
Octagon40.7%-3.80.46881
Rectangle40.0%-4.50.42470 ·
Half fence36.2%-8.30.14569 ·
Breakable full fence35.4%-9.10.08579 ·
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 8.98 on 9 df, p 0.439

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.0%60+14.60.085+13.80.115-0.80.933+2.50.787+6.40.454+0.01.000-0.80.926+10.00.253+9.30.274
Breakable full fence-14.60.08535.4%79-0.80.920-15.30.062-12.10.149-8.20.296-14.60.126-15.40.070-4.60.567-5.30.490
Half fence-13.80.115+0.80.92036.2%69-14.50.088-11.30.192-7.40.364-13.80.159-14.60.096-3.80.647-4.50.572
Breakable half fence+0.80.933+15.30.062+14.50.08850.8%67+3.20.717+7.20.389+0.80.940-0.10.991+10.80.207+10.00.224
Low fence-2.50.787+12.10.149+11.30.192-3.20.71747.5%61+4.00.642-2.50.809-3.30.717+7.50.385+6.80.419
Single wall-6.40.454+8.20.296+7.40.364-7.20.389-4.00.64243.6%78-6.40.508-7.30.399+3.60.659+2.90.716
Fence and open-0.01.000+14.60.126+13.80.159-0.80.940+2.50.809+6.40.50850.0%40-0.80.934+10.00.309+9.30.334
Open+0.80.926+15.40.070+14.60.096+0.10.991+3.30.717+7.30.399+0.80.93450.9%59+10.80.217+10.10.235
Rectangle-10.00.253+4.60.567+3.80.647-10.80.207-7.50.385-3.60.659-10.00.309-10.80.21740.0%70-0.70.926
Octagon-9.30.274+5.30.490+4.50.572-10.00.224-6.80.419-2.90.716-9.30.334-10.10.235+0.70.92640.7%81
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 counted760
Win rate43.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches2.3 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
Full fence45.9%+2.90.63661 ·
Fence and open45.8%+2.80.68548 ·
Half fence45.4%+2.30.61997
Low fence44.9%+1.90.73869 ·
Rectangle44.9%+1.80.72878 ·
Open43.9%+0.90.87566 ·
Octagon43.9%+0.90.86582
Breakable full fence42.9%-0.20.97291
Breakable half fence38.9%-4.10.45672 ·
Single wall29.7%-13.30.02464 ·
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 5.97 on 9 df, p 0.743

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.9%61+3.00.711+0.50.947+7.00.414+1.00.911+16.20.061+0.10.994+2.00.824+1.00.904+2.00.812
Breakable full fence-3.00.71142.9%91-2.50.730+4.00.609-2.10.794+13.20.095-3.00.737-1.10.893-2.00.792-1.00.890
Half fence-0.50.947+2.50.73045.4%97+6.50.400+0.40.956+15.70.046-0.50.957+1.40.858+0.50.948+1.50.845
Breakable half fence-7.00.414-4.00.609-6.50.40038.9%72-6.00.467+9.20.260-6.90.450-5.00.547-6.00.458-5.00.529
Low fence-1.00.911+2.10.794-0.40.956+6.00.46744.9%69+15.20.070-0.90.923+1.00.908+0.10.995+1.00.899
Single wall-16.20.061-13.20.095-15.70.046-9.20.260-15.20.07029.7%64-16.10.079-14.20.092-15.20.064-14.20.079
Fence and open-0.10.994+3.00.737+0.50.957+6.90.450+0.90.923+16.10.07945.8%48+1.90.841+1.00.916+1.90.831
Open-2.00.824+1.10.893-1.40.858+5.00.547-1.00.908+14.20.092-1.90.84143.9%66-0.90.911+0.00.996
Rectangle-1.00.904+2.00.792-0.50.948+6.00.458-0.10.995+15.20.064-1.00.916+0.90.91144.9%78+1.00.902
Octagon-2.00.812+1.00.890-1.50.845+5.00.529-1.00.899+14.20.079-1.90.831-0.00.996-1.00.90243.9%82
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 counted90
Win rate46.7%
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
Fence and open83.3%+36.70.0626 ·
Breakable half fence70.0%+23.30.11710 ·
Breakable full fence54.5%+7.90.57611 ·
Open54.5%+7.90.57611 ·
Single wall50.0%+3.30.82310 ·
Half fence38.5%-8.20.52113 ·
Low fence37.5%-9.20.5868 ·
Octagon33.3%-13.30.4986 ·
Full fence15.4%-31.30.01513 ·
Rectangle0.0%-46.70.3471 ·
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 13.07 on 9 df, p 0.160

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence15.4%13-39.20.043-23.10.185-54.60.008-22.10.248-34.60.074-68.00.004-39.20.043+15.40.672-17.90.372
Breakable full fence+39.20.04354.5%11+16.10.431-15.40.466+17.10.463+4.50.835-28.80.235+0.01.000+54.50.296+21.20.402
Half fence+23.10.185-16.10.43138.5%13-31.50.133+1.00.965-11.50.580-44.90.069-16.10.431+38.50.439+5.10.829
Breakable half fence+54.60.008+15.40.466+31.50.13370.0%10+32.50.168+20.00.361-13.30.551+15.40.466+70.00.165+36.70.152
Low fence+22.10.248-17.10.463-1.00.965-32.50.16837.5%8-12.50.596-45.80.086-17.10.463+37.50.453+4.20.872
Single wall+34.60.074-4.50.835+11.50.580-20.00.361+12.50.59650.0%10-33.30.182-4.50.835+50.00.338+16.70.515
Fence and open+68.00.004+28.80.235+44.90.069+13.30.551+45.80.086+33.30.18283.3%6+28.80.235+83.30.088+50.00.079
Open+39.20.043-0.01.000+16.10.431-15.40.466+17.10.463+4.50.835-28.80.23554.5%11+54.50.296+21.20.402
Rectangle-15.40.672-54.50.296-38.50.439-70.00.165-37.50.453-50.00.338-83.30.088-54.50.2960.0%1-33.30.495
Octagon+17.90.372-21.20.402-5.10.829-36.70.152-4.20.872-16.70.515-50.00.079-21.20.402+33.30.49533.3%6
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.