VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Goh vs Vanessa

Goh vs Vanessa in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Goh wins 48.2% of 2,916 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 counted2,916
Win rate48.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches3.4 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
Open51.6%+3.40.233279
Breakable full fence48.8%+0.60.823299
Low fence48.5%+0.30.916301
Rectangle48.0%-0.20.940275
Full fence47.9%-0.40.888351
Octagon46.9%-1.30.635290
Fence and open46.8%-1.40.721158
Single wall46.6%-1.60.573281
Breakable half fence46.5%-1.70.541286
Half fence45.9%-2.40.421266
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 2.72 on 9 df, p 0.974

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.9%351-1.00.806+2.00.622+1.40.732-0.60.870+1.20.756+1.00.830-3.80.350-0.10.973+1.00.807
Breakable full fence+1.00.80648.8%299+3.00.481+2.30.573+0.30.937+2.20.594+2.00.685-2.80.504+0.80.843+1.90.639
Half fence-2.00.622-3.00.48145.9%266-0.60.880-2.60.530-0.80.860-1.00.846-5.80.180-2.10.619-1.00.807
Breakable half fence-1.40.732-2.30.573+0.60.88046.5%286-2.00.627-0.10.978-0.30.946-5.10.225-1.50.723-0.40.925
Low fence+0.60.870-0.30.937+2.60.530+2.00.62748.5%301+1.90.649+1.70.734-3.10.454+0.50.904+1.60.696
Single wall-1.20.756-2.20.594+0.80.860+0.10.978-1.90.64946.6%281-0.20.965-5.00.237-1.40.744-0.30.947
Fence and open-1.00.830-2.00.685+1.00.846+0.30.946-1.70.734+0.20.96546.8%158-4.80.337-1.20.815-0.10.990
Open+3.80.350+2.80.504+5.80.180+5.10.225+3.10.454+5.00.237+4.80.33751.6%279+3.60.395+4.70.261
Rectangle+0.10.973-0.80.843+2.10.619+1.50.723-0.50.904+1.40.744+1.20.815-3.60.39548.0%275+1.10.793
Octagon-1.00.807-1.90.639+1.00.807+0.40.925-1.60.696+0.30.947+0.10.990-4.70.261-1.10.79346.9%290
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 counted1,102
Win rate48.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-12.3 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
Low fence54.6%+6.00.167119
Single wall52.6%+3.90.41697
Rectangle52.3%+3.70.421107
Breakable full fence52.0%+3.30.481102
Full fence49.7%+1.00.790147
Open47.7%-0.90.823132
Half fence47.5%-1.10.814101
Fence and open47.5%-1.20.85259 ·
Octagon39.8%-8.90.09283
Breakable half fence36.4%-12.30.01099
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 12.10 on 9 df, p 0.208

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.7%147-2.30.721+2.10.741+13.30.040-5.00.421-2.90.656+2.20.775+1.90.747-2.70.674+9.90.148
Breakable full fence+2.30.72152.0%102+4.40.527+15.60.026-2.70.693-0.60.931+4.50.582+4.20.521-0.40.957+12.20.098
Half fence-2.10.741-4.40.52747.5%101+11.20.110-7.10.294-5.10.477+0.10.993-0.20.976-4.80.488+7.80.291
Breakable half fence-13.30.040-15.60.026-11.20.11036.4%99-18.30.007-16.20.022-11.10.169-11.40.084-16.00.021-3.40.638
Low fence+5.00.421+2.70.693+7.10.294+18.30.00754.6%119+2.00.764+7.20.368+6.90.275+2.30.731+14.90.038
Single wall+2.90.656+0.60.931+5.10.477+16.20.022-2.00.76452.6%97+5.10.535+4.80.468+0.20.973+12.80.086
Fence and open-2.20.775-4.50.582-0.10.993+11.10.169-7.20.368-5.10.53547.5%59-0.30.972-4.90.547+7.70.361
Open-1.90.747-4.20.521+0.20.976+11.40.084-6.90.275-4.80.468+0.30.97247.7%132-4.60.479+8.00.253
Rectangle+2.70.674+0.40.957+4.80.488+16.00.021-2.30.731-0.20.973+4.90.547+4.60.47952.3%107+12.60.085
Octagon-9.90.148-12.20.098-7.80.291+3.40.638-14.90.038-12.80.086-7.70.361-8.00.253-12.60.08539.8%83
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 counted1,434
Win rate47.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches8.4 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
Open56.4%+8.40.065110
Breakable half fence49.6%+1.70.670137
Octagon49.4%+1.50.690162
Breakable full fence49.0%+1.10.775151
Fence and open48.8%+0.80.87780
Single wall46.0%-1.90.628152
Rectangle45.0%-2.90.468140
Full fence44.5%-3.40.355164
Half fence44.3%-3.60.383131
Low fence41.7%-6.20.114144
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 7.66 on 9 df, p 0.568

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence44.5%164-4.50.424+0.20.967-5.10.375+2.80.615-1.50.783-4.20.533-11.80.054-0.50.932-4.90.378
Breakable full fence+4.50.42449.0%151+4.70.427-0.60.915+7.30.206+3.00.607+0.30.970-7.30.240+4.00.494-0.40.947
Half fence-0.20.967-4.70.42744.3%131-5.40.379+2.60.663-1.80.764-4.50.527-12.10.062-0.70.904-5.10.384
Breakable half fence+5.10.375+0.60.915+5.40.37949.6%137+8.00.180+3.60.543+0.90.900-6.70.293+4.60.440+0.30.965
Low fence-2.80.615-7.30.206-2.60.663-8.00.18041.7%144-4.40.447-7.10.306-14.70.020-3.30.571-7.70.176
Single wall+1.50.783-3.00.607+1.80.764-3.60.543+4.40.44746.0%152-2.70.696-10.30.099+1.10.857-3.30.555
Fence and open+4.20.533-0.30.970+4.50.527-0.90.900+7.10.306+2.70.69648.8%80-7.60.299+3.80.592-0.60.926
Open+11.80.054+7.30.240+12.10.062+6.70.293+14.70.020+10.30.099+7.60.29956.4%110+11.40.074+7.00.258
Rectangle+0.50.932-4.00.494+0.70.904-4.60.440+3.30.571-1.10.857-3.80.592-11.40.07445.0%140-4.40.447
Octagon+4.90.378+0.40.947+5.10.384-0.30.965+7.70.176+3.30.555+0.60.926-7.00.258+4.40.44749.4%162
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 counted380
Win rate48.2%
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
Breakable half fence58.0%+9.80.13550 ·
Low fence55.3%+7.10.35538 ·
Full fence55.0%+6.80.36040 ·
Open51.4%+3.20.68237 ·
Octagon51.1%+3.00.67345 ·
Half fence47.1%-1.10.89334 ·
Rectangle46.4%-1.70.84928 ·
Breakable full fence41.3%-6.90.32146 ·
Fence and open36.8%-11.30.31119 ·
Single wall31.2%-16.90.04532 ·
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 9.30 on 9 df, p 0.410

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence55.0%40+13.70.205+7.90.496-3.00.775-0.30.981+23.80.044+18.20.192+3.60.749+8.60.486+3.90.720
Breakable full fence-13.70.20541.3%46-5.80.608-16.70.102-14.00.202+10.10.366+4.50.738-10.10.361-5.10.666-9.80.348
Half fence-7.90.496+5.80.60847.1%34-10.90.324-8.20.487+15.80.189+10.20.472-4.30.718+0.60.961-4.00.721
Breakable half fence+3.00.775+16.70.102+10.90.32458.0%50+2.70.797+26.80.018+21.20.116+6.70.538+11.60.325+6.90.501
Low fence+0.30.981+14.00.202+8.20.487-2.70.79755.3%38+24.00.044+18.40.190+3.90.734+8.80.478+4.20.706
Single wall-23.80.044-10.10.366-15.80.189-26.80.018-24.00.04431.2%32-5.60.682-20.10.092-15.20.228-19.90.083
Fence and open-18.20.192-4.50.738-10.20.472-21.20.116-18.40.190+5.60.68236.8%19-14.50.303-9.60.514-14.30.296
Open-3.60.749+10.10.361+4.30.718-6.70.538-3.90.734+20.10.092+14.50.30351.4%37+4.90.694+0.20.983
Rectangle-8.60.486+5.10.666-0.60.961-11.60.325-8.80.478+15.20.228+9.60.514-4.90.69446.4%28-4.70.697
Octagon-3.90.720+9.80.348+4.00.721-6.90.501-4.20.706+19.90.083+14.30.296-0.20.983+4.70.69751.1%45
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.