VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Goh vs Wolf

Goh vs Wolf in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Goh wins 51.0% of 6,059 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 counted6,059
Win rate51.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches2.9 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
Full fence54.0%+2.90.152539
Single wall53.6%+2.60.181608
Breakable full fence52.0%+0.90.624635
Low fence51.8%+0.80.698579
Fence and open51.5%+0.40.889274
Half fence51.3%+0.20.909634
Open50.0%-1.10.582618
Octagon49.9%-1.10.547639
Breakable half fence49.2%-1.80.353601
Rectangle48.6%-2.40.203623
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 6.66 on 9 df, p 0.672

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.0%539+2.00.490+2.70.351+4.70.110+2.20.467+0.40.900+2.50.495+4.00.176+5.30.069+4.10.164
Breakable full fence-2.00.49052.0%635+0.70.801+2.70.340+0.20.957-1.60.560+0.50.888+2.00.486+3.30.237+2.00.465
Half fence-2.70.351-0.70.80151.3%634+2.00.480-0.60.848-2.40.406-0.20.956+1.30.655+2.60.352+1.30.633
Breakable half fence-4.70.110-2.70.340-2.00.48049.2%601-2.60.379-4.40.129-2.20.545-0.80.794+0.60.829-0.70.813
Low fence-2.20.467-0.20.957+0.60.848+2.60.37951.8%579-1.80.534+0.30.923+1.80.531+3.20.271+1.90.510
Single wall-0.40.900+1.60.560+2.40.406+4.40.129+1.80.53453.6%608+2.20.552+3.60.205+5.00.080+3.70.192
Fence and open-2.50.495-0.50.888+0.20.956+2.20.545-0.30.923-2.20.55251.5%274+1.50.687+2.80.436+1.50.670
Open-4.00.176-2.00.486-1.30.655+0.80.794-1.80.531-3.60.205-1.50.68750.0%618+1.40.631+0.10.978
Rectangle-5.30.069-3.30.237-2.60.352-0.60.829-3.20.271-5.00.080-2.80.436-1.40.63148.6%623-1.30.648
Octagon-4.10.164-2.00.465-1.30.633+0.70.813-1.90.510-3.70.192-1.50.670-0.10.978+1.30.64849.9%639
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 counted3,431
Win rate50.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.6 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
Full fence56.4%+5.60.040307
Breakable full fence53.5%+2.80.251381
Half fence51.5%+0.80.757355
Low fence50.9%+0.10.961334
Single wall50.5%-0.30.902333
Fence and open50.0%-0.80.851142
Octagon49.9%-0.90.706387
Breakable half fence49.1%-1.60.520354
Open48.8%-1.90.449340
Rectangle47.3%-3.50.180328
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 7.76 on 9 df, p 0.558

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.4%307+2.80.462+4.80.216+7.20.065+5.50.167+5.90.135+6.30.209+7.50.056+9.10.022+6.50.089
Breakable full fence-2.80.46253.5%381+2.00.588+4.40.234+2.60.480+3.10.409+3.50.470+4.70.206+6.30.095+3.70.309
Half fence-4.80.216-2.00.58851.5%355+2.40.523+0.70.864+1.10.773+1.60.755+2.70.472+4.30.262+1.70.648
Breakable half fence-7.20.065-4.40.234-2.40.52349.1%354-1.80.647-1.30.734-0.80.865+0.30.931+1.90.620-0.70.845
Low fence-5.50.167-2.60.480-0.70.864+1.80.64750.9%334+0.50.908+0.90.858+2.10.590+3.60.349+1.00.783
Single wall-5.90.135-3.10.409-1.10.773+1.30.734-0.50.90850.5%333+0.50.928+1.60.673+3.20.411+0.60.877
Fence and open-6.30.209-3.50.470-1.60.755+0.80.865-0.90.858-0.50.92850.0%142+1.20.814+2.70.585+0.10.979
Open-7.50.056-4.70.206-2.70.472-0.30.931-2.10.590-1.60.673-1.20.81448.8%340+1.60.685-1.10.778
Rectangle-9.10.022-6.30.095-4.30.262-1.90.620-3.60.349-3.20.411-2.70.585-1.60.68547.3%328-2.60.486
Octagon-6.50.089-3.70.309-1.70.648+0.70.845-1.00.783-0.60.877-0.10.979+1.10.778+2.60.48649.9%387
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 counted2,510
Win rate51.2%
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
Single wall55.8%+4.60.120258
Low fence53.9%+2.60.401234
Fence and open53.5%+2.30.593127
Half fence51.1%-0.10.973264
Open51.1%-0.10.970266
Octagon50.4%-0.80.786244
Rectangle50.0%-1.20.661280
Full fence49.8%-1.50.650219
Breakable full fence49.4%-1.90.543245
Breakable half fence49.4%-1.90.544241
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 4.16 on 9 df, p 0.901

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.8%219+0.40.934-1.40.765+0.40.933-4.10.386-6.00.188-3.80.499-1.40.766-0.20.960-0.60.891
Breakable full fence-0.40.93449.4%245-1.80.693+0.00.998-4.50.329-6.40.149-4.20.447-1.70.694-0.60.889-1.00.821
Half fence+1.40.765+1.80.69351.1%264+1.80.693-2.70.546-4.70.284-2.40.656+0.00.998+1.10.791+0.70.870
Breakable half fence-0.40.933-0.00.998-1.80.69349.4%241-4.50.330-6.40.150-4.20.447-1.80.694-0.60.887-1.00.820
Low fence+4.10.386+4.50.329+2.70.546+4.50.33053.9%234-2.00.661+0.30.956+2.70.544+3.90.385+3.40.452
Single wall+6.00.188+6.40.149+4.70.284+6.40.150+2.00.66155.8%258+2.30.674+4.70.282+5.80.177+5.40.225
Fence and open+3.80.499+4.20.447+2.40.656+4.20.447-0.30.956-2.30.67453.5%127+2.40.654+3.50.508+3.10.567
Open+1.40.766+1.70.694-0.00.998+1.80.694-2.70.544-4.70.282-2.40.65451.1%266+1.10.792+0.70.871
Rectangle+0.20.960+0.60.889-1.10.791+0.60.887-3.90.385-5.80.177-3.50.508-1.10.79250.0%280-0.40.925
Octagon+0.60.891+1.00.821-0.70.870+1.00.820-3.40.452-5.40.225-3.10.567-0.70.871+0.40.92550.4%244
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 counted118
Win rate55.1%
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 wall82.3%+27.30.01517 ·
Full fence69.2%+14.20.27713 ·
Open58.3%+3.20.81112 ·
Breakable full fence55.6%+0.50.9769 ·
Rectangle53.3%-1.80.88415 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%-5.10.7976 ·
Half fence46.7%-8.40.48315 ·
Fence and open40.0%-15.10.4885 ·
Octagon37.5%-17.60.3008 ·
Low fence36.4%-18.70.19011 ·
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 9.75 on 9 df, p 0.371

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence69.2%13+13.70.512+22.60.229+19.20.419+32.90.107-13.10.400+29.20.255+10.90.571+15.90.390+31.70.154
Breakable full fence-13.70.51255.6%9+8.90.673+5.60.833+19.20.391-26.80.143+15.60.577-2.80.899+2.20.916+18.10.457
Half fence-22.60.229-8.90.67346.7%15-3.30.890+10.30.599-35.70.034+6.70.795-11.70.547-6.70.715+9.20.673
Breakable half fence-19.20.419-5.60.833+3.30.89050.0%6+13.60.585-32.40.121+10.00.740-8.30.737-3.30.890+12.50.640
Low fence-32.90.107-19.20.391-10.30.599-13.60.58536.4%11-46.00.013-3.60.889-22.00.292-17.00.391-1.10.960
Single wall+13.10.400+26.80.143+35.70.034+32.40.121+46.00.01382.3%17+42.40.062+24.00.154+29.00.077+44.90.025
Fence and open-29.20.255-15.60.577-6.70.795-10.00.740+3.60.889-42.40.06240.0%5-18.30.490-13.30.606+2.50.928
Open-10.90.571+2.80.899+11.70.547+8.30.737+22.00.292-24.00.154+18.30.49058.3%12+5.00.795+20.80.361
Rectangle-15.90.390-2.20.916+6.70.715+3.30.890+17.00.391-29.00.077+13.30.606-5.00.79553.3%15+15.80.469
Octagon-31.70.154-18.10.457-9.20.673-12.50.640+1.10.960-44.90.025-2.50.928-20.80.361-15.80.46937.5%8
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.