VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jacky vs Jean

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted3,758
Win rate50.5%
Widest swing-4.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Jacky's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Low fence52.5%+2.10.410356
Octagon52.1%+1.60.503388
Half fence52.0%+1.60.526373
Rectangle51.6%+1.10.675316
Full fence51.4%+0.90.700405
Single wall50.9%+0.50.849383
Breakable half fence50.6%+0.10.955334
Breakable full fence49.5%-0.90.686424
Fence and open46.8%-3.60.305188
Open45.9%-4.50.058394
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Jacky's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.06 on 9 df, p 0.734

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.4%405+1.80.598-0.70.856+0.80.837-1.20.747+0.50.901+4.50.303+5.40.125-0.20.952-0.70.843
Breakable full fence-1.80.59849.5%424-2.50.484-1.10.770-3.00.404-1.40.694+2.70.535+3.60.304-2.00.580-2.50.471
Half fence+0.70.856+2.50.48452.0%373+1.40.708-0.50.889+1.10.763+5.20.245+6.10.093+0.40.911-0.10.989
Breakable half fence-0.80.837+1.10.770-1.40.70850.6%334-1.90.612-0.30.933+3.80.406+4.70.210-1.00.802-1.50.695
Low fence+1.20.747+3.00.404+0.50.889+1.90.61252.5%356+1.60.661+5.70.204+6.60.071+0.90.806+0.50.899
Single wall-0.50.901+1.40.694-1.10.763+0.30.933-1.60.66150.9%383+4.10.357+5.00.165-0.70.860-1.10.750
Fence and open-4.50.303-2.70.535-5.20.245-3.80.406-5.70.204-4.10.35746.8%188+0.90.844-4.80.300-5.20.237
Open-5.40.125-3.60.304-6.10.093-4.70.210-6.60.071-5.00.165-0.90.84445.9%394-5.60.135-6.10.087
Rectangle+0.20.952+2.00.580-0.40.911+1.00.802-0.90.806+0.70.860+4.80.300+5.60.13551.6%316-0.50.899
Octagon+0.70.843+2.50.471+0.10.989+1.50.695-0.50.899+1.10.750+5.20.237+6.10.087+0.50.89952.1%388
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
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 counted3,560
Win rate50.3%
Widest swing-4.6 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Jacky's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Low fence52.7%+2.40.357338
Single wall52.5%+2.20.373358
Octagon52.2%+1.90.445370
Half fence51.9%+1.60.535351
Rectangle50.8%+0.60.842301
Full fence50.8%+0.50.836384
Breakable half fence49.8%-0.40.870315
Breakable full fence49.4%-0.90.701401
Fence and open45.6%-4.60.197184
Open45.6%-4.60.061368
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Jacky's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.31 on 9 df, p 0.605

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.8%384+1.40.694-1.10.772+0.90.805-1.90.614-1.70.637+5.10.253+5.10.159-0.10.990-1.40.704
Breakable full fence-1.40.69449.4%401-2.50.498-0.50.902-3.30.373-3.10.388+3.70.403+3.70.302-1.40.703-2.80.440
Half fence+1.10.772+2.50.49851.9%351+2.00.604-0.80.831-0.70.860+6.20.173+6.20.096+1.00.795-0.30.934
Breakable half fence-0.90.805+0.50.902-2.00.60449.8%315-2.80.471-2.70.489+4.20.366+4.20.274-1.00.806-2.30.545
Low fence+1.90.614+3.30.373+0.80.831+2.80.47152.7%338+0.10.969+7.00.126+7.00.063+1.80.644+0.50.894
Single wall+1.70.637+3.10.388+0.70.860+2.70.489-0.10.96952.5%358+6.90.130+6.90.064+1.70.667+0.30.924
Fence and open-5.10.253-3.70.403-6.20.173-4.20.366-7.00.126-6.90.13045.6%184+0.01.000-5.20.268-6.50.149
Open-5.10.159-3.70.302-6.20.096-4.20.274-7.00.063-6.90.064-0.01.00045.6%368-5.20.182-6.50.077
Rectangle+0.10.990+1.40.703-1.00.795+1.00.806-1.80.644-1.70.667+5.20.268+5.20.18250.8%301-1.30.731
Octagon+1.40.704+2.80.440+0.30.934+2.30.545-0.50.894-0.30.924+6.50.149+6.50.077+1.30.73152.2%370
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
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 counted198
Win rate53.5%
Widest swing46.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Jacky's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open100.0%+46.50.0604 ·
Rectangle66.7%+13.10.28915 ·
Breakable half fence63.2%+9.60.37619 ·
Full fence61.9%+8.40.41621 ·
Half fence54.5%+1.00.92022 ·
Breakable full fence52.2%-1.40.88923 ·
Low fence50.0%-3.50.75218 ·
Octagon50.0%-3.50.75218 ·
Open50.0%-3.50.69826 ·
Single wall28.0%-25.50.00625 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Jacky's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 12.65 on 9 df, p 0.179

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence61.9%21+9.70.515+7.30.625-1.30.935+11.90.455+33.90.021-38.10.134+11.90.414-4.80.769+11.90.455
Breakable full fence-9.70.51552.2%23-2.40.873-11.00.474+2.20.890+24.20.087-47.80.072+2.20.879-14.50.376+2.20.890
Half fence-7.30.625+2.40.87354.5%22-8.60.577+4.50.775+26.60.064-45.50.086+4.50.753-12.10.461+4.50.775
Breakable half fence+1.30.935+11.00.474+8.60.57763.2%19+13.20.419+35.20.020-36.80.146+13.20.380-3.50.832+13.20.419
Low fence-11.90.455-2.20.890-4.50.775-13.20.41950.0%18+22.00.141-50.00.066+0.01.000-16.70.335+0.01.000
Single wall-33.90.021-24.20.087-26.60.064-35.20.020-22.00.14128.0%25-72.00.006-22.00.108-38.70.017-22.00.141
Fence and open+38.10.134+47.80.072+45.50.086+36.80.146+50.00.066+72.00.006100.0%4+50.00.060+33.30.179+50.00.066
Open-11.90.414-2.20.879-4.50.753-13.20.380-0.01.000+22.00.108-50.00.06050.0%26-16.70.300+0.01.000
Rectangle+4.80.769+14.50.376+12.10.461+3.50.832+16.70.335+38.70.017-33.30.179+16.70.30066.7%15+16.70.335
Octagon-11.90.455-2.20.890-4.50.775-13.20.419-0.01.000+22.00.141-50.00.066-0.01.000-16.70.33550.0%18
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
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.