VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jacky vs Lei Fei

Jacky vs Lei Fei in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jacky wins 49.3% of 5,353 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 counted5,353
Win rate49.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.0 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jacky's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence52.2%+3.00.149538
Breakable full fence51.3%+2.00.343507
Half fence50.5%+1.30.531556
Full fence50.4%+1.10.602482
Octagon50.0%+0.70.733510
Single wall49.8%+0.60.776592
Rectangle48.3%-1.00.632526
Fence and open47.9%-1.40.651265
Low fence46.4%-2.90.144565
Open46.3%-3.00.142538
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.70 on 9 df, p 0.565

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.4%482-0.90.785-0.10.968-1.80.562+4.00.192+0.60.849+2.50.515+4.10.187+2.10.500+0.40.896
Breakable full fence+0.90.78551.3%507+0.70.809-0.90.759+4.90.108+1.40.632+3.40.376+5.00.106+3.00.336+1.30.683
Half fence+0.10.968-0.70.80950.5%556-1.70.576+4.20.163+0.70.810+2.60.484+4.30.159+2.20.459+0.50.860
Breakable half fence+1.80.562+0.90.759+1.70.57652.2%538+5.90.052+2.40.420+4.30.251+6.00.051+3.90.199+2.20.470
Low fence-4.00.192-4.90.108-4.20.163-5.90.05246.4%565-3.50.239-1.60.676+0.10.976-1.90.526-3.60.234
Single wall-0.60.849-1.40.632-0.70.810-2.40.420+3.50.23949.8%592+1.90.606+3.50.233+1.50.607-0.20.955
Fence and open-2.50.515-3.40.376-2.60.484-4.30.251+1.60.676-1.90.60647.9%265+1.60.661-0.40.923-2.10.584
Open-4.10.187-5.00.106-4.30.159-6.00.051-0.10.976-3.50.233-1.60.66146.3%538-2.00.512-3.70.229
Rectangle-2.10.500-3.00.336-2.20.459-3.90.199+1.90.526-1.50.607+0.40.923+2.00.51248.3%526-1.70.582
Octagon-0.40.896-1.30.683-0.50.860-2.20.470+3.60.234+0.20.955+2.10.584+3.70.229+1.70.58250.0%510
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 counted1,692
Win rate50.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jacky's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable full fence55.9%+5.60.150152
Octagon55.1%+4.80.195165
Breakable half fence54.3%+3.90.272175
Fence and open50.6%+0.20.96889
Rectangle50.0%-0.30.925160
Full fence49.4%-1.00.794154
Half fence49.3%-1.10.740205
Single wall48.4%-1.90.608157
Open46.0%-4.30.264150
Low fence43.9%-6.50.054196
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.29 on 9 df, p 0.411

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.4%154-6.60.250+0.10.988-4.90.371+5.50.308+0.90.868-1.20.856+3.40.559-0.70.908-5.80.300
Breakable full fence+6.60.25055.9%152+6.70.213+1.60.767+12.00.026+7.50.186+5.40.420+9.90.085+5.90.295+0.80.890
Half fence-0.10.988-6.70.21349.3%205-5.00.329+5.40.279+0.90.871-1.30.839+3.30.543-0.70.890-5.90.260
Breakable half fence+4.90.371-1.60.767+5.00.32954.3%175+10.40.045+5.90.285+3.70.567+8.30.136+4.30.433-0.90.873
Low fence-5.50.308-12.00.026-5.40.279-10.40.04543.9%196-4.50.396-6.70.294-2.10.694-6.10.249-11.30.033
Single wall-0.90.868-7.50.186-0.90.871-5.90.285+4.50.39648.4%157-2.10.745+2.40.673-1.60.777-6.70.226
Fence and open+1.20.856-5.40.420+1.30.839-3.70.567+6.70.294+2.10.74550.6%89+4.60.495+0.60.932-4.60.484
Open-3.40.559-9.90.085-3.30.543-8.30.136+2.10.694-2.40.673-4.60.49546.0%150-4.00.481-9.20.105
Rectangle+0.70.908-5.90.295+0.70.890-4.30.433+6.10.249+1.60.777-0.60.932+4.00.48150.0%160-5.20.352
Octagon+5.80.300-0.80.890+5.90.260+0.90.873+11.30.033+6.70.226+4.60.484+9.20.105+5.20.35255.1%165
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 counted3,104
Win rate48.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches2.7 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jacky's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence51.2%+2.70.335297
Full fence50.5%+2.00.475289
Breakable half fence50.5%+2.00.465311
Single wall50.3%+1.80.474366
Breakable full fence48.8%+0.30.915295
Rectangle48.1%-0.40.873314
Octagon47.8%-0.70.798297
Low fence46.7%-1.90.500300
Fence and open46.3%-2.20.601136
Open46.2%-2.30.366344
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 3.66 on 9 df, p 0.932

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.5%289+1.70.680-0.70.873+0.00.993+3.90.350+0.20.950+4.20.420+4.30.281+2.40.551+2.70.512
Breakable full fence-1.70.68048.8%295-2.40.565-1.70.681+2.10.600-1.50.709+2.50.631+2.60.513+0.70.858+1.00.807
Half fence+0.70.873+2.40.56551.2%297+0.70.864+4.50.270+0.90.817+4.90.348+5.00.210+3.10.445+3.40.412
Breakable half fence-0.00.993+1.70.681-0.70.86450.5%311+3.80.345+0.20.957+4.20.418+4.30.276+2.40.550+2.70.510
Low fence-3.90.350-2.10.600-4.50.270-3.80.34546.7%300-3.60.354+0.30.947+0.50.910-1.40.724-1.10.779
Single wall-0.20.950+1.50.709-0.90.817-0.20.957+3.60.35450.3%366+4.00.431+4.00.280+2.20.570+2.50.528
Fence and open-4.20.420-2.50.631-4.90.348-4.20.418-0.30.947-4.00.43146.3%136+0.10.984-1.80.731-1.50.773
Open-4.30.281-2.60.513-5.00.210-4.30.276-0.50.910-4.00.280-0.10.98446.2%344-1.90.632-1.60.687
Rectangle-2.40.551-0.70.858-3.10.445-2.40.550+1.40.724-2.20.570+1.80.731+1.90.63248.1%314+0.30.945
Octagon-2.70.512-1.00.807-3.40.412-2.70.510+1.10.779-2.50.528+1.50.773+1.60.687-0.30.94547.8%297
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 counted557
Win rate50.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jacky's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence55.8%+5.50.40552 ·
Full fence53.9%+3.60.64339 ·
Low fence52.2%+1.90.73569 ·
Half fence51.9%+1.60.80754 ·
Breakable full fence51.7%+1.40.81960 ·
Single wall50.7%+0.50.93669 ·
Open47.7%-2.50.72544 ·
Fence and open47.5%-2.80.71640 ·
Octagon45.8%-4.40.52048 ·
Rectangle44.2%-6.00.36052 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 2.41 on 9 df, p 0.983

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.9%39+2.20.832+2.00.849-1.90.855+1.70.867+3.10.755+6.30.573+6.10.578+9.60.364+8.00.457
Breakable full fence-2.20.83251.7%60-0.20.984-4.10.664-0.50.954+0.90.915+4.20.683+3.90.691+7.40.432+5.80.547
Half fence-2.00.849+0.20.98451.9%54-3.90.686-0.30.972+1.10.901+4.30.677+4.10.685+7.60.432+6.00.544
Breakable half fence+1.90.855+4.10.664+3.90.68655.8%52+3.60.695+5.00.582+8.30.431+8.00.432+11.50.239+9.90.321
Low fence-1.70.867+0.50.954+0.30.972-3.60.69552.2%69+1.40.865+4.70.638+4.40.645+7.90.387+6.30.500
Single wall-3.10.755-0.90.915-1.10.901-5.00.582-1.40.86550.7%69+3.20.746+3.00.756+6.50.479+4.90.603
Fence and open-6.30.573-4.20.683-4.30.677-8.30.431-4.70.638-3.20.74647.5%40-0.20.983+3.30.755+1.70.876
Open-6.10.578-3.90.691-4.10.685-8.00.432-4.40.645-3.00.756+0.20.98347.7%44+3.50.732+1.90.856
Rectangle-9.60.364-7.40.432-7.60.432-11.50.239-7.90.387-6.50.479-3.30.755-3.50.73244.2%52-1.60.872
Octagon-8.00.457-5.80.547-6.00.544-9.90.321-6.30.500-4.90.603-1.70.876-1.90.856+1.60.87245.8%48
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.