VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jacky vs Vanessa

Jacky vs Vanessa in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jacky wins 49.6% of 5,766 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 counted5,766
Win rate49.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.3 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
Octagon52.8%+3.20.079653
Breakable full fence52.8%+3.10.103599
Breakable half fence52.4%+2.80.144597
Fence and open50.4%+0.80.795280
Full fence49.7%+0.10.943581
Rectangle48.5%-1.10.581567
Half fence48.1%-1.50.452543
Open47.8%-1.80.366569
Single wall47.8%-1.80.361559
Low fence44.3%-5.30.010539
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 15.32 on 9 df, p 0.083

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.7%581-3.00.301+1.70.574-2.70.356+5.40.070+2.00.504-0.60.866+1.90.511+1.20.674-3.10.278
Breakable full fence+3.00.30152.8%599+4.70.114+0.30.910+8.40.005+5.00.090+2.40.507+5.00.091+4.20.146-0.10.978
Half fence-1.70.574-4.70.11448.1%543-4.40.141+3.70.219+0.30.920-2.30.533+0.30.930-0.40.885-4.80.101
Breakable half fence+2.70.356-0.30.910+4.40.14152.4%597+8.10.006+4.70.113+2.10.567+4.60.114+3.90.180-0.40.886
Low fence-5.40.070-8.40.005-3.70.219-8.10.00644.3%539-3.40.255-6.00.102-3.50.248-4.20.166-8.50.004
Single wall-2.00.504-5.00.090-0.30.920-4.70.113+3.40.25547.8%559-2.60.479-0.00.989-0.70.805-5.10.078
Fence and open+0.60.866-2.40.507+2.30.533-2.10.567+6.00.102+2.60.47950.4%280+2.60.484+1.90.611-2.50.488
Open-1.90.511-5.00.091-0.30.930-4.60.114+3.50.248+0.00.989-2.60.48447.8%569-0.70.814-5.00.079
Rectangle-1.20.674-4.20.146+0.40.885-3.90.180+4.20.166+0.70.805-1.90.611+0.70.81448.5%567-4.30.131
Octagon+3.10.278+0.10.978+4.80.101+0.40.886+8.50.004+5.10.078+2.50.488+5.00.079+4.30.13152.8%653
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 counted2,231
Win rate49.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.0 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 full fence53.7%+4.70.152214
Full fence51.8%+2.70.392220
Octagon51.6%+2.50.433221
Open49.6%+0.50.863248
Single wall49.4%+0.30.922241
Breakable half fence47.4%-1.70.582226
Fence and open47.2%-1.90.692108
Half fence47.1%-2.00.533225
Rectangle46.2%-2.90.366225
Low fence44.1%-5.00.145195
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 6.53 on 9 df, p 0.686

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.8%220-1.90.689+4.70.321+4.50.345+7.70.116+2.40.601+4.60.434+2.20.631+5.60.238+0.20.961
Breakable full fence+1.90.68953.7%214+6.60.165+6.40.180+9.60.052+4.40.353+6.50.269+4.10.374+7.50.115+2.20.653
Half fence-4.70.321-6.60.16547.1%225-0.20.960+3.00.537-2.30.625-0.10.985-2.50.589+0.90.850-4.50.345
Breakable half fence-4.50.345-6.40.180+0.20.96047.4%226+3.20.506-2.00.661+0.10.983-2.20.624+1.10.811-4.20.370
Low fence-7.70.116-9.60.052-3.00.537-3.20.50644.1%195-5.30.273-3.10.601-5.50.250-2.10.663-7.50.128
Single wall-2.40.601-4.40.353+2.30.625+2.00.661+5.30.27349.4%241+2.20.710-0.20.961+3.20.496-2.20.636
Fence and open-4.60.434-6.50.269+0.10.985-0.10.983+3.10.601-2.20.71047.2%108-2.40.680+1.00.864-4.40.457
Open-2.20.631-4.10.374+2.50.589+2.20.624+5.50.250+0.20.961+2.40.68049.6%248+3.40.463-2.00.667
Rectangle-5.60.238-7.50.115-0.90.850-1.10.811+2.10.663-3.20.496-1.00.864-3.40.46346.2%225-5.40.257
Octagon-0.20.961-2.20.653+4.50.345+4.20.370+7.50.128+2.20.636+4.40.457+2.00.667+5.40.25751.6%221
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 counted2,637
Win rate48.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-7.1 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 fence53.7%+5.70.055259
Fence and open52.2%+4.20.314136
Octagon51.1%+3.10.236327
Rectangle50.4%+2.40.425252
Breakable full fence50.3%+2.30.396294
Half fence47.6%-0.40.906233
Full fence46.0%-2.00.474272
Single wall43.8%-4.20.176233
Open43.8%-4.30.166240
Low fence40.9%-7.10.013274
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 16.19 on 9 df, p 0.063

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.0%272-4.40.297-1.70.705-7.70.076+5.10.231+2.20.624-6.20.234+2.20.617-4.40.309-5.10.212
Breakable full fence+4.40.29750.3%294+2.70.538-3.30.434+9.50.024+6.60.134-1.90.719+6.60.129-0.10.989-0.70.856
Half fence+1.70.705-2.70.53847.6%233-6.00.182+6.80.126+3.90.403-4.60.397+3.90.396-2.80.544-3.40.423
Breakable half fence+7.70.076+3.30.434+6.00.18253.7%259+12.80.003+9.90.028+1.50.782+9.90.027+3.30.459+2.60.532
Low fence-5.10.231-9.50.024-6.80.126-12.80.00340.9%274-2.90.510-11.30.030-2.90.510-9.50.028-10.20.013
Single wall-2.20.624-6.60.134-3.90.403-9.90.028+2.90.51043.8%233-8.40.118+0.00.995-6.60.145-7.30.089
Fence and open+6.20.234+1.90.719+4.60.397-1.50.782+11.30.030+8.40.11852.2%136+8.50.114+1.80.734+1.10.824
Open-2.20.617-6.60.129-3.90.396-9.90.027+2.90.510-0.00.995-8.50.11443.8%240-6.70.140-7.30.085
Rectangle+4.40.309+0.10.989+2.80.544-3.30.459+9.50.028+6.60.145-1.80.734+6.70.14050.4%252-0.70.872
Octagon+5.10.212+0.70.856+3.40.423-2.60.532+10.20.013+7.30.089-1.10.824+7.30.085+0.70.87251.1%327
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 counted898
Win rate55.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.7 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
Octagon61.0%+5.40.237105
Breakable half fence59.8%+4.20.333112
Low fence58.6%+3.00.59870 ·
Breakable full fence58.2%+2.70.58891
Full fence56.2%+0.60.90389
Open54.3%-1.20.81381
Single wall54.1%-1.40.77785
Fence and open52.8%-2.80.73136 ·
Half fence51.8%-3.80.45885
Rectangle48.9%-6.70.17990
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: 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 4.91 on 9 df, p 0.842

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.2%89-2.10.780+4.40.559-3.60.603-2.40.762+2.10.785+3.40.729+1.90.808+7.30.329-4.80.501
Breakable full fence+2.10.78058.2%91+6.50.388-1.60.820-0.30.966+4.10.582+5.50.575+3.90.605+9.30.207-2.70.700
Half fence-4.40.559-6.50.38851.8%85-8.10.259-6.80.397-2.40.759-1.00.919-2.60.742+2.90.704-9.20.204
Breakable half fence+3.60.603+1.60.820+8.10.25959.8%112+1.20.867+5.70.423+7.00.456+5.50.446+10.90.121-1.10.865
Low fence+2.40.762+0.30.966+6.80.397-1.20.86758.6%70+4.50.578+5.80.569+4.20.600+9.70.223-2.40.753
Single wall-2.10.785-4.10.582+2.40.759-5.70.423-4.50.57854.1%85+1.30.893-0.20.979+5.20.489-6.80.343
Fence and open-3.40.729-5.50.575+1.00.919-7.00.456-5.80.569-1.30.89352.8%36-1.50.877+3.90.693-8.20.390
Open-1.90.808-3.90.605+2.60.742-5.50.446-4.20.600+0.20.979+1.50.87754.3%81+5.40.478-6.60.363
Rectangle-7.30.329-9.30.207-2.90.704-10.90.121-9.70.223-5.20.489-3.90.693-5.40.47848.9%90-12.10.091
Octagon+4.80.501+2.70.700+9.20.204+1.10.865+2.40.753+6.80.343+8.20.390+6.60.363+12.10.09161.0%105
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.