VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jeffry vs Pai

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,850
Win rate52.5%
Widest swing7.0 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Octagon59.5%+7.00.060163
Fence and open58.7%+6.20.22192
Low fence54.6%+2.20.551172
Open54.3%+1.80.594199
Single wall53.7%+1.20.720188
Breakable half fence53.1%+0.60.852192
Rectangle50.7%-1.80.566221
Breakable full fence49.2%-3.30.339191
Half fence48.8%-3.70.322160
Full fence46.3%-6.20.099164
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.85 on 9 df, p 0.362

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.3%164-2.90.589-2.40.664-6.80.202-8.30.128-7.40.167-12.40.058-7.90.133-4.30.400-13.20.017
Breakable full fence+2.90.58949.2%191+0.50.931-3.90.444-5.40.301-4.50.380-9.50.135-5.10.318-1.50.767-10.30.053
Half fence+2.40.664-0.50.93148.8%160-4.40.414-5.90.282-5.00.355-9.90.128-5.50.298-1.90.710-10.80.052
Breakable half fence+6.80.202+3.90.444+4.40.41453.1%192-1.50.771-0.60.907-5.60.377-1.10.820+2.40.620-6.40.227
Low fence+8.30.128+5.40.301+5.90.282+1.50.77154.6%172+0.90.860-4.00.528+0.40.942+4.00.434-4.90.369
Single wall+7.40.167+4.50.380+5.00.355+0.60.907-0.90.86053.7%188-5.00.432-0.60.914+3.00.539-5.80.276
Fence and open+12.40.058+9.50.135+9.90.128+5.60.377+4.00.528+5.00.43258.7%92+4.40.480+8.00.195-0.80.899
Open+7.90.133+5.10.318+5.50.298+1.10.820-0.40.942+0.60.914-4.40.48054.3%199+3.60.462-5.20.317
Rectangle+4.30.400+1.50.767+1.90.710-2.40.620-4.00.434-3.00.539-8.00.195-3.60.46250.7%221-8.80.086
Octagon+13.20.017+10.30.053+10.80.052+6.40.227+4.90.369+5.80.276+0.80.899+5.20.317+8.80.08659.5%163
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 counted1,762
Win rate52.5%
Widest swing-7.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open59.3%+6.80.17991
Octagon58.9%+6.40.097151
Low fence56.4%+3.90.296165
Single wall54.0%+1.50.671174
Open53.9%+1.40.675191
Breakable half fence52.9%+0.40.898187
Rectangle51.0%-1.50.641206
Breakable full fence49.2%-3.30.343183
Half fence48.0%-4.50.248154
Full fence45.2%-7.30.056157
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 11.10 on 9 df, p 0.269

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.2%157-4.00.466-2.80.617-7.70.154-11.10.046-8.80.110-14.10.032-8.70.106-5.80.278-13.70.016
Breakable full fence+4.00.46649.2%183+1.10.836-3.80.469-7.20.180-4.80.360-10.20.113-4.80.359-1.80.724-9.80.075
Half fence+2.80.617-1.10.83648.0%154-4.90.369-8.30.137-6.00.280-11.30.087-5.90.278-2.90.584-10.90.057
Breakable half fence+7.70.154+3.80.469+4.90.36952.9%187-3.40.520-1.10.837-6.40.314-1.00.848+2.00.696-6.00.270
Low fence+11.10.046+7.20.180+8.30.137+3.40.52056.4%165+2.30.665-3.00.645+2.40.645+5.40.301-2.60.643
Single wall+8.80.110+4.80.360+6.00.280+1.10.837-2.30.66554.0%174-5.30.408+0.10.985+3.00.553-4.90.373
Fence and open+14.10.032+10.20.113+11.30.087+6.40.314+3.00.645+5.30.40859.3%91+5.40.392+8.40.182+0.40.951
Open+8.70.106+4.80.359+5.90.278+1.00.848-2.40.645-0.10.985-5.40.39253.9%191+3.00.556-5.00.353
Rectangle+5.80.278+1.80.724+2.90.584-2.00.696-5.40.301-3.00.553-8.40.182-3.00.55651.0%206-8.00.135
Octagon+13.70.016+9.80.075+10.90.057+6.00.270+2.60.643+4.90.373-0.40.951+5.00.353+8.00.13558.9%151
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 counted88
Win rate52.3%
Widest swing-52.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence71.4%+19.20.2907 ·
Half fence66.7%+14.40.4656 ·
Octagon66.7%+14.40.28312 ·
Open62.5%+10.20.5448 ·
Breakable half fence60.0%+7.70.7225 ·
Breakable full fence50.0%-2.30.8938 ·
Single wall50.0%-2.30.85314 ·
Rectangle46.7%-5.60.63315 ·
Low fence14.3%-38.00.0367 ·
Fence and open0.0%-52.30.2931 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 8.35 on 9 df, p 0.499

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence71.4%7+21.40.398+4.80.853+11.40.679+57.10.031+21.40.350+71.40.168+8.90.714+24.80.277+4.80.829
Breakable full fence-21.40.39850.0%8-16.70.533-10.00.725+35.70.143+0.01.000+50.00.343-12.50.614+3.30.879-16.70.456
Half fence-4.80.853+16.70.53366.7%6+6.70.819+52.40.053+16.70.492+66.70.212+4.20.872+20.00.407+0.01.000
Breakable half fence-11.40.679+10.00.725-6.70.81960.0%5+45.70.098+10.00.701+60.00.273-2.50.928+13.30.606-6.70.793
Low fence-57.10.031-35.70.143-52.40.053-45.70.09814.3%7-35.70.112+14.30.686-48.20.057-32.40.141-52.40.027
Single wall-21.40.350-0.01.000-16.70.492-10.00.701+35.70.11250.0%14+50.00.333-12.50.571+3.30.858-16.70.391
Fence and open-71.40.168-50.00.343-66.70.212-60.00.273-14.30.686-50.00.3330.0%1-62.50.236-46.70.362-66.70.188
Open-8.90.714+12.50.614-4.20.872+2.50.928+48.20.057+12.50.571+62.50.23662.5%8+15.80.469-4.20.848
Rectangle-24.80.277-3.30.879-20.00.407-13.30.606+32.40.141-3.30.858+46.70.362-15.80.46946.7%15-20.00.299
Octagon-4.80.829+16.70.456-0.01.000+6.70.793+52.40.027+16.70.391+66.70.188+4.20.848+20.00.29966.7%12
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.