VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jeffry vs Taka

Jeffry vs Taka in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jeffry wins 48.8% of 1,536 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 counted1,536
Win rate48.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches8.7 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open57.5%+8.70.11180
Single wall53.6%+4.80.238138
Octagon52.6%+3.80.292173
Half fence49.2%+0.30.919183
Rectangle49.0%+0.10.969147
Full fence48.5%-0.40.919161
Breakable half fence47.4%-1.50.725133
Breakable full fence46.5%-2.40.577127
Low fence45.6%-3.20.412149
Open43.9%-5.00.168171
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.37 on 9 df, p 0.599

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.5%161+2.00.737-0.70.892+1.10.854+2.80.620-5.20.372-9.10.185+4.60.402-0.50.926-4.20.448
Breakable full fence-2.00.73746.5%127-2.70.637-0.90.883+0.80.892-7.20.244-11.00.122+2.60.656-2.50.677-6.10.293
Half fence+0.70.892+2.70.63749.2%183+1.80.750+3.50.520-4.40.431-8.30.214+5.30.316+0.20.971-3.40.519
Breakable half fence-1.10.854+0.90.883-1.80.75047.4%133+1.70.771-6.20.303-10.10.152+3.50.542-1.60.788-5.20.364
Low fence-2.80.620-0.80.892-3.50.520-1.70.77145.6%149-8.00.176-11.90.087+1.80.750-3.30.565-7.00.213
Single wall+5.20.372+7.20.244+4.40.431+6.20.303+8.00.17653.6%138-3.90.579+9.80.088+4.60.433+1.00.858
Fence and open+9.10.185+11.00.122+8.30.214+10.10.152+11.90.087+3.90.57957.5%80+13.60.044+8.50.220+4.90.467
Open-4.60.402-2.60.656-5.30.316-3.50.542-1.80.750-9.80.088-13.60.04443.9%171-5.10.361-8.70.105
Rectangle+0.50.926+2.50.677-0.20.971+1.60.788+3.30.565-4.60.433-8.50.220+5.10.36149.0%147-3.60.518
Octagon+4.20.448+6.10.293+3.40.519+5.20.364+7.00.213-1.00.858-4.90.467+8.70.105+3.60.51852.6%173
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 counted741
Win rate49.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches8.9 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open60.0%+10.50.24230 ·
Octagon58.4%+8.90.07389
Single wall54.5%+5.00.35277 ·
Rectangle49.4%-0.20.97679 ·
Breakable half fence49.1%-0.40.95259 ·
Half fence48.6%-0.90.87374 ·
Low fence48.0%-1.50.78477 ·
Full fence48.0%-1.50.78075 ·
Open47.4%-2.10.65697
Breakable full fence40.4%-9.20.17152 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.85 on 9 df, p 0.652

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.0%75+7.60.396-0.70.937-1.10.895-0.10.995-6.50.420-12.00.266+0.60.940-1.40.865-10.40.182
Breakable full fence-7.60.39640.4%52-8.30.359-8.80.354-7.70.391-14.20.114-19.60.087-7.00.410-9.00.313-18.10.039
Half fence+0.70.937+8.30.35948.6%74-0.50.954+0.60.942-5.90.469-11.30.294+1.20.874-0.70.929-9.80.212
Breakable half fence+1.10.895+8.80.354+0.50.95449.1%59+1.10.899-5.40.533-10.80.333+1.70.834-0.20.980-9.30.267
Low fence+0.10.995+7.70.391-0.60.942-1.10.89948.0%77-6.50.420-11.90.267+0.60.934-1.30.869-10.40.181
Single wall+6.50.420+14.20.114+5.90.469+5.40.533+6.50.42054.5%77-5.50.610+7.10.351+5.20.518-3.90.615
Fence and open+12.00.266+19.60.087+11.30.294+10.80.333+11.90.267+5.50.61060.0%30+12.60.229+10.60.321+1.60.880
Open-0.60.940+7.00.410-1.20.874-1.70.834-0.60.934-7.10.351-12.60.22947.4%97-1.90.797-11.00.133
Rectangle+1.40.865+9.00.313+0.70.929+0.20.980+1.30.869-5.20.518-10.60.321+1.90.79749.4%79-9.10.239
Octagon+10.40.182+18.10.039+9.80.212+9.30.267+10.40.181+3.90.615-1.60.880+11.00.133+9.10.23958.4%89
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 counted718
Win rate49.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches2.4 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open59.1%+10.10.16844 ·
Breakable full fence52.2%+3.20.58167 ·
Single wall51.8%+2.80.66756 ·
Half fence51.5%+2.40.594103
Octagon49.3%+0.20.96569 ·
Rectangle48.4%-0.60.92264 ·
Breakable half fence47.1%-2.00.73368 ·
Full fence46.8%-2.20.68079 ·
Low fence42.4%-6.70.28659 ·
Open40.3%-8.70.13367 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 5.80 on 9 df, p 0.760

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.8%79-5.40.515-4.60.537-0.20.978+4.50.602-5.00.571-12.20.192+6.50.428-1.60.849-2.40.767
Breakable full fence+5.40.51552.2%67+0.80.921+5.20.547+9.90.269+0.50.960-6.80.478+11.90.166+3.80.664+3.00.730
Half fence+4.60.537-0.80.92151.5%103+4.40.574+9.10.266-0.30.968-7.60.395+11.20.154+3.00.704+2.20.779
Breakable half fence+0.20.978-5.20.547-4.40.57447.1%68+4.70.596-4.70.600-12.00.213+6.80.429-1.40.874-2.20.795
Low fence-4.50.602-9.90.269-9.10.266-4.70.59642.4%59-9.40.312-16.70.093+2.10.813-6.10.500-6.90.435
Single wall+5.00.571-0.50.960+0.30.968+4.70.600+9.40.31251.8%56-7.30.466+11.50.203+3.40.714+2.50.780
Fence and open+12.20.192+6.80.478+7.60.395+12.00.213+16.70.093+7.30.46659.1%44+18.80.053+10.70.276+9.80.308
Open-6.50.428-11.90.166-11.20.154-6.80.429-2.10.813-11.50.203-18.80.05340.3%67-8.10.349-9.00.293
Rectangle+1.60.849-3.80.664-3.00.704+1.40.874+6.10.500-3.40.714-10.70.276+8.10.34948.4%64-0.80.923
Octagon+2.40.767-3.00.730-2.20.779+2.20.795+6.90.435-2.50.780-9.80.308+9.00.293+0.80.92349.3%69
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 counted77
Win rate40.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence71.4%+31.20.0787 ·
Single wall60.0%+19.70.3525 ·
Rectangle50.0%+9.70.6834 ·
Low fence46.1%+5.90.63513 ·
Breakable full fence37.5%-2.80.8668 ·
Breakable half fence33.3%-6.90.7196 ·
Fence and open33.3%-6.90.7196 ·
Octagon33.3%-6.90.54215 ·
Open28.6%-11.70.5087 ·
Half fence16.7%-23.60.2206 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.33 on 9 df, p 0.706

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence71.4%7+33.90.189+54.80.048+38.10.170+25.30.279+11.40.679+38.10.170+42.90.109+21.40.477+38.10.095
Breakable full fence-33.90.18937.5%8+20.80.393+4.20.872-8.70.697-22.50.429+4.20.872+8.90.714-12.50.679+4.20.842
Half fence-54.80.048-20.80.39316.7%6-16.70.505-29.50.216-43.30.137-16.70.505-11.90.612-33.30.260-16.70.445
Breakable half fence-38.10.170-4.20.872+16.70.50533.3%6-12.80.599-26.70.376+0.01.000+4.80.853-16.70.598+0.01.000
Low fence-25.30.279+8.70.697+29.50.216+12.80.59946.1%13-13.80.599+12.80.599+17.60.444-3.90.893+12.80.488
Single wall-11.40.679+22.50.429+43.30.137+26.70.376+13.80.59960.0%5+26.70.376+31.40.276+10.00.764+26.70.292
Fence and open-38.10.170-4.20.872+16.70.505-0.01.000-12.80.599-26.70.37633.3%6+4.80.853-16.70.598+0.01.000
Open-42.90.109-8.90.714+11.90.612-4.80.853-17.60.444-31.40.276-4.80.85328.6%7-21.40.477-4.80.823
Rectangle-21.40.477+12.50.679+33.30.260+16.70.598+3.90.893-10.00.764+16.70.598+21.40.47750.0%4+16.70.539
Octagon-38.10.095-4.20.842+16.70.445-0.01.000-12.80.488-26.70.292-0.01.000+4.80.823-16.70.53933.3%15
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.