VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Pai vs Shun

Pai vs Shun in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Pai wins 49.4% of 5,224 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 counted5,224
Win rate49.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches3.7 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Pai's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Open53.1%+3.70.076520
Full fence51.9%+2.50.225534
Low fence51.6%+2.20.282535
Half fence50.2%+0.80.694546
Octagon48.9%-0.50.830519
Fence and open48.6%-0.80.792294
Single wall48.3%-1.10.592522
Rectangle47.6%-1.80.396529
Breakable full fence47.4%-2.00.365487
Breakable half fence47.4%-2.00.347496
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.81 on 9 df, p 0.553

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.9%534+4.40.156+1.70.579+4.50.150+0.30.926+3.60.243+3.20.373-1.20.695+4.20.167+2.90.341
Breakable full fence-4.40.15647.4%487-2.80.377+0.10.986-4.20.184-0.80.789-1.20.744-5.70.073-0.20.948-1.50.633
Half fence-1.70.579+2.80.37750.2%546+2.80.366-1.40.644+1.90.533+1.50.670-2.90.345+2.50.404+1.20.685
Breakable half fence-4.50.150-0.10.986-2.80.36647.4%496-4.20.177-0.90.775-1.30.732-5.70.069-0.30.934-1.60.619
Low fence-0.30.926+4.20.184+1.40.644+4.20.17751.6%535+3.30.281+3.00.416-1.50.629+4.00.197+2.60.390
Single wall-3.60.243+0.80.789-1.90.533+0.90.775-3.30.28148.3%522-0.40.921-4.80.121+0.60.836-0.70.830
Fence and open-3.20.373+1.20.744-1.50.670+1.30.732-3.00.416+0.40.92148.6%294-4.40.224+1.00.783-0.30.934
Open+1.20.695+5.70.073+2.90.345+5.70.069+1.50.629+4.80.121+4.40.22453.1%520+5.40.078+4.10.182
Rectangle-4.20.167+0.20.948-2.50.404+0.30.934-4.00.197-0.60.836-1.00.783-5.40.07847.6%529-1.30.673
Octagon-2.90.341+1.50.633-1.20.685+1.60.619-2.60.390+0.70.830+0.30.934-4.10.182+1.30.67348.9%519
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 counted3,109
Win rate48.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.2 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Pai's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Low fence53.5%+4.80.082299
Open51.8%+3.00.258313
Full fence51.2%+2.50.341324
Half fence50.0%+1.30.638308
Single wall49.5%+0.80.759323
Fence and open47.8%-0.90.810159
Rectangle47.7%-1.00.702331
Octagon47.6%-1.20.665307
Breakable full fence43.7%-5.00.066302
Breakable half fence43.6%-5.20.062296
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 11.53 on 9 df, p 0.241

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.2%324+7.50.060+1.20.756+7.70.057-2.30.570+1.70.666+3.40.478-0.50.895+3.50.370+3.70.356
Breakable full fence-7.50.06043.7%302-6.30.120+0.10.975-9.80.016-5.80.145-4.10.402-8.10.046-4.00.310-3.90.340
Half fence-1.20.756+6.30.12050.0%308+6.40.114-3.50.387+0.50.907+2.20.652-1.80.661+2.30.567+2.40.544
Breakable half fence-7.70.057-0.10.975-6.40.11443.6%296-9.90.015-6.00.138-4.20.389-8.20.043-4.20.297-4.00.327
Low fence+2.30.570+9.80.016+3.50.387+9.90.01553.5%299+4.00.322+5.70.244+1.80.664+5.80.148+6.00.143
Single wall-1.70.666+5.80.145-0.50.907+6.00.138-4.00.32249.5%323+1.70.720-2.20.575+1.80.645+2.00.619
Fence and open-3.40.478+4.10.402-2.20.652+4.20.389-5.70.244-1.70.72047.8%159-4.00.416+0.10.989+0.20.960
Open+0.50.895+8.10.046+1.80.661+8.20.043-1.80.664+2.20.575+4.00.41651.8%313+4.00.307+4.20.296
Rectangle-3.50.370+4.00.310-2.30.567+4.20.297-5.80.148-1.80.645-0.10.989-4.00.30747.7%331+0.20.964
Octagon-3.70.356+3.90.340-2.40.544+4.00.327-6.00.143-2.00.619-0.20.960-4.20.296-0.20.96447.6%307
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 counted1,875
Win rate50.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.4 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Pai's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Open55.2%+4.60.189181
Breakable full fence54.9%+4.30.235173
Full fence54.5%+3.90.257187
Breakable half fence53.8%+3.20.382171
Octagon50.5%-0.10.984184
Half fence50.2%-0.40.906215
Low fence49.3%-1.30.683207
Fence and open48.9%-1.80.676131
Rectangle47.9%-2.70.464169
Single wall45.2%-5.40.130177
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.42 on 9 df, p 0.594

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.5%187-0.40.944+4.30.388+0.80.888+5.30.296+9.30.075+5.70.317-0.70.892+6.60.212+4.00.440
Breakable full fence+0.40.94454.9%173+4.70.359+1.10.836+5.60.273+9.70.069+6.10.295-0.30.949+7.00.196+4.40.409
Half fence-4.30.388-4.70.35950.2%215-3.60.486+0.90.844+5.00.321+1.40.804-5.00.319+2.30.654-0.30.951
Breakable half fence-0.80.888-1.10.836+3.60.48653.8%171+4.50.381+8.60.109+5.00.394-1.40.785+5.90.279+3.30.539
Low fence-5.30.296-5.60.273-0.90.844-4.50.38149.3%207+4.10.425+0.40.940-6.00.240+1.40.795-1.30.802
Single wall-9.30.075-9.70.069-5.00.321-8.60.109-4.10.42545.2%177-3.60.525-10.10.057-2.70.611-5.30.309
Fence and open-5.70.317-6.10.295-1.40.804-5.00.394-0.40.940+3.60.52548.9%131-6.40.264+0.90.874-1.70.768
Open+0.70.892+0.30.949+5.00.319+1.40.785+6.00.240+10.10.057+6.40.26455.2%181+7.30.171+4.70.368
Rectangle-6.60.212-7.00.196-2.30.654-5.90.279-1.40.795+2.70.611-0.90.874-7.30.17147.9%169-2.60.624
Octagon-4.00.440-4.40.409+0.30.951-3.30.539+1.30.802+5.30.309+1.70.768-4.70.368+2.60.62450.5%184
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 counted240
Win rate48.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Pai's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open75.0%+26.70.2824 ·
Single wall54.5%+6.20.54122 ·
Open53.9%+5.50.55126 ·
Octagon53.6%+5.20.55528 ·
Half fence52.2%+3.80.69823 ·
Breakable half fence48.3%-0.10.99529 ·
Low fence48.3%-0.10.99529 ·
Rectangle44.8%-3.50.68729 ·
Full fence39.1%-9.20.35323 ·
Breakable full fence33.3%-15.00.28612 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 4.21 on 9 df, p 0.897

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence39.1%23+5.80.736-13.00.375-9.20.510-9.20.510-15.40.300-35.90.183-14.70.303-5.70.680-14.40.304
Breakable full fence-5.80.73633.3%12-18.80.288-14.90.380-14.90.380-21.20.236-41.70.146-20.50.239-11.50.497-20.20.240
Half fence+13.00.375+18.80.28852.2%23+3.90.780+3.90.780-2.40.873-22.80.396-1.70.907+7.30.598-1.40.921
Breakable half fence+9.20.510+14.90.380-3.90.78048.3%29+0.01.000-6.30.657-26.70.316-5.60.680+3.50.792-5.30.689
Low fence+9.20.510+14.90.380-3.90.780-0.01.00048.3%29-6.30.657-26.70.316-5.60.680+3.50.792-5.30.689
Single wall+15.40.300+21.20.236+2.40.873+6.30.657+6.30.65754.5%22-20.40.446+0.70.961+9.70.492+1.00.945
Fence and open+35.90.183+41.70.146+22.80.396+26.70.316+26.70.316+20.40.44675.0%4+21.10.427+30.20.258+21.40.419
Open+14.70.303+20.50.239+1.70.907+5.60.680+5.60.680-0.70.961-21.10.42753.9%26+9.00.504+0.30.984
Rectangle+5.70.680+11.50.497-7.30.598-3.50.792-3.50.792-9.70.492-30.20.258-9.00.50444.8%29-8.70.509
Octagon+14.40.304+20.20.240+1.40.921+5.30.689+5.30.689-1.00.945-21.40.419-0.30.984+8.70.50953.6%28
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.