VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Pai vs Taka

Pai vs Taka in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Pai wins 47.7% of 1,698 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 0 of 9 tested stage gaps survive correction.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,698
Win rate47.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.8 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
Breakable half fence54.5%+6.80.047189
Octagon52.5%+4.80.202160
Low fence49.3%+1.60.679148
Breakable full fence47.6%-0.10.980189
Full fence47.2%-0.50.901163
Rectangle46.9%-0.80.826179
Single wall45.0%-2.70.525131
Open44.7%-3.00.370199
Half fence44.3%-3.40.318194
Fence and open33.8%-13.90.01474 ·
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 12.83 on 9 df, p 0.170

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.2%163-0.40.943+2.90.583-7.30.174-2.10.713+2.20.707+13.50.053+2.50.633+0.30.954-5.30.344
Breakable full fence+0.40.94347.6%189+3.30.518-6.90.181-1.70.756+2.60.649+13.80.042+2.90.567+0.70.894-4.90.364
Half fence-2.90.583-3.30.51844.3%194-10.20.047-5.00.359-0.70.900+10.60.117-0.40.937-2.60.615-8.20.126
Breakable half fence+7.30.174+6.90.181+10.20.04754.5%189+5.20.345+9.50.096+20.70.003+9.80.054+7.60.147+2.00.709
Low fence+2.10.713+1.70.756+5.00.359-5.20.34549.3%148+4.30.474+15.50.028+4.60.396+2.40.666-3.20.578
Single wall-2.20.707-2.60.649+0.70.900-9.50.096-4.30.47445.0%131+11.30.116+0.30.955-1.90.742-7.50.205
Fence and open-13.50.053-13.80.042-10.60.117-20.70.003-15.50.028-11.30.11633.8%74-10.90.103-13.20.055-18.70.008
Open-2.50.633-2.90.567+0.40.937-9.80.054-4.60.396-0.30.955+10.90.10344.7%199-2.20.668-7.80.143
Rectangle-0.30.954-0.70.894+2.60.615-7.60.147-2.40.666+1.90.742+13.20.055+2.20.66846.9%179-5.60.306
Octagon+5.30.344+4.90.364+8.20.126-2.00.709+3.20.578+7.50.205+18.70.008+7.80.143+5.60.30652.5%160
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 counted999
Win rate48.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-7.8 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
Full fence55.8%+7.50.105104
Low fence51.0%+2.80.56596
Breakable half fence50.4%+2.20.616117
Breakable full fence50.0%+1.80.697110
Octagon49.5%+1.30.778107
Half fence45.9%-2.30.62798
Open45.8%-2.50.591107
Single wall41.2%-7.00.19280
Rectangle40.4%-7.80.11194
Fence and open39.0%-9.20.22741 ·
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 8.72 on 9 df, p 0.464

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence55.8%104+5.80.398+9.80.162+5.30.427+4.70.503+14.50.051+16.80.069+10.00.147+15.30.031+6.20.364
Breakable full fence-5.80.39850.0%110+4.10.556-0.40.949-1.00.881+8.80.232+11.00.229+4.20.535+9.60.171+0.50.945
Half fence-9.80.162-4.10.55645.9%98-4.50.510-5.10.475+4.70.532+6.90.455+0.10.986+5.50.442-3.60.605
Breakable half fence-5.30.427+0.40.949+4.50.51050.4%117-0.60.929+9.20.205+11.40.208+4.60.488+10.00.147+0.90.894
Low fence-4.70.503+1.00.881+5.10.475+0.60.92951.0%96+9.80.195+12.00.197+5.20.455+10.60.142+1.50.830
Single wall-14.50.051-8.80.232-4.70.532-9.20.205-9.80.19541.2%80+2.20.813-4.50.536+0.80.912-8.30.261
Fence and open-16.80.069-11.00.229-6.90.455-11.40.208-12.00.197-2.20.81339.0%41-6.80.458-1.40.879-10.50.251
Open-10.00.147-4.20.535-0.10.986-4.60.488-5.20.455+4.50.536+6.80.45845.8%107+5.40.443-3.70.584
Rectangle-15.30.031-9.60.171-5.50.442-10.00.147-10.60.142-0.80.912+1.40.879-5.40.44340.4%94-9.10.196
Octagon-6.20.364-0.50.945+3.60.605-0.90.894-1.50.830+8.30.261+10.50.251+3.70.584+9.10.19649.5%107
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 counted594
Win rate47.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.9 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
Breakable half fence63.6%+16.50.01055 ·
Octagon60.9%+13.70.05246 ·
Rectangle51.5%+4.30.44768 ·
Single wall50.0%+2.90.69344 ·
Breakable full fence47.8%+0.60.91467 ·
Open45.1%-2.00.69482
Low fence43.2%-4.00.58544 ·
Half fence41.2%-5.90.25780
Full fence34.0%-13.10.05250 ·
Fence and open29.0%-18.10.03831 ·
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 19.22 on 9 df, p 0.023

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence34.0%50-13.80.136-7.20.408-29.60.002-9.20.361-16.00.116+5.00.642-11.10.207-17.50.059-26.90.008
Breakable full fence+13.80.13647.8%67+6.50.429-15.90.080+4.60.636-2.20.817+18.70.080+2.60.748-3.70.666-13.10.170
Half fence+7.20.408-6.50.42941.2%80-22.40.011-1.90.835-8.80.348+12.20.234-3.90.619-10.20.214-19.60.034
Breakable half fence+29.60.002+15.90.080+22.40.01163.6%55+20.50.042+13.60.173+34.60.002+18.50.033+12.20.176+2.80.775
Low fence+9.20.361-4.60.636+1.90.835-20.50.04243.2%44-6.80.521+14.20.212-1.90.835-8.30.391-17.70.093
Single wall+16.00.116+2.20.817+8.80.348-13.60.173+6.80.52150.0%44+21.00.069+4.90.601-1.50.879-10.90.300
Fence and open-5.00.642-18.70.080-12.20.234-34.60.002-14.20.212-21.00.06929.0%31-16.10.120-22.40.037-31.80.006
Open+11.10.207-2.60.748+3.90.619-18.50.033+1.90.835-4.90.601+16.10.12045.1%82-6.30.438-15.80.087
Rectangle+17.50.059+3.70.666+10.20.214-12.20.176+8.30.391+1.50.879+22.40.037+6.30.43851.5%68-9.40.322
Octagon+26.90.008+13.10.170+19.60.034-2.80.775+17.70.093+10.90.300+31.80.006+15.80.087+9.40.32260.9%46
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 counted105
Win rate45.7%
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
Rectangle64.7%+19.00.08617 ·
Low fence62.5%+16.80.3218 ·
Single wall57.1%+11.40.5307 ·
Breakable half fence52.9%+7.20.51417 ·
Half fence50.0%+4.30.70916 ·
Octagon42.9%-2.90.8757 ·
Open30.0%-15.70.29410 ·
Breakable full fence25.0%-20.70.12612 ·
Full fence22.2%-23.50.1399 ·
Fence and open0.0%-45.70.1902 ·
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 11.00 on 9 df, p 0.276

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence22.2%9-2.80.882-27.80.174-30.70.131-40.30.092-34.90.152+22.20.461-7.80.701-42.50.039-20.60.377
Breakable full fence+2.80.88225.0%12-25.00.180-27.90.132-37.50.094-32.10.161+25.00.425-5.00.793-39.70.035-17.90.419
Half fence+27.80.174+25.00.18050.0%16-2.90.866-12.50.562-7.10.752+50.00.180+20.00.315-14.70.393+7.10.752
Breakable half fence+30.70.131+27.90.132+2.90.86652.9%17-9.60.653-4.20.851+52.90.156+22.90.247-11.80.486+10.10.653
Low fence+40.30.092+37.50.094+12.50.562+9.60.65362.5%8+5.40.833+62.50.114+32.50.168-2.20.915+19.60.447
Single wall+34.90.152+32.10.161+7.10.752+4.20.851-5.40.83357.1%7+57.10.151+27.10.263-7.60.728+14.30.593
Fence and open-22.20.461-25.00.425-50.00.180-52.90.156-62.50.114-57.10.1510.0%2-30.00.371-64.70.080-42.90.257
Open+7.80.701+5.00.793-20.00.315-22.90.247-32.50.168-27.10.263+30.00.37130.0%10-34.70.081-12.90.585
Rectangle+42.50.039+39.70.035+14.70.393+11.80.486+2.20.915+7.60.728+64.70.080+34.70.08164.7%17+21.90.324
Octagon+20.60.377+17.90.419-7.10.752-10.10.653-19.60.447-14.30.593+42.90.257+12.90.585-21.90.32442.9%7
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.