VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Pai vs Vanessa

Pai vs Vanessa in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Pai wins 50.6% of 3,099 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 counted3,099
Win rate50.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.0 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
Open55.6%+5.00.068304
Fence and open53.9%+3.30.449128
Half fence52.0%+1.40.609292
Rectangle52.0%+1.30.607331
Octagon51.7%+1.10.703298
Low fence50.8%+0.20.940299
Single wall49.8%-0.80.776285
Breakable half fence49.7%-1.00.725306
Breakable full fence48.1%-2.50.322347
Full fence46.3%-4.40.099322
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 7.64 on 9 df, p 0.571

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.3%322-1.90.631-5.80.152-3.40.394-4.60.256-3.50.382-7.60.144-9.30.020-5.70.146-5.40.179
Breakable full fence+1.90.63148.1%347-3.90.323-1.50.693-2.70.492-1.70.671-5.80.264-7.50.057-3.80.318-3.50.369
Half fence+5.80.152+3.90.32352.0%292+2.40.560+1.20.767+2.20.592-1.90.726-3.50.387+0.10.982+0.40.927
Breakable half fence+3.40.394+1.50.693-2.40.56049.7%306-1.20.775-0.10.971-4.20.421-5.90.143-2.30.563-2.00.622
Low fence+4.60.256+2.70.492-1.20.767+1.20.77550.8%299+1.00.807-3.10.561-4.80.242-1.10.777-0.80.837
Single wall+3.50.382+1.70.671-2.20.592+0.10.971-1.00.80749.8%285-4.10.443-5.80.161-2.10.596-1.90.655
Fence and open+7.60.144+5.80.264+1.90.726+4.20.421+3.10.561+4.10.44353.9%128-1.70.748+1.90.709+2.20.673
Open+9.30.020+7.50.057+3.50.387+5.90.143+4.80.242+5.80.161+1.70.74855.6%304+3.60.360+3.90.336
Rectangle+5.70.146+3.80.318-0.10.982+2.30.563+1.10.777+2.10.596-1.90.709-3.60.36052.0%331+0.30.943
Octagon+5.40.179+3.50.369-0.40.927+2.00.622+0.80.837+1.90.655-2.20.673-3.90.336-0.30.94351.7%298
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 counted1,571
Win rate50.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches8.6 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
Open58.9%+8.60.022158
Rectangle54.9%+4.60.193175
Fence and open54.7%+4.50.43075 ·
Octagon49.7%-0.50.886159
Breakable half fence49.3%-1.00.815136
Single wall48.7%-1.50.690152
Half fence47.6%-2.60.505145
Low fence47.6%-2.60.505145
Full fence46.1%-4.10.261167
Breakable full fence45.0%-5.20.148169
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 10.80 on 9 df, p 0.289

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.1%167+1.10.834-1.50.794-3.10.584-1.50.794-2.60.645-8.60.218-12.80.021-8.80.106-3.60.518
Breakable full fence-1.10.83445.0%169-2.60.643-4.30.455-2.60.643-3.70.505-9.70.162-13.90.012-9.90.067-4.70.393
Half fence+1.50.794+2.60.64347.6%145-1.70.778+0.01.000-1.10.850-7.10.319-11.30.049-7.30.195-2.10.715
Breakable half fence+3.10.584+4.30.455+1.70.77849.3%136+1.70.778+0.60.922-5.40.452-9.60.100-5.60.327-0.40.943
Low fence+1.50.794+2.60.643-0.01.000-1.70.77847.6%145-1.10.850-7.10.319-11.30.049-7.30.195-2.10.715
Single wall+2.60.645+3.70.505+1.10.850-0.60.922+1.10.85048.7%152-6.00.396-10.20.072-6.20.265-1.00.860
Fence and open+8.60.218+9.70.162+7.10.319+5.40.452+7.10.319+6.00.39654.7%75-4.20.545-0.20.978+5.00.477
Open+12.80.021+13.90.012+11.30.049+9.60.100+11.30.049+10.20.072+4.20.54558.9%158+4.00.461+9.20.101
Rectangle+8.80.106+9.90.067+7.30.195+5.60.327+7.30.195+6.20.265+0.20.978-4.00.46154.9%175+5.20.345
Octagon+3.60.518+4.70.393+2.10.715+0.40.943+2.10.715+1.00.860-5.00.477-9.20.101-5.20.34549.7%159
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 counted1,244
Win rate50.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.3 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
Half fence56.8%+6.30.166111
Fence and open52.6%+2.10.78838 ·
Single wall52.2%+1.80.696111
Breakable full fence51.9%+1.40.733133
Octagon51.7%+1.20.785120
Open51.6%+1.20.788122
Breakable half fence51.5%+1.00.802132
Low fence51.0%+0.60.885143
Rectangle47.9%-2.60.552117
Full fence44.2%-6.30.131129
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 4.53 on 9 df, p 0.873

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence44.2%129-7.70.213-12.60.052-7.30.236-6.90.258-8.10.212-8.40.359-7.50.237-3.70.563-7.50.238
Breakable full fence+7.70.21351.9%133-4.90.446+0.40.953+0.80.890-0.40.954-0.80.935+0.20.969+4.00.526+0.20.973
Half fence+12.60.052+4.90.44656.8%111+5.20.414+5.70.366+4.50.500+4.10.659+5.10.434+8.90.179+5.10.438
Breakable half fence+7.30.236-0.40.953-5.20.41451.5%132+0.50.938-0.70.909-1.10.903-0.10.984+3.70.565-0.10.981
Low fence+6.90.258-0.80.890-5.70.366-0.50.93851.0%143-1.20.849-1.60.862-0.60.924+3.20.609-0.60.920
Single wall+8.10.212+0.40.954-4.50.500+0.70.909+1.20.84952.2%111-0.40.968+0.60.925+4.40.508+0.60.929
Fence and open+8.40.359+0.80.935-4.10.659+1.10.903+1.60.862+0.40.96852.6%38+1.00.915+4.80.609+1.00.917
Open+7.50.237-0.20.969-5.10.434+0.10.984+0.60.924-0.60.925-1.00.91551.6%122+3.80.559-0.00.997
Rectangle+3.70.563-4.00.526-8.90.179-3.70.565-3.20.609-4.40.508-4.80.609-3.80.55947.9%117-3.80.558
Octagon+7.50.238-0.20.973-5.10.438+0.10.981+0.60.920-0.60.929-1.00.917+0.00.997+3.80.55851.7%120
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 counted284
Win rate53.5%
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
Low fence90.9%+37.40.01111 ·
Octagon68.4%+14.90.17819 ·
Full fence57.7%+4.20.65526 ·
Half fence55.6%+2.00.79336 ·
Open54.2%+0.70.94724 ·
Fence and open53.3%-0.20.98815 ·
Rectangle51.3%-2.20.76339 ·
Breakable full fence48.9%-4.60.49745 ·
Single wall45.5%-8.10.43022 ·
Breakable half fence44.7%-8.80.24338 ·
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 10.34 on 9 df, p 0.323

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence57.7%26+8.80.474+2.10.867+12.90.309-33.20.049+12.20.398+4.40.786+3.50.802+6.40.612-10.70.463
Breakable full fence-8.80.47448.9%45-6.70.551+4.20.706-42.00.012+3.40.792-4.40.766-5.30.676-2.40.827-19.50.152
Half fence-2.10.867+6.70.55155.6%36+10.80.352-35.40.033+10.10.455+2.20.884+1.40.916+4.30.711-12.90.354
Breakable half fence-12.90.309-4.20.706-10.80.35244.7%38-46.20.007-0.70.957-8.60.572-9.40.469-6.50.565-23.70.091
Low fence+33.20.049+42.00.012+35.40.033+46.20.00790.9%11+45.50.012+37.60.040+36.70.034+39.60.018+22.50.161
Single wall-12.20.398-3.40.792-10.10.455+0.70.957-45.50.01245.5%22-7.90.638-8.70.555-5.80.662-23.00.139
Fence and open-4.40.786+4.40.766-2.20.884+8.60.572-37.60.040+7.90.63853.3%15-0.80.959+2.00.893-15.10.369
Open-3.50.802+5.30.676-1.40.916+9.40.469-36.70.034+8.70.555+0.80.95954.2%24+2.90.824-14.20.342
Rectangle-6.40.612+2.40.827-4.30.711+6.50.565-39.60.018+5.80.662-2.00.893-2.90.82451.3%39-17.10.216
Octagon+10.70.463+19.50.152+12.90.354+23.70.091-22.50.161+23.00.139+15.10.369+14.20.342+17.10.21668.4%19
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.