VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Pai vs Wolf

Pai vs Wolf in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Pai wins 49.4% of 6,831 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 counted6,831
Win rate49.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.3 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
Single wall52.5%+3.20.095636
Octagon52.0%+2.70.148665
Fence and open51.9%+2.60.314360
Open51.5%+2.20.208755
Full fence49.4%+0.00.983670
Breakable half fence49.0%-0.30.855669
Half fence48.6%-0.70.685695
Breakable full fence47.8%-1.60.357737
Low fence47.1%-2.30.223656
Rectangle46.1%-3.30.078651
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 11.82 on 9 df, p 0.223

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.4%670+1.60.538+0.80.776+0.40.891+2.30.402-3.10.261-2.50.437-2.10.424+3.30.227-2.60.337
Breakable full fence-1.60.53847.8%737-0.90.741-1.30.635+0.70.806-4.80.079-4.20.193-3.80.146+1.70.532-4.30.110
Half fence-0.80.776+0.90.74148.6%695-0.40.884+1.50.574-3.90.157-3.30.308-2.90.272+2.50.349-3.40.210
Breakable half fence-0.40.891+1.30.635+0.40.88449.0%669+1.90.483-3.50.208-2.90.372-2.50.347+3.00.284-3.00.273
Low fence-2.30.402-0.70.806-1.50.574-1.90.48347.1%656-5.40.052-4.80.140-4.40.098+1.00.711-4.90.073
Single wall+3.10.261+4.80.079+3.90.157+3.50.208+5.40.05252.5%636+0.60.862+1.00.712+6.40.021+0.50.861
Fence and open+2.50.437+4.20.193+3.30.308+2.90.372+4.80.140-0.60.86251.9%360+0.40.895+5.90.074-0.10.979
Open+2.10.424+3.80.146+2.90.272+2.50.347+4.40.098-1.00.712-0.40.89551.5%755+5.40.042-0.50.849
Rectangle-3.30.227-1.70.532-2.50.349-3.00.284-1.00.711-6.40.021-5.90.074-5.40.04246.1%651-6.00.031
Octagon+2.60.337+4.30.110+3.40.210+3.00.273+4.90.073-0.50.861+0.10.979+0.50.849+6.00.03152.0%665
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 counted4,269
Win rate48.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.3 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
Single wall52.4%+4.40.058414
Fence and open51.8%+3.80.243228
Octagon51.7%+3.70.101431
Open50.7%+2.70.230452
Full fence49.0%+0.90.679427
Breakable half fence48.2%+0.20.918425
Half fence47.7%-0.30.905440
Breakable full fence45.0%-3.00.169456
Low fence44.6%-3.40.161390
Rectangle42.7%-5.30.026396
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 16.26 on 9 df, p 0.062

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.0%427+4.00.235+1.20.720+0.70.836+4.30.215-3.50.314-2.80.494-1.70.611+6.30.071-2.80.413
Breakable full fence-4.00.23545.0%456-2.80.406-3.30.330+0.30.921-7.50.028-6.80.093-5.70.085+2.30.504-6.80.043
Half fence-1.20.720+2.80.40647.7%440-0.50.881+3.10.370-4.70.171-4.00.324-2.90.380+5.00.143-4.00.236
Breakable half fence-0.70.836+3.30.330+0.50.88148.2%425+3.60.301-4.20.226-3.50.391-2.40.472+5.60.110-3.50.305
Low fence-4.30.215-0.30.921-3.10.370-3.60.30144.6%390-7.80.027-7.10.086-6.00.080+1.90.584-7.10.041
Single wall+3.50.314+7.50.028+4.70.171+4.20.226+7.80.02752.4%414+0.70.873+1.80.606+9.70.006+0.70.844
Fence and open+2.80.494+6.80.093+4.00.324+3.50.391+7.10.086-0.70.87351.8%228+1.10.788+9.10.028+0.00.997
Open+1.70.611+5.70.085+2.90.380+2.40.472+6.00.080-1.80.606-1.10.78850.7%452+8.00.020-1.10.749
Rectangle-6.30.071-2.30.504-5.00.143-5.60.110-1.90.584-9.70.006-9.10.028-8.00.02042.7%396-9.10.009
Octagon+2.80.413+6.80.043+4.00.236+3.50.305+7.10.041-0.70.844-0.00.997+1.10.749+9.10.00951.7%431
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 counted2,348
Win rate52.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-2.9 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
Rectangle54.1%+1.90.540233
Open53.9%+1.70.545286
Breakable full fence52.7%+0.60.849256
Octagon52.5%+0.30.916219
Single wall52.1%-0.10.974194
Breakable half fence51.8%-0.40.899226
Low fence51.4%-0.70.809243
Fence and open51.2%-0.90.828123
Half fence50.8%-1.30.661240
Full fence49.3%-2.90.377215
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 1.69 on 9 df, p 0.995

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.3%215-3.40.458-1.50.744-2.50.604-2.10.648-2.80.577-1.90.734-4.50.314-4.80.312-3.20.504
Breakable full fence+3.40.45852.7%256+1.90.672+1.00.832+1.30.772+0.70.887+1.50.782-1.10.796-1.40.766+0.20.961
Half fence+1.50.744-1.90.67250.8%240-0.90.840-0.60.894-1.20.799-0.40.944-3.00.491-3.20.480-1.70.719
Breakable half fence+2.50.604-1.00.832+0.90.84051.8%226+0.30.943-0.30.952+0.60.922-2.10.640-2.30.621-0.70.876
Low fence+2.10.648-1.30.772+0.60.894-0.30.94351.4%243-0.60.897+0.20.968-2.40.581-2.60.565-1.10.818
Single wall+2.80.577-0.70.887+1.20.799+0.30.952+0.60.89752.1%194+0.80.884-1.80.701-2.00.678-0.50.927
Fence and open+1.90.734-1.50.782+0.40.944-0.60.922-0.20.968-0.80.88451.2%123-2.60.625-2.90.607-1.30.818
Open+4.50.314+1.10.796+3.00.491+2.10.640+2.40.581+1.80.701+2.60.62553.9%286-0.20.958+1.30.766
Rectangle+4.80.312+1.40.766+3.20.480+2.30.621+2.60.565+2.00.678+2.90.607+0.20.95854.1%233+1.60.739
Octagon+3.20.504-0.20.961+1.70.719+0.70.876+1.10.818+0.50.927+1.30.818-1.30.766-1.60.73952.5%219
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 counted214
Win rate45.8%
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 open66.7%+20.90.1999 ·
Full fence57.1%+11.30.19628 ·
Single wall57.1%+11.30.19628 ·
Octagon53.3%+7.50.54315 ·
Breakable full fence48.0%+2.20.81425 ·
Low fence43.5%-2.30.81323 ·
Half fence40.0%-5.80.64015 ·
Open35.3%-10.50.36517 ·
Breakable half fence33.3%-12.50.26818 ·
Rectangle22.7%-23.10.02222 ·
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 11.73 on 9 df, p 0.229

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence57.1%28+9.10.506+17.10.284+23.80.115+13.70.331+0.01.000-9.50.613+21.90.155+34.40.014+3.80.811
Breakable full fence-9.10.50648.0%25+8.00.622+14.70.336+4.50.753-9.10.506-18.70.336+12.70.414+25.30.072-5.30.744
Half fence-17.10.284-8.00.62240.0%15+6.70.692-3.50.832-17.10.284-26.70.206+4.70.784+17.30.259-13.30.464
Breakable half fence-23.80.115-14.70.336-6.70.69233.3%18-10.20.509-23.80.115-33.30.100-2.00.903+10.60.455-20.00.247
Low fence-13.70.331-4.50.753+3.50.832+10.20.50943.5%23-13.70.331-23.20.238+8.20.601+20.80.140-9.80.552
Single wall-0.01.000+9.10.506+17.10.284+23.80.115+13.70.33157.1%28-9.50.613+21.90.155+34.40.014+3.80.811
Fence and open+9.50.613+18.70.336+26.70.206+33.30.100+23.20.238+9.50.61366.7%9+31.40.127+43.90.020+13.30.521
Open-21.90.155-12.70.414-4.70.784+2.00.903-8.20.601-21.90.155-31.40.12735.3%17+12.60.387-18.00.305
Rectangle-34.40.014-25.30.072-17.30.259-10.60.455-20.80.140-34.40.014-43.90.020-12.60.38722.7%22-30.60.056
Octagon-3.80.811+5.30.744+13.30.464+20.00.247+9.80.552-3.80.811-13.30.521+18.00.305+30.60.05653.3%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.