VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Taka vs Wolf

Taka vs Wolf in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Taka wins 50.6% of 2,176 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 counted2,176
Win rate50.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.0 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Taka's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence54.4%+3.80.213239
Single wall53.5%+2.90.372215
Breakable half fence52.7%+2.10.530205
Low fence51.5%+0.90.789200
Open50.7%+0.10.966203
Rectangle49.6%-1.00.738246
Octagon49.6%-1.00.740234
Full fence49.5%-1.10.744202
Breakable full fence47.0%-3.60.286200
Fence and open45.6%-5.00.274114
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 4.98 on 9 df, p 0.836

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.5%202+2.50.615-4.90.306-3.20.521-2.00.689-4.00.416+3.90.506-1.20.804-0.10.985-0.10.989
Breakable full fence-2.50.61547.0%200-7.40.123-5.70.253-4.50.368-6.50.187+1.40.813-3.70.453-2.60.586-2.60.593
Half fence+4.90.306+7.40.12354.4%239+1.70.719+2.90.545+0.90.847+8.80.123+3.60.443+4.80.290+4.80.294
Breakable half fence+3.20.521+5.70.253-1.70.71952.7%205+1.20.812-0.80.869+7.10.226+1.90.694+3.10.513+3.10.515
Low fence+2.00.689+4.50.368-2.90.545-1.20.81251.5%200-2.00.685+5.90.316+0.80.879+1.90.689+1.90.689
Single wall+4.00.416+6.50.187-0.90.847+0.80.869+2.00.68553.5%215+7.90.174+2.80.574+3.90.404+3.90.407
Fence and open-3.90.506-1.40.813-8.80.123-7.10.226-5.90.316-7.90.17445.6%114-5.10.381-4.00.482-4.00.488
Open+1.20.804+3.70.453-3.60.443-1.90.694-0.80.879-2.80.574+5.10.38150.7%203+1.10.809+1.20.808
Rectangle+0.10.985+2.60.586-4.80.290-3.10.513-1.90.689-3.90.404+4.00.482-1.10.80949.6%246+0.00.996
Octagon+0.10.989+2.60.593-4.80.294-3.10.515-1.90.689-3.90.407+4.00.488-1.20.808-0.00.99649.6%234
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 counted1,227
Win rate49.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.2 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Taka's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence54.2%+5.20.237118
Octagon52.0%+2.90.488125
Half fence51.9%+2.80.491133
Full fence50.8%+1.70.681128
Single wall49.6%+0.50.908117
Low fence49.1%+0.10.984118
Rectangle47.7%-1.40.741130
Breakable full fence47.4%-1.70.704114
Open46.7%-2.40.580120
Fence and open38.1%-11.00.07463 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 5.79 on 9 df, p 0.761

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.8%128+3.40.596-1.10.859-3.50.588+1.60.799+1.20.850+12.70.098+4.10.517+3.10.620-1.20.846
Breakable full fence-3.40.59647.4%114-4.50.480-6.90.295-1.80.786-2.20.738+9.30.234+0.70.914-0.30.960-4.60.474
Half fence+1.10.859+4.50.48051.9%133-2.40.709+2.70.666+2.30.716+13.80.071+5.20.408+4.20.497-0.10.985
Breakable half fence+3.50.588+6.90.295+2.40.70954.2%118+5.10.434+4.70.474+16.10.038+7.60.243+6.50.303+2.20.727
Low fence-1.60.799+1.80.786-2.70.666-5.10.43449.1%118-0.40.949+11.10.155+2.50.701+1.50.818-2.90.657
Single wall-1.20.850+2.20.738-2.30.716-4.70.474+0.40.94949.6%117+11.50.140+2.90.654+1.90.768-2.40.706
Fence and open-12.70.098-9.30.234-13.80.071-16.10.038-11.10.155-11.50.14038.1%63-8.60.267-9.60.208-13.90.071
Open-4.10.517-0.70.914-5.20.408-7.60.243-2.50.701-2.90.654+8.60.26746.7%120-1.00.871-5.30.404
Rectangle-3.10.620+0.30.960-4.20.497-6.50.303-1.50.818-1.90.768+9.60.208+1.00.87147.7%130-4.30.492
Octagon+1.20.846+4.60.474+0.10.985-2.20.727+2.90.657+2.40.706+13.90.071+5.30.404+4.30.49252.0%125
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 counted834
Win rate52.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.8 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Taka's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence58.0%+5.20.30288
Single wall57.8%+5.10.32983
Open56.6%+3.80.48476 ·
Fence and open55.8%+3.00.68043 ·
Full fence53.2%+0.50.93962 ·
Breakable half fence51.9%-0.90.87279 ·
Low fence51.4%-1.40.80872 ·
Rectangle50.9%-1.80.689106
Octagon46.9%-5.80.21998
Breakable full fence46.7%-6.10.26875 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 5.09 on 9 df, p 0.827

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.2%62+6.60.445-4.70.566+1.30.876+1.80.832-4.60.581-2.60.793-3.40.694+2.30.775+6.30.438
Breakable full fence-6.60.44546.7%75-11.30.150-5.20.516-4.70.567-11.20.161-9.10.339-9.90.223-4.30.571-0.30.972
Half fence+4.70.566+11.30.15058.0%88+6.00.432+6.60.406+0.10.987+2.10.816+1.40.859+7.00.329+11.00.133
Breakable half fence-1.30.876+5.20.516-6.00.43251.9%79+0.50.950-5.90.448-3.90.679-4.70.559+1.00.898+5.00.512
Low fence-1.80.832+4.70.567-6.60.406-0.50.95051.4%72-6.40.421-4.40.645-5.20.527+0.50.953+4.50.566
Single wall+4.60.581+11.20.161-0.10.987+5.90.448+6.40.42157.8%83+2.00.828+1.20.873+6.90.346+10.90.144
Fence and open+2.60.793+9.10.339-2.10.816+3.90.679+4.40.645-2.00.82855.8%43-0.80.936+4.90.590+8.90.332
Open+3.40.694+9.90.223-1.40.859+4.70.559+5.20.527-1.20.873+0.80.93656.6%76+5.60.452+9.60.207
Rectangle-2.30.775+4.30.571-7.00.329-1.00.898-0.50.953-6.90.346-4.90.590-5.60.45250.9%106+4.00.568
Octagon-6.30.438+0.30.972-11.00.133-5.00.512-4.50.566-10.90.144-8.90.332-9.60.207-4.00.56846.9%98
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 counted115
Win rate51.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Taka's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Low fence80.0%+28.70.05710 ·
Rectangle60.0%+8.70.56510 ·
Single wall60.0%+8.70.47015 ·
Open57.1%+5.80.7507 ·
Half fence55.6%+4.30.69418 ·
Fence and open50.0%-1.30.9398 ·
Breakable full fence45.5%-5.80.68311 ·
Octagon45.5%-5.80.68311 ·
Breakable half fence37.5%-13.80.4188 ·
Full fence16.7%-34.60.01112 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.95 on 9 df, p 0.279

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence16.7%12-28.80.134-38.90.033-20.80.292-63.30.003-43.30.023-33.30.111-40.50.067-43.30.035-28.80.134
Breakable full fence+28.80.13445.5%11-10.10.597+8.00.729-34.50.104-14.60.462-4.50.845-11.70.629-14.60.505+0.01.000
Half fence+38.90.033+10.10.59755.6%18+18.10.395-24.40.196-4.40.797+5.60.793-1.60.943-4.40.820+10.10.597
Breakable half fence+20.80.292-8.00.729-18.10.39537.5%8-42.50.066-22.50.304-12.50.614-19.60.447-22.50.343-8.00.729
Low fence+63.30.003+34.50.104+24.40.196+42.50.06680.0%10+20.00.294+30.00.180+22.90.309+20.00.329+34.50.104
Single wall+43.30.023+14.60.462+4.40.797+22.50.304-20.00.29460.0%15+10.00.645+2.90.899+0.01.000+14.60.462
Fence and open+33.30.111+4.50.845-5.60.793+12.50.614-30.00.180-10.00.64550.0%8-7.10.782-10.00.671+4.50.845
Open+40.50.067+11.70.629+1.60.943+19.60.447-22.90.309-2.90.899+7.10.78257.1%7-2.90.906+11.70.629
Rectangle+43.30.035+14.60.505+4.40.820+22.50.343-20.00.329-0.01.000+10.00.671+2.90.90660.0%10+14.60.505
Octagon+28.80.134-0.01.000-10.10.597+8.00.729-34.50.104-14.60.462-4.50.845-11.70.629-14.60.50545.5%11
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.