I find it funny how you make many references to the high price of the Maelstorm Pulses in deck 3 ($55.50 total cost) multiple times, but make no substitute suggestion (or reference during the deck building portion of the article really) for the 3 Jace v2.0 in deck 1 ($82.00 each!). I guess I just feel that Jace is far to costly to casually toss into whatever U/x deck an author is developing (not just this article, but every article where the author says "he's just too good NOT to run him...."). Most of your target audience simply will not have them.
I saw the owl and first i was like meh lame sage owl reprint with a new name. Then I read the card and was like OMGWYFBBQ!!! Scry is sweet, but meh its a lame sage owl variant.
Minimax strategies that that maximizes your expected outcome vs. the best posible playing oppoent.
MSNE are sets of strategies that nobody wants to deviate from alone. It is therefore a stable situration when entered, which is nice but it is not what people usually try for in a games (they try to win).
Therefore minimax seems to me to be far more reasonable solution concept in cases such as this. MSNE is reasonable for zero-sum, two player games excatly because it gives you the same thing - they are not the same thing in many, more general game types (e.g. they are not the same thing for more than two players or for non-zero-sum two player games).
"In the game you presented, the first three strategies (as pure strategies, or any mix among between two or all three) strictly dominates the fourth"
Yes and yet it does not fit your definition (that MSNE strategies must make the oppeont indifferent to all his pure strategies)... My problem was with the definition of MSNE, so I tried to find a simple game where it should be clear what one should play, yet where your definition wouldn't fit...
"Finally, Magic is not a matrix form game, but metagaming most certainly is. As such, representing it in the manner I do here is sound."
Might be true I guess. It is not a two player game (most of the time anyway) though. I do not belive that you are interrested in places where none wants to diviate (MSNE) - you would have to get everybody into one in the first place which you (proberly?) wont.
What one wants could be to maximize ones own winnings in the worst case (minimax) or maybe minimizing ones unhappiness with the outcome as compared to all other strategies (iterated regret minimization)...
The jund list has to have runeblasters. Also, with the meta being nearly 40% Jund and only about 20% UW decks running speading seas, the use of 5 sb slots for that match up is extreme. However, I have a new Jund list that I'll be sharing here soon that is really solid in the UW match ups, fast and beasty as hell now that Sarkhan is in the list. He is a pimp and helped pull another 3-1 just in time to save me from loosing value in my collection.
It will take FOW showing up in a FTV release to have a drastic enough effect on the price. Being that it is 4 times the cost online than its paper version something has to give. Now I will duck and run as the owners of FOWs start tossing their poo at me for that last statement. =). Gideon is sick btw. I have been able to pull off a few matches (2 of 3) verse that UW planeswalker deck that is running around but it is so hard to pull those wins with Jund.
its rare when you are forced to play a forgotten caves so its more for the cycling. And incinerate would only be better than burst lightning if you removed the kiln and I dont thinnk that is the right idea.
I felt the need to create an account to comment on this. I top 8ed last weeks PE with straight burn. I believe that Kiln Fiend is an amazing Sideboard card against storm and mono blue control but it falls far short against all the creature and removal based decks. A couple other things I like and don't like:
Pyroblast is a waste of a slot. This is mainly due to the fact that all your spells do roughly the same thing, for instance having 2 lightning bolts and a lightning bolt and pyroblast is basically the same thing if you're casting through counters, you're going to get 3 damage through, the only difference is pyroblast is a miserable top deck.
7-8 Seering Blazes/Lash Outs are a must post board agains anything with plains. Seriously, respect the unicorn.
Burst Lighning is basically shock, as you should never get to 5 mana. In which case I would suggest Incinerate in it's place as the difference between 2 and 3 damage is not small.
Forgotten Caves are bad, CipT lands are devastating with a deck like this because mana is such a precious resource.
That's all I have for now, best of luck in the future.
The fundamental problem with it is that it is killed/stopped by anything and everything that calls itself removal. Kiln Fiend to me seems more suited as a sideboard card against decks that are low on removal.
It's just too situational to call itself good in anything but Pauper. And even then, Pauper decks are gonna start packing more spot removal to counteract it if it gets out of hand. Kiln Fiend had a good run, and it can be brutal still, but the shine has worn off.
In the game you presented, the first three strategies (as pure strategies, or any mix among between two or all three) strictly dominates the fourth. Consequently, the fourth strategy does not survive iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies (IESDS), and thus we can basically ignore it. For more on dominated strategies, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IotsMu1J8fA . For more on IESDS, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp5cF4RWuU0 .
Finally, Magic is not a matrix form game, but metagaming most certainly is. As such, representing it in the manner I do here is sound.
In the Legacy event I played in over the weekend, I went 4-0, but I will excuse that performance by saying that I got excellent draws throughout, so I can't necessarily attribute the performance to Researcher over Study. Regardless, in the games where he was played, he was excellent. Furthermore, two other players playing Reanimator that event were also playing Researcher, including Angel of Righteousness from your above quote. I know that I have not proved that my list wasn't bad, but you're going to have to cite a lot more evidence than Researcher, which is probably one of the better aspects of my list.
Just want to comment a bit on the last point you made -- what you are suggesting is a valid strategy but it can also be detrimental to you as well. One of the things that can really hurt you in draft (and especially this format) is having neighbors that can evaluate cards well enough but don't really know what they are drafting at the moment. The reason for this is that they are more likely to be all over the place in their drafting and thus snipe the cards that you want. If you get a cornerstone card late that you know you don't want, there is some benefit in passing it as it should cement the person who gets it into that archetype more, meaning that they will be more likely to pass you the cards that you want. This goes for pack 1 and pack 2, although at the end of pack 3 it's better to draft defensively of course.
Yeah, I played Perfect World for a while (mainly cuz it was free, but mtgo seems to fit an adult life style better, MTGO doesn't require constant attention like MORPH's seem to do).
I think the concept of "me money" is something good for just about any relationship, be it collectible card games or not. My fiancee definitely has things she likes to buy that I'll never use.
A slightly offtopic point but: Mixed Nash Equlibria is not the right concept, when one is talking about solution concepts for matrix games. Min-Max is. Min-Max is the strategy that maximizes what you get against the best possible play from your opponent (there can be more than one Min-Max for a given game, but it is not important for the following).
Btw. the concept is also wrongly presented (atleast from my view). A Mixed Nash Equlibria is a pair of strategies such that none of the players have any reason to deviate from it. The following game, G, is a zero-sum matrix game so I will only write the amount the collumn player pays (or recives if negative) to the row player in each entry (add a ,-x, where x is the number in the entry, if you prefer the one in the video).
G:
0 1 -1 2
-1 0 1 2
1 -1 0 2
-2 -2 -2 0
That game have a unique Nash/Min Max equlibrium which is to play the first three rows/collumns uniformly at random. But the definition from the video says that there are none (no strategy will make your oppeont indifferent towards all his pure strategies since it is just a bad idea to play the right most/lowest one).
Futheremore Magic the Gathering is not a matrix game, since a game can go on forever, because you can enter the exact same situation (by shuffling stuff into library for instance). Therefore it can not be written in strategy form (because who wins is undefined if a game last forever).
Futhremore to write a game in that form one would need to write down all posible strategies (A strategy is what you would do in any given situration) both as rows and as collumns and than see what would happen if two such strategies played against each other. That would only give a expected outcome (it deppends on random choices in the game) - it would therefore be quite long fractions (if we assume that no cards can be shuffled into the library and no combos are able to reset the board situration, there should be a limit to how many moves a game can take and therefore some upperbound on the size of the fraction - proberly far to large to be posible to write down but this is not for any practical purpose anyway I hope)...
I would belive that to do it right one would use imperfect information, stochastic, two player games to describe Magic the Gathering. Imperfect information because the hands are hidden (and for things such as Goblin Game). Stochastic for things such as die role/lib-order.
It actually pushes the Owl from filler to fully playable card in limited.
I find it funny how you make many references to the high price of the Maelstorm Pulses in deck 3 ($55.50 total cost) multiple times, but make no substitute suggestion (or reference during the deck building portion of the article really) for the 3 Jace v2.0 in deck 1 ($82.00 each!). I guess I just feel that Jace is far to costly to casually toss into whatever U/x deck an author is developing (not just this article, but every article where the author says "he's just too good NOT to run him...."). Most of your target audience simply will not have them.
Essence Warden is not currently standard
Still doesnt work, where do you get the second red? also how do you sac mothdust changeling?
Scry is a top notch ability and I'm glad to see it back. I really hope it isn't limited to blue cards.
Well done! One can learn a lot about drafting from a small child.
RE episode 67....Quit playing games with the sound up while podcasting. I couldnt finish listening to it.
I saw the owl and first i was like meh lame sage owl reprint with a new name. Then I read the card and was like OMGWYFBBQ!!! Scry is sweet, but meh its a lame sage owl variant.
A Teferi's Moat at that. As if a cheapskate mage like me is gonna pay for a real Moat when one of Teferi's fake moats will do just as well.
"Minimax provides the same solution as MSNE."
Yes, that is true for zero-sum games.
Minimax strategies that that maximizes your expected outcome vs. the best posible playing oppoent.
MSNE are sets of strategies that nobody wants to deviate from alone. It is therefore a stable situration when entered, which is nice but it is not what people usually try for in a games (they try to win).
Therefore minimax seems to me to be far more reasonable solution concept in cases such as this. MSNE is reasonable for zero-sum, two player games excatly because it gives you the same thing - they are not the same thing in many, more general game types (e.g. they are not the same thing for more than two players or for non-zero-sum two player games).
"In the game you presented, the first three strategies (as pure strategies, or any mix among between two or all three) strictly dominates the fourth"
Yes and yet it does not fit your definition (that MSNE strategies must make the oppeont indifferent to all his pure strategies)... My problem was with the definition of MSNE, so I tried to find a simple game where it should be clear what one should play, yet where your definition wouldn't fit...
"Finally, Magic is not a matrix form game, but metagaming most certainly is. As such, representing it in the manner I do here is sound."
Might be true I guess. It is not a two player game (most of the time anyway) though. I do not belive that you are interrested in places where none wants to diviate (MSNE) - you would have to get everybody into one in the first place which you (proberly?) wont.
What one wants could be to maximize ones own winnings in the worst case (minimax) or maybe minimizing ones unhappiness with the outcome as compared to all other strategies (iterated regret minimization)...
Great, thank you!
nice article bizz, hope mine gets posted soon so i can pick up some cards im missing for eldrazi green. want to play test some time soon?
The jund list has to have runeblasters. Also, with the meta being nearly 40% Jund and only about 20% UW decks running speading seas, the use of 5 sb slots for that match up is extreme. However, I have a new Jund list that I'll be sharing here soon that is really solid in the UW match ups, fast and beasty as hell now that Sarkhan is in the list. He is a pimp and helped pull another 3-1 just in time to save me from loosing value in my collection.
It will take FOW showing up in a FTV release to have a drastic enough effect on the price. Being that it is 4 times the cost online than its paper version something has to give. Now I will duck and run as the owners of FOWs start tossing their poo at me for that last statement. =). Gideon is sick btw. I have been able to pull off a few matches (2 of 3) verse that UW planeswalker deck that is running around but it is so hard to pull those wins with Jund.
its rare when you are forced to play a forgotten caves so its more for the cycling. And incinerate would only be better than burst lightning if you removed the kiln and I dont thinnk that is the right idea.
I felt the need to create an account to comment on this. I top 8ed last weeks PE with straight burn. I believe that Kiln Fiend is an amazing Sideboard card against storm and mono blue control but it falls far short against all the creature and removal based decks. A couple other things I like and don't like:
Pyroblast is a waste of a slot. This is mainly due to the fact that all your spells do roughly the same thing, for instance having 2 lightning bolts and a lightning bolt and pyroblast is basically the same thing if you're casting through counters, you're going to get 3 damage through, the only difference is pyroblast is a miserable top deck.
7-8 Seering Blazes/Lash Outs are a must post board agains anything with plains. Seriously, respect the unicorn.
Burst Lighning is basically shock, as you should never get to 5 mana. In which case I would suggest Incinerate in it's place as the difference between 2 and 3 damage is not small.
Forgotten Caves are bad, CipT lands are devastating with a deck like this because mana is such a precious resource.
That's all I have for now, best of luck in the future.
The fundamental problem with it is that it is killed/stopped by anything and everything that calls itself removal. Kiln Fiend to me seems more suited as a sideboard card against decks that are low on removal.
It's just too situational to call itself good in anything but Pauper. And even then, Pauper decks are gonna start packing more spot removal to counteract it if it gets out of hand. Kiln Fiend had a good run, and it can be brutal still, but the shine has worn off.
Why not Essence Warden virtually the same as soul warden, but green ^^
Minimax provides the same solution as MSNE. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum
In the game you presented, the first three strategies (as pure strategies, or any mix among between two or all three) strictly dominates the fourth. Consequently, the fourth strategy does not survive iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies (IESDS), and thus we can basically ignore it. For more on dominated strategies, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IotsMu1J8fA . For more on IESDS, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp5cF4RWuU0 .
Finally, Magic is not a matrix form game, but metagaming most certainly is. As such, representing it in the manner I do here is sound.
Last I heard, online has print runs that differ from paper. Been a while since I've read about them though, so I could be out of date.
In the Legacy event I played in over the weekend, I went 4-0, but I will excuse that performance by saying that I got excellent draws throughout, so I can't necessarily attribute the performance to Researcher over Study. Regardless, in the games where he was played, he was excellent. Furthermore, two other players playing Reanimator that event were also playing Researcher, including Angel of Righteousness from your above quote. I know that I have not proved that my list wasn't bad, but you're going to have to cite a lot more evidence than Researcher, which is probably one of the better aspects of my list.
Just want to comment a bit on the last point you made -- what you are suggesting is a valid strategy but it can also be detrimental to you as well. One of the things that can really hurt you in draft (and especially this format) is having neighbors that can evaluate cards well enough but don't really know what they are drafting at the moment. The reason for this is that they are more likely to be all over the place in their drafting and thus snipe the cards that you want. If you get a cornerstone card late that you know you don't want, there is some benefit in passing it as it should cement the person who gets it into that archetype more, meaning that they will be more likely to pass you the cards that you want. This goes for pack 1 and pack 2, although at the end of pack 3 it's better to draft defensively of course.
As I play online only I couldn't really speculate there!
Yeah, I played Perfect World for a while (mainly cuz it was free, but mtgo seems to fit an adult life style better, MTGO doesn't require constant attention like MORPH's seem to do).
I think the concept of "me money" is something good for just about any relationship, be it collectible card games or not. My fiancee definitely has things she likes to buy that I'll never use.
A slightly offtopic point but: Mixed Nash Equlibria is not the right concept, when one is talking about solution concepts for matrix games. Min-Max is. Min-Max is the strategy that maximizes what you get against the best possible play from your opponent (there can be more than one Min-Max for a given game, but it is not important for the following).
Btw. the concept is also wrongly presented (atleast from my view). A Mixed Nash Equlibria is a pair of strategies such that none of the players have any reason to deviate from it. The following game, G, is a zero-sum matrix game so I will only write the amount the collumn player pays (or recives if negative) to the row player in each entry (add a ,-x, where x is the number in the entry, if you prefer the one in the video).
G:
0 1 -1 2
-1 0 1 2
1 -1 0 2
-2 -2 -2 0
That game have a unique Nash/Min Max equlibrium which is to play the first three rows/collumns uniformly at random. But the definition from the video says that there are none (no strategy will make your oppeont indifferent towards all his pure strategies since it is just a bad idea to play the right most/lowest one).
Futheremore Magic the Gathering is not a matrix game, since a game can go on forever, because you can enter the exact same situation (by shuffling stuff into library for instance). Therefore it can not be written in strategy form (because who wins is undefined if a game last forever).
Futhremore to write a game in that form one would need to write down all posible strategies (A strategy is what you would do in any given situration) both as rows and as collumns and than see what would happen if two such strategies played against each other. That would only give a expected outcome (it deppends on random choices in the game) - it would therefore be quite long fractions (if we assume that no cards can be shuffled into the library and no combos are able to reset the board situration, there should be a limit to how many moves a game can take and therefore some upperbound on the size of the fraction - proberly far to large to be posible to write down but this is not for any practical purpose anyway I hope)...
I would belive that to do it right one would use imperfect information, stochastic, two player games to describe Magic the Gathering. Imperfect information because the hands are hidden (and for things such as Goblin Game). Stochastic for things such as die role/lib-order.