What were you expecting? Some secret magical formula that would instantly let you go infinite? If there was a way to go infinite outside of being extremely good at limited + playing high EV events then it would have been discovered already. Maybe it wasn't explicitly said, but that's how Brian went infinite.
If you wanted to learn how to evaluate cards and/or the best draft strategies, that particular podcast was not for you because it wasn't about that. The topic wasn't about the current draft format or card evaluation, it was Brian talking about what he does on Magic Online. Most of every other podcast is about getting better and talking about cards as the weeks go on and other topics like card advantage, tempo, card evaluation, etc.
Besides, I don't see why you needed to call them out. It did nothing other than try to promote you as a better source of information compared to them (at least that's what it felt like).
You need more than 3 boosters and 2 tickets as your initial investment. Unless you're Michael Jacob, you're not going to win your first event and parlay that into an infinite bankroll. Even if you 4-3-2-2 and win round 1 but lose round 2, you're still down 1 pack + 2 tix. You can't always guarantee getting 4-5 tix of value out of the draft
I agree that the wait times in dailies suck, but there's nothing we can do about that. Maybe when we "eventually" get leagues it'll be better.
Have you tried 4-3-2-2's? I should have mentioned that its always best to draft a 4-3-2-2 over an 8-4 since its not terribly difficult to get out of the 1st round all the time. As long as you can win round 1, then as long as your drafting about 4-5 tix worth of cards, its not that hard to get ahead each time. I dont think a draft rating is very meaningful either since one loss kicks you down way harder than getting a single win. If you have a pattern to where you can get out of the first round and keep losing in the 2nd round in an 8-4, your going to get behind very easily. If you have the same thing happen to you in a 4-3-2-2. your chances of getting ahead are more likely.
Its true that theres variance in limited but theres lots of variance in constructed too. I played constructed for quite some time and really dont think that its terribly far off, especially for Standard and Modern since neither format has amazing card selection or ways of evening out variance. In limited there are at least patterns of what people are constantly taking that you can draft against. There is some advantage that you can gain in limited, while in constructed, once a format is established, theres no real edge you can gain.
Yes limited resources knows lots of things, but that particular podcast was very poor. There was nothing to really gain out of it unless your a total MODO noob. Thats great that I can buy packs from bots over the MTGO store, but if im getting bounced out of the first round every time, then what good does that do?
And yes, the EV is less for limited, but its a lot less time consuming and doesnt require any initial investment outside of the 3 boosters and 2x your playing with. Time and start up resources are worth more than EV sometimes. One of the things that made me quit constructed was how I had to sit in an event for 4 hours. The wait times in dailies are painfully slow. I like how in limited I can fire up que after que or multiple ques on demand. I like when I can actually win an event that only takes me 1-2 hours instead of spending 1/6th of my day trying to grind out a messly 9-12 tix if im lucky.
I always enjoy reading about other people's decision process in regards to, well, anything! I like the idea of determining a decks chance of drawing a playable hand. I tend to mulligan by feel. Of course, that only develops over a long period of time with the same deck. Initially I do somewhat like you suggest, but still feel some hands out that may look bad and flush hands that may look good.
One thing I'd add about calculating the odds to draw a card over several turns. And this is a side track, not a correction or anything. Just another consideration. Unfortunately, we can't just multiply by the number of draw steps under consideration as each draw is not cumulative. 5% chance to draw a card on one turn does not mean 10% over two turns. Let's say you have an 8% chance to draw 1 of 4 copies of a card with 50 cards in the deck. We certainly don't have a 120% chance over the next 15 draws (8%*15). All four copies could be buried way beyond 15 draw steps. The math gets so muddy it's better to stick with calculating only one draw and thinking of the second draw as a second chance at a slightly higher percentage. This comes into play when considering whether to mulligan if your chances of drawing a land by turn 3 are lower than your chance of drawing the lands needed in a six card hand. Drawing a land turn one is usually close to 46%. Usually 47-48% on turn 2, and maybe 49% on turn 3. The fact that you get three shots at close to 50% chance sounds great, but you've got 3 shots at 50% not to draw that land too.
That's why I tend to use non mathematical inquiry to decide. Can I maintain parity over three turns if I do not draw that land? If yes, keep. If no, how far behind will I fall if my opponent plays at normal strength for their deck? What else could I draw besides a land to make this hand even with an average hand of the opponent? Do ia have scry or card draw options in my hand? The tough part is knowing when six cards is better than 7 not so groovy cards. It easier when you go have to decide to keep a less than stellar 6. 5 card hands are a much bigger drop off from 6 Han 6 is from 7. And almost any 5 card hand is better than 4 except In a very few specific decks or if your opponent is mulling to 5 as well. Okay I'm getting to rambling on. I'll stop. Just love this topic. Thanks for writing about it!
Your article is definitely a great way to get us all thinking about how we attack is issue. I am neither too aggressive nor too passive. Take emotion out of it and think "if this were my opponents hand, would I be glad they kept it rather an mulliganing?" It's funny how switching perspective can clear the mind!
I'm going to try it and see. I know that in Legacy, you can always at least pitch Daze to force of will, or shuffle it away with a brainstorm/fetch activation. so I can see why it's much less powerful in pauper.
I plan on siding some or all out on the draw, as I am accustomed to.
I havent really loved CFB's pick evaluations since Born of the Gods. No disrespect to them, but I could probably not even have to play the format and come to the same conclusions. There not bad, but probably not the best either.
A lot of people have written articles and published decks that use Daze, and have posted seriously good results with those decks. Try as I might I seem to not be able to reproduce that success, and it's not like I have no experience playing mono blue, because I do, it's that I seem to only succeed with hard counters in my decks. If you can make 4 Daze work then do it.
I found it impossible to go infinite playing drafts despite consistently having limited rating in the range of 1800-1900 and taking money cards aggressively. I played in hundreds of drafts over the years, and lost hundreds of tickets. There have been times when I would win a lot, for example, I've so far netted more than 100 tix playing 3xFRF release drafts (over more than 50 drafts judging by the promo cards), but that is mostly just variance. You can have relatively long stretches of winning a lot and opening valuable cards. Human brains is very bad at seeing a larger picture and coping with variance, and running bad/good can easily make you misjudge your actual EV.
I think I lose approximately 1-2 tix on average on drafts despite raredrafting and being better than most players (judging by my rating), and would say it's pretty much impossible to go infinite *unless* you have crazy good limited rating. Prize structure is just bad in limited.
I even remember LSV saying or writing that he cant go infinite drafting.
If all you got out of Limited Resources is things like "don't buy packs from the store" then I don't think you tried very hard. I've been listening to Limited Resources for 2 years now and there is so much more to it than just that. In fact, a lot of what you said here is exactly what they say. They talk about tempo, card advantage, building a curve, knowing how to get the best EV out of a draft, what the best strategy is, how to look at a card within the context of the format, etc.
The reason there isn't a lot of information about going infinite in Limited is because you have to be extremely good at Limited in order to even have a chance. There's no other way around that. You can't easy mode it like Constructed and netdeck the best deck and have a reasonable shot even if your play skill isn't up to par yet. Limited magic doesn't allow that unless you consistently open bomb rares/mythics. Even then you can still lose with bombs in your deck. It's also lower EV to try to go infinite in Limited as opposed to Constructed because the winnings are far less in Limited: (+8 packs, - 3 packs 2 tix as opposed to +11 packs, - 6 tix).
I play BUG and formerly RUG Delver in legacy, and unless I have a Daze, I often don't play a delver or shaman turn one. I'm more likely to do so if I have two threats in my hand, and I'd play the one that I care less about dying first (ie: Delver instead of Shaman).
Your point is right on the money. A lot of people just run out a delver turn one without thinking much about it. If the deck you're facing doesn't have much or any one mana removal that can target it, then that's a different story.
On another note, I built a mono blue delver pauper deck. I have four dazes, is it wrong to add more than the two the list called for? I'm used to running four and it's pretty nice in my legacy deck.
Turn 1 delver is frequently a mistake when waiting would allow you to protect it.
I worry more about a cantrip on turn 1 setting up a delver+counter for turn two or three and them just sitting on protection and removal the rest of the game.
A turn one delver is just too easy to kill.
The UR list is more of a control deck: if you get to stick a delver on t1 fine, if you don't fine anyway. In fact in my (very limited) testing so far I had to decide several times whether to lead with t1 delver or t1 tap land and I always choose the latter, since having access to double blue on turn 2 is better than getting on the board early.
The UB instead is more of a tempo deck, like Legacy delver, it shares some cards but has a completely different gameplan.
Nice article. I was the guy that lost to you the other day, btw. I don't know a lot of the cards in the format yet, so I blew my counterspell on the wrong card foolishly. Not that I really knew enough about your deck anyway. I thought that the thought scour was you trying to put a creature in the graveyard for exhume. Your deck was pretty cool, seemed good.
Anyway, I've been playing a u/b reanimator list, no gurmag angler, just crusher. I had a lot of games that took me forever to do anything, but one game where I won on turn four. So, that's something I guess.
I've been noticing the gradual shift in lists as people try to better exploit Treasure Cruise.
The combo list is objectively the better deck but doesn't use Cruise as effectively.
Treasure Cruise is also the reason we are now seeing Evolving Wilds and Terramorphic Expanse in competitive lists.
Which in turn makes Brainstorms even better for the decks.
Recently a UB version has been turning up in the TP room and it looks even better as a control list than the UR version.
Though I wouldn't be surprised to see a hybrid list pop up.
Granted most of the deck pilots I've bumped into are pretty new with the lists and need match-up practice.
*afterthought* the current iteration of the UB delve list is very vulnerable to Relic of Progenitus, where the UR list isn't affected enough to be worth siding it in.
So prior to hate the UB list is more frightening, but post board the UR list is more resilient.
One of the things that makes the UB list so effective is the use of Mental Note and Thought Scour to fuel rapid delving.
The flip side of Fiorini's comment is the perception by some that because it is Gerry Thompson posting the articles he is above being criticized. Sorry, but a lot of those "articles" are just slapped together and posted. "Because it's free" is not a valid excuse.
You don't have to be a professional writer or singer or actor to deserve to have an opinion. Being a consumer is justification enough.
There will always be people who post negatively and troll just because they can. If someone gets his feelings hurt by negative opinions or disagreeing opinions then maybe that person should rethink participating in public forums. It goes with the territory. As soon as you "put yourself out there" you are inviting the possibility of a negative response.
Some websites will go so far as to sanitize the comments section by removing all negative responses. I don't think that's a good thing. Star City does that. A lot of the negative comments posted about Gerry's articles disappear. That's why it seems that there is less criticism than there was at first.
Yeah, the deck is really weak to Slaughter Games or Surgical Extraction type effects just because there is no plan B for the deck. Take away Ad Nauseam and the deck just can't win. Pretty devastating.
Was watching a vid by Travis Woo and he went on a tangent about how between rounds he was reading comments on You Tube and wasn't sure how he should react to a particularly nasty and unproductive comment from someone. He legit sounded shaken up by it. Evidence that there's always someone to play the idiot on the Internet even when you're an established pro.
He basically said its kind of part of his job, but that sometimes it is borderline hurtful. I looked for the comment but You Tube is such a cess pool I didn't get very far...
oh oh, seeing your data and comparing it to mine it seems financial justification is way down more unreliable then I thought before; tx, for sharing
What were you expecting? Some secret magical formula that would instantly let you go infinite? If there was a way to go infinite outside of being extremely good at limited + playing high EV events then it would have been discovered already. Maybe it wasn't explicitly said, but that's how Brian went infinite.
If you wanted to learn how to evaluate cards and/or the best draft strategies, that particular podcast was not for you because it wasn't about that. The topic wasn't about the current draft format or card evaluation, it was Brian talking about what he does on Magic Online. Most of every other podcast is about getting better and talking about cards as the weeks go on and other topics like card advantage, tempo, card evaluation, etc.
Besides, I don't see why you needed to call them out. It did nothing other than try to promote you as a better source of information compared to them (at least that's what it felt like).
You need more than 3 boosters and 2 tickets as your initial investment. Unless you're Michael Jacob, you're not going to win your first event and parlay that into an infinite bankroll. Even if you 4-3-2-2 and win round 1 but lose round 2, you're still down 1 pack + 2 tix. You can't always guarantee getting 4-5 tix of value out of the draft
I agree that the wait times in dailies suck, but there's nothing we can do about that. Maybe when we "eventually" get leagues it'll be better.
Have you tried 4-3-2-2's? I should have mentioned that its always best to draft a 4-3-2-2 over an 8-4 since its not terribly difficult to get out of the 1st round all the time. As long as you can win round 1, then as long as your drafting about 4-5 tix worth of cards, its not that hard to get ahead each time. I dont think a draft rating is very meaningful either since one loss kicks you down way harder than getting a single win. If you have a pattern to where you can get out of the first round and keep losing in the 2nd round in an 8-4, your going to get behind very easily. If you have the same thing happen to you in a 4-3-2-2. your chances of getting ahead are more likely.
Its true that theres variance in limited but theres lots of variance in constructed too. I played constructed for quite some time and really dont think that its terribly far off, especially for Standard and Modern since neither format has amazing card selection or ways of evening out variance. In limited there are at least patterns of what people are constantly taking that you can draft against. There is some advantage that you can gain in limited, while in constructed, once a format is established, theres no real edge you can gain.
Yes limited resources knows lots of things, but that particular podcast was very poor. There was nothing to really gain out of it unless your a total MODO noob. Thats great that I can buy packs from bots over the MTGO store, but if im getting bounced out of the first round every time, then what good does that do?
And yes, the EV is less for limited, but its a lot less time consuming and doesnt require any initial investment outside of the 3 boosters and 2x your playing with. Time and start up resources are worth more than EV sometimes. One of the things that made me quit constructed was how I had to sit in an event for 4 hours. The wait times in dailies are painfully slow. I like how in limited I can fire up que after que or multiple ques on demand. I like when I can actually win an event that only takes me 1-2 hours instead of spending 1/6th of my day trying to grind out a messly 9-12 tix if im lucky.
I always enjoy reading about other people's decision process in regards to, well, anything! I like the idea of determining a decks chance of drawing a playable hand. I tend to mulligan by feel. Of course, that only develops over a long period of time with the same deck. Initially I do somewhat like you suggest, but still feel some hands out that may look bad and flush hands that may look good.
One thing I'd add about calculating the odds to draw a card over several turns. And this is a side track, not a correction or anything. Just another consideration. Unfortunately, we can't just multiply by the number of draw steps under consideration as each draw is not cumulative. 5% chance to draw a card on one turn does not mean 10% over two turns. Let's say you have an 8% chance to draw 1 of 4 copies of a card with 50 cards in the deck. We certainly don't have a 120% chance over the next 15 draws (8%*15). All four copies could be buried way beyond 15 draw steps. The math gets so muddy it's better to stick with calculating only one draw and thinking of the second draw as a second chance at a slightly higher percentage. This comes into play when considering whether to mulligan if your chances of drawing a land by turn 3 are lower than your chance of drawing the lands needed in a six card hand. Drawing a land turn one is usually close to 46%. Usually 47-48% on turn 2, and maybe 49% on turn 3. The fact that you get three shots at close to 50% chance sounds great, but you've got 3 shots at 50% not to draw that land too.
That's why I tend to use non mathematical inquiry to decide. Can I maintain parity over three turns if I do not draw that land? If yes, keep. If no, how far behind will I fall if my opponent plays at normal strength for their deck? What else could I draw besides a land to make this hand even with an average hand of the opponent? Do ia have scry or card draw options in my hand? The tough part is knowing when six cards is better than 7 not so groovy cards. It easier when you go have to decide to keep a less than stellar 6. 5 card hands are a much bigger drop off from 6 Han 6 is from 7. And almost any 5 card hand is better than 4 except In a very few specific decks or if your opponent is mulling to 5 as well. Okay I'm getting to rambling on. I'll stop. Just love this topic. Thanks for writing about it!
Your article is definitely a great way to get us all thinking about how we attack is issue. I am neither too aggressive nor too passive. Take emotion out of it and think "if this were my opponents hand, would I be glad they kept it rather an mulliganing?" It's funny how switching perspective can clear the mind!
Keep the good stuff coming!!!
I'm going to try it and see. I know that in Legacy, you can always at least pitch Daze to force of will, or shuffle it away with a brainstorm/fetch activation. so I can see why it's much less powerful in pauper.
I plan on siding some or all out on the draw, as I am accustomed to.
I havent really loved CFB's pick evaluations since Born of the Gods. No disrespect to them, but I could probably not even have to play the format and come to the same conclusions. There not bad, but probably not the best either.
A lot of people have written articles and published decks that use Daze, and have posted seriously good results with those decks. Try as I might I seem to not be able to reproduce that success, and it's not like I have no experience playing mono blue, because I do, it's that I seem to only succeed with hard counters in my decks. If you can make 4 Daze work then do it.
I found it impossible to go infinite playing drafts despite consistently having limited rating in the range of 1800-1900 and taking money cards aggressively. I played in hundreds of drafts over the years, and lost hundreds of tickets. There have been times when I would win a lot, for example, I've so far netted more than 100 tix playing 3xFRF release drafts (over more than 50 drafts judging by the promo cards), but that is mostly just variance. You can have relatively long stretches of winning a lot and opening valuable cards. Human brains is very bad at seeing a larger picture and coping with variance, and running bad/good can easily make you misjudge your actual EV.
I think I lose approximately 1-2 tix on average on drafts despite raredrafting and being better than most players (judging by my rating), and would say it's pretty much impossible to go infinite *unless* you have crazy good limited rating. Prize structure is just bad in limited.
I even remember LSV saying or writing that he cant go infinite drafting.
If all you got out of Limited Resources is things like "don't buy packs from the store" then I don't think you tried very hard. I've been listening to Limited Resources for 2 years now and there is so much more to it than just that. In fact, a lot of what you said here is exactly what they say. They talk about tempo, card advantage, building a curve, knowing how to get the best EV out of a draft, what the best strategy is, how to look at a card within the context of the format, etc.
The reason there isn't a lot of information about going infinite in Limited is because you have to be extremely good at Limited in order to even have a chance. There's no other way around that. You can't easy mode it like Constructed and netdeck the best deck and have a reasonable shot even if your play skill isn't up to par yet. Limited magic doesn't allow that unless you consistently open bomb rares/mythics. Even then you can still lose with bombs in your deck. It's also lower EV to try to go infinite in Limited as opposed to Constructed because the winnings are far less in Limited: (+8 packs, - 3 packs 2 tix as opposed to +11 packs, - 6 tix).
I play BUG and formerly RUG Delver in legacy, and unless I have a Daze, I often don't play a delver or shaman turn one. I'm more likely to do so if I have two threats in my hand, and I'd play the one that I care less about dying first (ie: Delver instead of Shaman).
Your point is right on the money. A lot of people just run out a delver turn one without thinking much about it. If the deck you're facing doesn't have much or any one mana removal that can target it, then that's a different story.
On another note, I built a mono blue delver pauper deck. I have four dazes, is it wrong to add more than the two the list called for? I'm used to running four and it's pretty nice in my legacy deck.
Turn 1 delver is frequently a mistake when waiting would allow you to protect it.
I worry more about a cantrip on turn 1 setting up a delver+counter for turn two or three and them just sitting on protection and removal the rest of the game.
A turn one delver is just too easy to kill.
What do you think of pick order lists like the ones that came out from CFB's Martell and Karsten this week?
Whoops, please delete
The UR list is more of a control deck: if you get to stick a delver on t1 fine, if you don't fine anyway. In fact in my (very limited) testing so far I had to decide several times whether to lead with t1 delver or t1 tap land and I always choose the latter, since having access to double blue on turn 2 is better than getting on the board early.
The UB instead is more of a tempo deck, like Legacy delver, it shares some cards but has a completely different gameplan.
dare accepted. I normally pick truth, though.
I dare you to find a deck that runs daze that does not run delver :D
thanks Peter!
I'd like to brew my own deck. Something that puts my playset of Daze to good use. Not sure exactly what though. Probably Delver something or other.
Nice article. I was the guy that lost to you the other day, btw. I don't know a lot of the cards in the format yet, so I blew my counterspell on the wrong card foolishly. Not that I really knew enough about your deck anyway. I thought that the thought scour was you trying to put a creature in the graveyard for exhume. Your deck was pretty cool, seemed good.
Anyway, I've been playing a u/b reanimator list, no gurmag angler, just crusher. I had a lot of games that took me forever to do anything, but one game where I won on turn four. So, that's something I guess.
Great start, Woof. Look forward to part 2.
I've been noticing the gradual shift in lists as people try to better exploit Treasure Cruise.
The combo list is objectively the better deck but doesn't use Cruise as effectively.
Treasure Cruise is also the reason we are now seeing Evolving Wilds and Terramorphic Expanse in competitive lists.
Which in turn makes Brainstorms even better for the decks.
Recently a UB version has been turning up in the TP room and it looks even better as a control list than the UR version.
Though I wouldn't be surprised to see a hybrid list pop up.
Granted most of the deck pilots I've bumped into are pretty new with the lists and need match-up practice.
*afterthought* the current iteration of the UB delve list is very vulnerable to Relic of Progenitus, where the UR list isn't affected enough to be worth siding it in.
So prior to hate the UB list is more frightening, but post board the UR list is more resilient.
One of the things that makes the UB list so effective is the use of Mental Note and Thought Scour to fuel rapid delving.
The flip side of Fiorini's comment is the perception by some that because it is Gerry Thompson posting the articles he is above being criticized. Sorry, but a lot of those "articles" are just slapped together and posted. "Because it's free" is not a valid excuse.
You don't have to be a professional writer or singer or actor to deserve to have an opinion. Being a consumer is justification enough.
There will always be people who post negatively and troll just because they can. If someone gets his feelings hurt by negative opinions or disagreeing opinions then maybe that person should rethink participating in public forums. It goes with the territory. As soon as you "put yourself out there" you are inviting the possibility of a negative response.
Some websites will go so far as to sanitize the comments section by removing all negative responses. I don't think that's a good thing. Star City does that. A lot of the negative comments posted about Gerry's articles disappear. That's why it seems that there is less criticism than there was at first.
Yeah, the deck is really weak to Slaughter Games or Surgical Extraction type effects just because there is no plan B for the deck. Take away Ad Nauseam and the deck just can't win. Pretty devastating.
Was watching a vid by Travis Woo and he went on a tangent about how between rounds he was reading comments on You Tube and wasn't sure how he should react to a particularly nasty and unproductive comment from someone. He legit sounded shaken up by it. Evidence that there's always someone to play the idiot on the Internet even when you're an established pro.
He basically said its kind of part of his job, but that sometimes it is borderline hurtful. I looked for the comment but You Tube is such a cess pool I didn't get very far...
So at least we're in good company.