Kaleidoscope-Singleton voting.
Players are being asked the question: "Do you want for Kaleidoscope to replace HALF the Singleton events from now on?" (resulting in 6 Singleton events + 6 Kaleidoscope events per year)
The current tally will be update below. 30 votes needed before a decision will be taken.
I agree Naoto it was annoying... I suppose though the question next is it annoying but fair as a strategy or annoying and not an acceptable strategy. I fall to the later personally.
Since you mentioned Earthbind, I'd like to remember the great Quinton Hoover. Next week, April 20, will be one year since his untimely death.
A small suggestion, Pete: can you put rank numbers on the Good Stuff list? I'd like to check how many cards over $25 there are at any given week (this week: 53), and which position a specific card occupies.
I think the biggest issue Wizards has to tackle with Vintage Masters is the need to balance two things: their own stated desire to have it be at least as good at draft as MMA, and the need to include certain vintage staples that are in short supply. It seems very likely that VM will have duals lands, possibly FoW too.
Especially, I really liked to see new evolution steps of the Red Midrange deck. I was looking forward to see its current version after your previous comments about it.
Midrange Green deck with Primal Command is also fantastic. It's hard to stop that deck normally, when it has the right pieces there or Primal Command to tutor & Plow Under.
I just suggested the Demigod as an alternative, but I think the Merchant is better. Maybe just something in the side if you need air power? It's true that in this deck it wouldn't really exploit its recursion, but if you manage to pod into it, then follow up with a Merchant (if you start with a Redcap, it's easy to do), you'll probably win, as that's potentially 19 damage right there.
It's true that creatures at CMC 1 & 2 range and also Geralf's Messenger are not contributing much to protect yourself during the early turns, which can be deadly against some type of decks. Maybe, I should decrease their numbers. I got some concerns about them since the beginning and they mostly become true.
CMC 3: Cadaver Imp will really fit here. Somehow, I had missed this one during my research.
CMC 4: Entomber Exarch seems good, I will try it at Disciple of Bolas' spot.
CMC 5: I have thought about Demigod of Revenge, but didn't think that it will worth it as 1 copy. Maybe, I can change the structure at CMC 5 curve to utilize x2 or 3x Demigod of Revenge with a single Gray Merchant of Asphodel.
Gary does seem like a positive upgrade for one of our old favorites (well mine anyway). Entomber is a good thought, but seems more like a side vs certain style decks. Also, at 4 cmc Obliterator is hard to replace.
I never committed to monoblack Pod, I'm interested to try it. In this build, I kinda fear the high number of early creatures that can't block. I played a black devotion deck for a while, and I ended up taking out Geralf's Messenger because come turn 3 I needed to block the aggro assault, and it didn't help. Of course in a Pod deck the advantage of the Messenger is of a different kind. Still, I would probably cut a couple of the 10 recurring creatures at CMC 1-2. You really need that many? They mostly only make you jump ahead with the Pod, but if you don't draw into the Pod, don't you end up with too many things that can't trade and don't compare with the clock of an average aggro or aggro/burn deck?
Akuta and Puppeteer Clique are nice. I never played them, I'll try them for sure.
Skinrender doesn't have to be underestimated. Murderous Redcap can't kill the nasty things Skinrender can kill or at least neutralize, including indestructible and regenerating guys.
At CMC 3 you have Cadaver Imp for recursion in a quasi-Eternal Witness role. And you should keep a Big Game Hunter in the side (also Spellskite). Big Game Hunter kills Emrakul.
At CMC 4, I suggest to try 1-2 Entomber Exarch, because you want to be sure the opponent doesn't have Path to Exile in hand before committing your big pieces to the board.
At CMC 5 you also have the demigods. All the black-based ones are good except Deity of Scars. Demigod of Revenge can be lethal (this deck doesn't have many flyers otherwise).
I understand where you're coming from. As far as reader intelligence, I'm not trying to talk down or say anyone is stupid. It is just my belief that assuming a less extensive knowledge makes the articles easier to read/understand/etc for everyone. I have taken note of the responses of interest in how I calculate my metrics, and I will definitely be trying to make a point to explaining that. I really do appreciate the feedback/criticism, and I will definitely keep it in mind going forward. I just took some exception to your "doubting" of my statistic interest or ability. Once again, thank you for the feedback, and please continue to give me suggestions in the future.
Second, the shuffler thread can be a lot of fun to read and you should frequent the official forums more often, if you had not seen it before.
Third, I am not suggesting that you should explain your simulation. The simulation is over-kill. It is crossing the bridge to get water etc. You get my point. You do simulations, when you cannot easily calculate probabilities from a closed form solution, this is very very very far from the case here. You make it sound like the hypergeometric distribution is rocket science. It is not. It's stat 101. And you could easily explain how to calculate probabilities from that distribution using Excel, so that even non-stat-geeks with no prior knowledge about Excel could do it.
Fourth, don't under-estimate your readers' abilities to read numbers or their interest in how you get to your results. Talking down to your readers, should be avoided. Reading comments from your earlier articles on something about a price-metric(?), people also wanted to know exactly what you did.
Fifth, I appreciate you taking time to explain your reasoning, but I disagree on point A and C. Whereas point B is probably true.
First of all, thank you for reading. Unfortunately, I acknowledge that I have not read every piece of every Magic literature on the internet, so I had not seen the post to which you are alluding. What I do know is that I have not seen anything like what I have presented on this website, or the websites that I frequent. I do not claim to be the only person to have figured out these probabilities (like I said, there are equations and I am sure other people have presented them).
If I wrote this article explaining how to run these simulations in Excel, I don't really know if that adds any value. I'm going on the assumptions that A. People who want this info don't want to do the work to derive it. B. Not all of my readers are Excel savvy. C. Readers understand visualization better than hard numbers.
If A or B are true, then explaining how to create this simulation would be useless. Nobody would care, they just want the results, which is what I'm presenting. Running the simulation through a Monte Carlo simulation with the proper setup and mapping is incredibly difficult to explain to a reader who may have no Excel knowledge. Yes, there are Excel functions that can calculate these numbers, but running a full simulation is not the same thing.
I appreciate you reading the article, and thank you for your feedback, but I disagree with your points of criticism.
The first thing that comes to mind is both to protect Bob late game, and as flying sword bearers. It could simply be an evolutionary remnant (that still somewhat works) from an earlier build.
Mine is not to question why
Mine is but to show the try
There Bubba gives you all the probabilities in the bottom tables.
Somehow I also doubt that you are a stat geek. Or at least the simulations are not really impressing me, when the exact formula is easy to use (and implemented in Excel, see HYPGEOM.DIST). 500,000 simulations as stated in the teaser text, when you can just plug 5 numbers into an Excel-function. Had you used and explained the Excel-function then readers could also do their own calculations for other combinations of deck size and land numbers. That would be closer to bringing something new to the table.
I don't get the purpose of the Restos in the first deck. There are plenty of flying beaters that are better if it doesn't actually ever resolve its ETB ability for profit. Is it to protect Bob from removal because that seems a little silly to me. I am curious how the deck managed to go 3-1 or maybe it was the power level despite the restos sub-optimal slot.
Yeah, this article actually came out of my own effort to improve my own game in this way. Since writing it, I think my decision making is more sound. Yes, I think it's an art, but I think understanding your probabilities can give you the maximum amount of information to make a good decision.
Good job once again. This is an area of my game where I am really trying to improve. I think it takes a lot of discipline to get good at this, because you always hope that those shaky hands are going to get the help that they need. And then sometimes you worry that if you ship a close hand, you'll mull yourself into oblivion and give away the game. I think it is an art! My latest project is to get better at sending back 5-land hands.
The diversity of opinions on the dredge vs esper matchup is fascinating :). You agree with me that it favours dredge, while simon in the comments (and I know Michael Jacobs) thinks that it favours esper. Based on my matches in queues, it felt almost unloseable on the dredge side of things and I think that accords with fundamentals - dredge has the better late game and esper can't be the beatdown unless it gets lucky. I'll be interested to see how this plays out, I will note that in the second week of stats here, dredge went from 25% -> 39% of the meta while esper fell from about 25% to 20%. I don't think this is a coincidence.
What needs to be in Journey to Nyx? Hmm... Let me see... Well, so far we have cards to copy creatures, artifacts, lands, enchantments, instants and sorceries. Basically we can copy every card type there is except one. And you know what's missing? A card to copy planeswalkers! Now THAT would be sweet!
Kaleidoscope-Singleton voting.
Players are being asked the question: "Do you want for Kaleidoscope to replace HALF the Singleton events from now on?" (resulting in 6 Singleton events + 6 Kaleidoscope events per year)
The current tally will be update below. 30 votes needed before a decision will be taken.
Pro-Kaleidoscope: romellos, Gq1rf7, mihahitlor, AJ_Impy, justcanceled, RexDart, Winter.Wolf, brettmemphis1989, smawatts, ChNidox
TOTAL: 10
Pro-Singleton: MisterMojoRising, Dawwy, ML_Berlin, Gonzzy, longtimegone, arcbounddaylabor
TOTAL: 6
Abstained: Lord Erman
TOTAL: 1
TOTAL VOTES: 17
Thanks a lot! It was a lot of fun to draft, and I appreciate the comments. Next time it comes around I will definitely give it another shot.
I agree Naoto it was annoying... I suppose though the question next is it annoying but fair as a strategy or annoying and not an acceptable strategy. I fall to the later personally.
Wow I did not realize he died. He was definitely one of the seminal artists of this field. How very sad.
Looks like it was a fun draft - I remember enjoying drafting in that block a lot. Very nicely laid out article as well, thanks for the good read.
Since you mentioned Earthbind, I'd like to remember the great Quinton Hoover. Next week, April 20, will be one year since his untimely death.
A small suggestion, Pete: can you put rank numbers on the Good Stuff list? I'd like to check how many cards over $25 there are at any given week (this week: 53), and which position a specific card occupies.
I think the biggest issue Wizards has to tackle with Vintage Masters is the need to balance two things: their own stated desire to have it be at least as good at draft as MMA, and the need to include certain vintage staples that are in short supply. It seems very likely that VM will have duals lands, possibly FoW too.
Great article.
Especially, I really liked to see new evolution steps of the Red Midrange deck. I was looking forward to see its current version after your previous comments about it.
Midrange Green deck with Primal Command is also fantastic. It's hard to stop that deck normally, when it has the right pieces there or Primal Command to tutor & Plow Under.
I just suggested the Demigod as an alternative, but I think the Merchant is better. Maybe just something in the side if you need air power? It's true that in this deck it wouldn't really exploit its recursion, but if you manage to pod into it, then follow up with a Merchant (if you start with a Redcap, it's easy to do), you'll probably win, as that's potentially 19 damage right there.
Thank you very much for your comments.
It's true that creatures at CMC 1 & 2 range and also Geralf's Messenger are not contributing much to protect yourself during the early turns, which can be deadly against some type of decks. Maybe, I should decrease their numbers. I got some concerns about them since the beginning and they mostly become true.
CMC 3: Cadaver Imp will really fit here. Somehow, I had missed this one during my research.
CMC 4: Entomber Exarch seems good, I will try it at Disciple of Bolas' spot.
CMC 5: I have thought about Demigod of Revenge, but didn't think that it will worth it as 1 copy. Maybe, I can change the structure at CMC 5 curve to utilize x2 or 3x Demigod of Revenge with a single Gray Merchant of Asphodel.
Gary does seem like a positive upgrade for one of our old favorites (well mine anyway). Entomber is a good thought, but seems more like a side vs certain style decks. Also, at 4 cmc Obliterator is hard to replace.
I never committed to monoblack Pod, I'm interested to try it. In this build, I kinda fear the high number of early creatures that can't block. I played a black devotion deck for a while, and I ended up taking out Geralf's Messenger because come turn 3 I needed to block the aggro assault, and it didn't help. Of course in a Pod deck the advantage of the Messenger is of a different kind. Still, I would probably cut a couple of the 10 recurring creatures at CMC 1-2. You really need that many? They mostly only make you jump ahead with the Pod, but if you don't draw into the Pod, don't you end up with too many things that can't trade and don't compare with the clock of an average aggro or aggro/burn deck?
Akuta and Puppeteer Clique are nice. I never played them, I'll try them for sure.
Skinrender doesn't have to be underestimated. Murderous Redcap can't kill the nasty things Skinrender can kill or at least neutralize, including indestructible and regenerating guys.
At CMC 3 you have Cadaver Imp for recursion in a quasi-Eternal Witness role. And you should keep a Big Game Hunter in the side (also Spellskite). Big Game Hunter kills Emrakul.
At CMC 4, I suggest to try 1-2 Entomber Exarch, because you want to be sure the opponent doesn't have Path to Exile in hand before committing your big pieces to the board.
At CMC 5 you also have the demigods. All the black-based ones are good except Deity of Scars. Demigod of Revenge can be lethal (this deck doesn't have many flyers otherwise).
[wrong account]
I understand where you're coming from. As far as reader intelligence, I'm not trying to talk down or say anyone is stupid. It is just my belief that assuming a less extensive knowledge makes the articles easier to read/understand/etc for everyone. I have taken note of the responses of interest in how I calculate my metrics, and I will definitely be trying to make a point to explaining that. I really do appreciate the feedback/criticism, and I will definitely keep it in mind going forward. I just took some exception to your "doubting" of my statistic interest or ability. Once again, thank you for the feedback, and please continue to give me suggestions in the future.
First of all, thanks for the response.
Second, the shuffler thread can be a lot of fun to read and you should frequent the official forums more often, if you had not seen it before.
Third, I am not suggesting that you should explain your simulation. The simulation is over-kill. It is crossing the bridge to get water etc. You get my point. You do simulations, when you cannot easily calculate probabilities from a closed form solution, this is very very very far from the case here. You make it sound like the hypergeometric distribution is rocket science. It is not. It's stat 101. And you could easily explain how to calculate probabilities from that distribution using Excel, so that even non-stat-geeks with no prior knowledge about Excel could do it.
Fourth, don't under-estimate your readers' abilities to read numbers or their interest in how you get to your results. Talking down to your readers, should be avoided. Reading comments from your earlier articles on something about a price-metric(?), people also wanted to know exactly what you did.
Fifth, I appreciate you taking time to explain your reasoning, but I disagree on point A and C. Whereas point B is probably true.
Thanks!
First of all, thank you for reading. Unfortunately, I acknowledge that I have not read every piece of every Magic literature on the internet, so I had not seen the post to which you are alluding. What I do know is that I have not seen anything like what I have presented on this website, or the websites that I frequent. I do not claim to be the only person to have figured out these probabilities (like I said, there are equations and I am sure other people have presented them).
If I wrote this article explaining how to run these simulations in Excel, I don't really know if that adds any value. I'm going on the assumptions that A. People who want this info don't want to do the work to derive it. B. Not all of my readers are Excel savvy. C. Readers understand visualization better than hard numbers.
If A or B are true, then explaining how to create this simulation would be useless. Nobody would care, they just want the results, which is what I'm presenting. Running the simulation through a Monte Carlo simulation with the proper setup and mapping is incredibly difficult to explain to a reader who may have no Excel knowledge. Yes, there are Excel functions that can calculate these numbers, but running a full simulation is not the same thing.
I appreciate you reading the article, and thank you for your feedback, but I disagree with your points of criticism.
The first thing that comes to mind is both to protect Bob late game, and as flying sword bearers. It could simply be an evolutionary remnant (that still somewhat works) from an earlier build.
Mine is not to question why
Mine is but to show the try
People seem to like your article. But allow me to be the bitter old man:
I am struggling to see what new knowledge you are bringing to the table. You should read the first post in the forum thread 'The shuffler thread for a new generation' http://community.wizards.com/forum/magic-online-general/threads/1025716
There Bubba gives you all the probabilities in the bottom tables.
Somehow I also doubt that you are a stat geek. Or at least the simulations are not really impressing me, when the exact formula is easy to use (and implemented in Excel, see HYPGEOM.DIST). 500,000 simulations as stated in the teaser text, when you can just plug 5 numbers into an Excel-function. Had you used and explained the Excel-function then readers could also do their own calculations for other combinations of deck size and land numbers. That would be closer to bringing something new to the table.
I don't get the purpose of the Restos in the first deck. There are plenty of flying beaters that are better if it doesn't actually ever resolve its ETB ability for profit. Is it to protect Bob from removal because that seems a little silly to me. I am curious how the deck managed to go 3-1 or maybe it was the power level despite the restos sub-optimal slot.
Yeah, this article actually came out of my own effort to improve my own game in this way. Since writing it, I think my decision making is more sound. Yes, I think it's an art, but I think understanding your probabilities can give you the maximum amount of information to make a good decision.
Good job once again. This is an area of my game where I am really trying to improve. I think it takes a lot of discipline to get good at this, because you always hope that those shaky hands are going to get the help that they need. And then sometimes you worry that if you ship a close hand, you'll mull yourself into oblivion and give away the game. I think it is an art! My latest project is to get better at sending back 5-land hands.
[double post]
The diversity of opinions on the dredge vs esper matchup is fascinating :). You agree with me that it favours dredge, while simon in the comments (and I know Michael Jacobs) thinks that it favours esper. Based on my matches in queues, it felt almost unloseable on the dredge side of things and I think that accords with fundamentals - dredge has the better late game and esper can't be the beatdown unless it gets lucky. I'll be interested to see how this plays out, I will note that in the second week of stats here, dredge went from 25% -> 39% of the meta while esper fell from about 25% to 20%. I don't think this is a coincidence.
What needs to be in Journey to Nyx? Hmm... Let me see... Well, so far we have cards to copy creatures, artifacts, lands, enchantments, instants and sorceries. Basically we can copy every card type there is except one. And you know what's missing? A card to copy planeswalkers! Now THAT would be sweet!