I went to FNM with my friend on Friday Night. The store I play at only does 3 games. My friend went undefeated and was 3-0, having only loss a single "round" all night. So in 3 matches, he went 6 "round" wins and 1 "round" loss. He was 3-0 with a total of 6 "round wins" and 1 "round" loss. However, the owner of the store gave first place status to another player, who was also 3-0, but had a bye in the first game. If you add up the total amount of rounds won and loss, my friend went 6-1 and the other player went 5-0. At least, according to the theory that getting a bye counts as a 1-0 and not a 2-0. When we explained that the player who got the bye shouldn't be first place, the owner of the store just shrugged and said "The computer said that the Bye player won by 0.111" and gave the first place prize to the Bye player.
My friend was visibly disappointed in the result since he never got first place in a Draft, but was conciliatory of the overall result and didn't complain. However, I still think he deserved to win 1st place no matter what a computer output thinks, and the store owner should have given my friend first place prizes. The other player, even tho he went undefeated, got a bye in the first game of the night.
I'm assuming you're simply reversing what's commonly meant by "game" and "round," because a round (or match, the terms are interchangeable) is where players are paired up and each pairing goes until one player wins two games.
At any rate, tiebreakers don't quite work the way you described. The first determinant of placing is, obviously, match wins based on Swiss points. 3 points for a match win, 1 point for a draw, 0 points for a match loss. So at the end of a three-round event, an undefeated player (like your friend and the other player) would have 3 match wins, or 9 match points.
The next tiebreaker is actually the player's opponents' match win percentages. In short, a player whose opponents won a greater proportion of their matches will place more highly than a player whose opponents lost a greater proportion of their matches. For instance, let's say your friend played against three players who went 0-3, 1-2, and 2-1. Therefore, your friend's opponent's match win percent would be 33.3% (out of 9 rounds between them, the opponents won 3 matches combined). If the other player played against two players who went, say, 2-1 and 2-1 (the bye basically counts as null here), then their opponent's match win percent would be 66.7% (out of 6 rounds that count for this, the opponents won 4 combined). The other player would therefore place higher than your friend, even though both had the same number of match wins. The next tiebreaker after opponents' match win percent is your own game win percent, then your opponents' game win percent.
A first-round bye is a tremendous advantage when it comes to potential standings, because it removes the possibility of your first-round opponent being someone who will have a terrible record, but that's just how things work. Your friend's situation is unfortunate, but consistent with how the Magic tournament rules work. This is also why capping rounds below the suggested number based on attendance (8 players is 3 rounds, 9-16 players is 4 rounds, 17-32 players is 5 rounds, etc) can lead to messy results, because then there's no clear winner based on match wins, so it has to go to tiebreakers. And that's just not fun for anyone involved.
The owner is technically correct, as he handled it the way most Magic tournaments do. The first think used in determining how to break a tie is opponents' match win%, which often gives players with early byes an edge (i.e. the player your friend beat first round dragged down his Opponent Match Win %).
But from a fairness angle I completely agree with you. I think that the system should be tweaked such that byes don't carry that added advantage, on top of already being huge advantages in the form of free wins.
(FWIW your focus on the game wins, or rounds as you call them, is irrelevant. That measure is only used if the other tie-breakers don't break the tie. And in this case the other player did have a high game win %, going 4-0 vs 5-1.)
And in this case the other player did have a high game win %, going 4-0 vs 5-1.
Quite. The OP's friend's game win percent would be 85.7% (6-1 meaning 6 wins out of 7 total games) to the other player's 100% (4-0 meaning 4 wins out of 4 total games—the bye is irrelevant here).
I agree that it seems unfair, but there's only so much the system can do. It has to ensure fairness, and "which one played against better opponents?" is as good a method as they'll reasonably get.
I've had something similar happen. 8 players, 3 rounds.
I win round 1 against someone who went 0-3, and round 2 against the guy who also went 2-1, round 3 I lose to the one going 3-0
Opponent wins round 1 against someone who went 1-2, round 2 against me, round 3 a win against someone going 2-1.
I end up getting 3rd behind my 2nd round opponent despite beating him in round 2. Sounds fair? Not at all, but the way the system works...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Um, I thought byes counted as a 2/0 win against an opponent with a 100% win ratio. At least that's how it was changed to recently I thought. In which case his tye breakers would be great
Um, I thought byes counted as a 2/0 win against an opponent with a 100% win ratio. At least that's how it was changed to recently I thought. In which case his tye breakers would be great
The calculations in the Magic Tournament Rules specify "ignoring those rounds for which the player received a bye." In other words, it's a win as far as Swiss points are considered, and null as far as match/game win percents are considered.
As I'm thinking about it... here's how the 1st place winner's games went down compared to my friend's games.
My friend "Darwin"
Game 1: 2(Darwin)-0(Jenn)
Game 2: 2(Darwin)-1(Stu)
Game 3: 2(Darwin)-0(Terry)
Total: 6 to 1
The player who eventually got first place, "Jake"
Game 1: BYE
Game 2: 2(Jake)-0 (Adrian)
Game 3: 2(Jake)-0 (Martell)
Total: (4 + BYE) to 0
From what I remember.. here are each opponents scores
(People who played against Darwin)
Jenn: (0-2, ??, ??). Darwin defeated this player and neither of us kept track of Jenn's win/loss record.
Stu: (1-2, 1-2, ??). We still dont' know why Stu got paired up against Darwin, because Stu lost his previous game and was paired against an (at least at the time), an undefeated player.
Terry: (2-1, 2-1, 0-2) This is player my friend beat in the last match of the night.
Adding up those who beat Darwin would be (3-6).
(People who played against Jake)
Adrian: (2-0, 0-2, ??) Adrian's second match is the game that Jake won after getting a bye. I know that Adrian won his first game easily, but lost badly to Jake (the guy who eventually was declared 1st place).
Martell: (?-? .. probably a win... ?-?... probably another win... 0-2 Jake).
Adding up those who lost to Jake (2 + ?, ? + ? + 0)= 2 + 0.
I know this all looks super weird and pretty much pointless... but I still can't help but believe that Darwin still deserved to win first place. But at this point, I guess we'll never really know.
Um, I thought byes counted as a 2/0 win against an opponent with a 100% win ratio. At least that's how it was changed to recently I thought. In which case his tye breakers would be great
The calculations in the Magic Tournament Rules specify "ignoring those rounds for which the player received a bye." In other words, it's a win as far as Swiss points are considered, and null as far as match/game win percents are considered.
Hmm, so why did i have Judges at GP Manchester this year telling me byes were 2/0 wins against a opponent with 100% win ratio?
A bye is counted as a 2-0 win for the match points and the game-win percentage, and is ignored for the opponents' match-win and opponents' game-win percentages. So in this case the other player has a 6-0 (100%) game-win percentage, not 4-0.
Quote from MTR »
Byes
When a player is assigned a bye for a round, he or she is considered to have won the match 2–0.
Thus, that player earns 3 match points and 6 game points. A player’s byes are ignored when computing his or her
opponents’ match-win and opponents’ game-win percentages.
The OP's friend's game win percent would be 85.7% (6-1 meaning 6 wins out of 7 total games) to the other player's 100% (4-0 meaning 4 wins out of 4 total games—the bye is irrelevant here).
This doesn't make any sense to me. If a player goes to a tournament consisting of 100 games, what if a player randomly gets 99 byes and 1 win playing actual cards, that the bye player should still be declared "1st place" even though another player is 100 Wins and 0.5 loses (200 rounds won to 1 loss), the bye player still deserves to be declared the 1st place winner?
The OP's friend's game win percent would be 85.7% (6-1 meaning 6 wins out of 7 total games) to the other player's 100% (4-0 meaning 4 wins out of 4 total games—the bye is irrelevant here).
This doesn't make any sense to me. If a player goes to a tournament consisting of 100 games, what if a player randomly gets 99 byes and 1 win playing actual cards, that the bye player should still be declared "1st place" even though another player is 100 Wins and 0.5 loses (200 rounds won to 1 loss), the bye player still deserves to be declared the 1st place winner?
This is impossible. You can only ever get one bye in a tournament.
Here's the thing. You basically want byes to be worth less then a normal win, right? This simply doesn't work, because it would mean that in large tournament with an uneven amount of players (or with "inherent" byes like a GP), the player awarded a bye in round one (which is 100% random) would have a significantly reduced chance of winning the event. And I mean really, really significant. In large PTQs, if a bye were worth less then a normal win, you might as well just quit the tournament, because you wouldn't even be allowed a single loss. With the current system, it is slightly helpful, but you still need those 7 match wins to get to top 8.
The OP's friend's game win percent would be 85.7% (6-1 meaning 6 wins out of 7 total games) to the other player's 100% (4-0 meaning 4 wins out of 4 total games—the bye is irrelevant here).
This doesn't make any sense to me. If a player goes to a tournament consisting of 100 games, what if a player randomly gets 99 byes and 1 win playing actual cards, that the bye player should still be declared "1st place" even though another player is 100 Wins and 0.5 loses (200 rounds won to 1 loss), the bye player still deserves to be declared the 1st place winner?
</blockquote>
Byes are typically given to the player with the worst record (in a tournament with an odd number of players). At the higher level of play, though, it is often common for players to meet some sort of qualification for X number of byes.
It's not a matter of "deserve" (this seems to be what you're having the most trouble with accepting). These are the tournament rules. They are what they are.
The OP's friend's game win percent would be 85.7% (6-1 meaning 6 wins out of 7 total games) to the other player's 100% (4-0 meaning 4 wins out of 4 total games—the bye is irrelevant here).
This doesn't make any sense to me. If a player goes to a tournament consisting of 100 games, what if a player randomly gets 99 byes and 1 win playing actual cards, that the bye player should still be declared "1st place" even though another player is 100 Wins and 0.5 loses (200 rounds won to 1 loss), the bye player still deserves to be declared the 1st place winner?
</blockquote>
Deserves? No, I don't think so.
By the rules of the tournaments that we all abide by? Yes, they should be the winner.
First round bye is random, so the player that receives it should not be punished for that.
The real deal is, if you want a good end-result, play in numbers that actual provide a clear winner that is not decided by other % values, allways make your pools even without byes, if you can (so if you have 2 FNM, make them even out, not both with byes).
In the end, if you cant avoid it, theres no "fair" solution.
This tournament was a three-round swiss with no top 8 cut, yet prizes were still awarded in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on placings? That's ridiculous. A three-round swiss FNM tournament should have set prizes for different win/loss ratios, regardless of tiebreakers. Attempting to actually determine a first place winner out of a large number of players with only three rounds is absurd.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
This tournament was a three-round swiss with no top 8 cut, yet prizes were still awarded in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on placings? That's ridiculous. A three-round swiss FNM tournament should have set prizes for different win/loss ratios, regardless of tiebreakers. Attempting to actually determine a first place winner out of a large number of players with only three rounds is absurd.
I don't think the described situation would count as having 'a large number of players'. It sounds like it was just a 9 or 11-player event.
It was a 9-person draft, single pod. Another odd thing is that in one pack that was passed around, there were 3 "Witches Familiar" (the 2/3 Frog creature), in a single pack. Anyways, even the guy who got the bye and won first place conceded that my friend should have gotten 1st place. While I understand why and how the numbers worked out so that the bye player won first place, it still felt kinda unfair to my friend. We contemplated about not playing at that store again.
Thanks for everyone's thoughtful replies, and your explanations were helpful to us.
The store did it the right way. A Bye is the same as a win against an opponent without a loss. Both he and your friend were 3-0, so it went to tiebreakers.
Honestly in a 9 person tournament that doesn't do a top 2 or top 4, there really is no "fair" way to do it. Magic players will complain about anything. Maybe you do the top 2 and your friend loses 1-2. Then he may feel that it should be the best of 5, like the Pro Tour. Since there is no real way of appeasing everyone, they have the current system that they have. If the Bye gave a poor tiebreaker, you would see a lot of players leave the tournament after their Bye, probably without even dropping.
Also if that player and your friend believe that it's not fair, they can play out the match on their own time and "bet" $5-10 on the match.
Last night, I was sitting at Table 2 with 8 players at 3-1 and the Table 1 players at 4-0. I won my match, but fell from 3rd to 4th. Did I complain about it? No, I realize that my opponents didn't do too well and the guy who skipped me into 3rd had opponents who did better than mine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Regardless of how the result of this tournament played out, if your store is running a set number of rounds rather than the recommended number of swiss rounds, they should be paying out by number of wins/points/record rather than by final tournament standing, which can be too dependent on tiebreakers (to which you so clearly fell victim).
Sorry for the double-post, but here is your problem. A tournament with 9-16 players should be playing four rounds.
This is true. I forgot about that. The store owner probably made it 3 rounds so that they could leave early. Four rounds would have a single 4-0 player.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Sorry for the double-post, but here is your problem. A tournament with 9-16 players should be playing four rounds.
This is true. I forgot about that. The store owner probably made it 3 rounds so that they could leave early. Four rounds would have a single 4-0 player.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I went to FNM with my friend on Friday Night. The store I play at only does 3 games. My friend went undefeated and was 3-0, having only loss a single "round" all night. So in 3 matches, he went 6 "round" wins and 1 "round" loss. He was 3-0 with a total of 6 "round wins" and 1 "round" loss. However, the owner of the store gave first place status to another player, who was also 3-0, but had a bye in the first game. If you add up the total amount of rounds won and loss, my friend went 6-1 and the other player went 5-0. At least, according to the theory that getting a bye counts as a 1-0 and not a 2-0. When we explained that the player who got the bye shouldn't be first place, the owner of the store just shrugged and said "The computer said that the Bye player won by 0.111" and gave the first place prize to the Bye player.
My friend was visibly disappointed in the result since he never got first place in a Draft, but was conciliatory of the overall result and didn't complain. However, I still think he deserved to win 1st place no matter what a computer output thinks, and the store owner should have given my friend first place prizes. The other player, even tho he went undefeated, got a bye in the first game of the night.
Your thoughts?
Thanks
At any rate, tiebreakers don't quite work the way you described. The first determinant of placing is, obviously, match wins based on Swiss points. 3 points for a match win, 1 point for a draw, 0 points for a match loss. So at the end of a three-round event, an undefeated player (like your friend and the other player) would have 3 match wins, or 9 match points.
The next tiebreaker is actually the player's opponents' match win percentages. In short, a player whose opponents won a greater proportion of their matches will place more highly than a player whose opponents lost a greater proportion of their matches. For instance, let's say your friend played against three players who went 0-3, 1-2, and 2-1. Therefore, your friend's opponent's match win percent would be 33.3% (out of 9 rounds between them, the opponents won 3 matches combined). If the other player played against two players who went, say, 2-1 and 2-1 (the bye basically counts as null here), then their opponent's match win percent would be 66.7% (out of 6 rounds that count for this, the opponents won 4 combined). The other player would therefore place higher than your friend, even though both had the same number of match wins. The next tiebreaker after opponents' match win percent is your own game win percent, then your opponents' game win percent.
A first-round bye is a tremendous advantage when it comes to potential standings, because it removes the possibility of your first-round opponent being someone who will have a terrible record, but that's just how things work. Your friend's situation is unfortunate, but consistent with how the Magic tournament rules work. This is also why capping rounds below the suggested number based on attendance (8 players is 3 rounds, 9-16 players is 4 rounds, 17-32 players is 5 rounds, etc) can lead to messy results, because then there's no clear winner based on match wins, so it has to go to tiebreakers. And that's just not fun for anyone involved.
But from a fairness angle I completely agree with you. I think that the system should be tweaked such that byes don't carry that added advantage, on top of already being huge advantages in the form of free wins.
(FWIW your focus on the game wins, or rounds as you call them, is irrelevant. That measure is only used if the other tie-breakers don't break the tie. And in this case the other player did have a high game win %, going 4-0 vs 5-1.)
Quite. The OP's friend's game win percent would be 85.7% (6-1 meaning 6 wins out of 7 total games) to the other player's 100% (4-0 meaning 4 wins out of 4 total games—the bye is irrelevant here).
I agree that it seems unfair, but there's only so much the system can do. It has to ensure fairness, and "which one played against better opponents?" is as good a method as they'll reasonably get.
I win round 1 against someone who went 0-3, and round 2 against the guy who also went 2-1, round 3 I lose to the one going 3-0
Opponent wins round 1 against someone who went 1-2, round 2 against me, round 3 a win against someone going 2-1.
I end up getting 3rd behind my 2nd round opponent despite beating him in round 2. Sounds fair? Not at all, but the way the system works...
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
The calculations in the Magic Tournament Rules specify "ignoring those rounds for which the player received a bye." In other words, it's a win as far as Swiss points are considered, and null as far as match/game win percents are considered.
As I'm thinking about it... here's how the 1st place winner's games went down compared to my friend's games.
My friend "Darwin"
Game 1: 2(Darwin)-0(Jenn)
Game 2: 2(Darwin)-1(Stu)
Game 3: 2(Darwin)-0(Terry)
Total: 6 to 1
The player who eventually got first place, "Jake"
Game 1: BYE
Game 2: 2(Jake)-0 (Adrian)
Game 3: 2(Jake)-0 (Martell)
Total: (4 + BYE) to 0
From what I remember.. here are each opponents scores
(People who played against Darwin)
Jenn: (0-2, ??, ??). Darwin defeated this player and neither of us kept track of Jenn's win/loss record.
Stu: (1-2, 1-2, ??). We still dont' know why Stu got paired up against Darwin, because Stu lost his previous game and was paired against an (at least at the time), an undefeated player.
Terry: (2-1, 2-1, 0-2) This is player my friend beat in the last match of the night.
Adding up those who beat Darwin would be (3-6).
(People who played against Jake)
Adrian: (2-0, 0-2, ??) Adrian's second match is the game that Jake won after getting a bye. I know that Adrian won his first game easily, but lost badly to Jake (the guy who eventually was declared 1st place).
Martell: (?-? .. probably a win... ?-?... probably another win... 0-2 Jake).
Adding up those who lost to Jake (2 + ?, ? + ? + 0)= 2 + 0.
I know this all looks super weird and pretty much pointless... but I still can't help but believe that Darwin still deserved to win first place. But at this point, I guess we'll never really know.
Hmm, so why did i have Judges at GP Manchester this year telling me byes were 2/0 wins against a opponent with 100% win ratio?
This doesn't make any sense to me. If a player goes to a tournament consisting of 100 games, what if a player randomly gets 99 byes and 1 win playing actual cards, that the bye player should still be declared "1st place" even though another player is 100 Wins and 0.5 loses (200 rounds won to 1 loss), the bye player still deserves to be declared the 1st place winner?
Here's the thing. You basically want byes to be worth less then a normal win, right? This simply doesn't work, because it would mean that in large tournament with an uneven amount of players (or with "inherent" byes like a GP), the player awarded a bye in round one (which is 100% random) would have a significantly reduced chance of winning the event. And I mean really, really significant. In large PTQs, if a bye were worth less then a normal win, you might as well just quit the tournament, because you wouldn't even be allowed a single loss. With the current system, it is slightly helpful, but you still need those 7 match wins to get to top 8.
Byes are typically given to the player with the worst record (in a tournament with an odd number of players). At the higher level of play, though, it is often common for players to meet some sort of qualification for X number of byes.
It's not a matter of "deserve" (this seems to be what you're having the most trouble with accepting). These are the tournament rules. They are what they are.
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube
Deserves? No, I don't think so.
By the rules of the tournaments that we all abide by? Yes, they should be the winner.
The real deal is, if you want a good end-result, play in numbers that actual provide a clear winner that is not decided by other % values, allways make your pools even without byes, if you can (so if you have 2 FNM, make them even out, not both with byes).
In the end, if you cant avoid it, theres no "fair" solution.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
This tournament was a three-round swiss with no top 8 cut, yet prizes were still awarded in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on placings? That's ridiculous. A three-round swiss FNM tournament should have set prizes for different win/loss ratios, regardless of tiebreakers. Attempting to actually determine a first place winner out of a large number of players with only three rounds is absurd.
I don't think the described situation would count as having 'a large number of players'. It sounds like it was just a 9 or 11-player event.
Thanks for everyone's thoughtful replies, and your explanations were helpful to us.
Honestly in a 9 person tournament that doesn't do a top 2 or top 4, there really is no "fair" way to do it. Magic players will complain about anything. Maybe you do the top 2 and your friend loses 1-2. Then he may feel that it should be the best of 5, like the Pro Tour. Since there is no real way of appeasing everyone, they have the current system that they have. If the Bye gave a poor tiebreaker, you would see a lot of players leave the tournament after their Bye, probably without even dropping.
Also if that player and your friend believe that it's not fair, they can play out the match on their own time and "bet" $5-10 on the match.
Last night, I was sitting at Table 2 with 8 players at 3-1 and the Table 1 players at 4-0. I won my match, but fell from 3rd to 4th. Did I complain about it? No, I realize that my opponents didn't do too well and the guy who skipped me into 3rd had opponents who did better than mine.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Sorry for the double-post, but here is your problem. A tournament with 9-16 players should be playing four rounds.
This is true. I forgot about that. The store owner probably made it 3 rounds so that they could leave early. Four rounds would have a single 4-0 player.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)This is true. I forgot about that. The store owner probably made it 3 rounds so that they could leave early. Four rounds would have a single 4-0 player.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)