I've been playing casual EDH for about 2 years now. I play in a play group with 8 people (we play with 2 four person pods) and we keep having the same problem: there's on person in our playgroup that wins an unlikely high amount of games he plays. Now before you think, "well maybe his decks are too powerful", "does he play control decks," I have to tell you that we trade and play with each others deck to change it up and to get a taste of our own medicine, which I am a fan of.
The problem is that no matter what deck he uses, whether his, mine or someone else's, and no matter what people or decks he plays against, he always wins. He consistently has the answer for everything, is always able to out grind and out value us into the late game, and we are starting to get fed up with always losing. Again you could say, "Well maybe he builds better decks that are more versatile and provide more value as the game continues," but again he's using our decks as well and constantly winning.
After the CommandZone released their statistics episode about a year ago, we decided to begin keeping track of our own games to see what decks perform best and keep track of our wins and loses (maybe a bad idea that influences some rivalry between us, but we've never gotten toxic about anything and that's a different question for a different time). Typically you'd expect people in 4 player games to win about 25% of the time, general statistics will tell you that. But this one player wins 50% of all games he plays, and has won 100% of the last 9 games hes played! 9! Statistically improbable but obviously not impossible.
What drove me to write this post is that of those last 9 games, I've been a losing member in 8 of them. So my post is coming from a frustrated perspective for sure. But I'm not one to complain, especially given that 2 or 3 of those loses came from my own deck and others from other friends decks, not solely his. And before you ask, "You have 8 people, why not just play in the opposite pod?" we each roll dice before we start playing and match evens and odds together in a pod, so I've also been "unlucky" enough to end up with him for 8 games in a row.
I want to make it clear that I don't go into every game expecting to win, and I don't even expect to win every week (we are able to play 2 days a week currently). But given the shear amount of games we play it would make sense that I or any of the other 6 players that play with him would win at least once rather than losing 9 games in a row. It's frustrating being on the receiving end of loses when your decks are performing well but no matter what you do it's always too little too late.
So after all the background, my question really boils down to this: how to do you handle long losing streaks? Even in my saltiest moments I bite my tongue and just wait for it to pass, I want nothing less to be a toxic salty magic player lol. Is there someone in your playgroup that constantly wins and gives everyone trouble? Am I overreacting? I don't think so, but again it's frustrating putting all this effort, time and money into decent decks only to lose very consistently.
Since you've done the legwork of narrowing down what the issue is, allow me to just say it: He's probably just a much better player.
What you're feeling is frustration at being outplayed, and there's only two real courses of action available to you. Do you...
A) Get angry and allow it to make you bitter, or...
B) Strive to improve so that you can compete with him.
My advice to you is to spend more time watching him when you're playing, and if something seems peculiar or deliberate and you don't understand why he's doing it, just ask. Most good players are more than happy to explain their thought process and play patterns. Chances are, he's just better at sequencing to maximize his mana, or has better threat assessment and as such doesn't waste cards when he doesn't need to, or hell maybe he's just subtly politicking his way through games and you're not catching it.
Whatever the case, the best thing you can do is figure out why you're losing and attack it instead of worrying about how it makes you feel. Don't address the symptoms, address the cause.
i agree it does sound like he's just a better player.
my advice is talk to him after games, and during games. leverage him for information to try and improve your own gameplay. ask him why he might make one choice over another. ask him what improvements he'd make to your decks. discuss things. it makes a huge difference. the game should really be a conversation. in my own group we tend to talk about what worked and what didn't. what might have been a better play and why. in the moment sometimes too. its helped improve everyone's gameplay dramatically. in some cases its really improved deck construction for players on a budget by finding better cheap alternatives, or taught netdeckers how to actually pilot their builds. in general its just elevated everyone's ability and most of us are now on an even keel.
its been my experience that most people who win a lot love talking about the game and the experience with the people they play with. no one wants to win all the time. you get bored and want to be challenged, so you start teaching when asked.
Gotta agree with what's been said. Most likely they're just a strong player.
I've had many times in similar situations. In some groups my winrate has been well over 50%. That'd be using my own decks, which admittedly have a very high budget, but I also try to temper them significantly by avoiding lots of different things that I don't think make for fun games. Sometimes I'll play precons to avoid winning via budget, but I still usually have a pretty solid winrate with those as well. Being a strong player gives you lots of little advantages throughout the whole game.
I see three options though:
1) Git gud. Personally my own path to being gud was paved through playing the game for almost 20 years (commander for 11 of those). I think the best thing you can do is try to analyze your games, and maybe talk to the other players about what they think you should have done (especially the good players). But more than anything else, just play tons and tons of magic. Might also be worth watching people play the format on twitch or youtube and trying to find good plays.
2) Git upset. Probably not a great option ofc.
3) Giv up. You don't need to be good at commander, it's just a game, and one that takes a lot of effort to git gud at. It's totally reasonable to just accept that your winrate isn't going to be very high, and that's ok.
I will preface this with: I don't often go on losing streaks. Typically, I am the player who manages to weasel my way out of scenarios where I am almost certain to lose. Having lost count of how many games I have won at 1 life against better and worse decks, I have learned a few things along the way:
1. Remember that Commander is best enjoyed when you keep in mind that it is about the journey, not the destination.
2. Losing is going to improve your game more than winning.
3. Sometimes, it is better to stick with what you know, leverage your strengths rather than explore something new.
The final point is particularly important. Having spent a lot of my time in MTG over the last 24 years playing toolbox decks, I typically try to work that angle with whatever Commander I play. I love Graveyard strategies because they play into this somewhat, but when I initially picked up The Mimeoplasm in 2013, it was a pretty basic reanimator deck. In fact, most of the lists I see run it as such. I really leaned into the toolboxing aspect of the game and turned what was a pretty poor Sultai deck into something I can win games that are generally unwinnable, simply because I have leveraged my strengths - oddly enough in a format where I don't get to use Gifts Ungiven, the most played card in my MTG career.
I don't mean to sound like I am puffing my chest or anything, but I had to slog through an unfathomable amount of losses in my life in order to come out ahead more often than not. Try not to let the losses get to you, and make sure that you are trying to make each game as enjoyable as possible in ways that you can control.
Finally, level with yourself more, and have honest conversations about where you may be coming up short. Are you letting others talk you into things that maybe are not the best for you? Are you not trying to metagame the table enough on your own to mitigate heat on yourself? Are you perhaps playing a Commander that simply appeals to you that you might not really understand in a way that plays to your own strengths as a player?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
LEGACY|UWStonebladeCOMMANDER|UBGThe Mimeoplsm Ooze & Aghhs!MODERN|UWAzorius Control THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
All good advice, though I'll definitely push against point #3 from Juice. While you'll invariably become better over time piloting one sort of deck, branching out into other sorts will yield a surprising amount of value. For example if you tend to play control and branch out into aggro, you might notice certain play patterns you can exploit later when you play against aggro the next time. Particularly relevant to EDH, if you try out combo even though its not your thing you'll quickly realize which cards are important to interact with and when.
I agree with Cranky here - if you want to win THE NEXT game, then stick with what you know...but unless you're going to a grand prix or something with an entry fee, imo you should try to become a better magic player holistically. Play every color, play different formats (try limited! we have cookies!), play different archetypes, borrow decks - everything you change up, your brain will absorb new ways of thinking. And one day you'll wake up and realize that you've gotten really good at the game.
My third point wasn’t to never branch out. It is to master one thing, then move on to the next. If you are having trouble mastering it, consider it that is actually where your strengths are.
The Reanimator deck was an example because I originally thought that was what I was good at and it was what I wanted to play. When I realized that really, it wasn’t the reanimator aspect, but the tool boxing aspect, I improved faster and more significantly. Because I could take toolboxing fundamentals and apply them to decks like Gifts, Pod, Reanimator, Lands, etc. Rule #3 isn’t about sticking with the same deck, but rather with what elements of the game you are strong at. This leads back to the “have an honest conversation with yourself” statement.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
LEGACY|UWStonebladeCOMMANDER|UBGThe Mimeoplsm Ooze & Aghhs!MODERN|UWAzorius Control THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
I think we still disagree. My opinion is that, ultimately, your goal should be to not have any "strengths". Not just to not focus on reanimator specifically, but not to focus on toolboxing more generally, or any other thing you might imagine. You should strive to do do EVERYTHING. There's no reason you can't be good at everything magic has to offer, and knowing more about every piece of it will make you a better overall player because you'll be able to apply lessons from one area to another, and to see enemy lines better and play around them.
Whenever someone asks me "what colors do you play?" or "what kinds of decks do you play?", that's a hint to me that they're either new or a weak player. Magic is not a game about finding your niche and burrowing in, that's how you stagnate. It's about constantly finding new territory to conquer.
I think you think I disagree with you, but really I am adding depth to what your argument (at least to me) appears to be, which is that "a player should work to round out their skills in order to grow."
Lesson 3 is about: if you are weak at aggro, find something else. When you find what you are not as weak at, mold it and fine tune it before moving on to the next thing. I am not saying a new player should jam something until they are good at it or understand it.
My opinion is that, ultimately, your goal should be to not have any "strengths". Not just to not focus on reanimator specifically, but not to focus on toolboxing more generally, or any other thing you might imagine. You should strive to do do EVERYTHING. There's no reason you can't be good at everything magic has to offer, and knowing more about every piece of it will make you a better overall player because you'll be able to apply lessons from one area to another, and to see enemy lines better and play around them.
Players like Reid Duke, Patrick Chapin, Mike Flores, Raphael Levy, Craig Wesoe, etc, are not where they are because the worked on learning everything and mastering nothing. Having worked with large tournament prep teams for constructed events, myself, it has never been because I am good at a vast amount of things - it has been because I excel in one or two things. Your goal should be to find what you are good at, and work with it until you are ready to move on to the next thing. If you are not good at something but want to be good at it, then work on it more than you work on something else.
...insert some motivational statement about ten thousand hours...
Whenever someone asks me "what colors do you play?" or "what kinds of decks do you play?", that's a hint to me that they're either new or a weak player. Magic is not a game about finding your niche and burrowing in, that's how you stagnate. It's about constantly finding new territory to conquer.
I don't know what those questions have to do with growth. Sure, Reid Duke plays a lot of different things, but if you ask anyone what colors he plays or what kind of decks he plays, they will have an answer for you - and for good reason.
You don't need to play an aggro deck to understand why your control deck is losing to aggro. You merely need to have an honest conversation with yourself. No, playing only control decks will not help you learn to play an aggro deck, but that isn't the point of lesson 3. The point of lesson 3 is that you need to put in the effort, and being the jack of all trades and master of none... isn't going to help you secure more wins or quash a losing streak. Good examples of this lesson, are actually in games that use a ladder system. You don't climb a ladder by swapping out into a bunch of different decks you have not mastered and are pulling off sub 50% win rates, you climb the ladder by mastering a deck one at a time and keeping them above 50% win rates.
Anyways, I think I know where any conversation with you is going to lead, so I am just gonna duck out now. I said my peace, imparted wisdom, and will leave it at that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
LEGACY|UWStonebladeCOMMANDER|UBGThe Mimeoplsm Ooze & Aghhs!MODERN|UWAzorius Control THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
i have to agree with the point of picking your strength and playing it constantly.
the more you play it the more you can hone it. the more you can understand it. the more you'll learn what works against it too. it'll end your losing streaks over time for sure if you're analyzing things correctly and adjusting. from those experiences you can then learn what makes other archetypes viable as you lose to them. for example: if you're playing aggro and keep losing to control, as your aggro play gets stronger and you start beating those decks, youll start understanding what makes those decks work. this means when you want to try something different you'll have a greater understanding of how to play that archetype right out of the gate. in turn this means you don't have to repeat the entire process to the same degree all over again. from this you can develop breadth of experience and knowledge. jumping around from archetype/deck to archetype/deck without mastering any really just makes you a sloppy player. it doesn't hone your skills or make you understand why something actually works or doesn't work. you're more likely to just get frustrated by losing, and you wont' necessarily have the skills yet to do more than that.
Pro players may have preferences, but no successful player is married to one specific style of deck. If a pro player that likes control decks is going a GP in a meta where he thinks the best deck is aggro, he's not bringing a control deck. He's bringing an aggro deck. Even moreso for limited - if he prefers blue but white is what's open, then he's going into white and you can bet that he's prepared to play it.
My understanding is that, when doing specific tournament prep, pro teams will commonly play most meta decks against each other so they can decide for themselves where they think the meta is going to get an edge, but I'm sure that varies from team to team. At any rate, those players have almost certainly put in tons of hours playing some form of every archetype. Perhaps one is mastered more than the others, but they're going to be able to play every archetype at a much higher level than most players.
Can't speak for other pros, but I watch Kibler stream (hearthstone) all the time, and he switches from deck to deck and even format to format all the time. When he wants to hit legend, sure, he decides on the deck he wants to do it with - but he makes that decision based on having played many different decks so that he knows them all quite well and understands the meta inside and out. Sure, at a very high level it pays to be dedicated to a certain deck for a given constructed season, but that's so far above where most EDH players are at that it's hardly worth thinking about imo.
My understanding is that, when doing specific tournament prep, pro teams will commonly play most meta decks against each other so they can decide for themselves where they think the meta is going to get an edge, but I'm sure that varies from team to team. At any rate, those players have almost certainly put in tons of hours playing some form of every archetype. Perhaps one is mastered more than the others, but they're going to be able to play every archetype at a much higher level than most players.
I don't really feel like having a back and forth on this, but I do feel like sharing my experience working on teams with pro tour players on multiple occasions. Generally, we would hunker down for a few days and people would be assigned decks that fit within their spectrum of proficiency. There was no value to be gained if someone like me was running a Zoo deck if I am not an aggro player. Each of us would have a couple of decks and variants. For Grand Prix LA, someone was assigned Abzan Aggro and a variation of it, and another was assigned Abzan Midrange and a variant of it. Some people would run duplicate lists, but all decks were appropriately allocated to players who were proficient with them. Discussions were had between players in huddle sessions where lessons would be shared and information exchanged, and ultimately players would decide to run whatever they would run during the event based on the feedback session. Sometimes, players would play something they are less familiar with, but that decision was based on the information exchanged between them and those more proficient with the archetype or deck. Other times, people stuck with what they knew. In the end, testing was not done in a matter in which people wasted time playing decks they were not familiar or proficient with because it muddies feedback.
I cannot say this is applicable to every prep team at higher levels of play, but it is something that has been consistent in my personal experience. My experience is not to puff my chest or suggest that I am ultimately right in this situation, but to merely support my approach to improving at the game and ultimately, why I stand by lesson 3.
Can't speak for other pros, but I watch Kibler stream (hearthstone) all the time, and he switches from deck to deck and even format to format all the time. When he wants to hit legend, sure, he decides on the deck he wants to do it with - but he makes that decision based on having played many different decks so that he knows them all quite well and understands the meta inside and out. Sure, at a very high level it pays to be dedicated to a certain deck for a given constructed season, but that's so far above where most EDH players are at that it's hardly worth thinking about imo.
I am not sure about your experience in Hearthstone, but content creation is its own animal which I won't really get into here. However I will say that in Hearthstone, once you are in Legend, you have a lot more ability to explore other decks. The ladder climb itself, is much less forgiving if you are swapping between 5 different decks and unable to keep above a 50% win rate with them. You are better off mastering 1 or 2 to climb and when you peak, work on learning other things.
The ten thousand hour remark is really just a life lesson overall - but to suggest something takes "ten thousand hours" to learn, and trying to learn 5 different things at once, means you are going to take 5 times as long to reach those ten thousand hours in any 1 of them, to ultimately master them.
If your goal is to get out of a losing streak sooner rather than later:
Keep consistent
Do you due diligence
Reach your 10,000 hours
Set your next goal
Rinse and repeat
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
LEGACY|UWStonebladeCOMMANDER|UBGThe Mimeoplsm Ooze & Aghhs!MODERN|UWAzorius Control THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
I think a big part of why we're disagreeing is that, competitively, I focus primarily on limited, where obviously you don't have the luxury of specialization. You have to be ready to play whatever is open, whatever that may be. And the philosophy does affect how I play commander.
The main thing I would disagree with about what you've said is that I think you're looking at not just from constructed (which is obviously fair, given that we're talking about a constructed format) but a very high-level of play. Sure, some pro players favor certain types of decks over others, but any pro player worth their salt is good enough with the basics of play to pick up most random decks and play it decently, without even being familiar with the format.
That's just not the level most commander players are at. I know plenty of people that have basically picked up one deck because they liked the sound of it, and then just upgraded it occasionally and never tried anything else. When players are still at that really basic level, I think it really behooves them to try new things before they build up bad habits. For example, I've played limited against players who I've also played commander with, and one common mistake is that they'll play overly-defensively because they're used to commander combat where life totals are high, chances of salty retaliation are relevant, and playing defensively is generally the higher EV option - and also just the social norm. They're playing overly-defensively in commander too, of course - but they're not getting punished for it so they aren't aware of it. Getting into another format where combat is more effective can help shake up their habits a little, instead of autopiloting along with what they're used to and missing stuff. Then they can return to their norm with a more holistic understanding of the game - or maybe decide that they want to focus on some aspect that they weren't as familiar with before, because trying it out appealed to them.
I know when I first started playing commander, before I'd done anything competitively, I was very control-focused. And I still am, to a certain extent, but time spent playing limited and exploring other archetypes within commander made me more aware of what I like (and what I don't), and I've been able to use the lessons I've learned to all my decks - lessons that I wouldn't have gotten if I'd never left my safe control bunker.
That question really depends on what you want out of the game. Do you want to increase your win rate in turn lowering theirs? Do you just want to get more comfortable with losing and learn to enjoy it more?
The best way to deal with it IMO is to focus on getting better, while keeping in mind that what you can't control is not worth getting upset over.
However, there's some key pieces of information you haven't mentioned for us to figure out how to help you get better. Which are, how much research do you put into getting mechanically better and politically better at the game? How far do you feel like you've grown as a player in terms of skill in the last two years? To know what would be most beneficial for you to focus on, we need to know where you are at in those particular skills vs where the winner might be at
i have to agree with the point of picking your strength and playing it constantly.
the more you play it the more you can hone it. the more you can understand it. the more you'll learn what works against it too. it'll end your losing streaks over time for sure if you're analyzing things correctly and adjusting. from those experiences you can then learn what makes other archetypes viable as you lose to them. for example: if you're playing aggro and keep losing to control, as your aggro play gets stronger and you start beating those decks, youll start understanding what makes those decks work. this means when you want to try something different you'll have a greater understanding of how to play that archetype right out of the gate. in turn this means you don't have to repeat the entire process to the same degree all over again. from this you can develop breadth of experience and knowledge. jumping around from archetype/deck to archetype/deck without mastering any really just makes you a sloppy player. it doesn't hone your skills or make you understand why something actually works or doesn't work. you're more likely to just get frustrated by losing, and you wont' necessarily have the skills yet to do more than that.
I think ultimately both options will improve you as a player. Focusing one at a time, or spreading it around - either way, playing more magic generally means getting better at magic. It probably comes down to player preference which works best for them and their learning style. For me, personally, I think I learn the most quickly when I'm trying new things, because there's more stuff to learn. If you picked up a new instrument every month, you'd be learning a ton of stuff constantly, you'd get better at being able to pick up instruments you weren't familiar with, and you'd learn a lot about music as a whole. But you probably wouldn't be first chair in any particular one. So it also depends on what your goals are. For me, I really don't care about mastering some specific archetype, because for me the exploration is a huge part of the fun of magic. Just being really good at playing one particular deck doesn't appeal to me, and that's why I've never seriously stuck with any constructed format at a competitive level, why I've built over a hundred commander decks, and why most of them usually only get played a couple times each. But if you prefer to find your lane and stick to it, then the other option might be better for you.
One thing I will say - in draft, there's a common problem with newer drafters (or even experienced ones who aren't as familiar with the format) where you can start to get a skewed perspective based on limited information. For example, you draft RB a couple times early on, do well, and now you're overvaluing red and black cards and end up forcing RB a lot more than you should. Or you draft aggro a few times, and now you're in the "always be attacking" mindset even when you ought to be on the defensive. Sticking with one mode of play I think can make it easier to form patterns in your play that you don't think about enough, because they're frequently correct for the kind of decks you've been playing. It can make you rigid in your thinking instead of looking at every angle. Not that it can't be overcome by critically analyzing your plays, but if I was trying to make someone good at magic, I'd be pushing them into new spaces so that they're constantly considering all possibilities during a game instead of falling into repetitive patterns.
The simplest path between two points is a straight line, and as such to that end, the answer is simply to build a better deck, and learn to improve your own abilities. Learning comes with time, I suggest rather than obsessing over the L, to simply make the L work for you. A loss doesn't feel like a loss if you learn something, no? Because learning is the single greatest thing we can do in a given day - Magic related or otherwise.
The simplest path between two points is a straight line
Quite unrelated (and simply mentioned because I spend a bit of time thinking about it and thought it was interesting), but this variant of the statement is incorrect (the original one, with shortest instead of simplest is correct, at least in standard space). If you picked two points at random on a circle with radius 1, the points will be extremely hard to express (with probability 1) and it is far simpler to define the circle with radius 1 and a direction (those two things together would define a path from one of the points to the other) than whatever straight line goes through those two points.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Hail to the speaker, hail to the knower; joy to he who has understood, delight to they who have listened." - Odin
I've been playing casual EDH for about 2 years now. I play in a play group with 8 people (we play with 2 four person pods) and we keep having the same problem: there's on person in our playgroup that wins an unlikely high amount of games he plays. Now before you think, "well maybe his decks are too powerful", "does he play control decks," I have to tell you that we trade and play with each others deck to change it up and to get a taste of our own medicine, which I am a fan of.
The problem is that no matter what deck he uses, whether his, mine or someone else's, and no matter what people or decks he plays against, he always wins. He consistently has the answer for everything, is always able to out grind and out value us into the late game, and we are starting to get fed up with always losing. Again you could say, "Well maybe he builds better decks that are more versatile and provide more value as the game continues," but again he's using our decks as well and constantly winning.
After the CommandZone released their statistics episode about a year ago, we decided to begin keeping track of our own games to see what decks perform best and keep track of our wins and loses (maybe a bad idea that influences some rivalry between us, but we've never gotten toxic about anything and that's a different question for a different time). Typically you'd expect people in 4 player games to win about 25% of the time, general statistics will tell you that. But this one player wins 50% of all games he plays, and has won 100% of the last 9 games hes played! 9! Statistically improbable but obviously not impossible.
What drove me to write this post is that of those last 9 games, I've been a losing member in 8 of them. So my post is coming from a frustrated perspective for sure. But I'm not one to complain, especially given that 2 or 3 of those loses came from my own deck and others from other friends decks, not solely his. And before you ask, "You have 8 people, why not just play in the opposite pod?" we each roll dice before we start playing and match evens and odds together in a pod, so I've also been "unlucky" enough to end up with him for 8 games in a row.
I want to make it clear that I don't go into every game expecting to win, and I don't even expect to win every week (we are able to play 2 days a week currently). But given the shear amount of games we play it would make sense that I or any of the other 6 players that play with him would win at least once rather than losing 9 games in a row. It's frustrating being on the receiving end of loses when your decks are performing well but no matter what you do it's always too little too late.
So after all the background, my question really boils down to this: how to do you handle long losing streaks? Even in my saltiest moments I bite my tongue and just wait for it to pass, I want nothing less to be a toxic salty magic player lol. Is there someone in your playgroup that constantly wins and gives everyone trouble? Am I overreacting? I don't think so, but again it's frustrating putting all this effort, time and money into decent decks only to lose very consistently.
Thanks for reading.
What you're feeling is frustration at being outplayed, and there's only two real courses of action available to you. Do you...
A) Get angry and allow it to make you bitter, or...
B) Strive to improve so that you can compete with him.
My advice to you is to spend more time watching him when you're playing, and if something seems peculiar or deliberate and you don't understand why he's doing it, just ask. Most good players are more than happy to explain their thought process and play patterns. Chances are, he's just better at sequencing to maximize his mana, or has better threat assessment and as such doesn't waste cards when he doesn't need to, or hell maybe he's just subtly politicking his way through games and you're not catching it.
Whatever the case, the best thing you can do is figure out why you're losing and attack it instead of worrying about how it makes you feel. Don't address the symptoms, address the cause.
my advice is talk to him after games, and during games. leverage him for information to try and improve your own gameplay. ask him why he might make one choice over another. ask him what improvements he'd make to your decks. discuss things. it makes a huge difference. the game should really be a conversation. in my own group we tend to talk about what worked and what didn't. what might have been a better play and why. in the moment sometimes too. its helped improve everyone's gameplay dramatically. in some cases its really improved deck construction for players on a budget by finding better cheap alternatives, or taught netdeckers how to actually pilot their builds. in general its just elevated everyone's ability and most of us are now on an even keel.
its been my experience that most people who win a lot love talking about the game and the experience with the people they play with. no one wants to win all the time. you get bored and want to be challenged, so you start teaching when asked.
I've had many times in similar situations. In some groups my winrate has been well over 50%. That'd be using my own decks, which admittedly have a very high budget, but I also try to temper them significantly by avoiding lots of different things that I don't think make for fun games. Sometimes I'll play precons to avoid winning via budget, but I still usually have a pretty solid winrate with those as well. Being a strong player gives you lots of little advantages throughout the whole game.
I see three options though:
1) Git gud. Personally my own path to being gud was paved through playing the game for almost 20 years (commander for 11 of those). I think the best thing you can do is try to analyze your games, and maybe talk to the other players about what they think you should have done (especially the good players). But more than anything else, just play tons and tons of magic. Might also be worth watching people play the format on twitch or youtube and trying to find good plays.
2) Git upset. Probably not a great option ofc.
3) Giv up. You don't need to be good at commander, it's just a game, and one that takes a lot of effort to git gud at. It's totally reasonable to just accept that your winrate isn't going to be very high, and that's ok.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
1. Remember that Commander is best enjoyed when you keep in mind that it is about the journey, not the destination.
2. Losing is going to improve your game more than winning.
3. Sometimes, it is better to stick with what you know, leverage your strengths rather than explore something new.
The final point is particularly important. Having spent a lot of my time in MTG over the last 24 years playing toolbox decks, I typically try to work that angle with whatever Commander I play. I love Graveyard strategies because they play into this somewhat, but when I initially picked up The Mimeoplasm in 2013, it was a pretty basic reanimator deck. In fact, most of the lists I see run it as such. I really leaned into the toolboxing aspect of the game and turned what was a pretty poor Sultai deck into something I can win games that are generally unwinnable, simply because I have leveraged my strengths - oddly enough in a format where I don't get to use Gifts Ungiven, the most played card in my MTG career.
I don't mean to sound like I am puffing my chest or anything, but I had to slog through an unfathomable amount of losses in my life in order to come out ahead more often than not. Try not to let the losses get to you, and make sure that you are trying to make each game as enjoyable as possible in ways that you can control.
Finally, level with yourself more, and have honest conversations about where you may be coming up short. Are you letting others talk you into things that maybe are not the best for you? Are you not trying to metagame the table enough on your own to mitigate heat on yourself? Are you perhaps playing a Commander that simply appeals to you that you might not really understand in a way that plays to your own strengths as a player?
THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
The Reanimator deck was an example because I originally thought that was what I was good at and it was what I wanted to play. When I realized that really, it wasn’t the reanimator aspect, but the tool boxing aspect, I improved faster and more significantly. Because I could take toolboxing fundamentals and apply them to decks like Gifts, Pod, Reanimator, Lands, etc. Rule #3 isn’t about sticking with the same deck, but rather with what elements of the game you are strong at. This leads back to the “have an honest conversation with yourself” statement.
THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
Whenever someone asks me "what colors do you play?" or "what kinds of decks do you play?", that's a hint to me that they're either new or a weak player. Magic is not a game about finding your niche and burrowing in, that's how you stagnate. It's about constantly finding new territory to conquer.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I think you think I disagree with you, but really I am adding depth to what your argument (at least to me) appears to be, which is that "a player should work to round out their skills in order to grow."
Lesson 3 is about: if you are weak at aggro, find something else. When you find what you are not as weak at, mold it and fine tune it before moving on to the next thing. I am not saying a new player should jam something until they are good at it or understand it.
Players like Reid Duke, Patrick Chapin, Mike Flores, Raphael Levy, Craig Wesoe, etc, are not where they are because the worked on learning everything and mastering nothing. Having worked with large tournament prep teams for constructed events, myself, it has never been because I am good at a vast amount of things - it has been because I excel in one or two things. Your goal should be to find what you are good at, and work with it until you are ready to move on to the next thing. If you are not good at something but want to be good at it, then work on it more than you work on something else.
...insert some motivational statement about ten thousand hours...
I don't know what those questions have to do with growth. Sure, Reid Duke plays a lot of different things, but if you ask anyone what colors he plays or what kind of decks he plays, they will have an answer for you - and for good reason.
You don't need to play an aggro deck to understand why your control deck is losing to aggro. You merely need to have an honest conversation with yourself. No, playing only control decks will not help you learn to play an aggro deck, but that isn't the point of lesson 3. The point of lesson 3 is that you need to put in the effort, and being the jack of all trades and master of none... isn't going to help you secure more wins or quash a losing streak. Good examples of this lesson, are actually in games that use a ladder system. You don't climb a ladder by swapping out into a bunch of different decks you have not mastered and are pulling off sub 50% win rates, you climb the ladder by mastering a deck one at a time and keeping them above 50% win rates.
Anyways, I think I know where any conversation with you is going to lead, so I am just gonna duck out now. I said my peace, imparted wisdom, and will leave it at that.
THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
the more you play it the more you can hone it. the more you can understand it. the more you'll learn what works against it too. it'll end your losing streaks over time for sure if you're analyzing things correctly and adjusting. from those experiences you can then learn what makes other archetypes viable as you lose to them. for example: if you're playing aggro and keep losing to control, as your aggro play gets stronger and you start beating those decks, youll start understanding what makes those decks work. this means when you want to try something different you'll have a greater understanding of how to play that archetype right out of the gate. in turn this means you don't have to repeat the entire process to the same degree all over again. from this you can develop breadth of experience and knowledge. jumping around from archetype/deck to archetype/deck without mastering any really just makes you a sloppy player. it doesn't hone your skills or make you understand why something actually works or doesn't work. you're more likely to just get frustrated by losing, and you wont' necessarily have the skills yet to do more than that.
My understanding is that, when doing specific tournament prep, pro teams will commonly play most meta decks against each other so they can decide for themselves where they think the meta is going to get an edge, but I'm sure that varies from team to team. At any rate, those players have almost certainly put in tons of hours playing some form of every archetype. Perhaps one is mastered more than the others, but they're going to be able to play every archetype at a much higher level than most players.
Can't speak for other pros, but I watch Kibler stream (hearthstone) all the time, and he switches from deck to deck and even format to format all the time. When he wants to hit legend, sure, he decides on the deck he wants to do it with - but he makes that decision based on having played many different decks so that he knows them all quite well and understands the meta inside and out. Sure, at a very high level it pays to be dedicated to a certain deck for a given constructed season, but that's so far above where most EDH players are at that it's hardly worth thinking about imo.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I don't really feel like having a back and forth on this, but I do feel like sharing my experience working on teams with pro tour players on multiple occasions. Generally, we would hunker down for a few days and people would be assigned decks that fit within their spectrum of proficiency. There was no value to be gained if someone like me was running a Zoo deck if I am not an aggro player. Each of us would have a couple of decks and variants. For Grand Prix LA, someone was assigned Abzan Aggro and a variation of it, and another was assigned Abzan Midrange and a variant of it. Some people would run duplicate lists, but all decks were appropriately allocated to players who were proficient with them. Discussions were had between players in huddle sessions where lessons would be shared and information exchanged, and ultimately players would decide to run whatever they would run during the event based on the feedback session. Sometimes, players would play something they are less familiar with, but that decision was based on the information exchanged between them and those more proficient with the archetype or deck. Other times, people stuck with what they knew. In the end, testing was not done in a matter in which people wasted time playing decks they were not familiar or proficient with because it muddies feedback.
I cannot say this is applicable to every prep team at higher levels of play, but it is something that has been consistent in my personal experience. My experience is not to puff my chest or suggest that I am ultimately right in this situation, but to merely support my approach to improving at the game and ultimately, why I stand by lesson 3.
I am not sure about your experience in Hearthstone, but content creation is its own animal which I won't really get into here. However I will say that in Hearthstone, once you are in Legend, you have a lot more ability to explore other decks. The ladder climb itself, is much less forgiving if you are swapping between 5 different decks and unable to keep above a 50% win rate with them. You are better off mastering 1 or 2 to climb and when you peak, work on learning other things.
The ten thousand hour remark is really just a life lesson overall - but to suggest something takes "ten thousand hours" to learn, and trying to learn 5 different things at once, means you are going to take 5 times as long to reach those ten thousand hours in any 1 of them, to ultimately master them.
If your goal is to get out of a losing streak sooner rather than later:
THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
The main thing I would disagree with about what you've said is that I think you're looking at not just from constructed (which is obviously fair, given that we're talking about a constructed format) but a very high-level of play. Sure, some pro players favor certain types of decks over others, but any pro player worth their salt is good enough with the basics of play to pick up most random decks and play it decently, without even being familiar with the format.
That's just not the level most commander players are at. I know plenty of people that have basically picked up one deck because they liked the sound of it, and then just upgraded it occasionally and never tried anything else. When players are still at that really basic level, I think it really behooves them to try new things before they build up bad habits. For example, I've played limited against players who I've also played commander with, and one common mistake is that they'll play overly-defensively because they're used to commander combat where life totals are high, chances of salty retaliation are relevant, and playing defensively is generally the higher EV option - and also just the social norm. They're playing overly-defensively in commander too, of course - but they're not getting punished for it so they aren't aware of it. Getting into another format where combat is more effective can help shake up their habits a little, instead of autopiloting along with what they're used to and missing stuff. Then they can return to their norm with a more holistic understanding of the game - or maybe decide that they want to focus on some aspect that they weren't as familiar with before, because trying it out appealed to them.
I know when I first started playing commander, before I'd done anything competitively, I was very control-focused. And I still am, to a certain extent, but time spent playing limited and exploring other archetypes within commander made me more aware of what I like (and what I don't), and I've been able to use the lessons I've learned to all my decks - lessons that I wouldn't have gotten if I'd never left my safe control bunker.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
The best way to deal with it IMO is to focus on getting better, while keeping in mind that what you can't control is not worth getting upset over.
However, there's some key pieces of information you haven't mentioned for us to figure out how to help you get better. Which are, how much research do you put into getting mechanically better and politically better at the game? How far do you feel like you've grown as a player in terms of skill in the last two years? To know what would be most beneficial for you to focus on, we need to know where you are at in those particular skills vs where the winner might be at
One thing I will say - in draft, there's a common problem with newer drafters (or even experienced ones who aren't as familiar with the format) where you can start to get a skewed perspective based on limited information. For example, you draft RB a couple times early on, do well, and now you're overvaluing red and black cards and end up forcing RB a lot more than you should. Or you draft aggro a few times, and now you're in the "always be attacking" mindset even when you ought to be on the defensive. Sticking with one mode of play I think can make it easier to form patterns in your play that you don't think about enough, because they're frequently correct for the kind of decks you've been playing. It can make you rigid in your thinking instead of looking at every angle. Not that it can't be overcome by critically analyzing your plays, but if I was trying to make someone good at magic, I'd be pushing them into new spaces so that they're constantly considering all possibilities during a game instead of falling into repetitive patterns.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
THE JUICE[BOX]³ CUBE
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
Winning is the primary objective, but sometimes "making sure (player) DOESN'T win" shows up as a secondary objective. MTG is a great outlet for spite.