I never engage the sore losers (anymore) because it never ends well. They are not in a frame of mind to engage you in a productive way, so better to just remain silent. For all they know I could be a Japanese player who doesn't even understand what they're complaining about.
I never engage the sore losers (anymore) because it never ends well. They are not in a frame of mind to engage you in a productive way, so better to just remain silent. For all they know I could be a Japanese player who doesn't even understand what they're complaining about.
That's my strategy too. The most I'll say in a game is "gg" when I lose, and other than that I figure my opponent could assume I don't speak English. It's just easier. Sometimes I'll apologize if I take a long time with a play because I have to turn off boiling water, feed my dog, etc.
I never engage the sore losers (anymore) because it never ends well. They are not in a frame of mind to engage you in a productive way, so better to just remain silent.
I agree with this. A couple of days ago in a swiss my opponent was very clearly unlucky in getting stuck on 2 lands the entire game in a game 3 of our match, and typed plenty of bitterness about it, especially when I used Griptide to ensure he was stuck on lands for an additional turn. I didn't type anything and just quit when the game ended but he private messaged me right away something bitter (although not hostile) so I tried to say something compassionate but he retorted with more bitterness. It's just better in my view to ignore bitterness.
I generally don't engage anybody in conversation on MTGO, even the folks who obviously mean well. Literally the only keys I ever press on my keyboard during a game are F6, g and enter.
I generally don't engage anybody in conversation on MTGO, even the folks who obviously mean well. Literally the only keys I ever press on my keyboard during a game are F6, g and enter.
I can sort of understand not replying to someone who is bitter, although I disagree; for every rude, bitter person, there's another who really appreciates any sort of polite or kind gesture, or finds that it helps them cope with the situation. I give players the benefit of the doubt. I draw the line at not responding at all, however. I find it hard to believe that you (or anyone else above) would be as stone-faced if this were an IRL game. Complete silence gives me this vibe that all you care about is the gameplay and prizes, when I feel that there's more to Magic than that, online or off.
To be honest, when I'm online, I really do only care about the gameplay and the prizes. The goal is simply to have fun playing and to improve as a player. Anybody who doesn't realize that literally every single other player on MTGO has been in the same situation that they're whining, ranting, and raving about is an idiot. I have absolutely no sympathy for the whiners. The ones that I really can't stand are the boneheads that spam the limited queues chat complaining about how the shuffler screws them all of the time. I usually inform those types that there indeed IS a conspiracy by WOTC to mess with them in particular and that nobody else ever gets dealt a bad hand. Sometimes you get screwed by bad luck alone. It happens and it happens to every single person who's played more than 5 games of Magic. People need to be able to move on and deal with it.
It's true that I don't behave the same way in a live game, but losers don't throw anywhere near the amount of salt at you in real life either. In real life, whether I win or lose due to screw/flood/whatevs the other player and I generally just laugh it off and chalk it up to the luck-based element of Magic. The real life equivalent to the fools online who carry on like an overgrown man child is flipping a table or something. There's no reason to interact with those people.
Being a veteran of online poker the amount of salt on MTGO is barely noticeable. While it is occasionally tempting to stick the needle in to tilt them with a "lol cry more n00b" after I get them with "the only card I could have to beat them there" or whatever, I usually resist.
As far as toxic comments go, I don't see it much at all, nor do I see positive chat. Hardly anyone bothers to actually type anything into chat other than glhf at the beginning. I don't even really see people gg.
Once in a great while I'll get someone who's in the mood to chat, and I'll usually engage them just for variety's sake. I find that if someone is frustrated with a loss, talking about my play mistakes (there are always some, for me) stops it from getting toxic at all, and once in a while I get some good advice.
To be honest, when I'm online, I really do only care about the gameplay and the prizes. The goal is simply to have fun playing and to improve as a player.
That's where I diverge from a lot of MTGO players myself. I couldn't play Magic if my only option was MTGO (no matter the quality of the client) because it's about more than just sitting down to play a game at my computer. I have Steam for that. The social, face-to-face aspect is a big deal to me, so I try to engage it whenever possible.
Hell, I'm even starting to get into streaming my MTGO sessions to get some live feedback/interaction during the game. Otherwise I'm just a quiet man in a quiet room doing quiet things.
My apologies for the rabbit chasing. To the point, which is still a touch off topic for the thread, I haven't run into any truly angry/salty players online just yet.
People play for different reasons. Some want social interactions, others not so much. That's all fine. It's angry / harassing comments that are a problem. I'm fine with my opponent being silent. I'm usually silent. What I do not appreciate is any sort of personal attack.
The only game things I'll comment on are:
1) A really cool play, like an innovative use of a card I've never seen before. Rarely happens in Theros to be honest. Most of the cards are straight forward.
2) Some statistically very unlikely thing that happened, good or bad, to try to connect with my opponent and establish that yea luck screws up this game sometimes but let's not get all bent out of shape about it.
In other words, I think it's fine to make a sad face and say "I kept a 4 land hand and drew 8 lands in a row off the top." That's commiserating about the annoying extremes of luck that ruin potentially interesting games. I don't think it's OK to say "Your deck is garbage, I deserved to win but I drew too many lands." That's petty. It's not based on any verified evidence. Drawing 8 lands in a row is an objectively crappy scenario. Thinking your opponent's deck is bad by some subjective measure is not worth discussing. It's just an expression of anger.
I also never say anything about my opponent himself. I don't say "Wow you filthy lucksack you topdecked 5 spells in a row after emptying your hand." At most I will point out that he was fortunate to draw so many spells and hope he will agree (or ignore it if he prefers) because he also has a decent grasp of probability. The only time I get into trouble (and then immediately shut up) is when my opponent is the kind of guy to somehow take credit for the random order of cards in his deck, or perhaps construe that random order as an indicator of his intelligence compared to mine.
To be honest, when I'm online, I really do only care about the gameplay and the prizes. The goal is simply to have fun playing and to improve as a player. Anybody who doesn't realize that literally every single other player on MTGO has been in the same situation that they're whining, ranting, and raving about is an idiot. I have absolutely no sympathy for the whiners. The ones that I really can't stand are the boneheads that spam the limited queues chat complaining about how the shuffler screws them all of the time. I usually inform those types that there indeed IS a conspiracy by WOTC to mess with them in particular and that nobody else ever gets dealt a bad hand. Sometimes you get screwed by bad luck alone. It happens and it happens to every single person who's played more than 5 games of Magic. People need to be able to move on and deal with it.
It's true that I don't behave the same way in a live game, but losers don't throw anywhere near the amount of salt at you in real life either. In real life, whether I win or lose due to screw/flood/whatevs the other player and I generally just laugh it off and chalk it up to the luck-based element of Magic. The real life equivalent to the fools online who carry on like an overgrown man child is flipping a table or something. There's no reason to interact with those people.
Sorry, Pulse. I kind of departed from *just* the sore loser scenario and was addressing being social on MTGO in general. I more mean saying things like 'Nice play!' and similar kinds of friendly banter throughout the game. And to me, as you said, "[having] fun playing" involves friendly chats with my opponents. This is just for me, mind you.
I think the thing that most salty people always ignore is that for every game where their opponent just destroyed them at every turn (had all the right answers) or just plain outplayed them, there was probably another game at some point where they did the exact same thing to someone else (or they could have, but misplayed). Same thing with bad draws (not talking about poor mulligans but those draws where you keep a 3 land 4 relevant spell hand and draw 8 land in a row, not much you could have done) what goes around, does tend to come around, you just need to be willing to take *all* facts into account, not just the ones that are convenient in proving your point.
There are a certain percentage of games that you flat out lose due to luck, but that percentage is far lower that most people think, same thing with wins due to luck, but in this case the percentage is probably higher than people think, lol.
Oh, and regarding the "Hello and good luck!" that many people stay at the start of the match (I use that right click shortcut), I love how "Good game!" is right above it, thats made for more than one awkward "Good game!" before the match starts
Sorry, Pulse. I kind of departed from *just* the sore loser scenario and was addressing being social on MTGO in general. I more mean saying things like 'Nice play!' and similar kinds of friendly banter throughout the game. And to me, as you said, "[having] fun playing" involves friendly chats with my opponents. This is just for me, mind you.
I can definitely understand that. While I don't really start a lot of that myself, if another player is engaging in positive conversation, then I will respond too. It's just when you get the negativity that I will completely refuse to engage with the opponent.
Sorry, Pulse. I kind of departed from *just* the sore loser scenario and was addressing being social on MTGO in general. I more mean saying things like 'Nice play!' and similar kinds of friendly banter throughout the game. And to me, as you said, "[having] fun playing" involves friendly chats with my opponents. This is just for me, mind you.
I can definitely understand that. While I don't really start a lot of that myself, if another player is engaging in positive conversation, then I will respond too. It's just when you get the negativity that I will completely refuse to engage with the opponent.
It can also sometimes be difficult to judge the intent behind a comment, someone can say something like "Nice deck" and you don't know if they are complementing you or being sarcastic and meaning that your deck sucks.
Sorry, Pulse. I kind of departed from *just* the sore loser scenario and was addressing being social on MTGO in general. I more mean saying things like 'Nice play!' and similar kinds of friendly banter throughout the game. And to me, as you said, "[having] fun playing" involves friendly chats with my opponents. This is just for me, mind you.
I can definitely understand that. While I don't really start a lot of that myself, if another player is engaging in positive conversation, then I will respond too. It's just when you get the negativity that I will completely refuse to engage with the opponent.
It can also sometimes be difficult to judge the intent behind a comment, someone can say something like "Nice deck" and you don't know if they are complementing you or being sarcastic and meaning that your deck sucks.
People are hyper-defensive online, it seems. It's probably some combination of low self esteem, an inability to judge sarcasm online and the general bad attitude of many players. So many statements that are pretty obviously good natured are met with irrational amounts of anger (sometimes by the guy who's winning - who should be naturally less defensive and more pleasant).
The only time I get into trouble (and then immediately shut up) is when my opponent is the kind of guy to somehow take credit for the random order of cards in his deck, or perhaps construe that random order as an indicator of his intelligence compared to mine.
They should censor the word "luck". Then everyone would just think you were swearing and wouldn't take offense.
I'm going to contradict conventional wisdom and say that there is a case where 4-3-2-2 is better than both Swiss and 8-4.
*cue outrage from internet*
inb4 whines:
I looked at the math pretty seriously and there's one thing the EV argument does not account for. 8-4 is full of sharks, while the skill level at 4-3-2-2 and Swiss are both lower. 4-3-2-2 might actually have the lowest skill level, since more serious Magic players would have read online articles telling them to play either Swiss or 8-4. That means your win% might be highest in 4-3-2-2. Mathematically, if your win rate is >= 65% in Swiss or 4-3-2-2 but < 57% in 8-4s, you get the highest EV playing 4-3-2-2!
All the EV math also assumes your win% is constant for each round. That would only be true if who advances to the next round is completely random, determined by luck and not skill level (but if that was true, your chance of advancing to the next round would be independent of your own win rate and then everyone should play 8-4 all the time... clearly not true). In the winner bracket, the expected difficulty level of your opponent is higher in the second round than in the first and highest in the 3rd round. That's an important consideration. If you think your win rate vs 2nd round 8-4 sharks is below 50%, it's not worth playing 8-4s.
Most of the time Swiss or 8-4 is just better, but I think there is a middle ground where you're winning more than 50% at Swiss and can profit more from 4-3-2-2 but would still get mauled at 8-4.
While there are theoretical situations where 4-3-2-2 has better payout than Swiss, the argument has a fatal flaw -- you can never actually know when those situations occur! Win rate depends largely on the opponent, so if you're relying on that to choose Swiss vs. 4-3-2-2 you're blindly guessing. Ultimately it's not worth worrying about too much because you never know if you're really "in" that 4-3-2-2 bubble, so why not simply default to playing Swiss instead? With the added bonus that with Swiss, you get more playing experience for your investment.
Actually, that argument has a fatal flaw. There are two cases. Either 1) you can predict win rate or 2) you cannot. You can't dismiss the 4-3-2-2 window saying wins are unpredictable but then advocate Swiss's higher EV (which is only higher conditional on win rate).
1) Let's say you can't predict win rate. Swiss is only better than 4-3-2-2 in EV if you expect to win < 55% of matches. 8-4 is only better than the other two if you expect to win a lot. Neither are strictly better pay-out structures. That was probably intentional from WOTC. If you can't predict win rate, any of the 3 are viable. Reasons for choosing one should be based on something other than EV (e.g. choosing swiss to get more playing experience, or choosing 8-4 to have people respect signals).
2) If you can predict win rate (with some margin of error), for most ranges the payout is better for Swiss for lower win rates and higher for 8-4 for higher win rates. That's the common argument not to choose 4-3-2-2. However, that doesn't factor in skill differential. There's a non-trivial case where you can consistently win at the lower tables but aren't winning at 8-4 often enough. In that case, the payout of 4-3-2-2s is better. While win rate depends on the opponent, I find on average the skill level at each set of tables is roughly consistent over a large number of drafts and the skill difference between 8-4 and the others is pretty distinct. Then, it's possible to estimate win rate vs an average field if you have past experience in each.
The 4-3-2-2 window isn't that small, since 8-4 seems to be attracting all the sharks. It happens whenever you expect to win a decent amount of the time vs average players but <50% of the time against sharks. At Swiss, I keep going 1-1 or 2-1 or 3-0 for a > 50% win rate but get between 1-3 packs only. Unless I draft a value mythic, I'm losing value on the Swisses. If I play a 4-3-2-2 and go at least 1-1, I'm getting more packs than I would have in Swiss for the same record.
I've gone quasi-infinite off 4-3-2-2s but can't seem to do it off Swiss (too low a payout) or 8-4s (too high variance). I was wondering if it was just fluke luck and variance, so I did some math to try to figure out why that was happening and reached the above conclusion. 4-3-2-2 is actually a better payout for some cases. I was shocked at that result, since everyone seems to be saying it's strictly worse than Swiss or 8-4. I was surprised to find a case where it isn't.
I guess the argument might be to try moving up to 8-4, but I find it's easier to not lose money by consistently winning at 4-3-2-2 than by gambling at 8-4. I think the only format I consistently made finals of 8-4s was Gatecrash where you could stomp people by drafting 5 Spire Tracer + 3 Forced Adaptation + 3 Madcap Skills and LOL for days, but even then the meta changed every week as people caught on to new strategies. And if you're not consistently making finals in 8-4 at least half the time, you're just going broke. It's so frustrating to play 8-4 and draft a god pool, then lose in round 2 in 3 games to another legitimately good deck played by a really good player and walk away with 0 packs and 0 money rares. But that's the reality of 8-4.
The 4-3-2-2 window isn't that small, since 8-4 seems to be attracting all the sharks. It happens whenever you expect to win a decent amount of the time vs average players but <50% of the time against sharks. At Swiss, I keep going 1-1 or 2-1 or 3-0 for a > 50% win rate but get between 1-3 packs only. Unless I draft a value mythic, I'm losing value on the Swisses. If I play a 4-3-2-2 and go at least 1-1, I'm getting more packs than I would have in Swiss for the same record.
So earlier in this thread I took the best numbers I could find for describing the difficulty of pools (average and standard deviation of ratings) and ran some tournament simulations. Based on the numbers there, there was no win percentage (or rating) where 4-3-2-2 was the best option.
The rating numbers showed that the average rating for players in Swiss was lowest. Every numbers I've looked at, and every simulation I've run seems to tell the same story: either Swiss or 8-4 have better EV than 4-3-2-2. I'm glad you've found success in 4-3-2-2, but having better results there is not a likely or expected outcome.
Better results are both likely and expected for 4-3-2-2 if your win rate for non-8-4 is > 65% and your win rate in 8-4 is <57%. I can show you the EV calculations/tables I made if you like. The point of contention is whether anyone's win rate could vary by 10% or more between the different pools, which is what it sounds like you tried to measure with your simulations. Sounds interesting.
I'm curious how you measured the difficulties and their impact on win probability. ELO ratings do implicitly predict a probability of beating a player of a different rating based on a logistic model, but we all know how far that prediction can be from reality (i.e. logistic model isn't always a good fit)... which is why people can get big rating swings and why many games have stopped using them. Where did you get the ratings from anyway? AFAIK, Wizards doesn't make player ratings publicly available anymore.
I guess the other thing to note is that even if the win differential in practice is not that large, the payout EV is only marginally higher for 8-4 when your win rate is around 60% while the payout variance is way higher. That variance makes it harder to go infinite unless you have a deep buffer to burn through, while you may not even notice the difference in EV until 50 drafts in.
The other factor of note is that, unless you 2-1 every single 8-4, you are not going infinite by just 2-1 at best. You need to 3-0 some. So it's not just your win rate against the average 8-4 player but your win rate against the even better players you meet in the 2nd and 3rd round that determine your payout. I would contend that the average 2nd round opponent has a higher average rating than the average player in an 8-4 queue. And same for 3rd round.
Strangely enough, I might be a good candidate for 4-3-2-2's based on your reasoning. I've got a 67% match win percentage in Swiss, but a 33% match win percentage in 8-4. Granted, my sample size is small (20 Swiss BTT drafts and 5 8-4 BTT drafts) but I'd be open to trying something new.
EDIT: Scratch that. I thought about it some more and I disagree.
To simplify how I do in Swiss, I 3-0 25% of the time, 2-1 50% of the time, and 1-2 25% of the time. This equates to an average of 2 packs won per draft.
Now, of that 50% of the time that I win two matches, I make the assumption that 1/3rd of that will be a Win/Win/Loss, 1/3rd will be a W/L/W, and 1/3rd will be a L/W/W. Those equate to 3 packs, 2 packs, and 0 packs respectively in 4-3-2-2. (.25*4)+(.1666*3)+(.1666*2) = 1.8 packs per draft, and even fewer when you consider I probably make finals a little less often than the other scenarios.
Now I REALLY don't see how anyone could want to play 4-3-2-2s.
That's my strategy too. The most I'll say in a game is "gg" when I lose, and other than that I figure my opponent could assume I don't speak English. It's just easier. Sometimes I'll apologize if I take a long time with a play because I have to turn off boiling water, feed my dog, etc.
I agree with this. A couple of days ago in a swiss my opponent was very clearly unlucky in getting stuck on 2 lands the entire game in a game 3 of our match, and typed plenty of bitterness about it, especially when I used Griptide to ensure he was stuck on lands for an additional turn. I didn't type anything and just quit when the game ended but he private messaged me right away something bitter (although not hostile) so I tried to say something compassionate but he retorted with more bitterness. It's just better in my view to ignore bitterness.
I can sort of understand not replying to someone who is bitter, although I disagree; for every rude, bitter person, there's another who really appreciates any sort of polite or kind gesture, or finds that it helps them cope with the situation. I give players the benefit of the doubt. I draw the line at not responding at all, however. I find it hard to believe that you (or anyone else above) would be as stone-faced if this were an IRL game. Complete silence gives me this vibe that all you care about is the gameplay and prizes, when I feel that there's more to Magic than that, online or off.
It's true that I don't behave the same way in a live game, but losers don't throw anywhere near the amount of salt at you in real life either. In real life, whether I win or lose due to screw/flood/whatevs the other player and I generally just laugh it off and chalk it up to the luck-based element of Magic. The real life equivalent to the fools online who carry on like an overgrown man child is flipping a table or something. There's no reason to interact with those people.
Usually.
Once in a great while I'll get someone who's in the mood to chat, and I'll usually engage them just for variety's sake. I find that if someone is frustrated with a loss, talking about my play mistakes (there are always some, for me) stops it from getting toxic at all, and once in a while I get some good advice.
That's where I diverge from a lot of MTGO players myself. I couldn't play Magic if my only option was MTGO (no matter the quality of the client) because it's about more than just sitting down to play a game at my computer. I have Steam for that. The social, face-to-face aspect is a big deal to me, so I try to engage it whenever possible.
Hell, I'm even starting to get into streaming my MTGO sessions to get some live feedback/interaction during the game. Otherwise I'm just a quiet man in a quiet room doing quiet things.
My apologies for the rabbit chasing. To the point, which is still a touch off topic for the thread, I haven't run into any truly angry/salty players online just yet.
The only game things I'll comment on are:
1) A really cool play, like an innovative use of a card I've never seen before. Rarely happens in Theros to be honest. Most of the cards are straight forward.
2) Some statistically very unlikely thing that happened, good or bad, to try to connect with my opponent and establish that yea luck screws up this game sometimes but let's not get all bent out of shape about it.
In other words, I think it's fine to make a sad face and say "I kept a 4 land hand and drew 8 lands in a row off the top." That's commiserating about the annoying extremes of luck that ruin potentially interesting games. I don't think it's OK to say "Your deck is garbage, I deserved to win but I drew too many lands." That's petty. It's not based on any verified evidence. Drawing 8 lands in a row is an objectively crappy scenario. Thinking your opponent's deck is bad by some subjective measure is not worth discussing. It's just an expression of anger.
I also never say anything about my opponent himself. I don't say "Wow you filthy lucksack you topdecked 5 spells in a row after emptying your hand." At most I will point out that he was fortunate to draw so many spells and hope he will agree (or ignore it if he prefers) because he also has a decent grasp of probability. The only time I get into trouble (and then immediately shut up) is when my opponent is the kind of guy to somehow take credit for the random order of cards in his deck, or perhaps construe that random order as an indicator of his intelligence compared to mine.
Sorry, Pulse. I kind of departed from *just* the sore loser scenario and was addressing being social on MTGO in general. I more mean saying things like 'Nice play!' and similar kinds of friendly banter throughout the game. And to me, as you said, "[having] fun playing" involves friendly chats with my opponents. This is just for me, mind you.
There are a certain percentage of games that you flat out lose due to luck, but that percentage is far lower that most people think, same thing with wins due to luck, but in this case the percentage is probably higher than people think, lol.
Oh, and regarding the "Hello and good luck!" that many people stay at the start of the match (I use that right click shortcut), I love how "Good game!" is right above it, thats made for more than one awkward "Good game!" before the match starts
I can definitely understand that. While I don't really start a lot of that myself, if another player is engaging in positive conversation, then I will respond too. It's just when you get the negativity that I will completely refuse to engage with the opponent.
It can also sometimes be difficult to judge the intent behind a comment, someone can say something like "Nice deck" and you don't know if they are complementing you or being sarcastic and meaning that your deck sucks.
People are hyper-defensive online, it seems. It's probably some combination of low self esteem, an inability to judge sarcasm online and the general bad attitude of many players. So many statements that are pretty obviously good natured are met with irrational amounts of anger (sometimes by the guy who's winning - who should be naturally less defensive and more pleasant).
They should censor the word "luck". Then everyone would just think you were swearing and wouldn't take offense.
*cue outrage from internet*
inb4 whines:
I looked at the math pretty seriously and there's one thing the EV argument does not account for. 8-4 is full of sharks, while the skill level at 4-3-2-2 and Swiss are both lower. 4-3-2-2 might actually have the lowest skill level, since more serious Magic players would have read online articles telling them to play either Swiss or 8-4. That means your win% might be highest in 4-3-2-2. Mathematically, if your win rate is >= 65% in Swiss or 4-3-2-2 but < 57% in 8-4s, you get the highest EV playing 4-3-2-2!
All the EV math also assumes your win% is constant for each round. That would only be true if who advances to the next round is completely random, determined by luck and not skill level (but if that was true, your chance of advancing to the next round would be independent of your own win rate and then everyone should play 8-4 all the time... clearly not true). In the winner bracket, the expected difficulty level of your opponent is higher in the second round than in the first and highest in the 3rd round. That's an important consideration. If you think your win rate vs 2nd round 8-4 sharks is below 50%, it's not worth playing 8-4s.
Most of the time Swiss or 8-4 is just better, but I think there is a middle ground where you're winning more than 50% at Swiss and can profit more from 4-3-2-2 but would still get mauled at 8-4.
1) Let's say you can't predict win rate. Swiss is only better than 4-3-2-2 in EV if you expect to win < 55% of matches. 8-4 is only better than the other two if you expect to win a lot. Neither are strictly better pay-out structures. That was probably intentional from WOTC. If you can't predict win rate, any of the 3 are viable. Reasons for choosing one should be based on something other than EV (e.g. choosing swiss to get more playing experience, or choosing 8-4 to have people respect signals).
2) If you can predict win rate (with some margin of error), for most ranges the payout is better for Swiss for lower win rates and higher for 8-4 for higher win rates. That's the common argument not to choose 4-3-2-2. However, that doesn't factor in skill differential. There's a non-trivial case where you can consistently win at the lower tables but aren't winning at 8-4 often enough. In that case, the payout of 4-3-2-2s is better. While win rate depends on the opponent, I find on average the skill level at each set of tables is roughly consistent over a large number of drafts and the skill difference between 8-4 and the others is pretty distinct. Then, it's possible to estimate win rate vs an average field if you have past experience in each.
The 4-3-2-2 window isn't that small, since 8-4 seems to be attracting all the sharks. It happens whenever you expect to win a decent amount of the time vs average players but <50% of the time against sharks. At Swiss, I keep going 1-1 or 2-1 or 3-0 for a > 50% win rate but get between 1-3 packs only. Unless I draft a value mythic, I'm losing value on the Swisses. If I play a 4-3-2-2 and go at least 1-1, I'm getting more packs than I would have in Swiss for the same record.
I've gone quasi-infinite off 4-3-2-2s but can't seem to do it off Swiss (too low a payout) or 8-4s (too high variance). I was wondering if it was just fluke luck and variance, so I did some math to try to figure out why that was happening and reached the above conclusion. 4-3-2-2 is actually a better payout for some cases. I was shocked at that result, since everyone seems to be saying it's strictly worse than Swiss or 8-4. I was surprised to find a case where it isn't.
I guess the argument might be to try moving up to 8-4, but I find it's easier to not lose money by consistently winning at 4-3-2-2 than by gambling at 8-4. I think the only format I consistently made finals of 8-4s was Gatecrash where you could stomp people by drafting 5 Spire Tracer + 3 Forced Adaptation + 3 Madcap Skills and LOL for days, but even then the meta changed every week as people caught on to new strategies. And if you're not consistently making finals in 8-4 at least half the time, you're just going broke. It's so frustrating to play 8-4 and draft a god pool, then lose in round 2 in 3 games to another legitimately good deck played by a really good player and walk away with 0 packs and 0 money rares. But that's the reality of 8-4.
So earlier in this thread I took the best numbers I could find for describing the difficulty of pools (average and standard deviation of ratings) and ran some tournament simulations. Based on the numbers there, there was no win percentage (or rating) where 4-3-2-2 was the best option.
The rating numbers showed that the average rating for players in Swiss was lowest. Every numbers I've looked at, and every simulation I've run seems to tell the same story: either Swiss or 8-4 have better EV than 4-3-2-2. I'm glad you've found success in 4-3-2-2, but having better results there is not a likely or expected outcome.
I'm curious how you measured the difficulties and their impact on win probability. ELO ratings do implicitly predict a probability of beating a player of a different rating based on a logistic model, but we all know how far that prediction can be from reality (i.e. logistic model isn't always a good fit)... which is why people can get big rating swings and why many games have stopped using them. Where did you get the ratings from anyway? AFAIK, Wizards doesn't make player ratings publicly available anymore.
I guess the other thing to note is that even if the win differential in practice is not that large, the payout EV is only marginally higher for 8-4 when your win rate is around 60% while the payout variance is way higher. That variance makes it harder to go infinite unless you have a deep buffer to burn through, while you may not even notice the difference in EV until 50 drafts in.
The other factor of note is that, unless you 2-1 every single 8-4, you are not going infinite by just 2-1 at best. You need to 3-0 some. So it's not just your win rate against the average 8-4 player but your win rate against the even better players you meet in the 2nd and 3rd round that determine your payout. I would contend that the average 2nd round opponent has a higher average rating than the average player in an 8-4 queue. And same for 3rd round.
EDIT: Scratch that. I thought about it some more and I disagree.
To simplify how I do in Swiss, I 3-0 25% of the time, 2-1 50% of the time, and 1-2 25% of the time. This equates to an average of 2 packs won per draft.
Now, of that 50% of the time that I win two matches, I make the assumption that 1/3rd of that will be a Win/Win/Loss, 1/3rd will be a W/L/W, and 1/3rd will be a L/W/W. Those equate to 3 packs, 2 packs, and 0 packs respectively in 4-3-2-2. (.25*4)+(.1666*3)+(.1666*2) = 1.8 packs per draft, and even fewer when you consider I probably make finals a little less often than the other scenarios.
Now I REALLY don't see how anyone could want to play 4-3-2-2s.