I realize we have have the price discussion thread, as well as the metagame thread, but this didn't feel quite appropriate to either.
Modern has started taking off in area a little bit, which has made start to consider proper competitive decks as opposed to the brews I come up with every so often.
However, I want to get my money's worth if I am to invest in T2+ decks, since they aren't just spare change. This situation got me thinking: What is the price efficiency of the established+ decks as far as their win percentage is concerned?
I know we have some very capable statisticians on here, and people keep track of deck results, so I figured it'd be worth asking. I know that the line between certain decks (I.e. Hatebears vs D&T) is sometimes blurred, so I'll leave it up to whomever can provide an answer to differentiate as they please.
I'll happily crunch the performance side of the numbers if someone gets me the prices.
PM sent
Based on the info DeadKitten sent me, I crunched the numbers to try and come up with some semi-"objective" measure of price efficiency for Modern decks. I did this by comparing the deck values in his spreadsheet (TCG Mid from MTG Stocks as of 3/23/2014) to how the decks ranked up in the Proven/Established system that we use for this forum. Basically, there are 5 categories that a deck can be Proven in, ranging from MTGO share to large paper metagame share. There are also 4 categories that a deck can be Established in. I awarded decks 1 point for every Established criteria they met and 2 points for every Proven criteria they met. If you awarded 3 points instead of 2, the results would be a little different.
I then came up with a price/performance ranking which is essentially just a deck's price divided by the deck's proven/established points. In effect, the ratio says that for every $X you spend on the deck, you are giving yourself Y points of proven/established ranking.
Of the decks I had good price data for, here were the top 5 and their price:performance ratio.
MOST PRICE EFFICIENT DECKS
1. Burn ($44/1)
2. Affinity ($77/1)
3. Merfolk ($90/1)
4. Bogles ($111/1)
5. RG Tron ($116/1)
And here were the bottom 5 decks in the price:performance index.
Here's a different way to think of both lists. Money put into Burn goes a long way. That deck is solidly proven and still only costs a measly $130-$150. But Gruul Zoo? You are spending over $2,000 on the deck and barely buying yourself a few points of Established/Proven success.
There are definitely other ways to look at it but I thought this drew on the most data for the most comprehensive picture. It's also not necessarily the best way to pick your Modern deck, but for the purposes of this thread, it's an interesting analysis to consider.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Modern has started taking off in area a little bit, which has made start to consider proper competitive decks as opposed to the brews I come up with every so often.
However, I want to get my money's worth if I am to invest in T2+ decks, since they aren't just spare change. This situation got me thinking:
What is the price efficiency of the established+ decks as far as their win percentage is concerned?
I know we have some very capable statisticians on here, and people keep track of deck results, so I figured it'd be worth asking. I know that the line between certain decks (I.e. Hatebears vs D&T) is sometimes blurred, so I'll leave it up to whomever can provide an answer to differentiate as they please.
Here's ad nauseam prices:
The fetches really bring the price up, without them it's like $200. These are TCG mid prices.
'78 CB750F, '09 CBR600RR
PM sent
Based on the info DeadKitten sent me, I crunched the numbers to try and come up with some semi-"objective" measure of price efficiency for Modern decks. I did this by comparing the deck values in his spreadsheet (TCG Mid from MTG Stocks as of 3/23/2014) to how the decks ranked up in the Proven/Established system that we use for this forum. Basically, there are 5 categories that a deck can be Proven in, ranging from MTGO share to large paper metagame share. There are also 4 categories that a deck can be Established in. I awarded decks 1 point for every Established criteria they met and 2 points for every Proven criteria they met. If you awarded 3 points instead of 2, the results would be a little different.
I then came up with a price/performance ranking which is essentially just a deck's price divided by the deck's proven/established points. In effect, the ratio says that for every $X you spend on the deck, you are giving yourself Y points of proven/established ranking.
Of the decks I had good price data for, here were the top 5 and their price:performance ratio.
MOST PRICE EFFICIENT DECKS
1. Burn ($44/1)
2. Affinity ($77/1)
3. Merfolk ($90/1)
4. Bogles ($111/1)
5. RG Tron ($116/1)
And here were the bottom 5 decks in the price:performance index.
LEAST PRICE EFFICIENT DECKS
5. Domain Zoo ($373/1)
4. Jund ($389/1)
3. Delver ($593/1)
2. BG Rock ($753/1)
1. Gruul Zoo ($917/1)
Here's a different way to think of both lists. Money put into Burn goes a long way. That deck is solidly proven and still only costs a measly $130-$150. But Gruul Zoo? You are spending over $2,000 on the deck and barely buying yourself a few points of Established/Proven success.
There are definitely other ways to look at it but I thought this drew on the most data for the most comprehensive picture. It's also not necessarily the best way to pick your Modern deck, but for the purposes of this thread, it's an interesting analysis to consider.