Like with any card game, there is a certain amount of luck involved at all levels of play. The real question is, how much luck is involved, and how does it compare to the level of skill involved?
Many people claim games like poker are more luck based, than skill based. However a study of 100 million + hands by Ohio University shows that Poker (Texas Hold'Em specifically)is at least %80++ skill based - article here for reference: https://www.cardschat.com/f13/how-much-luck-do-you-think-174243/
This, in addition to the fact that you will consistently see the same players at Final Tables is a good indicator that a game is heavily based on skill.
When it comes to MTG, I haven't been able to find nearly as much data on the Luck vs Skill argument. The only data I do find, is how often you will see the same players at the top 8 of a Pro Tour, which doesn't appear to be very often.
This leads me to believe MTG is definitely more luck based than skill based, however I could be wrong, and perhaps I've missed data somewhere. From my own experience I've also seen this. A good or bad matchup can decide the winner before the first 7 cards are even drawn. Speaking of drawing cards, I've seen / experienced people mulling to 3 and just straight up losing because of that. In this case the winner is not decided based on skill.
So, I wanted to see if anyone has more data I can refer to when trying to find how much luck / skill is involved in Magic.
I don't know the numbers but it is a real thing. If there wasn't a luck factor there wouldn't have been a need to create the Draft format to replace the sealed format. Pros hate the sealed format because of the luck factor. You are lucky enough to get a good pool or not. Most pros feel that puts them at a disadvantage. I prefer the Sealed format myself but I don't play for a living either.
I never pull good cards from pack and I have played since 1994 or so that's why I buy singles. I have also seen players who consistently pull great rares , Week after week. It's hard to gauge the luck factor in my opinion. To do a accurate test you'll need to use Subjects who are thought to be lucky vs subjects that are thought to be unlucky.
I know the biggest luck factor in magic is Pairings.
This would make for a great Modern Nexus article if I wrote for them anymore. I'd cross-reference Modern GP results with the MTG ELO project and then run some regressions to check the relationship between ELO and finish.
Speaking anecdotally, I track my own performance on MTGO with different decks and I have a column on the spreadsheet that records losses where I was totally ****ed by variance and never had a shot. It's fewer than 5% of my losses, and less than 2% of my total games. In all the other games, I'm mostly losing by making a bad play that I can later look back on and critique. This includes bad keeps. When playing UW Control on MTGO, I no longer blindly keep G1 opening hands without either T1-T2 interaction or Serum Visions, no matter how good the T4+ plays look. I'll definitely keep durdly hands in G2-G3 if I know the matchup, but those blind keeps open you up to Dredge, Affinity, Burn, Storm, Elves, Counters Company, and other linear nut draws.
As an example, I watched a streamer the other day on a similar UW Control list. In G1 against an unknown opponent, he kept something like 3 land, Wall of Omens, Spreading Seas, Cryptic, and Gideon of the Trials on the draw. His opponent was on Storm, dropped the T2 engine, and completely wrecked the Control pilot on T3. The streamer got salty and blamed variance, when it was so clear to me that his hand was inoperable against a huge subset of the MTGO metagame. Especially on the draw. He did not make an optimal mulligan decision in a deck that mulligans extremely well (25-26 lands, 3-4 SV) and in doing so he minimized his chances of winning.
This would make for a great Modern Nexus article if I wrote for them anymore. I'd cross-reference Modern GP results with the MTG ELO project and then run some regressions to check the relationship between ELO and finish.
Speaking anecdotally, I track my own performance on MTGO with different decks and I have a column on the spreadsheet that records losses where I was totally ****ed by variance and never had a shot. It's fewer than 5% of my losses, and less than 2% of my total games. In all the other games, I'm mostly losing by making a bad play that I can later look back on and critique. This includes bad keeps. When playing UW Control on MTGO, I no longer blindly keep G1 opening hands without either T1-T2 interaction or Serum Visions, no matter how good the T4+ plays look. I'll definitely keep durdly hands in G2-G3 if I know the matchup, but those blind keeps open you up to Dredge, Affinity, Burn, Storm, Elves, Counters Company, and other linear nut draws.
As an example, I watched a streamer the other day on a similar UW Control list. In G1 against an unknown opponent, he kept something like 3 land, Wall of Omens, Spreading Seas, Cryptic, and Gideon of the Trials on the draw. His opponent was on Storm, dropped the T2 engine, and completely wrecked the Control pilot on T3. The streamer got salty and blamed variance, when it was so clear to me that his hand was inoperable against a huge subset of the MTGO metagame. Especially on the draw. He did not make an optimal mulligan decision in a deck that mulligans extremely well (25-26 lands, 3-4 SV) and in doing so he minimized his chances of winning.
Sounds like your making the argument that Player skill is a bigger factor than luck. I agree we all lose a lot of games off of play mistakes. A couple years ago I had a friend document a few tournaments from my opponents and my prospective. We found that almost every loss was do to a bad play or a lack of a play. With that said, There were games I could not have won, like games were I drew bad. There's a luck factor, It's hard to gauge the exact numbers to do so you need to track the play off known lucky and unlucky players.
Sounds like your making the argument that Player skill is a bigger factor than luck. I agree we all lose a lot of games off of play mistakes. A couple years ago I had a friend document a few tournaments from my opponents and my prospective. We found that almost every loss was do to a bad play or a lack of a play. With that said, There were games I could not have won, like games were I drew bad. There's a luck factor, It's hard to gauge the exact numbers to do so you need to track the play off known lucky and unlucky players.
I agree that luck is a factor in every game, even in games that are largely based on skill. That's just the nature of a card game. I also don't think Magic would be 80% skill and 20% luck like poker, but I do think it would be largely skill (>60%) and less-so luck (<40%). Anecdotally, it feels like a 65-35 ratio, just judging from my own play circles where the good players typically win but sometimes don't. Most pro players have around a 65% win rate too, so that gives a bit of credence to my guess.
I agree that deck-building is definitely an element here as well, particularly building a sideboard and then sideboarding effectively. I don't think it's as important as knowing your role in a matchup, but it is important. Deck-building would be the decision to include TS, IoK, Leak, etc. in your deck, and that is certainly an important decision. But more important is knowing what to pick off TS/IoK, what to counter on Leak/when to counter (especially if you have the choice between Leaking/Knotting/Negating a spell), and what modes on Command to use/how and when to use them. We have so much information on deck-building today that I think most players would know to include those cards. But many players screw up the use of those cards at all levels. That's where in-game skill becomes a major factor.
Talking about MTGO only, the shuffler there is so bad that I start every other game with a mull to 6 or 5 (becuase of 1/0-landers)
even with a reasonable number of lands so this shuffler adds quite a bit of variance to the game and causes quite a few non-games
(it is hard enough to play against a tuned, fast Tier 1 deck without having to mull to 5).
I see many people mentioning bad plays being the cause of losses.
I just need to clarify that a play is not inherently bad because of the decision made in the moment. If someone makes the best play they can with the information they have available, it may appear as a bad play to someone who can see both players hands.
For example: Playing a birds on Turn 1 only to have it bolted is not a bad play, because you couldn't know your opponent had a bolt in hand.
That being said, after some more digging, I feel MTG is about 60% skill, with the rest being general luck and match ups deciding the outcome. I can see why some pro players are frustrated with the current state of modern - luck plays too large a role for highly competitive play.
I see many people mentioning bad plays being the cause of losses.
I just need to clarify that a play is not inherently bad because of the decision made in the moment. If someone makes the best play they can with the information they have available, it may appear as a bad play to someone who can see both players hands.
For example: Playing a birds on Turn 1 only to have it bolted is not a bad play, because you couldn't know your opponent had a bolt in hand.
That being said, after some more digging, I feel MTG is about 60% skill, with the rest being general luck and match ups deciding the outcome. I can see why some pro players are frustrated with the current state of modern - luck plays too large a role for highly competitive play.
The Birds example isn't a good one because that's probably the optimal play even if an opponent has Bolt. Better example; you keep a one-lander with BoP and Hierarch, get wrecked by removal, don't draw a land, and then blame variance. That's not bad luck. That's a bad decision which results in a virtually guaranteed loss against many decks in the field.
The best players have about a 65% win rate overall, and tend to get at least that in major Modern events. The issue is that in a GP, the difference between T8 at 13-3 and T32 at 12-3 can be variance in just one single game. Also, Modern skill requires knowing at least 20+ matchups, their G1 and G2-3 cards/plans, and your role in those matchups. Much easier for pros to learn a tighter Limited format or smaller Standard metagame and just pick up the hands-down best deck.
With regards to seeing the "same players" at top tables, remember that these players are coming in with 2-3 byes in events where they get to dodge a lot of the random garbage decks and brews that give early losses to many people who prepared for the "top tables" meta. When you have a more predictable meta to play in and get to skip all the early rounds, it's a much more predictable place to be, easier to tune the deck, usually better tie-breakers, etc. Yes, these players are incredibly skillful in their decision making and have great win rates, but let's not forget they can also lose right out and drop after a few rounds from bad matchups and bad luck, especially without byes.
There are really just 3 things that are luck-based and the rest can be compensated for. Those three things are the deck your opponent is playing (though if you're doing well later in a tournament that's typically a smaller pool), play/draw, and your deck's randomness after you shuffle and present.
In a format like Modern where many decks want to win fast and there aren't high pedigree cheap costing answer cards, the first two things I listed (opponent's deck and play/draw) play a much larger factor. Modern also lacks Brainstorm/Ponder/Preordain to help assuage the third (randomness solved through card selection).
So Modern "feels" much more luck-based than some other formats, but it's still just the same 3 elements that are present in every format. They simply play a larger role in Modern.
Modern is way over 50% toward the luck side, take your pick of a platinum pro and see how often they day 2 a modern gp, it's approx. 50% or less.
That said, a huge part of that "luck" can be offset by preparation, to both guess the metagame and get lucky enough to play a correct sampling of it. It doesn't help when you correctly guess that "infect and bant are ded" and then spend 9 rounds alternating between them, which is just as unlucky as mull'ing to into oblivion.
I started streaming and can understand why they got salty, it's embarrassing to lose like that while people are watching you! I think that was a keepable hand and I don't think you can mull it in the dark because having a serum visions isn't going to keep you in the game, you're still very likely to whiff on finding anything that stops storm going off t3 just because you drew a blind card and sent 2 to the bottom, storm is a lot more robust than that.
Luck is a very small part of Magic. Anyone arguing that it is anything more than 20-25% is, in my opinion, focusing way too much on that aspect of the game.
Magic success is determined by decisions made well before the first march of a tournament is played. Playing the 'right deck' for a tournament (one that has a favorable matchup against a large portion of the field) isn't lucky. It's reading the current state of the format and coming prepared to beat the largest percentage of decks that you can. Now, can you have the right deck and get multiple matchups against the 30% of decks you have an unfavorable matchup against? Sure, but if you play 10 matches, you should expect to face unfavorable matchups multiple times.
I think many people are simply confusing variance with luck. In some percentage of games, you are going to get mana screwed. And in some percentage of games you will flood. And in some situations you get your deck's nut draw. Over a long enough sample size, the math will always work out. It's not luck when you get mana screwed though. It is the expected result of at least one game (but probably 10-20) in a hundred based on your deck build.
And you know what separates platinum pros from your above average GP grinder? Pros win a small percentage of the games where they get flooded or screwed because they know the format, the decks and play to their outs.
I'm not saying luck is totally absent in Magic. I've been in games where I'm at 1 and if my top card isn't one of 7 out of 35 cards, I will lose the game, giving me a 20% chance to survive. Can I be called lucky for hitting? Sure, but then again, maybe I played in a way over the past 2-3 turns to give myself an extra draw step, or thin my deck by fetching because I knew that going to 1 was the same as being at 3 and gave myself an extra 1.2% to draw out.
Long story short, if you think luck is more important than skill in Modern, you're already down some percentage points in every match you play.
luck is always the very last thing that should be "blamed" for a loss. There are SO MANY other things that you could have done better. Always.
The moment you do all of the following correctly:
- Metagame correctly and bring the right deck
- Metagame correctly and make the right adjustments to the deck
- Metagame correctly and adjust your SB slots accordingly
- Mulligan correctly
- SB correctly both on the play and on the draw
- Sequence your lands correctly
- Sequence your plays correctly
- Bluff well
- Read your opponent correctly
- Anticipate your opponent's plays correctly
- Play to your outs
- Make every in-game decision 100% correctly
- Likely more
Is the moment you can even begin to wonder if luck has anything to do with it.
Each individual game of magic is largely luck, and that's why anything can go take down your local FNM.
It's scale though that changes things. When we start playing round after round, the results get closer to the mean and the curse of small numbers begins to weaken and the diamonds begin to shine through.
From the Match-ups you end up facing throughout a tournament, to your starting hands, to the cards you draw throughout the game, to mana flood, and mana screw. And also all these things with your opponent too; their opening hands, what they draw, who draws their sideboard cards, and when, etc, etc, etc...
I'd say there's no way to deny luck plays a massive factor in things.
You can play everything perfectly, but If you only draw 1 land in 5 turns, you're gonna lose. If you draw a land every turn, you're gonna lose. Your opponent top decks their 1 of sideboard hate at the perfect moment, you're gonna lose. You meta perfectly, but somehow still end up facing your worst match up, chances are you're gonna lose. Your opponent is beating you down with 1-2 dudes, and somehow you just don't draw any of your 15 pieces of removal... You're gonna lose, Etc, etc.
Or it works the other way too.
You put no thought into your meta choice, and just play the deck you like, by luck of the draw happen to dodge all your bad match-ups, and hey, you just slayed that tournament. Or maybe You do end up against your worst match, but they get mana screwed and you get the win anyway. Or how about that time you top decked that sideboard card JUST IN TIME, and hey you just won, purely because of good luck. Or remember that game where you just happened to draw your entire combo in your opening hand?
That is just patently not true. There are certainly matchups that are 'determined by the die roll,' but that only applies if both players know both decks strengths and weaknesses, as well as the likely contents of an opponent's deck and hand, and both players play optimally.
That said, your point about FNM is well made. Luck certainly has a lot more to do with the outcome when any tournament has a median skill level on the lower side.
luck is always the very last thing that should be "blamed" for a loss. There are SO MANY other things that you could have done better. Always.
The moment you do all of the following correctly:
- Metagame correctly and bring the right deck
- Metagame correctly and make the right adjustments to the deck
- Metagame correctly and adjust your SB slots accordingly
- Mulligan correctly
- SB correctly both on the play and on the draw
- Sequence your lands correctly
- Sequence your plays correctly
- Bluff well
- Read your opponent correctly
- Anticipate your opponent's plays correctly
- Play to your outs
- Make every in-game decision 100% correctly
- Likely more
Is the moment you can even begin to wonder if luck has anything to do with it.
I liked your other post because it was the one I identified most with. (even though most posts here are spot on as well)
I just have a question, "how do you know which deck is the best deck to bring?" The reason why I ask this is this. I've been playing since 1994. I've been playing competitively since 2004. I still don't know what deck to bring quite often. I do choose a deck based on metagame and my own skill decisions, but I am still very often lost. I used to choose the deck that had the best win percentage vs. the top deck, but still was solid vs. the rest of the field. This only got me so far, in fact I lost a lot in the top 8 of PTQs with this strategy. I also tried just running the best deck. I didn't top 8 as often, but finally got more wins in the top 8 (still not getting 1st though). In the end, I don't really know what to choose. You can often beat yourself up for these types of decisions.
The only RPTQ I played Modern in, I avoided Dredge, which I had been playing a lot, because I identified that a lot of people would be playing it and the mirror is DREADFUL as ****. A friend ran it and he ended up getting top 4 and the Invitation while I struggled to 3-3 with Bogles (which beat Dredge easily, but had a poor Infect matchup; didn't play vs. either though). I am still upset about this decision to this very day even though it was over a year ago.
(for the thread) *I played Titan Shift at the GP Las Vegas. I lost 2 rounds on Day 1 and 2 more on Day 2. In the first loss vs. Jeskai Queller, my only regret was not shuffling our decks differently. I literally didn't draw threats in 2 games. My 2nd loss vs. Esper Shadow was really the only one where I know I could have won, had I played differently. In fact, Thien Nyugen, known for Titanshift, told me a line that would have worked. But he was also watching from my opponent's side of the table. I could have not played around Stubborn Denial and played around Path to Exile/Liliana of the Veil instead. I played around Denial since the other 2 are mediocre at best vs. Titan Shift and I didn't expect him to have the full 4. But I lost because of this. I also lost to turn 4 Breached Titan/Emrakul on Day 2 and BW Eldrazi Taxes that double TKS me in games 1 and 3. Not sure what I could have done there. I do admit that in a lot of the wins, I could have and should have played better, but honestly in the 4 losses, 3 felt beyond my non shuffling control. I had higher expectations for myself. Maybe the deck choice was wrong?
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
That is just patently not true. There are certainly matchups that are 'determined by the die roll,' but that only applies if both players know both decks strengths and weaknesses, as well as the likely contents of an opponent's deck and hand, and both players play optimally.
That said, your point about FNM is well made. Luck certainly has a lot more to do with the outcome when any tournament has a median skill level on the lower side.
Luck in every game of magic:
Your opening 7,
Your opening 6, Your opening 5,
Your first draw,
Your next draw, Every card drawn thereafter.
Getting your outs,
Deciding to bring an out forthis match up.
Playing to the specific out you're going to draw.
Your T1 play in the dark,
Playing around cards,
Playing into cards,
And the list goes on and on.
Yes you can win games with skill, but more often than not games are determined the moment after your opponent cuts your deck.
That is just patently not true. There are certainly matchups that are 'determined by the die roll,' but that only applies if both players know both decks strengths and weaknesses, as well as the likely contents of an opponent's deck and hand, and both players play optimally.
That said, your point about FNM is well made. Luck certainly has a lot more to do with the outcome when any tournament has a median skill level on the lower side.
Luck in every game of magic:
Your opening 7,
Your opening 6, Your opening 5,
Your first draw,
Your next draw, Every card drawn thereafter.
Getting your outs,
Deciding to bring an out forthis match up.
Playing to the specific out you're going to draw.
Your T1 play in the dark,
Playing around cards,
Playing into cards,
And the list goes on and on.
Yes you can win games with skill, but more often than not games are determined the moment after your opponent cuts your deck.
Literally none of the things you listed are purely luck based. Informed decisions and preparation go into each and every one of them.
I just have a question, "how do you know which deck is the best deck to bring?" The reason why I ask this is this. I've been playing since 1994. I've been playing competitively since 2004. I still don't know what deck to bring quite often. I do choose a deck based on metagame and my own skill decisions, but I am still very often lost. I used to choose the deck that had the best win percentage vs. the top deck, but still was solid vs. the rest of the field. This only got me so far, in fact I lost a lot in the top 8 of PTQs with this strategy. I also tried just running the best deck. I didn't top 8 as often, but finally got more wins in the top 8 (still not getting 1st though). In the end, I don't really know what to choose. You can often beat yourself up for these types of decisions.
If I had the perfect answer to that question I'd be in the MTG hall of fame. But I know a few things that go into it, and that includes knowing how good of a technical player you are (which can help you include or exclude more skill-based decks), knowing the full meta (knowing most of the decks you're likely to face), knowing the best deck(s) in the meta (which is often what you should choose), and practicing a lot with your chosen deck.
That is just patently not true. There are certainly matchups that are 'determined by the die roll,' but that only applies if both players know both decks strengths and weaknesses, as well as the likely contents of an opponent's deck and hand, and both players play optimally.
That said, your point about FNM is well made. Luck certainly has a lot more to do with the outcome when any tournament has a median skill level on the lower side.
Luck in every game of magic:
Your opening 7,
Your opening 6, Your opening 5,
Your first draw,
Your next draw, Every card drawn thereafter.
Getting your outs,
Deciding to bring an out forthis match up.
Playing to the specific out you're going to draw.
Your T1 play in the dark,
Playing around cards,
Playing into cards,
And the list goes on and on.
Yes you can win games with skill, but more often than not games are determined the moment after your opponent cuts your deck.
Literally none of the things you listed are purely luck based. Informed decisions and preparation go into each and every one of them.
Did I say they were purely luck based?
Information creates odds. Those odds create EV. Luck is pretty much AV-EV
That is just patently not true. There are certainly matchups that are 'determined by the die roll,' but that only applies if both players know both decks strengths and weaknesses, as well as the likely contents of an opponent's deck and hand, and both players play optimally.
That said, your point about FNM is well made. Luck certainly has a lot more to do with the outcome when any tournament has a median skill level on the lower side.
Luck in every game of magic:
Your opening 7,
Your opening 6, Your opening 5,
Your first draw,
Your next draw, Every card drawn thereafter.
Getting your outs,
Deciding to bring an out forthis match up.
Playing to the specific out you're going to draw.
Your T1 play in the dark,
Playing around cards,
Playing into cards,
And the list goes on and on.
Yes you can win games with skill, but more often than not games are determined the moment after your opponent cuts your deck.
Literally none of the things you listed are purely luck based. Informed decisions and preparation go into each and every one of them.
Did I say they were purely luck based?
Information creates odds. Those odds create EV. Luck is pretty much AV-EV
I like the equation, but I feel like it's missing a piece. Luck = AV - EV - Mistakes.
Identifying your mistakes is the hardest part of the game and being able to do it represents the largest leap of growth as a player. There's a reason many PT winning players feel they're bad - they can identify the mistakes that most players don't even realize are mistakes. Most players attribute those mistakes to luck, and they're wrong.
That is just patently not true. There are certainly matchups that are 'determined by the die roll,' but that only applies if both players know both decks strengths and weaknesses, as well as the likely contents of an opponent's deck and hand, and both players play optimally.
That said, your point about FNM is well made. Luck certainly has a lot more to do with the outcome when any tournament has a median skill level on the lower side.
Luck in every game of magic:
Your opening 7,
Your opening 6, Your opening 5,
Your first draw,
Your next draw, Every card drawn thereafter.
Getting your outs,
Deciding to bring an out forthis match up.
Playing to the specific out you're going to draw.
Your T1 play in the dark,
Playing around cards,
Playing into cards,
And the list goes on and on.
Yes you can win games with skill, but more often than not games are determined the moment after your opponent cuts your deck.
You might have constructed formats confused with Momir Basic or something.
Modern decks are composed of 60 selected cards, not 60 cards chosen at random. Your opening 7 or 6 or 5 or whatever are determined by how many of each card you are running which affects the probability that you will see them in your opening hand.
Playing into or around cards aren't luck either. Case in point, my opponent does a lot of draw go stuff and casts and Elesh Norn. On my turn, I fire off a Slaughter Games naming Gifts Ungiven which my opponent didn't show me in game 1. I proceed to thumb through his deck and remove all 4 copies. As I was doing so, he asked me if I saw his deck before we started playing, to which I replied 'You're playing Elesh Norn.' It was not a 'lucky' guess.
The very next round my T1 play was to cycle two Street Wraiths and play a Blackcleave Cliffs and my opponent goes 'Jund Death's Shadow or Living End?' Again, there was no luck involved in knowing what he was up against. It was experience and repetitions playing many matches. And skill.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH UFblthpU BRXantchaRB BGVarolzGB URWZedruuWRU
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Many people claim games like poker are more luck based, than skill based. However a study of 100 million + hands by Ohio University shows that Poker (Texas Hold'Em specifically)is at least %80++ skill based - article here for reference: https://www.cardschat.com/f13/how-much-luck-do-you-think-174243/
This, in addition to the fact that you will consistently see the same players at Final Tables is a good indicator that a game is heavily based on skill.
When it comes to MTG, I haven't been able to find nearly as much data on the Luck vs Skill argument. The only data I do find, is how often you will see the same players at the top 8 of a Pro Tour, which doesn't appear to be very often.
This leads me to believe MTG is definitely more luck based than skill based, however I could be wrong, and perhaps I've missed data somewhere. From my own experience I've also seen this. A good or bad matchup can decide the winner before the first 7 cards are even drawn. Speaking of drawing cards, I've seen / experienced people mulling to 3 and just straight up losing because of that. In this case the winner is not decided based on skill.
So, I wanted to see if anyone has more data I can refer to when trying to find how much luck / skill is involved in Magic.
Thoughts?
RWG Burn
GW Abzan Company
I never pull good cards from pack and I have played since 1994 or so that's why I buy singles. I have also seen players who consistently pull great rares , Week after week. It's hard to gauge the luck factor in my opinion. To do a accurate test you'll need to use Subjects who are thought to be lucky vs subjects that are thought to be unlucky.
I know the biggest luck factor in magic is Pairings.
Speaking anecdotally, I track my own performance on MTGO with different decks and I have a column on the spreadsheet that records losses where I was totally ****ed by variance and never had a shot. It's fewer than 5% of my losses, and less than 2% of my total games. In all the other games, I'm mostly losing by making a bad play that I can later look back on and critique. This includes bad keeps. When playing UW Control on MTGO, I no longer blindly keep G1 opening hands without either T1-T2 interaction or Serum Visions, no matter how good the T4+ plays look. I'll definitely keep durdly hands in G2-G3 if I know the matchup, but those blind keeps open you up to Dredge, Affinity, Burn, Storm, Elves, Counters Company, and other linear nut draws.
As an example, I watched a streamer the other day on a similar UW Control list. In G1 against an unknown opponent, he kept something like 3 land, Wall of Omens, Spreading Seas, Cryptic, and Gideon of the Trials on the draw. His opponent was on Storm, dropped the T2 engine, and completely wrecked the Control pilot on T3. The streamer got salty and blamed variance, when it was so clear to me that his hand was inoperable against a huge subset of the MTGO metagame. Especially on the draw. He did not make an optimal mulligan decision in a deck that mulligans extremely well (25-26 lands, 3-4 SV) and in doing so he minimized his chances of winning.
URW PillowFort Stasis (costruction)
modern:
U Taking Turns combo
pauper:
UB Servitor Control
xenob8 : you know you are going to have a bad time when opponent starts with snow covered island
I agree that luck is a factor in every game, even in games that are largely based on skill. That's just the nature of a card game. I also don't think Magic would be 80% skill and 20% luck like poker, but I do think it would be largely skill (>60%) and less-so luck (<40%). Anecdotally, it feels like a 65-35 ratio, just judging from my own play circles where the good players typically win but sometimes don't. Most pro players have around a 65% win rate too, so that gives a bit of credence to my guess.
I agree that deck-building is definitely an element here as well, particularly building a sideboard and then sideboarding effectively. I don't think it's as important as knowing your role in a matchup, but it is important. Deck-building would be the decision to include TS, IoK, Leak, etc. in your deck, and that is certainly an important decision. But more important is knowing what to pick off TS/IoK, what to counter on Leak/when to counter (especially if you have the choice between Leaking/Knotting/Negating a spell), and what modes on Command to use/how and when to use them. We have so much information on deck-building today that I think most players would know to include those cards. But many players screw up the use of those cards at all levels. That's where in-game skill becomes a major factor.
even with a reasonable number of lands so this shuffler adds quite a bit of variance to the game and causes quite a few non-games
(it is hard enough to play against a tuned, fast Tier 1 deck without having to mull to 5).
I just need to clarify that a play is not inherently bad because of the decision made in the moment. If someone makes the best play they can with the information they have available, it may appear as a bad play to someone who can see both players hands.
For example: Playing a birds on Turn 1 only to have it bolted is not a bad play, because you couldn't know your opponent had a bolt in hand.
That being said, after some more digging, I feel MTG is about 60% skill, with the rest being general luck and match ups deciding the outcome. I can see why some pro players are frustrated with the current state of modern - luck plays too large a role for highly competitive play.
RWG Burn
GW Abzan Company
The Birds example isn't a good one because that's probably the optimal play even if an opponent has Bolt. Better example; you keep a one-lander with BoP and Hierarch, get wrecked by removal, don't draw a land, and then blame variance. That's not bad luck. That's a bad decision which results in a virtually guaranteed loss against many decks in the field.
The best players have about a 65% win rate overall, and tend to get at least that in major Modern events. The issue is that in a GP, the difference between T8 at 13-3 and T32 at 12-3 can be variance in just one single game. Also, Modern skill requires knowing at least 20+ matchups, their G1 and G2-3 cards/plans, and your role in those matchups. Much easier for pros to learn a tighter Limited format or smaller Standard metagame and just pick up the hands-down best deck.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
In a format like Modern where many decks want to win fast and there aren't high pedigree cheap costing answer cards, the first two things I listed (opponent's deck and play/draw) play a much larger factor. Modern also lacks Brainstorm/Ponder/Preordain to help assuage the third (randomness solved through card selection).
So Modern "feels" much more luck-based than some other formats, but it's still just the same 3 elements that are present in every format. They simply play a larger role in Modern.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
That said, a huge part of that "luck" can be offset by preparation, to both guess the metagame and get lucky enough to play a correct sampling of it. It doesn't help when you correctly guess that "infect and bant are ded" and then spend 9 rounds alternating between them, which is just as unlucky as mull'ing to into oblivion.
I started streaming and can understand why they got salty, it's embarrassing to lose like that while people are watching you! I think that was a keepable hand and I don't think you can mull it in the dark because having a serum visions isn't going to keep you in the game, you're still very likely to whiff on finding anything that stops storm going off t3 just because you drew a blind card and sent 2 to the bottom, storm is a lot more robust than that.
Magic success is determined by decisions made well before the first march of a tournament is played. Playing the 'right deck' for a tournament (one that has a favorable matchup against a large portion of the field) isn't lucky. It's reading the current state of the format and coming prepared to beat the largest percentage of decks that you can. Now, can you have the right deck and get multiple matchups against the 30% of decks you have an unfavorable matchup against? Sure, but if you play 10 matches, you should expect to face unfavorable matchups multiple times.
I think many people are simply confusing variance with luck. In some percentage of games, you are going to get mana screwed. And in some percentage of games you will flood. And in some situations you get your deck's nut draw. Over a long enough sample size, the math will always work out. It's not luck when you get mana screwed though. It is the expected result of at least one game (but probably 10-20) in a hundred based on your deck build.
And you know what separates platinum pros from your above average GP grinder? Pros win a small percentage of the games where they get flooded or screwed because they know the format, the decks and play to their outs.
I'm not saying luck is totally absent in Magic. I've been in games where I'm at 1 and if my top card isn't one of 7 out of 35 cards, I will lose the game, giving me a 20% chance to survive. Can I be called lucky for hitting? Sure, but then again, maybe I played in a way over the past 2-3 turns to give myself an extra draw step, or thin my deck by fetching because I knew that going to 1 was the same as being at 3 and gave myself an extra 1.2% to draw out.
Long story short, if you think luck is more important than skill in Modern, you're already down some percentage points in every match you play.
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
The moment you do all of the following correctly:
- Metagame correctly and bring the right deck
- Metagame correctly and make the right adjustments to the deck
- Metagame correctly and adjust your SB slots accordingly
- Mulligan correctly
- SB correctly both on the play and on the draw
- Sequence your lands correctly
- Sequence your plays correctly
- Bluff well
- Read your opponent correctly
- Anticipate your opponent's plays correctly
- Play to your outs
- Make every in-game decision 100% correctly
- Likely more
Is the moment you can even begin to wonder if luck has anything to do with it.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
It's scale though that changes things. When we start playing round after round, the results get closer to the mean and the curse of small numbers begins to weaken and the diamonds begin to shine through.
I'd say there's no way to deny luck plays a massive factor in things.
You can play everything perfectly, but If you only draw 1 land in 5 turns, you're gonna lose. If you draw a land every turn, you're gonna lose. Your opponent top decks their 1 of sideboard hate at the perfect moment, you're gonna lose. You meta perfectly, but somehow still end up facing your worst match up, chances are you're gonna lose. Your opponent is beating you down with 1-2 dudes, and somehow you just don't draw any of your 15 pieces of removal... You're gonna lose, Etc, etc.
Or it works the other way too.
You put no thought into your meta choice, and just play the deck you like, by luck of the draw happen to dodge all your bad match-ups, and hey, you just slayed that tournament. Or maybe You do end up against your worst match, but they get mana screwed and you get the win anyway. Or how about that time you top decked that sideboard card JUST IN TIME, and hey you just won, purely because of good luck. Or remember that game where you just happened to draw your entire combo in your opening hand?
Luck plays a massive part in this game.
That is just patently not true. There are certainly matchups that are 'determined by the die roll,' but that only applies if both players know both decks strengths and weaknesses, as well as the likely contents of an opponent's deck and hand, and both players play optimally.
That said, your point about FNM is well made. Luck certainly has a lot more to do with the outcome when any tournament has a median skill level on the lower side.
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
I liked your other post because it was the one I identified most with. (even though most posts here are spot on as well)
I just have a question, "how do you know which deck is the best deck to bring?" The reason why I ask this is this. I've been playing since 1994. I've been playing competitively since 2004. I still don't know what deck to bring quite often. I do choose a deck based on metagame and my own skill decisions, but I am still very often lost. I used to choose the deck that had the best win percentage vs. the top deck, but still was solid vs. the rest of the field. This only got me so far, in fact I lost a lot in the top 8 of PTQs with this strategy. I also tried just running the best deck. I didn't top 8 as often, but finally got more wins in the top 8 (still not getting 1st though). In the end, I don't really know what to choose. You can often beat yourself up for these types of decisions.
The only RPTQ I played Modern in, I avoided Dredge, which I had been playing a lot, because I identified that a lot of people would be playing it and the mirror is DREADFUL as ****. A friend ran it and he ended up getting top 4 and the Invitation while I struggled to 3-3 with Bogles (which beat Dredge easily, but had a poor Infect matchup; didn't play vs. either though). I am still upset about this decision to this very day even though it was over a year ago.
(for the thread) *I played Titan Shift at the GP Las Vegas. I lost 2 rounds on Day 1 and 2 more on Day 2. In the first loss vs. Jeskai Queller, my only regret was not shuffling our decks differently. I literally didn't draw threats in 2 games. My 2nd loss vs. Esper Shadow was really the only one where I know I could have won, had I played differently. In fact, Thien Nyugen, known for Titanshift, told me a line that would have worked. But he was also watching from my opponent's side of the table. I could have not played around Stubborn Denial and played around Path to Exile/Liliana of the Veil instead. I played around Denial since the other 2 are mediocre at best vs. Titan Shift and I didn't expect him to have the full 4. But I lost because of this. I also lost to turn 4 Breached Titan/Emrakul on Day 2 and BW Eldrazi Taxes that double TKS me in games 1 and 3. Not sure what I could have done there. I do admit that in a lot of the wins, I could have and should have played better, but honestly in the 4 losses, 3 felt beyond my non shuffling control. I had higher expectations for myself. Maybe the deck choice was wrong?
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Luck in every game of magic:
Your opening 7,
Your opening 6,
Your opening 5,
Your first draw,
Your next draw,
Every card drawn thereafter.
Getting your outs,
Deciding to bring an out forthis match up.
Playing to the specific out you're going to draw.
Your T1 play in the dark,
Playing around cards,
Playing into cards,
And the list goes on and on.
Yes you can win games with skill, but more often than not games are determined the moment after your opponent cuts your deck.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Did I say they were purely luck based?
Information creates odds. Those odds create EV. Luck is pretty much AV-EV
Identifying your mistakes is the hardest part of the game and being able to do it represents the largest leap of growth as a player. There's a reason many PT winning players feel they're bad - they can identify the mistakes that most players don't even realize are mistakes. Most players attribute those mistakes to luck, and they're wrong.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
You might have constructed formats confused with Momir Basic or something.
Modern decks are composed of 60 selected cards, not 60 cards chosen at random. Your opening 7 or 6 or 5 or whatever are determined by how many of each card you are running which affects the probability that you will see them in your opening hand.
Playing into or around cards aren't luck either. Case in point, my opponent does a lot of draw go stuff and casts and Elesh Norn. On my turn, I fire off a Slaughter Games naming Gifts Ungiven which my opponent didn't show me in game 1. I proceed to thumb through his deck and remove all 4 copies. As I was doing so, he asked me if I saw his deck before we started playing, to which I replied 'You're playing Elesh Norn.' It was not a 'lucky' guess.
The very next round my T1 play was to cycle two Street Wraiths and play a Blackcleave Cliffs and my opponent goes 'Jund Death's Shadow or Living End?' Again, there was no luck involved in knowing what he was up against. It was experience and repetitions playing many matches. And skill.
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU