I love the argument "Oh you have a complaint about modern, you just want zero bad matchups" we have some pretty strong circle jerking on both ends of the spectrum but this is just kinda par for the course. The modern player base is interesting to say the least
That IS their complaint though. At least sisicat admits it; other Modern critics just beat around the bush. People don't want to play decks like Ux Control ans BGx because they perceive the bad matchups are too bad and the good matchups aren't good enough, and their proposed solution is almost always to ban bad matchup cards or unban cards that disrupt format balance. They also routinely ignore the performance of these allegedly sub-optimal decks in big events. Jeskai and Abzan did great this weekend. But instead of celebrating that success or looking to build from it, many critics just dismiss it, ignore it, or doubt it.
For example, Abzan had a great performance all weekend despite numerous people saying it sucked due to unwinnable big mana matchups. And yet, Abzan did well in a field with tons of E-Tron Titanshift. Evidently, these matchups aren't as decisive and problematic as many critics claim. So when the critics say their fair decks have unwinnable matchups that make the deck unplayable, I compare those claims to results such as last weekend's and find the claims unsupportable. Either the claimants aren't looking at the results or are looking at the results and still want their bad matchups eliminated. Either way, it's hard to take those criticisms seriously.
Well, we don't know if the Abzan players dodged the Big Mana matchups in swiss or not. WOTC doesn't release matchup data because of reasons. For all we know, they made top 8 because they dodged those decks, not because they beat Big mana decks in swiss. But of course we cannot access that data because WOTC doesn't want us to solve the format.
Can't we say that very same thing about any deck that's ever done well in any format? As long as some variance exists in the game, then there's always the chance that Joe Schmoe spiked a tournament because he got matched up against all of his easy matchups and topdecked like the luckiest man on the planet. With this line of thinking, we can assume that any deck that breaks the top 8 which doesn't fit a specific narrative is merely just lucky. It's convenient, but not entirely useful or truthful.
It's true that more data would be useful in refuting this bold claim of decks just being lucky and I think only a minority of people are happy about the tightening grip on the amount of data being given to us.
I love the argument "Oh you have a complaint about modern, you just want zero bad matchups" we have some pretty strong circle jerking on both ends of the spectrum but this is just kinda par for the course. The modern player base is interesting to say the least
That IS their complaint though. At least sisicat admits it; other Modern critics just beat around the bush. People don't want to play decks like Ux Control ans BGx because they perceive the bad matchups are too bad and the good matchups aren't good enough, and their proposed solution is almost always to ban bad matchup cards or unban cards that disrupt format balance. They also routinely ignore the performance of these allegedly sub-optimal decks in big events. Jeskai and Abzan did great this weekend. But instead of celebrating that success or looking to build from it, many critics just dismiss it, ignore it, or doubt it.
For example, Abzan had a great performance all weekend despite numerous people saying it sucked due to unwinnable big mana matchups. And yet, Abzan did well in a field with tons of E-Tron Titanshift. Evidently, these matchups aren't as decisive and problematic as many critics claim. So when the critics say their fair decks have unwinnable matchups that make the deck unplayable, I compare those claims to results such as last weekend's and find the claims unsupportable. Either the claimants aren't looking at the results or are looking at the results and still want their bad matchups eliminated. Either way, it's hard to take those criticisms seriously.
Well, we don't know if the Abzan players dodged the Big Mana matchups in swiss or not. WOTC doesn't release matchup data because of reasons. For all we know, they made top 8 because they dodged those decks, not because they beat Big mana decks in swiss. But of course we cannot access that data because WOTC doesn't want us to solve the format.
Can't we say that very same thing about any deck that's ever done well in any format? As long as some variance exists in the game, then there's always the chance that Joe Schmoe spiked a tournament because he got matched up against all of his easy matchups and topdecked like the luckiest man on the planet. With this line of thinking, we can assume that any deck that breaks the top 8 which doesn't fit a specific narrative is merely just lucky. It's convenient, but not entirely useful or truthful.
It's true that more data would be useful in refuting this bold claim of decks just being lucky and I think only a minority of people are happy about the tightening grip on the amount of data being given to us.
Which is why when you have a large number of viable decks in a format, you increase the different number of permutations of what determines a winner and loser in a game that already is high variance to begin with. That's how Modern gets its label of "matchup lottery". If I could determine with certainty 100% what matchups I would face every round of a Modern tournament, my win percentage would go up drastically. As the format is right now, there are some matchups I simply cannot win if I get paired against them. No amount of playskill will let you turn a bad matchup into an even one. When luck related factors have a larger influence over your ability to play your cards right in a given game, that's why technically skilled players dislike Modern, they aren't rewarded often enough for being good at Magic. Just look at the top 8 across the 3 events, the pro conversion rate to top 8 was garbage this weekend. This is either an indication that pros aren't actually good at Magic and WOTC is overcompensating them for their respective pro levels or that Modern is not skill rewarding enough in a large sample size. That's how I see this weekend panning out.
On the topic of U/W control seeing much more play online then in paper, I think a big factor here is the length of games. I have played U/W control in paper for a while and it can be very frustrating when the opponent plays slowly. You can call a judge to watch for slow play, but if the opponent takes a full minute to ponder every decision (which they are entitled to do) you will invariably go to time in the round. The chess clock concept on MTGO causes your opponent to lose in this scenario, but in paper events you likely just got a draw for the round. To play paper events, control decks need a faster way to close out games, and this is why I think we see more results from Jeskai control with burn spells to end games. This is unfortunate in my mind as the deck has enough challenges without having to worry about the pace of play of your opponent.
You should definitely call a judge if you think your opponent is slow playing. And 1 full minute is incredibly excessive. Any judge worth their salt would have already prompted the player to make their decision multiple times and probably issued a slow play warning by 1 minute. And if that happens multiple times, would investigate for stalling.
Isn't that the 70% guy? I wouldn't even bother responding to him.
I don't feel that you dismiss what someone says just because of this. My win percentage is 3.8% less than that and I certainly want to improve. I had a personal goal of getting to 65%, which took a few months playing good decks. Now I am aiming at 70%. There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make me a bad person. I still have too much fun with this format (currently having fun with Knightfall and Humans). But I also have an urge to do super well.
If we start having goal posts like this, then where does it start? Someone may want to have a 40% win rate in Modern. Someone may want to have an 80% win rate. Honestly, everyone has different goals and that's fine. (It's also part of what makes it so tough for anyone to agree on anything in Modern.)
I agree with you that it's great to have personal goals about winrate. But this comment was about a previous statement that poster had made saying they wanted a deck with a %70 win rate against every deck in the metagame so that they could just focus on beating the mirror. That is obviously excessive and why people tend to discredit that persons posts.
I love the argument "Oh you have a complaint about modern, you just want zero bad matchups" we have some pretty strong circle jerking on both ends of the spectrum but this is just kinda par for the course. The modern player base is interesting to say the least
That IS their complaint though. At least sisicat admits it; other Modern critics just beat around the bush. People don't want to play decks like Ux Control ans BGx because they perceive the bad matchups are too bad and the good matchups aren't good enough, and their proposed solution is almost always to ban bad matchup cards or unban cards that disrupt format balance. They also routinely ignore the performance of these allegedly sub-optimal decks in big events. Jeskai and Abzan did great this weekend. But instead of celebrating that success or looking to build from it, many critics just dismiss it, ignore it, or doubt it.
For example, Abzan had a great performance all weekend despite numerous people saying it sucked due to unwinnable big mana matchups. And yet, Abzan did well in a field with tons of E-Tron Titanshift. Evidently, these matchups aren't as decisive and problematic as many critics claim. So when the critics say their fair decks have unwinnable matchups that make the deck unplayable, I compare those claims to results such as last weekend's and find the claims unsupportable. Either the claimants aren't looking at the results or are looking at the results and still want their bad matchups eliminated. Either way, it's hard to take those criticisms seriously.
Well, we don't know if the Abzan players dodged the Big Mana matchups in swiss or not. WOTC doesn't release matchup data because of reasons. For all we know, they made top 8 because they dodged those decks, not because they beat Big mana decks in swiss. But of course we cannot access that data because WOTC doesn't want us to solve the format.
Can't we say that very same thing about any deck that's ever done well in any format? As long as some variance exists in the game, then there's always the chance that Joe Schmoe spiked a tournament because he got matched up against all of his easy matchups and topdecked like the luckiest man on the planet. With this line of thinking, we can assume that any deck that breaks the top 8 which doesn't fit a specific narrative is merely just lucky. It's convenient, but not entirely useful or truthful.
It's true that more data would be useful in refuting this bold claim of decks just being lucky and I think only a minority of people are happy about the tightening grip on the amount of data being given to us.
Which is why when you have a large number of viable decks in a format, you increase the different number of permutations of what determines a winner and loser in a game that already is high variance to begin with. That's how Modern gets its label of "matchup lottery". If I could determine with certainty 100% what matchups I would face every round of a Modern tournament, my win percentage would go up drastically. As the format is right now, there are some matchups I simply cannot win if I get paired against them. No amount of playskill will let you turn a bad matchup into an even one. When luck related factors have a larger influence over your ability to play your cards right in a given game, that's why technically skilled players dislike Modern, they aren't rewarded often enough for being good at Magic. Just look at the top 8 across the 3 events, the pro conversion rate to top 8 was garbage this weekend. This is either an indication that pros aren't actually good at Magic and WOTC is overcompensating them for their respective pro levels or that Modern is not skill rewarding enough in a large sample size. That's how I see this weekend panning out.
There is a difficult meta game to predict and a high amount of variance in Modern. No one really denies that. We already know pros dislike the format because it’s difficult to predict and hard to grind. The real question is this
Who does it serve when you constantly restate the same complaints on this forum, without adding any constructive suggestions?
Does it help you? Does it help the people of this forum to hear you complain? Does it help the game or the format get better?
There’s nothing stopping you from leaving the format. You can quit it anytime you like. However, if you don’t like the format and want to change it, gather data to back up your points. Show us data that proves that going on the play increases your winrate by such a high rate that it make in-game decisions meaningless. Gather data that proves matchups are unwinnable and show us.
If not, go ahead and play Standard where you can maintain a supposed "70%" winrate. There you can sleep on top of your piles of winnings from Pro Tours and GPs. Seems like the best solution for you, really.
I agree with you that it's great to have personal goals about winrate. But this comment was about a previous statement that poster had made saying they wanted a deck with a %70 win rate against every deck in the metagame so that they could just focus on beating the mirror. That is obviously excessive and why people tend to discredit that persons posts.
Sorry, that was pretty dumb of me. I remember seeing the comment as well. Sure, I don't believe that a deck should have a 70% win rate vs. most other decks. That may have been "close to" fine in the past, but it doesn't fly anymore. It will just lead to a banning or even worse, bannings.
I do agree that a 70% meta is easier to solve, but definitely not the best for players' diversity, viewers, and most importantly, WotC's wallet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
@sisicat I highly disagree with you about skill not affecting matchups. True knowledge of your deck and the difficult matchups from tens or hundreds of games lets you play properly to your outs and beat the average pilot of your bad matchups. It's only against perfectly evenly skilled pilots that you are really disadvantaged. If you are better than your opponent and know their deck as well or better than they do and they don't know your deck as well as you do, you will gain crazy percentage points in those matchups. Look at FoodChainGoblins who anally records their games against every archetype and has almost a %70 win rate in modern. And how well they did with decks like Bogles. They made a post detailing their Bogles record vs BGx which is an abysmal matchup. But by play skill, knowledge of the matchup, intelligent sideboarding, and a littleluck, they had a winning record.
I highly disagree with you about skill not affecting matchups. True knowledge of your deck and the difficult matchups from tens or hundreds of games lets you play properly to your outs and beat the average pilot of your bad matchups. It's only against perfectly evenly skilled pilots that you are really disadvantaged. If you are better than your opponent and know their deck as well or better than they do and they don't know your deck as well as you do, you will gain crazy percentage points in those matchups. Look at FoodChainGoblins who anally records their games against every archetype and has almost a %70 win rate in modern. And how well they did with decks like Bogles. They made a post detailing their Bogles record vs BGx which is an abysmal matchup. But by play skill, knowledge of the matchup, intelligent sideboarding, and a littleluck, they had a winning record.
I agree, skill matters a ton. Of course luck is always a factor in terms of matchups and also draws (both yours and your opponents).
I mean, Stevens played a Tier 3 deck (Knightfall) to 26th at the Richmond Open last weekend. He's obviously one of the best players out there and proves it with finishes like this featuring a main deck Lotus Cobra, Dromoka's Command, and Azusa.
@sisicat I highly disagree with you about skill not affecting matchups. True knowledge of your deck and the difficult matchups from tens or hundreds of games lets you play properly to your outs and beat the average pilot of your bad matchups. It's only against perfectly evenly skilled pilots that you are really disadvantaged. If you are better than your opponent and know their deck as well or better than they do and they don't know your deck as well as you do, you will gain crazy percentage points in those matchups. Look at FoodChainGoblins who anally records their games against every archetype and has almost a %70 win rate in modern. And how well they did with decks like Bogles. They made a post detailing their Bogles record vs BGx which is an abysmal matchup. But by play skill, knowledge of the matchup, intelligent sideboarding, and a littleluck, they had a winning record.
That may be true in theory but I have found in practice that even if you know your deck better than your opponent. Ex. (BGx vs Tron). I think most people can agree that the BGx deck needs to clock opponent fast enough and be just disruptive enough so that the backbreaking spells don't come online. That knowledge goes out the window against god hands that even a new person signing up for a DCI number can pilot mindlessly. Your matchup knowledge only helps when your opponents keep loose or have average or below average hands. You don't have the tools to beat the nut draw even with extensive knowledge and that bothers me. It's just an exercise in mulliganing honestly. Whoever keeps the better hand usually wins and that's generally where the knowledge edge comes from. You just don't paid off often enough I feel for evaluating your role correctly.
This might sound insulting, that's not the intent. Have you tried actually getting good at a specific deck or at the format or game in general? And obviously mulliganing is a hugely important part of the skillset. Knowing which hands can beat the opponent and when to mulligan those that can't is very hard. If you actually learn the format and get good at a deck, you'll do better. Try it out sometime if you haven't. It's really fun to know a deck so inside and out that every choice, even the hard ones feels intuitive and easy. And you'll see your win % skyrocket when you are that good at a deck b cause you won't have to devote so much thought to any given choice and can stay fresh for the novel situations and mulligan/sideboard decisions that are harder.
Tron vs. BGx is (IMO) one of the most polarizing matchups in all of Modern. It shouldn't always be used as the example because there are plenty of matchups that are closer to 50/50, like UW Control vs. Burn.
Also, even though I was able to figure out how to beat BGx with Bogles, I never could figure out how to beat Twin or Bloom Titan. I knew what I needed to do to win, but I never could make the matchup manageable. So it is not completely cut and dry. It goes both ways.
*Also I should state that it's not just knowing your deck better than the opponent, it's knowing both decks better. I have played no fewer than 60 decks in Modern. After the first time I played Affinity myself, I had an awakening. I learned how the deck operates, the chances of certain draws, and some idea of its game plan vs. various decks.
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)
This might sound insulting, that's not the intent. Have you tried actually getting good at a specific deck or at the format or game in general? And obviously mulliganing is a hugely important part of the skillset. Knowing which hands can beat the opponent and when to mulligan those that can't is very hard. If you actually learn the format and get good at a deck, you'll do better. Try it out sometime if you haven't. It's really fun to know a deck so inside and out that every choice, even the hard ones feels intuitive and easy. And you'll see your win % skyrocket when you are that good at a deck b cause you won't have to devote so much thought to any given choice and can stay fresh for the novel situations and mulligan/sideboard decisions that are harder.
I have dedicated lots of time to previous decks, yes. But they have all been removed from the format by WOTC. Birthing Pod, Amulet Bloom, DRS Jund, (the forbidden word) and Eye of Ugin Eldrazi. Because WOTC removes decks that I've invested time into in the format, I lose my information advantage due to the substantial decrease in power level and removal from the format. The so-called "replacements" do not satisfy me as they aren't powerful enough for me to learn. When you've been burned as many times as I have, it makes you question whether or not learning a deck is worth it. That's why I only learn the truly broken decks, it's the only thing that makes sense in time efficiency. I've already lost all the sunk time into the other ban targets of WOTC, there's no way I can siphon back my time and knowledge to convert it into any sort of edge now.
It sounds like to me that you want to play Grixis Death's Shadow. Sure, there are times when players will "out metagame you," but for the most part to get the results close to what you want, you need to go with that (at least for now).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
That may be true in theory but I have found in practice that even if you know your deck better than your opponent. Ex. (BGx vs Tron). I think most people can agree that the BGx deck needs to clock opponent fast enough and be just disruptive enough so that the backbreaking spells don't come online. That knowledge goes out the window against god hands that even a new person signing up for a DCI number can pilot mindlessly.
Are you trying to say something of value here? Because 'god hands are hard/impossible to beat' sounds like a tautology to me. Yeah, god hands are called god hands because they are well... godly. This is saying basically nothing since god-hands are such a small % of draws. Are you trying to argue that god-hands are bad for the influence of skill the outcome of a game? I doubt that statement is terribly controversial (almost too obvious to point out really).
Your matchup knowledge only helps when your opponents keep loose or have average or below average hands.
I'm glad you acknowledge that most games of modern are about skill: "average or below average hands" are most games.
Tron vs. BGx is (IMO) one of the most polarizing matchups in all of Modern. It shouldn't always be used as the example because there are plenty of matchups that are closer to 50/50, like UW Control vs. Burn.
Didn't ktkenshinx crunch numbers at some point and determine that the Tron vs. BGx matchup was actually a lot closer to 50/50 than was commonly believed?
Tron vs. BGx is (IMO) one of the most polarizing matchups in all of Modern. It shouldn't always be used as the example because there are plenty of matchups that are closer to 50/50, like UW Control vs. Burn.
Didn't ktkenshinx crunch numbers at some point and determine that the Tron vs. BGx matchup was actually a lot closer to 50/50 than was commonly believed?
Who knows, almost nobody will experience a significant sample size enough to the point where it will tip the scales to a top 8 record of GP/PT. No one remembers those close games in that matchup. It's those turn 3 Karn games on the play that everyone remembers, just the same way everyone only remembers the turn 4 Ulamog off of Marvel in Standard.
That may be true in theory but I have found in practice that even if you know your deck better than your opponent. Ex. (BGx vs Tron). I think most people can agree that the BGx deck needs to clock opponent fast enough and be just disruptive enough so that the backbreaking spells don't come online. That knowledge goes out the window against god hands that even a new person signing up for a DCI number can pilot mindlessly.
Are you trying to say something of value here? Because 'god hands are hard/impossible to beat' sounds like a tautology to me. Yeah, god hands are called god hands because they are well... godly. This is saying basically nothing since god-hands are such a small % of draws. Are you trying to argue that god-hands are bad for the influence of skill the outcome of a game? I doubt that statement is terribly controversial (almost too obvious to point out really).
Your matchup knowledge only helps when your opponents keep loose or have average or below average hands.
I'm glad you acknowledge that most games of modern are about skill: "average or below average hands" are most games.
Yes, try playing Modern with a gun pointed to your head and the trigger being pulled when you lose. That's how Modern feels most of the time for me when I have to play for some stakes.
Public Mod Note
(Xaricore):
Infraction issued for Flaming and Format Bashing.
the "slightly obscured elephant in the room" of the GP: UW Control
I agree with Sheridan that as long as one Blue-based Control deck is doing well, no action is necessary. If UW and Jeskai both start to preform poorly, though, I can definitely see unbanning SFM or potentially even Jace.
Tron vs. BGx is (IMO) one of the most polarizing matchups in all of Modern. It shouldn't always be used as the example because there are plenty of matchups that are closer to 50/50, like UW Control vs. Burn.
Didn't ktkenshinx crunch numbers at some point and determine that the Tron vs. BGx matchup was actually a lot closer to 50/50 than was commonly believed?
Who knows, almost nobody will experience a significant sample size enough to the point where it will tip the scales to a top 8 record of GP/PT. No one remembers those close games in that matchup. It's those turn 3 Karn games on the play that everyone remembers, just the same way everyone only remembers the turn 4 Ulamog off of Marvel in Standard.
It was 50/50 in a giant MTGO sample during 2015, despite many claiming it was unwinnable in the same time period. Jund also remained Tier 1 in 2016 alongside Tron and other ramp decks; the matchup clearly wasn't as bad as many claimed. Now in 2017, we saw Abzan had a strong performances this weekend despite an abundance of big mana decks. So did Jeskai. Together, they were the 3rd and 5th most-represented archetypes in the aggregate T32, despite being alongside Titanshift (#2) and E-Tron (#6). Again, big mana did not hold these decks back.
None of these matchups are as bad as people profess. People are just inventing or over-emphasizing problems just to justify personal platforms. Until they get some actual numbers to undermine the past and present numbers I mentioned above, this should be a closed topic. If Abzan and Jeskai, or Ux and BGx more broadly, did not have such success then we could talk. But these decks, especially BGx, are enjoying considerable success in spite of allegedly awful big mana matchups. Obviously, the tournament reality does not match the anecdotal complaining, which generally means the latter is unfounded.
I'm all for identifying Modern problems. 2016 had many. 2015 had fewer but still a bunch. It's very hard to look at this current metagame, however, and identify real problems. Want to play Ux? Jeskai, GDS, or UW is waiting. Want to play BGx? Abzan is your deck of choice. White? Knightfall, Company, and/or D&T are all GP viable. Anyone complaining about deck viability probably has such a narrow definition of success that they will never be happy in anything short of Miracles Legacy.
Tron vs. BGx is (IMO) one of the most polarizing matchups in all of Modern. It shouldn't always be used as the example because there are plenty of matchups that are closer to 50/50, like UW Control vs. Burn.
Didn't ktkenshinx crunch numbers at some point and determine that the Tron vs. BGx matchup was actually a lot closer to 50/50 than was commonly believed?
I don't give a damn what those numbers say, every single GBx player, writer/columnist and famous GBx player says it's one of the most lopsided matchup's in modern; I can count on one hand the times I have beaten Tron with Abzan. Jund is a little better but still supremely awful. No Jund or Junk player will tell you this a 40/60 matchup
Tron vs. BGx is (IMO) one of the most polarizing matchups in all of Modern. It shouldn't always be used as the example because there are plenty of matchups that are closer to 50/50, like UW Control vs. Burn.
Didn't ktkenshinx crunch numbers at some point and determine that the Tron vs. BGx matchup was actually a lot closer to 50/50 than was commonly believed?
You play Tron, I sure as hell know you don't believe this is a 40/60 or 50/50
Tron vs. BGx is (IMO) one of the most polarizing matchups in all of Modern. It shouldn't always be used as the example because there are plenty of matchups that are closer to 50/50, like UW Control vs. Burn.
Didn't ktkenshinx crunch numbers at some point and determine that the Tron vs. BGx matchup was actually a lot closer to 50/50 than was commonly believed?
Who knows, almost nobody will experience a significant sample size enough to the point where it will tip the scales to a top 8 record of GP/PT. No one remembers those close games in that matchup. It's those turn 3 Karn games on the play that everyone remembers, just the same way everyone only remembers the turn 4 Ulamog off of Marvel in Standard.
It was 50/50 in a giant MTGO sample during 2015, despite many claiming it was unwinnable in the same time period. Jund also remained Tier 1 in 2016 alongside Tron and other ramp decks; the matchup clearly wasn't as bad as many claimed. Now in 2017, we saw Abzan had a strong performances this weekend despite an abundance of big mana decks. So did Jeskai. Together, they were the 3rd and 5th most-represented archetypes in the aggregate T32, despite being alongside Titanshift (#2) and E-Tron (#6). Again, big mana did not hold these decks back.
None of these matchups are as bad as people profess. People are just inventing or over-emphasizing problems just to justify personal platforms. Until they get some actual numbers to undermine the past and present numbers I mentioned above, this should be a closed topic. If Abzan and Jeskai, or Ux and BGx more broadly, did not have such success then we could talk. But these decks, especially BGx, are enjoying considerable success in spite of allegedly awful big mana matchups. Obviously, the tournament reality does not match the anecdotal complaining, which generally means the latter is unfounded.
I'm all for identifying Modern problems. 2016 had many. 2015 had fewer but still a bunch. It's very hard to look at this current metagame, however, and identify real problems. Want to play Ux? Jeskai, GDS, or UW is waiting. Want to play BGx? Abzan is your deck of choice. White? Knightfall, Company, and/or D&T are all GP viable. Anyone complaining about deck viability probably has such a narrow definition of success that they will never be happy in anything short of Miracles Legacy.
I'd like you to tell Reid Duke and Brad Nelson traditional Tron and Jund/Junk are 50/50 next time they write an article on modern, please.
Also, no one said E-Tron was unwinnable, it's bad, it's not unwinnable, they just play big creatures that can be dealt with by LOTV and path. The turn 1 discard, turn 2 Goyf, turn 3 LOTV can easily get there. A turn 3 Karn or O-Stone or Wurmcoil (without path) is nearly game over.
No one said Titanshift was unwinnable either, they rely on their resources in hand to ramp and win. LOTV can be an absolute beating against them, that is not always the case with traditional Tron.
There has to be some kind of explanation---no single experienced GBx player thinks this is better than 30/70. I think Willy Edel would laugh if you said this to him. I can barely remember an actual stream on SCG or a GP where a jund/junk player beat RG Tron. Infraction issued for spamming the forum -- CavalryWolfPack
1. We also can't assume the Abzan player NEVER played eldrazi tron or valakut. As Sheridan said, the deck performed very well across three events. That provides evidence not of matchup lottery one way or the other. It simply proves that multiple people can pick up GBx and go deep into a larger tournament. That disproves the "GBx can't compete anymore" claim.
2. That matchup lottery is fair. You have the odds of being matched against deck X no matter what you decide to play, no matter how many pro points you have. The numbers really don't change until halfway through a GP when a portion of the field fails to make day 2. Personally this is why I am opposed to GP byes - let everyone risk running into Enduring Ideal round 1 not just the newer players.
3. There is no 100/0 matchup. None. It doesn't exist. If you play Abzan you are a dog to E-Tron, yes. That doesn't mean you are guaranteed to lose. I think some people need to acknowledge their own play mistakes, too. If you play against every deck the same way...yeah if you don't know how to adjust in some matchups you'll lose way more. Some of these complainers fail to acknowledge that they might just not understand the matchup.
4. I mentioned Burn because cfusion claimed every top modern deck attacked on a weird axis. Burn wins in a regular way. So does Affinity. Same with Abzan, and honestly I think Grixis Shadow. Tarmogoyf was never considered unfair to my knowledge so I fail to see why playing turn 2 Tasigur is so wrong. When I think a weird axis I think Dredge, Valakut, Storm...and really that's it. If you are just playing creatures and turning them sideways, unless it is infinite tokens or a 15-mana eldrazi on turn 3 you are playing fair.
Re: trying out BGx
I don't have the resources to just try the deck and report back. I did, however, do something very similar with UW Control right before it got big on MTGO and did find the matchups weren't nearly as bad as people claim. I'm confident that's going to be true with BGx as well; Modern players are notorious for over/underselling their matchup percentages.
Re: Jund vs. Tron
Again, I don't know what the % is today, but I know with statistical certainty it was roughly 50/50 for about 5 months of 2015 during a time we had mined MTGO data for that matchup. I also knew many players said it was "unwinnable" in that same time period, despite the numbers clearly showing it was actually 50/50. If Reid said it was worse in that time period, Reid was wrong. I don't know what it looks like today but I expect it's similar. Overall, people are bad at guessing their matchups; there's way too much bias and opportunity to willfully or unknowingly lie to yourself and others.
Side note: Abzan is definitely worse against Tron than Jund. I think it was around 35/65.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can't we say that very same thing about any deck that's ever done well in any format? As long as some variance exists in the game, then there's always the chance that Joe Schmoe spiked a tournament because he got matched up against all of his easy matchups and topdecked like the luckiest man on the planet. With this line of thinking, we can assume that any deck that breaks the top 8 which doesn't fit a specific narrative is merely just lucky. It's convenient, but not entirely useful or truthful.
It's true that more data would be useful in refuting this bold claim of decks just being lucky and I think only a minority of people are happy about the tightening grip on the amount of data being given to us.
Which is why when you have a large number of viable decks in a format, you increase the different number of permutations of what determines a winner and loser in a game that already is high variance to begin with. That's how Modern gets its label of "matchup lottery". If I could determine with certainty 100% what matchups I would face every round of a Modern tournament, my win percentage would go up drastically. As the format is right now, there are some matchups I simply cannot win if I get paired against them. No amount of playskill will let you turn a bad matchup into an even one. When luck related factors have a larger influence over your ability to play your cards right in a given game, that's why technically skilled players dislike Modern, they aren't rewarded often enough for being good at Magic. Just look at the top 8 across the 3 events, the pro conversion rate to top 8 was garbage this weekend. This is either an indication that pros aren't actually good at Magic and WOTC is overcompensating them for their respective pro levels or that Modern is not skill rewarding enough in a large sample size. That's how I see this weekend panning out.
Youtube Channel
You should definitely call a judge if you think your opponent is slow playing. And 1 full minute is incredibly excessive. Any judge worth their salt would have already prompted the player to make their decision multiple times and probably issued a slow play warning by 1 minute. And if that happens multiple times, would investigate for stalling.
I agree with you that it's great to have personal goals about winrate. But this comment was about a previous statement that poster had made saying they wanted a deck with a %70 win rate against every deck in the metagame so that they could just focus on beating the mirror. That is obviously excessive and why people tend to discredit that persons posts.
Modern
There is a difficult meta game to predict and a high amount of variance in Modern. No one really denies that. We already know pros dislike the format because it’s difficult to predict and hard to grind. The real question is this
Who does it serve when you constantly restate the same complaints on this forum, without adding any constructive suggestions?
Does it help you? Does it help the people of this forum to hear you complain? Does it help the game or the format get better?
There’s nothing stopping you from leaving the format. You can quit it anytime you like. However, if you don’t like the format and want to change it, gather data to back up your points. Show us data that proves that going on the play increases your winrate by such a high rate that it make in-game decisions meaningless. Gather data that proves matchups are unwinnable and show us.
If not, go ahead and play Standard where you can maintain a supposed "70%" winrate. There you can sleep on top of your piles of winnings from Pro Tours and GPs. Seems like the best solution for you, really.
Sorry, that was pretty dumb of me. I remember seeing the comment as well. Sure, I don't believe that a deck should have a 70% win rate vs. most other decks. That may have been "close to" fine in the past, but it doesn't fly anymore. It will just lead to a banning or even worse, bannings.
I do agree that a 70% meta is easier to solve, but definitely not the best for players' diversity, viewers, and most importantly, WotC's wallet.
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)Modern
I agree, skill matters a ton. Of course luck is always a factor in terms of matchups and also draws (both yours and your opponents).
I mean, Stevens played a Tier 3 deck (Knightfall) to 26th at the Richmond Open last weekend. He's obviously one of the best players out there and proves it with finishes like this featuring a main deck Lotus Cobra, Dromoka's Command, and Azusa.
That may be true in theory but I have found in practice that even if you know your deck better than your opponent. Ex. (BGx vs Tron). I think most people can agree that the BGx deck needs to clock opponent fast enough and be just disruptive enough so that the backbreaking spells don't come online. That knowledge goes out the window against god hands that even a new person signing up for a DCI number can pilot mindlessly. Your matchup knowledge only helps when your opponents keep loose or have average or below average hands. You don't have the tools to beat the nut draw even with extensive knowledge and that bothers me. It's just an exercise in mulliganing honestly. Whoever keeps the better hand usually wins and that's generally where the knowledge edge comes from. You just don't paid off often enough I feel for evaluating your role correctly.
Modern
Also, even though I was able to figure out how to beat BGx with Bogles, I never could figure out how to beat Twin or Bloom Titan. I knew what I needed to do to win, but I never could make the matchup manageable. So it is not completely cut and dry. It goes both ways.
*Also I should state that it's not just knowing your deck better than the opponent, it's knowing both decks better. I have played no fewer than 60 decks in Modern. After the first time I played Affinity myself, I had an awakening. I learned how the deck operates, the chances of certain draws, and some idea of its game plan vs. various decks.
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)I have dedicated lots of time to previous decks, yes. But they have all been removed from the format by WOTC. Birthing Pod, Amulet Bloom, DRS Jund, (the forbidden word) and Eye of Ugin Eldrazi. Because WOTC removes decks that I've invested time into in the format, I lose my information advantage due to the substantial decrease in power level and removal from the format. The so-called "replacements" do not satisfy me as they aren't powerful enough for me to learn. When you've been burned as many times as I have, it makes you question whether or not learning a deck is worth it. That's why I only learn the truly broken decks, it's the only thing that makes sense in time efficiency. I've already lost all the sunk time into the other ban targets of WOTC, there's no way I can siphon back my time and knowledge to convert it into any sort of edge now.
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)I'm glad you acknowledge that most games of modern are about skill: "average or below average hands" are most games.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Who knows, almost nobody will experience a significant sample size enough to the point where it will tip the scales to a top 8 record of GP/PT. No one remembers those close games in that matchup. It's those turn 3 Karn games on the play that everyone remembers, just the same way everyone only remembers the turn 4 Ulamog off of Marvel in Standard.
Yes, try playing Modern with a gun pointed to your head and the trigger being pulled when you lose. That's how Modern feels most of the time for me when I have to play for some stakes.
I agree with Sheridan that as long as one Blue-based Control deck is doing well, no action is necessary. If UW and Jeskai both start to preform poorly, though, I can definitely see unbanning SFM or potentially even Jace.
It was 50/50 in a giant MTGO sample during 2015, despite many claiming it was unwinnable in the same time period. Jund also remained Tier 1 in 2016 alongside Tron and other ramp decks; the matchup clearly wasn't as bad as many claimed. Now in 2017, we saw Abzan had a strong performances this weekend despite an abundance of big mana decks. So did Jeskai. Together, they were the 3rd and 5th most-represented archetypes in the aggregate T32, despite being alongside Titanshift (#2) and E-Tron (#6). Again, big mana did not hold these decks back.
None of these matchups are as bad as people profess. People are just inventing or over-emphasizing problems just to justify personal platforms. Until they get some actual numbers to undermine the past and present numbers I mentioned above, this should be a closed topic. If Abzan and Jeskai, or Ux and BGx more broadly, did not have such success then we could talk. But these decks, especially BGx, are enjoying considerable success in spite of allegedly awful big mana matchups. Obviously, the tournament reality does not match the anecdotal complaining, which generally means the latter is unfounded.
I'm all for identifying Modern problems. 2016 had many. 2015 had fewer but still a bunch. It's very hard to look at this current metagame, however, and identify real problems. Want to play Ux? Jeskai, GDS, or UW is waiting. Want to play BGx? Abzan is your deck of choice. White? Knightfall, Company, and/or D&T are all GP viable. Anyone complaining about deck viability probably has such a narrow definition of success that they will never be happy in anything short of Miracles Legacy.
I don't give a damn what those numbers say, every single GBx player, writer/columnist and famous GBx player says it's one of the most lopsided matchup's in modern; I can count on one hand the times I have beaten Tron with Abzan. Jund is a little better but still supremely awful. No Jund or Junk player will tell you this a 40/60 matchup
You play Tron, I sure as hell know you don't believe this is a 40/60 or 50/50
I'd like you to tell Reid Duke and Brad Nelson traditional Tron and Jund/Junk are 50/50 next time they write an article on modern, please.
Also, no one said E-Tron was unwinnable, it's bad, it's not unwinnable, they just play big creatures that can be dealt with by LOTV and path. The turn 1 discard, turn 2 Goyf, turn 3 LOTV can easily get there. A turn 3 Karn or O-Stone or Wurmcoil (without path) is nearly game over.
No one said Titanshift was unwinnable either, they rely on their resources in hand to ramp and win. LOTV can be an absolute beating against them, that is not always the case with traditional Tron.
There has to be some kind of explanation---no single experienced GBx player thinks this is better than 30/70. I think Willy Edel would laugh if you said this to him. I can barely remember an actual stream on SCG or a GP where a jund/junk player beat RG Tron.
Infraction issued for spamming the forum -- CavalryWolfPack
2. That matchup lottery is fair. You have the odds of being matched against deck X no matter what you decide to play, no matter how many pro points you have. The numbers really don't change until halfway through a GP when a portion of the field fails to make day 2. Personally this is why I am opposed to GP byes - let everyone risk running into Enduring Ideal round 1 not just the newer players.
3. There is no 100/0 matchup. None. It doesn't exist. If you play Abzan you are a dog to E-Tron, yes. That doesn't mean you are guaranteed to lose. I think some people need to acknowledge their own play mistakes, too. If you play against every deck the same way...yeah if you don't know how to adjust in some matchups you'll lose way more. Some of these complainers fail to acknowledge that they might just not understand the matchup.
4. I mentioned Burn because cfusion claimed every top modern deck attacked on a weird axis. Burn wins in a regular way. So does Affinity. Same with Abzan, and honestly I think Grixis Shadow. Tarmogoyf was never considered unfair to my knowledge so I fail to see why playing turn 2 Tasigur is so wrong. When I think a weird axis I think Dredge, Valakut, Storm...and really that's it. If you are just playing creatures and turning them sideways, unless it is infinite tokens or a 15-mana eldrazi on turn 3 you are playing fair.
I don't have the resources to just try the deck and report back. I did, however, do something very similar with UW Control right before it got big on MTGO and did find the matchups weren't nearly as bad as people claim. I'm confident that's going to be true with BGx as well; Modern players are notorious for over/underselling their matchup percentages.
Re: Jund vs. Tron
Again, I don't know what the % is today, but I know with statistical certainty it was roughly 50/50 for about 5 months of 2015 during a time we had mined MTGO data for that matchup. I also knew many players said it was "unwinnable" in that same time period, despite the numbers clearly showing it was actually 50/50. If Reid said it was worse in that time period, Reid was wrong. I don't know what it looks like today but I expect it's similar. Overall, people are bad at guessing their matchups; there's way too much bias and opportunity to willfully or unknowingly lie to yourself and others.
Side note: Abzan is definitely worse against Tron than Jund. I think it was around 35/65.