I thought of this reading through the state of the meta forum but wanted to not derail the conversation. For those not following it, the gist is about various matchup win rates and essentially the"matchup lottery". My question is how much this affects sideboards.
For example: I'm looking at coming back to the game after a break. I bought some upgrades for my main deck but have no real experience about the local meta now. I'm BGx and am worried about Burn and Tron so I just figured I'd load up my SB for those matches, jam in some silver bullets and punt the rest.
Now I'm thinking rather the opposite. If I'm a dog in couple of matchups, then maybe I leave those alone and look for matches where I'm even that, with a few sideboard cards, I can turn into favored matches.
I've also heard that your SB should roughly equate the composition of the expected meta. If Tron is 20% of the field, then 20% of your SB should be for Tron. This doesn't consider at all how good your matchup already is.
Sideboarding, and in fact, sideboarding properly is in my honest opinion the most skill intensive part of Magic. It takes a lot of practice to know how to sideboard correctly, with what cards you can take out and put in. Additionally the construction of your sideboard is equally as important and skill intensive.
General rule of thumb for myself, is I start by looking at whatever deck I am playing and thinking, "What can't I deal with in my mainboard?" Once I have a list of things I can't deal with I list them based on my likelihood of seeing them (for example I'd see a lot more Thought-Knot Seers than Enduring Ideals).
From there I figure out which cards in my main deck are bad against my list of problems. Again as an example, Fatal Push isn't going to do much against UW Control.
Once I've figured out what cards I would take out in what matchups, I figure out what cards I would want to fill those now empty deck slots. Once I have my list, I start by grabbing the cards that have the most overlap in occurrence and number. Example: In 40% of my listed problems, 2x Rest in Peace is my proposed sideboard answer.
If I have over 15 cards, I trim on the answers to the least likely problem match ups first. If I have less than 15, I add some of those instead.
That's basically how I do my sideboarding.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
it is very often for midrange-y decks to use the "elephant" system in order to aggregate relevant cards
you create about the perfect 60 card deck for each matchup you expect to see, then create the spreadsheet of:
abrupt decay was in 40%
thoughtseize was in 70%
etc.
now you know with your last 3 slots you probably want 2 thoughtseize and 1 abrupt decay, or even 3-0.
this also helps you create a cohesive boarding strategy for each matchup so that you are heading into the post board games as a 60 card deck instead of a 59 card deck with a random bullet that is way out of sync due to cmc or color requirements
For example: I'm looking at coming back to the game after a break. I bought some upgrades for my main deck but have no real experience about the local meta now. I'm BGx and am worried about Burn and Tron so I just figured I'd load up my SB for those matches, jam in some silver bullets and punt the rest.
Now I'm thinking rather the opposite. If I'm a dog in couple of matchups, then maybe I leave those alone and look for matches where I'm even that, with a few sideboard cards, I can turn into favored matches.
I've also heard that your SB should roughly equate the composition of the expected meta. If Tron is 20% of the field, then 20% of your SB should be for Tron. This doesn't consider at all how good your matchup already is.
General rule of thumb for myself, is I start by looking at whatever deck I am playing and thinking, "What can't I deal with in my mainboard?" Once I have a list of things I can't deal with I list them based on my likelihood of seeing them (for example I'd see a lot more Thought-Knot Seers than Enduring Ideals).
From there I figure out which cards in my main deck are bad against my list of problems. Again as an example, Fatal Push isn't going to do much against UW Control.
Once I've figured out what cards I would take out in what matchups, I figure out what cards I would want to fill those now empty deck slots. Once I have my list, I start by grabbing the cards that have the most overlap in occurrence and number. Example: In 40% of my listed problems, 2x Rest in Peace is my proposed sideboard answer.
If I have over 15 cards, I trim on the answers to the least likely problem match ups first. If I have less than 15, I add some of those instead.
That's basically how I do my sideboarding.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
you create about the perfect 60 card deck for each matchup you expect to see, then create the spreadsheet of:
abrupt decay was in 40%
thoughtseize was in 70%
etc.
now you know with your last 3 slots you probably want 2 thoughtseize and 1 abrupt decay, or even 3-0.
this also helps you create a cohesive boarding strategy for each matchup so that you are heading into the post board games as a 60 card deck instead of a 59 card deck with a random bullet that is way out of sync due to cmc or color requirements
Based on the above link and recent developments in the meta, Id take the folllwing approach to SB construction:
0. Think about what the meta will look like.
1. Don't concede to Affinity, Dredge, or Storm.
2. Win close matchups.
3. Secure good matchups.
4. Improve bad matchups if they are winnable.
5. Find overlap and gaps (for example, can you deal with Worship)?
Avatar and Signature by XenoNinja via Heroes of the Plane Studios
Step two: Add 3 hate cards for the last deck you lost to.
Step three: Hope you don't lose to six or more things.