Jeskai, Death's Shadow, Affinity, and Humans all posted better win rate margins than Tron, but honestly, there's a lot of potential overlap between the win rate brackets. For discrete win-rate percentage, Tron was only the 17th highest. Puts things into perspective; it's just another good deck of many that happened to run hot into the T8.
Me and him have dramatically different numbers on basically the same data set.
We'd love to see your data set whenever you get done analyzing it.
I posted a link here a few days earlier.
Hmmm that's worrisome. I really prefer to assume people did the math right instead of auditing the work. How did you set up your calculation?
EDIT: I found one area where the MWPs can dramatically differ and still technically be "right." This depends on whether you include matches where BOTH decks are known vs. decks were only one deck is known. For instance, assume the following 10 matches:
Affinity vs. ?: Win 2-0
? vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
Affinity vs. Burn: Win 2-1
Affinity vs. Jeskai Control: Loss 1-2
Tron vs. Affinity: Loss 0-2
? vs. Affinity: Win 0-2
Scapeshift vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
8Rack vs. Affinity: Win 2-1
Affinity vs. ?: Loss 1-2
GDS vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
In this imaginary dataset, there are actually two different MWPs depending on if you exclude the 4 matchups where we didn't know one of the two decks. Here are the calculations for the 6 matches where BOTH decks are known:
Affinity vs. Burn: Win 2-1
Affinity vs. Jeskai Control: Loss 1-2
Tron vs. Affinity: Loss 0-2
Scapeshift vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
8Rack vs. Affinity: Win 2-1
GDS vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2 Affinity MWP: 66% (4 wins, 2 losses)
And here's the MWP if you include the 4 matchups where we only knew Affinity and didn't know the opponent:
Affinity vs. ?: Win 2-0
? vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
Affinity vs. Burn: Win 2-1
Affinity vs. Jeskai Control: Loss 1-2
Tron vs. Affinity: Loss 0-2
? vs. Affinity: Win 0-2
Scapeshift vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
8Rack vs. Affinity: Win 2-1
Affinity vs. ?: Loss 1-2
GDS vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2 Affinity MWP: 70% (7 wins, 3 losses)
This difference gets magnified over hundreds of matches and could result in two entirely different MWP calculations, both of which are technically "right" but neither of which match.
EDIT2: The above data was just a hypothetical illustration. Here are three actual numbers from some decks through the end of Round 3 (this is as far as I got in the dataset so far):
Burn: 54.3% vs. 46.9%
Affinity: 62.8% vs. 58.9%
Grixis DS: 57.9% vs. 46.9%
Jeskai Control: 68.3% vs. 61.8%
As you can see, there's a big difference between MWPs calculated from matches where you know only one deck (the first number) vs. matches where you know both decks (the second number). I believe this is because a matchup where both decks are known indicates that at least one player of the two is organized, competent, and knowledgeable enough to write down a deck. This would suggest that at least one player in that second pool might be a "better" player, and it is therefore a harder pool of decks to succeed in. But we'll see if this assumption holds as I get further in the rounds.
How can you still be worried about jeskai? It's been half a year. The deck is legit. The results are good, the deck looks like it has a ton of good to even matchups, even if all tron decks give it a hard time.
What are you still worried about, if I can ask?
I'm not really sure what else a fair deck could do.
I actually think it has more free wins than the old decks of jund and deck. Bolt snap bolt and quellers really can add to serious damage and real tempo.
Grixis shadow doesn't really get all those free wins anymore, so you should feel relatively comfortable with both decks if you play them.
So you're doing the MWP where you just know one of the decks but not necessarily both? That makes sense as it does increase N. I'm doing both to see the difference, as I fear there's some hidden effect influencing the data if we look at one and not the other. When I'm done with all 15 rounds, I'll see how my stats compare to the others.
I'll also add there's a deck-naming issue which will also affect MWP. The original dataset has 6-7 names for some decks (e.g. Jeskai Control, Jeskai Tempo, Jeskai Geist, UWR, UWR Control, UWR Midrange, etc.) and only 1-2 for others (e.g. Fish and Merfolk). There's a lot of subjectivity in grouping those from the original 250ish values into recognizable bins.
Are Jeskai Queller and Jeskai Control lumped into the same Jeskai Control category? Is that right?
Here are all the Jeskai decks in the GPOKC reddit dataset that "could" be Jeskai Control:
Geist Jeskai
Jeskai
Jeskai Breach
Jeskai Control
Jeskai Delver/Control
Jeskai Flash
Jeskai Geist
Jeskai Geist/Control
Jeskai Midrange
Jeskai Nahiri
Jeskai Queller
Jeskai Queller/Geist
Jeskai tempo
UWR
UWR Control
Breach is probably worth putting in its own category (maybe?), but everything else feels pretty Jeskai Control. I don't like breaking it down too much because the classifications are already somewhat arbitrary to begin with, and when we re-classify subjective categories into more subjective categories things get even more muddled.
Interestingly, the deck that got 2nd (Jeskai Queller) doesn't run any Geists, has Archangel Avacyn, V. Cliques and a Search! There is a lot of diversity between Jeskai decks, and although there is 1 stock list (3 Geists, 4 Snaps, 4 Quellers), people take a lot of liberty to tune their lists any way the see fit. That, imho, shows that the deck is versatile and powerful.
Even though GK is still hesitant to call Jeskai tier 1 I think it has the tools now.
Search for Azcanta just buries non blue fair decks in CA
Queller was a massive tempo card that it needed, which also reduced the clunkiness of running Resto Angels with CC.
I think the fact we are seeing so many lists is saying a lot. The presence of Storm and Shadow really made Jeskai better, if Dredge hit an 8% meta share or something the deck would really be in a rough spot.
Here's an update to the MWP analysis with GPOKC. Below, you can find the MWP confidence intervals for all decks with >100 matches using two MWP calculations. The first only calculates MWP when BOTH opponents are known. The second calculates MWP if AT LEAST ONE deck is known. This means the second MWP value generally has a larger N (because there are more matches where we only know one deck) but is also a wider interval.
Affinity: (48.7% - 58.6%) vs. (53.8% - 61.3%)
Grixis Death's Shadow: (47.8% - 58%) vs. (51.9% - 60.2%)
Burn: (43.5% - 54.6%) vs. (49.7% - 58.4%)
Titanshift: (41.2% - 54.3%) vs. (46.7% - 56.9%)
Eldrazi Tron: (41.1% - 53.2%) vs. (47.5% - 57.4%)
Jeskai Control: (51.2% - 62%) vs. (57% - 65.8%)
Tron: (49.9% - 62.4%) vs. (54.2% - 64%)
Humans: (44.1% - 57.3%) vs. (50.4% - 60.8%)
Storm: (42.1% - 56.7%) vs. (48% - 60.4%)
Elves: (35.8% - 51.6%) vs. (43.9% - 57%)
Abzan: (36.1% - 53.9%) vs. (42.5% - 56.1%)
Abzan Company: (45.7% - 61.6%) vs. (48.1% - 61%)
Merfolk: (30.6% - 49%) vs. (41.3% - 55.9%)
UW Control: (37.9% - 57.9%) vs. (45.7% - 61.7%)
Jund: (36% - 54.8%) vs. (46.3% - 61.5%)
Lantern Control: (45.3% - 64.9%) vs. (47.9% - 64.7%)
Infect: (46.6% - 65.1%) vs. (50.7% - 65.9%)
Ponza: (34% - 57.4%) vs. (36.5% - 55.2%)
Death and Taxes: (35.8% - 59.7%) vs. (39.7% - 58.4%)
5C Death's Shadow: (45.3% - 66.1%) vs. (49% - 67.4%)
Bant Eldrazi: (35.9% - 62.3%) vs. (38.2% - 60.5%)
Dredge: (41.9% - 65.1%) vs. (45.2% - 64.8%)
Interestingly, Jeskai Control still maintains the best MWP intervals no matter what metric you use. There is no significant difference in MWPs between any of the top decks.
There are a lot of fairly alarming assessments in this thread about Tron based on a single GP. Wizards has never banned anything, not even Eye of Ugin, after one bad event. It takes a consistent pattern to spur action. Given that Tron never saw more than 1 T8 appearance per GP for all of 2017 up until GPOKC, I feel fairly confident saying nothing is going to happen ban-wise until after the PT. Not even the vocal pros want cards banned, which hasn't been the case in 1-2 years. If the GP data isn't there and the public outcry isn't there, I'm just not seeing it.
To be clear, a bad PT would definitely prompt action. But we're not there yet. I think some vocal players, specifically those who prefer a certain decktype, just hate Tron. They wait month after month for any evidence to vindicate and support their dislike of the deck. We just happen to be coming off a heavy Tron GP T8 so the complaints are eapecially loud.
I agree with you that I don't think anything is happening until post-PT but I've heard several pros wanting a Tron ban then as well. While yes, Tron did put only 1 top 8 result per GP before OKC I still see that as kind of alarming that it's put up so many. For a deck that is supposed to have extremely polarizing results, it's managed to go undefeated or X-1 at a extremely consistent clip at GPs over the last year (Bear in mind of the 4 non-OKC top 8's, only 1 was E.Tron and the rest were Traditional). I think part of that is the inherent "bustedness" of the Tron lands themselves, the tuning of their lists and cards they've gotten to make their bad matchups better while keeping their good matchups extremely lopsided, but the other part is that I think there are other decks that have come up that are also suppressing their bad matchups. Like these Jeskai decks (while I agree they have to be group together, I do dislike how inconsistent the lists are. It really makes them hard to figure out), they are really good against Storm, Affinity, Humans and Death Shadow. They seem to be good in a lot of matchups that might have stopped Trons performance. While it's nice to think "yeah people will just adjust to decks that beat Tron" but if those decks aren't well positioned against the rest of the field, Tron will continue to stay on top. I'm not super optimistic about this.
I cannot think of a single other card in the format on which the playability of so many other cards rests. Is this not format warping?
For me it's not just that it impacts the format. Cards like Thoughtseize, Push and Bolt all impact the format as well but it's the fact we do not have good answers to Tron. None of the tools we have are really good enough because they are either too slow/expensive, not good enough or it costs Tron less to recover than it did to set them back. The problem also lies that the kind of answer we'd need aren't things that would be printed in a Standard set and without any products that print direct to Modern, I think it leaves us with no choice for the time being.
One of the biggest reasons Tron was acceptable before was that while it could prey on the midrange and fair decks on the format, it wasn't putting up any real results at large events due to the high variants of it's matchups. That has changed because of all the reasons I wrote about above and in previous posts. I'd also agree that I think all fast mana isn't healthy for Modern but without a giant sweep where you get it all, I think addressing the biggest offender has become a necessity. Modern is in a great place deck diversity-wise but it needs better archetype diversity. The last piece of the Rock/Paper/Scissors that was Pod/Twin/Tron needs to go.
Tron did well at literally one event. But now all the habitual big mana critics/midrange and control players are up in arms because they can finally fixate on OKC as proof positive that the deck they hate is unhealthy. GDS had a better 2017 performance than Tron and no one is going crazy about that deck now. Like any Modern deck that enjoys a sudden popularity and/or success spike, it's only a problem if it is sustained over multiple events. As I said before, this means we would need to see similar #s to OKC at the PT for any changes to be on the table.
Even if Tron becomes a problem after the PT (it isn't now no matter how many Mishra's Workshop comparisons or matchup lottery complaints are made), there's no way Wizards bans a Tron land. They didn't kill Temple AND Eye after the worst Modern ever in Eldrazi Winter. They definitely won't kill Tron after just two events. They would ban something like Map or Stirrings instead, just like Probe and GGT and Bloom before.
EDIT: Also, I keep hearing this idea that pros want a Tron ban. A) pros wanted LOTS of bans, many of which were ridiculous, B) almost all of the pro articles I've read after OKC did not advocate any bans and instead wanted unbans. Many praised the format even after the GP. So let's see some cited sources if we're going to talk about pros wanting bans.
I cannot think of a single other card in the format on which the playability of so many other cards rests. Is this not format warping?
For me it's not just that it impacts the format. Cards like Thoughtseize, Push and Bolt all impact the format as well but it's the fact we do not have good answers to Tron. None of the tools we have are really good enough because they are either too slow/expensive, not good enough or it costs Tron less to recover than it did to set them back. The problem also lies that the kind of answer we'd need aren't things that would be printed in a Standard set and without any products that print direct to Modern, I think it leaves us with no choice for the time being.
One of the biggest reasons Tron was acceptable before was that while it could prey on the midrange and fair decks on the format, it wasn't putting up any real results at large events due to the high variants of it's matchups. That has changed because of all the reasons I wrote about above and in previous posts. I'd also agree that I think all fast mana isn't healthy for Modern but without a giant sweep where you get it all, I think addressing the biggest offender has become a necessity. Modern is in a great place deck diversity-wise but it needs better archetype diversity. The last piece of the Rock/Paper/Scissors that was Pod/Twin/Tron needs to go.
Modern has a lot of archetype diversity, so I'm not sure what u mean. We have Control/tempo, different style combo decks, and midrange decks. Aggro is probably the only one hurting with only affinity, but i mean Burn is always a thing
honestly, I'm at the point where I'd rather see more unbans rather than banning every deck that people see as "too good". I'm fine with tron as a deck archetype, even with it being so good. Or at least wait until the Pro Tour to see what happens
I agree they won't ban Urza's Tower, and that's fair, I'm just pointing out how so many cards in the modern cardpool would suddenly become unplayable overnight if Tower was suddenly removed.
I cannot think of an example of another card which would invalidate so many other cards if it suddenly disappeared from the game.
Anyways, this is more of just a thought experiment than a call for any bans. I am fairly certain Wizards will not want to invalidate an entire archetype as doing so would cost them too many players.
Yeah, like cavern, like aether vial, like discard.... Soooo many decks around this examples too. Is this all not warping too?
Cavern would likely not invalidate any cards, as Unclaimed Territory was just printed, and they serve a similar enough role in enabling tribal decks
Discard? We need a specific card here so let's go with Thoughtseize. Does removing this card from the game cause any other cards to become unplayable? Death's Shadow? Even this I am not so sure on, whereas for Tower there are at least 5 cards which I am confident fall off the map.
Aether Vial maybe. Do you think it would suddenly make all merfolk, humans, and the Death and Taxes deck unplayable? I'm not sure. Merfolk can go UG and switch to Collected Company, humans can swap out Vial for Avacyn's Pilgrim and remain more or less the same. Death and Taxes would take the biggest hit IMO but which individual cards would no longer see play without Vial?
Honestly my suggestion for the next card (outside of any of the tron lands) to invalidate many others would probably be Ensnaring Bridge. I believe many of the staples in Lantern would no longer be modern playable without this card holding the deck together. A similar argument could be made for Lantern of Insight itself, but Lantern gone would not eliminate bridge, while the reverse is almost certainly true.
This is not true as I posted before. It's done well ALL year (2nd most top 8's at GPs this year). Yes OKC was the first time it's put up insane numbers but Tron has been consistent throughout the year at putting up numbers.
GDS had a better 2017 performance than Tron and no one is going crazy about that deck now.
It has been talked about by Pros as well. One of the primary reason I've seen people back off is because it's a beatable deck that people had to get used to playing against (Tron isn't like that, you either win quick or lose horribly), and it's a symptom of the problem with the format. Big mana is forcing people that want to try to play interactive decks to be able to also be an aggro deck. This is why the most popular versions of Jeskai are the Queller variants which can essentially transition to be a burn deck if needed.
Even if Tron becomes a problem after the PT (it isn't now no matter how many Mishra's Workshop comparisons or matchup lottery complaints are made), there's no way Wizards bans a Tron land. They didn't kill Temple AND Eye after the worst Modern ever in Eldrazi Winter. They definitely won't kill Tron after just two events. They would ban something like Map or Stirrings instead, just like Probe and GGT and Bloom before.
These exact same things were said about Twin before it was axed. "If they ban anything, it'll just be Exarch", "they'd never kill twin". It's not just 2 events, it's been all year and it's not just about the numbers but what it does to deck construction for the entire format.
@Exatraz, did you even read my latest post? The numbers literally prove you wrong. Tron is fine. If you want to win it there are ways. Even if you are a Control player, you can go UW Control with Spreading Seas and Field Of Ruins all playsets. If you want to smash them, add 1-2 Ceremonious Rejection and 1-2 Disdainful Stroke in your sideboard. The first card is also great vs other popular colourless or artifact decks like Lantern, Affinity, Eldrazis and the second one is great vs Scapeshift or Titanshift decks, great in the UW Walker mirrors, Storm, Ad Nauseam.
I am actually going to try Corey's Grixis Azcanta list this Friday. I am upping his 1 SB Disdainful Stroke to 2 of them. Small change, but hopefully it helps. (I really need to run a Serum Visions deck, as I have had some extreme variance recently.)
Tron is ******* annoying. Does it need to be banned? No, for all the reasons the people above me have given. To even consider it for banning is just ridiculous and a lot more ridiculous than when LSV said something from GDS needs to be banned because the deck is "too good." That actually had some merit at the time.
*Personally, I still don't see why Cloudpost is considered SO much better than Tron. I see in the comments that a certain SCG BGx Grinder seems to agree somewhat (although he is saying more that Tron should be banned if Cloudpost is). While I don't think it should be a target for unbanning in the near future, I personally think it should come off at some time. In no way is it in the category of Deathrite Shaman, Umezawa's Jitte, Dark Depths, or much, much broken cards. Cloudpost decks are so much worse on turns 3 and 4, even if the turns 5-infinite are waaay, way stronger.
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)
@Exatraz, did you even read my latest post? The numbers literally prove you wrong. Tron is fine. If you want to win it there are ways. Even if you are a Control player, you can go UW Control with Spreading Seas and Field Of Ruins all playsets. If you want to smash them, add 1-2 Ceremonious Rejection and 1-2 Disdainful Stroke in your sideboard. The first card is also great vs other popular colourless or artifact decks like Lantern, Affinity, Eldrazis and the second one is great vs Scapeshift or Titanshift decks, great in the UW Walker mirrors, Storm, Ad Nauseam.
I did read your comments but you are also wrong. It does warp the format. The fact the death shadow decks have moved to running Temur Battle Rage and cutting IoK is further examples of them having to warp to adjust to Tron. Titanshift is far less of a problem but Tron has warped the format. You could play UWx with Seas and Field of Ruins hoping to beat Tron but you lose to most of the other decks in the field. That is the problem.
@Exatraz, did you even read my latest post? The numbers literally prove you wrong. Tron is fine. If you want to win it there are ways. Even if you are a Control player, you can go UW Control with Spreading Seas and Field Of Ruins all playsets. If you want to smash them, add 1-2 Ceremonious Rejection and 1-2 Disdainful Stroke in your sideboard. The first card is also great vs other popular colourless or artifact decks like Lantern, Affinity, Eldrazis and the second one is great vs Scapeshift or Titanshift decks, great in the UW Walker mirrors, Storm, Ad Nauseam.
I did read your comments but you are also wrong. It does warp the format. The fact the death shadow decks have moved to running Temur Battle Rage and cutting IoK is further examples of them having to warp to adjust to Tron. Titanshift is far less of a problem but Tron has warped the format. You could play UWx with Seas and Field of Ruins hoping to beat Tron but you lose to most of the other decks in the field. That is the problem.
Adaptation =/= warping. There is nothing outside of a single GP to suggest Tron is anything more than another strong Tier 1 deck. I think everyone admits that Tron did not look healthy at OKC. Me too! But that single GP is not a bannable trend. Every other ban was based on months of data and continuing trends. Even the flagrantly broken Eldrazi Winter required a PT on top of a GP to prompt action. This one won't be different,
If Tron at the PT looks like it did at GP OKC, we'll see a ban. Probably Map or Stirrings because Wizards doesn't want to destroy decks; Wizards has only totally nuked two decks in Modern history and Pod was replaced by Company shortly thereafter. Tronlands are almost certainly safe no matter how much this thread hates them. And right now, they are safe period because the PT hasn't happened.
With all the comparison to ponder and preordain i think ancient stirrings would be the ban most likely to happen in the event of an actual ban. But i think it comes down to tempo built in with card design. putting reliable land hate on a tempo body in blue might help make the matchups less crap. Mistbind Clique is one of those cards the faeries crew uses as assistance against the big mana decks but it often comes down too late and is often inconsistent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I have in my bag of tricks- Needless to say, someone who wants to play will probably have a deck UB/x Faeries UR Storm XURWB Affinity G Elves UW control
The Ancient Stirrings ban doesn't stop Affinity from puking their entire hand on turn two, stop Grishoalbrand on turn 2-3, and Scapeshift on turn 5. I don't like how Ponder and Preordain are on the banned list, but digging a deeper senseless grave isn't going to fix any fundamental issue about Modern.
Why is Affinity "puking" their entire hand on turn two a problem?
And why is a Grishoalbrand deck that has never did a single top 8 in a GP a problem?
Why is Scapeshift winning on turn 5 a problem in a format where everything is permitted according to Wizards from turn 4 and on?
Are those supposed to be Modern problems? This thread never ceases to amuse me.
Why is Affinity "puking" their entire hand on turn two a problem?
And why is a Grishoalbrand deck that has never did a single top 8 in a GP a problem?
Why is Scapeshift winning on turn 5 a problem in a format where everything is permitted according to Wizards from turn 4 and on?
Are those supposed to be Modern problems? This thread never ceases to amuse me.
Not more or less of a problem than a turn 3 Karn.
In that case, nothing of those is a problem. Unless if the Tron decks have been consistently killing GP's and PT's all Modern duration long.
But let's assume for a second that Tron is a problem in Modern. How is it not more of a problem than the Grishoalbrand deck that has never top 8 ed an event and holds an ~0.2% of a Modern metashare?
This kind of equalization feels weird.
One of the most weird things though is that "Scapeshift winning on turn 5 is a problem". Wizards has stated that Modern is a turn 4 format. You aren't allowed to kill pre-turn 4. At turn 5, you can do whatever the heck you want.
If you read the original post I quoted, they are referring to an Ancient Stirrings ban, which I am firmly against.
Why is Affinity "puking" their entire hand on turn two a problem?
And why is a Grishoalbrand deck that has never did a single top 8 in a GP a problem?
GP Guangzhou? GP Charlotte? I suppose GP Guangzhou wasn't technically Grishoalbrand because it wasn't the Nourishing Shoal build, but GP Charlotte was.
I'm not even arguing Grishoalbrand is a problem, just pointing out your claim here is incorrect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I truly can't tell
It has problematic matchups
Weak to Tron, Titanshift, Affinity, Jund, Junk, Jeskai (although not in these recent data lists)
I mean---that's a lot of major decks to be weak to.
Jeskai is doing well, it's not at all a wonder Tron spiked
Death's Shadow is dropping off, for now it's probably Jeskai's time to be the midrange deck. The deck is so good, I own it
Hmmm that's worrisome. I really prefer to assume people did the math right instead of auditing the work. How did you set up your calculation?
EDIT: I found one area where the MWPs can dramatically differ and still technically be "right." This depends on whether you include matches where BOTH decks are known vs. decks were only one deck is known. For instance, assume the following 10 matches:
Affinity vs. ?: Win 2-0
? vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
Affinity vs. Burn: Win 2-1
Affinity vs. Jeskai Control: Loss 1-2
Tron vs. Affinity: Loss 0-2
? vs. Affinity: Win 0-2
Scapeshift vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
8Rack vs. Affinity: Win 2-1
Affinity vs. ?: Loss 1-2
GDS vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
In this imaginary dataset, there are actually two different MWPs depending on if you exclude the 4 matchups where we didn't know one of the two decks. Here are the calculations for the 6 matches where BOTH decks are known:
Affinity vs. Burn: Win 2-1
Affinity vs. Jeskai Control: Loss 1-2
Tron vs. Affinity: Loss 0-2
Scapeshift vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
8Rack vs. Affinity: Win 2-1
GDS vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
Affinity MWP: 66% (4 wins, 2 losses)
And here's the MWP if you include the 4 matchups where we only knew Affinity and didn't know the opponent:
Affinity vs. ?: Win 2-0
? vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
Affinity vs. Burn: Win 2-1
Affinity vs. Jeskai Control: Loss 1-2
Tron vs. Affinity: Loss 0-2
? vs. Affinity: Win 0-2
Scapeshift vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
8Rack vs. Affinity: Win 2-1
Affinity vs. ?: Loss 1-2
GDS vs. Affinity: Loss 1-2
Affinity MWP: 70% (7 wins, 3 losses)
This difference gets magnified over hundreds of matches and could result in two entirely different MWP calculations, both of which are technically "right" but neither of which match.
EDIT2: The above data was just a hypothetical illustration. Here are three actual numbers from some decks through the end of Round 3 (this is as far as I got in the dataset so far):
Burn: 54.3% vs. 46.9%
Affinity: 62.8% vs. 58.9%
Grixis DS: 57.9% vs. 46.9%
Jeskai Control: 68.3% vs. 61.8%
As you can see, there's a big difference between MWPs calculated from matches where you know only one deck (the first number) vs. matches where you know both decks (the second number). I believe this is because a matchup where both decks are known indicates that at least one player of the two is organized, competent, and knowledgeable enough to write down a deck. This would suggest that at least one player in that second pool might be a "better" player, and it is therefore a harder pool of decks to succeed in. But we'll see if this assumption holds as I get further in the rounds.
What are you still worried about, if I can ask?
I'm not really sure what else a fair deck could do.
I actually think it has more free wins than the old decks of jund and deck. Bolt snap bolt and quellers really can add to serious damage and real tempo.
Grixis shadow doesn't really get all those free wins anymore, so you should feel relatively comfortable with both decks if you play them.
I'll also add there's a deck-naming issue which will also affect MWP. The original dataset has 6-7 names for some decks (e.g. Jeskai Control, Jeskai Tempo, Jeskai Geist, UWR, UWR Control, UWR Midrange, etc.) and only 1-2 for others (e.g. Fish and Merfolk). There's a lot of subjectivity in grouping those from the original 250ish values into recognizable bins.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Here are all the Jeskai decks in the GPOKC reddit dataset that "could" be Jeskai Control:
Geist Jeskai
Jeskai
Jeskai Breach
Jeskai Control
Jeskai Delver/Control
Jeskai Flash
Jeskai Geist
Jeskai Geist/Control
Jeskai Midrange
Jeskai Nahiri
Jeskai Queller
Jeskai Queller/Geist
Jeskai tempo
UWR
UWR Control
Breach is probably worth putting in its own category (maybe?), but everything else feels pretty Jeskai Control. I don't like breaking it down too much because the classifications are already somewhat arbitrary to begin with, and when we re-classify subjective categories into more subjective categories things get even more muddled.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Search for Azcanta just buries non blue fair decks in CA
Queller was a massive tempo card that it needed, which also reduced the clunkiness of running Resto Angels with CC.
I think the fact we are seeing so many lists is saying a lot. The presence of Storm and Shadow really made Jeskai better, if Dredge hit an 8% meta share or something the deck would really be in a rough spot.
- Affinity: (48.7% - 58.6%) vs. (53.8% - 61.3%)
- Grixis Death's Shadow: (47.8% - 58%) vs. (51.9% - 60.2%)
- Burn: (43.5% - 54.6%) vs. (49.7% - 58.4%)
- Titanshift: (41.2% - 54.3%) vs. (46.7% - 56.9%)
- Eldrazi Tron: (41.1% - 53.2%) vs. (47.5% - 57.4%)
- Jeskai Control: (51.2% - 62%) vs. (57% - 65.8%)
- Tron: (49.9% - 62.4%) vs. (54.2% - 64%)
- Humans: (44.1% - 57.3%) vs. (50.4% - 60.8%)
- Storm: (42.1% - 56.7%) vs. (48% - 60.4%)
- Elves: (35.8% - 51.6%) vs. (43.9% - 57%)
- Abzan: (36.1% - 53.9%) vs. (42.5% - 56.1%)
- Abzan Company: (45.7% - 61.6%) vs. (48.1% - 61%)
- Merfolk: (30.6% - 49%) vs. (41.3% - 55.9%)
- UW Control: (37.9% - 57.9%) vs. (45.7% - 61.7%)
- Jund: (36% - 54.8%) vs. (46.3% - 61.5%)
- Lantern Control: (45.3% - 64.9%) vs. (47.9% - 64.7%)
- Infect: (46.6% - 65.1%) vs. (50.7% - 65.9%)
- Ponza: (34% - 57.4%) vs. (36.5% - 55.2%)
- Death and Taxes: (35.8% - 59.7%) vs. (39.7% - 58.4%)
- 5C Death's Shadow: (45.3% - 66.1%) vs. (49% - 67.4%)
- Bant Eldrazi: (35.9% - 62.3%) vs. (38.2% - 60.5%)
- Dredge: (41.9% - 65.1%) vs. (45.2% - 64.8%)
Interestingly, Jeskai Control still maintains the best MWP intervals no matter what metric you use. There is no significant difference in MWPs between any of the top decks.I agree with you that I don't think anything is happening until post-PT but I've heard several pros wanting a Tron ban then as well. While yes, Tron did put only 1 top 8 result per GP before OKC I still see that as kind of alarming that it's put up so many. For a deck that is supposed to have extremely polarizing results, it's managed to go undefeated or X-1 at a extremely consistent clip at GPs over the last year (Bear in mind of the 4 non-OKC top 8's, only 1 was E.Tron and the rest were Traditional). I think part of that is the inherent "bustedness" of the Tron lands themselves, the tuning of their lists and cards they've gotten to make their bad matchups better while keeping their good matchups extremely lopsided, but the other part is that I think there are other decks that have come up that are also suppressing their bad matchups. Like these Jeskai decks (while I agree they have to be group together, I do dislike how inconsistent the lists are. It really makes them hard to figure out), they are really good against Storm, Affinity, Humans and Death Shadow. They seem to be good in a lot of matchups that might have stopped Trons performance. While it's nice to think "yeah people will just adjust to decks that beat Tron" but if those decks aren't well positioned against the rest of the field, Tron will continue to stay on top. I'm not super optimistic about this.
It enables so many cards to see play which would otherwise not even be considered playable in this format: Urza's Power Plant, Urza's Mine, Expedition Map, Karn Liberated, Ugin, Ulamog, Oblivion Stone, Wurmcoil Engine, Walking Ballista...
I cannot think of a single other card in the format on which the playability of so many other cards rests. Is this not format warping?
For me it's not just that it impacts the format. Cards like Thoughtseize, Push and Bolt all impact the format as well but it's the fact we do not have good answers to Tron. None of the tools we have are really good enough because they are either too slow/expensive, not good enough or it costs Tron less to recover than it did to set them back. The problem also lies that the kind of answer we'd need aren't things that would be printed in a Standard set and without any products that print direct to Modern, I think it leaves us with no choice for the time being.
One of the biggest reasons Tron was acceptable before was that while it could prey on the midrange and fair decks on the format, it wasn't putting up any real results at large events due to the high variants of it's matchups. That has changed because of all the reasons I wrote about above and in previous posts. I'd also agree that I think all fast mana isn't healthy for Modern but without a giant sweep where you get it all, I think addressing the biggest offender has become a necessity. Modern is in a great place deck diversity-wise but it needs better archetype diversity. The last piece of the Rock/Paper/Scissors that was Pod/Twin/Tron needs to go.
Even if Tron becomes a problem after the PT (it isn't now no matter how many Mishra's Workshop comparisons or matchup lottery complaints are made), there's no way Wizards bans a Tron land. They didn't kill Temple AND Eye after the worst Modern ever in Eldrazi Winter. They definitely won't kill Tron after just two events. They would ban something like Map or Stirrings instead, just like Probe and GGT and Bloom before.
EDIT: Also, I keep hearing this idea that pros want a Tron ban. A) pros wanted LOTS of bans, many of which were ridiculous, B) almost all of the pro articles I've read after OKC did not advocate any bans and instead wanted unbans. Many praised the format even after the GP. So let's see some cited sources if we're going to talk about pros wanting bans.
Modern has a lot of archetype diversity, so I'm not sure what u mean. We have Control/tempo, different style combo decks, and midrange decks. Aggro is probably the only one hurting with only affinity, but i mean Burn is always a thing
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffI cannot think of an example of another card which would invalidate so many other cards if it suddenly disappeared from the game.
Anyways, this is more of just a thought experiment than a call for any bans. I am fairly certain Wizards will not want to invalidate an entire archetype as doing so would cost them too many players.
Cavern would likely not invalidate any cards, as Unclaimed Territory was just printed, and they serve a similar enough role in enabling tribal decks
Discard? We need a specific card here so let's go with Thoughtseize. Does removing this card from the game cause any other cards to become unplayable? Death's Shadow? Even this I am not so sure on, whereas for Tower there are at least 5 cards which I am confident fall off the map.
Aether Vial maybe. Do you think it would suddenly make all merfolk, humans, and the Death and Taxes deck unplayable? I'm not sure. Merfolk can go UG and switch to Collected Company, humans can swap out Vial for Avacyn's Pilgrim and remain more or less the same. Death and Taxes would take the biggest hit IMO but which individual cards would no longer see play without Vial?
Honestly my suggestion for the next card (outside of any of the tron lands) to invalidate many others would probably be Ensnaring Bridge. I believe many of the staples in Lantern would no longer be modern playable without this card holding the deck together. A similar argument could be made for Lantern of Insight itself, but Lantern gone would not eliminate bridge, while the reverse is almost certainly true.
Other cards that come to mind: Mox Opal, Valakut the Molten Pinnacle, Eldrazi Temple
This is not true as I posted before. It's done well ALL year (2nd most top 8's at GPs this year). Yes OKC was the first time it's put up insane numbers but Tron has been consistent throughout the year at putting up numbers.
It has been talked about by Pros as well. One of the primary reason I've seen people back off is because it's a beatable deck that people had to get used to playing against (Tron isn't like that, you either win quick or lose horribly), and it's a symptom of the problem with the format. Big mana is forcing people that want to try to play interactive decks to be able to also be an aggro deck. This is why the most popular versions of Jeskai are the Queller variants which can essentially transition to be a burn deck if needed.
These exact same things were said about Twin before it was axed. "If they ban anything, it'll just be Exarch", "they'd never kill twin". It's not just 2 events, it's been all year and it's not just about the numbers but what it does to deck construction for the entire format.
I am actually going to try Corey's Grixis Azcanta list this Friday. I am upping his 1 SB Disdainful Stroke to 2 of them. Small change, but hopefully it helps. (I really need to run a Serum Visions deck, as I have had some extreme variance recently.)
Tron is ******* annoying. Does it need to be banned? No, for all the reasons the people above me have given. To even consider it for banning is just ridiculous and a lot more ridiculous than when LSV said something from GDS needs to be banned because the deck is "too good." That actually had some merit at the time.
*Personally, I still don't see why Cloudpost is considered SO much better than Tron. I see in the comments that a certain SCG BGx Grinder seems to agree somewhat (although he is saying more that Tron should be banned if Cloudpost is). While I don't think it should be a target for unbanning in the near future, I personally think it should come off at some time. In no way is it in the category of Deathrite Shaman, Umezawa's Jitte, Dark Depths, or much, much broken cards. Cloudpost decks are so much worse on turns 3 and 4, even if the turns 5-infinite are waaay, way stronger.
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 did read your comments but you are also wrong. It does warp the format. The fact the death shadow decks have moved to running Temur Battle Rage and cutting IoK is further examples of them having to warp to adjust to Tron. Titanshift is far less of a problem but Tron has warped the format. You could play UWx with Seas and Field of Ruins hoping to beat Tron but you lose to most of the other decks in the field. That is the problem.
Adaptation =/= warping. There is nothing outside of a single GP to suggest Tron is anything more than another strong Tier 1 deck. I think everyone admits that Tron did not look healthy at OKC. Me too! But that single GP is not a bannable trend. Every other ban was based on months of data and continuing trends. Even the flagrantly broken Eldrazi Winter required a PT on top of a GP to prompt action. This one won't be different,
If Tron at the PT looks like it did at GP OKC, we'll see a ban. Probably Map or Stirrings because Wizards doesn't want to destroy decks; Wizards has only totally nuked two decks in Modern history and Pod was replaced by Company shortly thereafter. Tronlands are almost certainly safe no matter how much this thread hates them. And right now, they are safe period because the PT hasn't happened.
UB/x Faeries
UR Storm
XURWB Affinity
G Elves
UW control
Not more or less of a problem than a turn 3 Karn.
If you read the original post I quoted, they are referring to an Ancient Stirrings ban, which I am firmly against.
I'm not even arguing Grishoalbrand is a problem, just pointing out your claim here is incorrect.