Not sure if anyone's interested, but I started filling in pie's video data into a spreadsheet to track how particular cards being in the opening hand correlate with wins. I've still got a ways to go, but interesting results so far...
This kind of data analysis is certainly interesting but it has some major flaws that need to be accounted for when interpreting the data. Just to show one of the problems, I will show an example with some made up numbers. Let's assume:
the only MU we bring in Hurkyl's Recall is against Affinity
we have 45% winrate without Hurkyl's Recall in the starting hand
we have 55% winrate with Hurkyl's Recall in the starting hand
our overall winrate across all matches and matchups is 60%
So now the winrate increase we would expect the data to show us is 10% (45% -> 55%). But that's not what the data shows, the data shows a -5% winrate change, because it will look at all starting hands without Hurkyl, not just the ones where we brought it in. Since our average winrate is 60% it registers a 5% decrease to 55% giving the unknowing reader of this data a completely wrong idea about the impact this card has. So a sb card that is boarded in for bad MUs will not be shown correctly at this point and needs to be manually compared to the winrate in those MUs. One way to combat this would be to separate the winrate changes per MU but that would require an insane amount of matches played to provide any meaningful data.
Additionally, this only tells you what is good in your starting hand, not what is good in your decklist. Rather than adjusting your decklist to this data I believe you should use this information to make better mulligan decisions. If you were to make this kind of analysis with all cards drawn during a game rather than just the cards in the starting hand it would be more meaningful for overall deckbuilding.
Anyway more data is always good but people have to be aware of what the data actually represents and where the weaknesses in the methodology are. Don't just look at the numbers and take them as they are, you need to understand why, and which factors are at play.
@BloodyRabbit_01, I understand that common consensus within the community is that Thirst is a staple for the deck. It may be a very good card in the deck, just as Mindslaver is. However, the data shows that neither correlate with increased win percentages as much as Supreme Will does. One of the major reasons I prefer to go for a data-based approach is because it isn't as fallible to the bandwagon fallacy or confirmation bias. I'm not saying the data is perfect, as I'll talk about below with my response with pierakor, but the data is the most logical approach we have. We simply have to be willing to use it, combined with a careful eye for any possible skewed statistics. I'm not sure if you know this, but this same approach was used with Lantern during development, and you can see for yourself how that ended up.
@pierakor, I had the same problem when working on Lantern, and I agree that we have to keep a careful eye on problems like that. In Lantern, Leyline of Sanctity didn't score very well despite being an extremely important card in the Burn and Jund matchups (although Leyline was a maindeck card for a short time). I agree with your proposed solution, and that's why I would just suggest we keep a careful eye on these numbers and what they could mean. So the unknowing reader that you imagine would cannot be lazy about looking at the numbers. If they do, that's on them.
For your numbers:
we have 45% winrate without Hurkyl's Recall in the starting hand
we have 55% winrate with Hurkyl's Recall in the starting hand
our overall winrate across all matches and matchups is 60%
Are those from your own personal tracking? I ask because one of the decks I tested against last night was Affinity, all preboard games, and they felt completely lopsided in our favor. I didn't keep track of how many games I played, unfortunately, but if memory serves me right, I only dropped one game. Between Condescends, Supreme Wills, Spatial Contortions, Repeals, and Commits, I was able to easily control the gamestate until just landed a Wurmcoil, Angel, Gearhulk a Memory, or Mindslaver. I would imagine that a rather major difference in our lists would have a very important role in our difference in observations of the matchup.
I agree that the data can be used to help inform mulligan decisions. However, that brings us back to the dilemma of a card being possibly good for the deck, but not good in our opener. If we want to mulligan a hand with Thirst for Knowledge in it nearly every time, then maybe we should consider not running four of them, in order to reduce the number of times we end up doing so. If we want to keep a hand with Supreme Will, then maybe we should consider increasing the number of those cards in order to have the opportunity to keep better hands.
The data is pretty much straight forward for maindeck cards, and we just have to keep a logical eye on strange outliers. For example, Urza's Mine and Urza's Power Plant currently have a negative win correlation. This does not necessarily mean that we need to run fewer Mines or Plants, of course. Since they are essentially identical in nature to Urza's Tower up until we hit Tron, we can logically deduce that this is an anomaly. The same cannot be said for cards like Thirst for Knowledge and Solemn Simulacrum, however.
Are those from your own personal tracking? I ask because one of the decks I tested against last night was Affinity, all preboard games, and they felt completely lopsided in our favor. I didn't keep track of how many games I played, unfortunately, but if memory serves me right, I only dropped one game. Between Condescends, Supreme Wills, Spatial Contortions, Repeals, and Commits, I was able to easily control the gamestate until just landed a Wurmcoil, Angel, Gearhulk a Memory, or Mindslaver. I would imagine that a rather major difference in our lists would have a very important role in our difference in observations of the matchup.
No I just made up those numbers to show the problem.
My actual data against affinity from a year ago:
50% match win
49% game win
41% on the draw
55% on the play
35% preboard
58% postboard
Ah, okay, thanks! Yeah, I agree that we have to be aware of those sorts of dilemmas in the data. I think that the current best solution, aside from just trying to get thousands of more games so we have enough reliable data for individual matchup statistics (which even then doesn't take into account things like how decks in the metagame change over time), is to use the weighing method that I've incorporated. Since individual sideboard cards are so rarely found in opening hands, relative to cards that are run as 3-4 in the main, the weigh-and-rank method seems to work relatively well. If it wasn't weighed for sample size, Recall would be scoring much worse.
I'm still entering data as often and as much as I can, and hopefully we continue to get a clear picture of how individual cards seem to perform when they're in the opening hand. It was quite a bit of work being both the main source of data (in videos) and entering the data for Lantern, so having players like you with lots of data to simply pull from is a great help! I just have another couple hundred and some odd matches of data to enter from you alone
EDIT: I've also joined the Tron Discord, so if anyone is interesting in talking live about the work, I leave it open in the background.
@BloodyRabbit_01, I respect and understand where you're coming from, but I don't necessarily agree with a few statements here:
...we'll get a bit better in the early game (but only on the play, on the draw it's already too slow), against anything non-aggressive - though - we lose a lot of percentage point by not running Thirst
While this is common consensus, there is no actual verifiable data to back this up. Thus, this is conjecture at best. Again, I understand that this is probably the popular belief, but according to data, it holds no water.
While still adding data to the sheet, I added another data point for observation - If having Gemstone Caverns active is actually worth it. I set it up to look at relative win rates between games when we're on the draw and we don't have Caverns and when we do. So far it doesn't look very good, even weighed for sample size, but I'll continue to enter data and see how it goes.
@thnkr I like your approach, because deck building is just mathematics and not gut feelings. For me another useful tool is this Hypergeometric Calculator, with helps to determinate the true percentage of drawing what we need.
Here is an analysis of our mana base I made a lot time ago: Mana base analysis
See if it's helpful, and it also can be apply for other aspects of the deck like chance of drawing a counter spells or card in general by turn x.
@dreykopendragon, Thanks! I hadn't seen your post about the manabase analysis, but I'll give it a good read
@BloodyRabbit_01, I understand where you're coming from, but I prefer data over experience because experience is susceptible to confirmation bias and anecdotal evidence. I'm not necessarily saying that Thirst just isn't good for the deck at all, but it definitely shows that it doesn't perform well when it's in the opening hand. This might imply that we might benefit from cutting down to fewer Thirsts, so that we are ensuring that we are doing something relevant in the early game but still have good draws in the late game. Personally, I used this same method when working on Lantern, and that's assured me that it is the most reliable method for building decks. Thus, we have inarguable evidence that this method is absolutely reliable. When you say that you are convinced it is wrong, that again is your speculation and conjecture. Anything not based on falsifiable evidence and data is exactly that: speculation and conjecture. Now, if you have further data analysis that shows that this current data set might be questionable or wrong, or, as I continue to enter data, we find that a larger set of data changes these numbers drastically, then we will have a stronger argument for your case. Otherwise, all we have to go on for your statement is your personal conviction.
What this method allows us to do is to find correlations between increased or decreased win percentages with particular cards being in the opening hand. I understand this doesn't tell us why there is a correlation, only that there is one. That's what this method proves - That certain cards correlate with increased win percentages when they're in the opener and other cards correlate with decreased win percentages. Thus, this data is showing that Thirst for Knowledge has a decrease in correlating win percentages when it's in the opening hand. As mentioned in an earlier conversation with pierakor, this suggests that we want to keep hands that have Thirst for Knowledge in it less often. So what is a way to make it so we mulligan fewer times due to Thirst being in the opening hand? Well, we can decrease the number of Thirst for Knowledge in the deck, thus reducing the chance of having it in the opening hand. You would be correct in stating that it doesn't explain why Thirst doesn't perform well when it's in the opening hand, only that it does.
I understand that there are more components that leads to a deck's success than what's in the opening hand. The deck must be able to convert that opening advantage into a mid- and late-game advantage. But there is not going to be a mid- or late-game if the deck cannot survive the early game, and that is why the effectiveness of cards our opening hands is so crucial.
I'm not seeing what I want to see here. I didn't have an opinion about these cards before I started to accumulate the data. I only started to make observations as the data started to come together and show trends. If those trends change, my opinion will change accordingly.
Again, we can see the effectiveness of this method by it's previous use with Lantern. I imagine you are well aware of the development of the deck in these forums, and our use of this same method to develop that deck. The early stages began just like any other deck in this forum; with conjecture and some anecdotal evidence in testing. It wasn't until we started to use a data-based approach that it really started to take off and become what it is now. That is what I'm suggesting here. I understand if there is some push-back for this method, because this is new and not familiar at all for the most part. However, the proof is there, and we have a precedent of it working. So how seriously could we take ourselves if we were to ignore a proven method for better deckbuilding because some of the results don't match what we presume to be true?
And like I mention in my post with the list that I assembled, I'm not convinced that that list is particularly the best-tuned build. I only mention that it seems like a good starting point with what we're seeing in the trends in data. We can continue to tweak as necessary, using the data to get closer to an optimum build. I understand if others might prefer to not use this method, but seeing as how much it's contributed to the success of one deck, I personally want to continue using it and see what it can do for this one. I like Ux Tron, and I'd love to see it finally get a place at the top 8 at a major event.
EDIT: With all of that said, the data seems to be coming together rather nicely for what looks to be a decent shell. This is the list I plan on playing around with:
This is mostly all pulled from the data, except the sideboard. I'm not certain that 1 Ballista is correct, and it might be better to run two and remove Torrential Gearhulk. I know that this is quite different from what is considered the accepted list, and I understand if it doesn't seem correct to others. This is simply what I plan on running for the time. I do need to pick up another two Oblivion Stones and possibly some Ballistas for the main and side. Unfortunately, my LGS has zero Stones.
What do you guys think about 2x Mindslaver vs 1x Mindslaver? Are there any data backing up which one is better?
I've always run 2 and it feels weird not to run 2, but I am with everyone else here that we should be basing things off a real world data than a "feel".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern
Mono U-Tron U
Jeskai Control UWR
EDH
Ezuri, Renegade Leader UG
Tasigur, the Golden Fang UGB
I haven't parsed out matchup data or anything yet, but I just finished my 6th league with "the Japanese list". The only cards changed between leagues were the 2x Batterskull. Tried out Nimble Obstructionist and more Chalices in the slot. After starting out hot @ 8-2 I went on a massive losing streak to finish 14-16 in matches. This is quite a bit worse than I usually do with the stock list, but it could be because I am just inexperienced with it.
The "feeling" is that 4x TKS, 4x Wurmcoil and 2x Ulamog in the main is super clunky. This list does not power them out like E Tron and stumbling into natural Tron just to cast a Wurmcoil feels like crap. I faced GR Ponza 6 times and had to put a Wastes in the list because TKS was constantly stuck in my hand after a Blood Moon. My overall winrate vs Ponza was still 5-1 but it was annoying.
Oddly enough (I am not used to this one...) I was absolutely crushed by this new Jund with Bloodbraid. I faced it 4 times and went 1-3 in matches.
I'm gonna take a break on that style of list and try out something closer to Agnara's.
@BloodyRabbit_01, I took your advice and tried out two Oblivion Stones rather than three. This did allow me to have room to keep Ugin, which is decent as a one-sided Oblivion Stone. Between all of the counters, bounce spells, Contortions, O-Stones, and the typical relative size of our own threats, I don't know that Dismember is really that necessary, and the data on it is lukewarm to boot. But, I'm willing to keep my mind open as more data continues to be entered and compiled.
@repeatsyx2, I'm still not sure. With the latest batch of data entered, Mindslaver seems to perform decently even when it's in the opening hand. A good number of cards fluctuate pretty quickly as more games are entered, though, just some exceptions that seem to consistently stay high or low with their correlations (Expedition Map, Supreme Will, and Spatial Contortion seem to consistently be among the top cards, while Chalice, Thirst, and Simulacrum seem to consistently be among the bottom). As I mention to BloodyRabbit_01 above, I'm interested as to how it will pan out as more games are entered. I'm currently just running one Mindslaver at the moment in my paper build, but that might change in accordance with the data.
@topkyle, Sorry to hear about your run, that's rough. While it looks like it could be pretty decent, I think I agree that it seems like a worse version of Eldrazi Tron that can occasionally pull the right cards when necessary.
I like the Japanese list but it seems that it is a really weird mashup, even though I am stilling willing to try it out in paper.
Additionally, I have dug up this little video where Ross Merriam plays Mono-U Eldrazi tron which looks quite intriguing, although it's not our typical Mindslaver package, but it seems quite disruptive and controly still.
The deck performs quite differently from the regular Mono-U. I haven't seen the deck perform after the 2 weeks that it was on the 5-0 MTGO lists around the time the article was released though. The player used to be quite active on /r/TronMTG, but I don't know where the person's gone now.
My personal experience with Mindslaver has always been good. Taking a turn away usually is very good against almost every deck except for maybe some aggro decks (at 10 mana it's quite slow too). I'd like to hear from people why they run 1 vs 2 though. I run 2 because that is the core wincon of my deck, but I'm wondering if the slot is better as another Wurmcoil.
Also, how are you guys finding Trinket Mage? I've been testing it around with 1-2x Chalice, 1x EE, and 1-2x Walking Ballista, but I honestly always wished that it was another Treasure Mage or a TKS. I felt that getting a XX spell was always too slow with Trinket Mage. When is Trinket Mage actually better than Treasure Mage or a better body? I feel like getting a Chalice on 2 or a 2/2 Ballista on turn 4 (say we don't have Tron) is very underwhelming, especially when we're tapping out to play a 2/2 body on turn 3. Sure, it's enough on some games, but that seems too narrow for me. Even in the late game, I'd rather have a Treasure Mage to dig up another Wurmcoil, Sundering Titan, or Mindslaver to end a game other than play a big Ballista, Chalice, or what EE on 1 most of the time? It just seems too finicky.
Sorry to drag the discussion back a page or two - missed your reply. Splashing for white does mean the deck suffers a lot against blood moon, but in all honesty I've never had an enormous problem either resolving spells through it or removing them (at least post-board). Between the Purges and Repeals, it's not hard to keep them off the board. Plus in general I find that many decks that bring them in/rely on them a lot preboard (Ponza, UR Moon) already aren't great at putting on pressure so Im able to counter key spells and stall until I can resolve a bomb through the moon or get it off the moon an activate my Tron.
As far as chalice, I've noticed over the past few months it's been getting worse. GDS and burn are showing up less in my meta (when burn was prominent I maindecked 3 BA). Plus, with BBE out jail, artifacts are dying fast now. I'll agree that path isn't always active T1 while dismember is, but rarely am I taking 3 life for it - and if I am, then I do have it T1. Plus with the play set of BA and a few timelys, it's just a fact that my win % has really gone up against burn and other really quick count to 20 decks. Relying on chalice against decks that are packing at least a playset of drev never worked out for me.
Wanted to post a quick summary of findings so far in the data. I've currently put in 76 of the 300 matches in pierakor's playlist for the deck, coming to 201 games analyzed.
A few of the cards have some decent amount of movement as data is entered. Examples of this are Wurmcoil Engine, Platinum Angel, and even Condescend to a degree. There are some cards that seem consistent in their rankings. Examples of this are Expedition Map, Supreme Will, and Spatial Contortion, which seem to consistently remain among the top cards in the ranking, and Chalice of the Void, Thirst for Knowledge, and Solemn Simulacrum, which consistently remain among the bottom in ranking.
With this in mind, I've started considering how we can use this data to find a good direction for the deck. As it stands, it seems that our main goal is to simply use our counters and bounce spells to stall the board state, and then try to stabilize and win through one of the heavy spells. This doesn't seem to be entirely consistent in how it plays out, but that seems to be the general direction.
Using the data, I am seeing that Oblivion Stone seems like a great reset button for when we inevitably run out of ways to stall our opponents. If we can stall to the point where we are constantly resetting the boardstate with O-Stone and Academy Ruins, this buys us time to just naturally keep drawing further counters and bounce spells. From there, we can slam our heavy hitters and win. Thus, my thoughts are that we use O-Stone as our "turn the corner" card, meaning it might be best to run three of them to ensure that we draw them in a timely manner. I'm still not sure of what the best 75 will end up being, but this seems to be heading in the correct direction.
For anyone who hasn't seen the link yet, you can find it here. I plan on bringing my list to my LGS and giving it some runs here in a bit. There were no Modern players there last night, but hopefully I'll get some decent games in today. I'll try to keep some notes and report back on how it goes.
O stone is just a middle ground between ugin and mindslaver. It's slightly faster than ugin but not by much. I rarely play it on turns 3-5 because I usually have better things to do with my mana on those turns. O-stone lock isnt great either since for 2 mana more you can straight up win the game with a slaver. I could see 2 to increase the likelihood of drawing it, but 3 is way too many imo
cutting any amounts of thirst is wrong. It's what makes mediocre and bad hands keepable, and we all know how bad this deck mulls. It's like saying death shadow isn't good in the opener, therefore death shadow decks shouldnt play the whole set
Went 3-1 at 18player fnm Tournament on friday "protect the queen" blue tron. aka 4 Platinum Angels with spellskite, chalice and pact of negation.
win vs Jund
win vs Reanimator
win vs grixis shadow
loss vs humans
Some pictures and mini reports on top foreach round at instagramm: meddling_kids
Is this your crazy list with Padeems from ages ago? I played a few games with that list before and my opponent tried to flickerwisp my angel to win with padeem out
I am very torn on cutting a thirst. On one hand, it is my favourite draw spell and I've never even considered having one a bad thing. On the other hand, if the data really does show that one in our starting hand is bad, cutting one strikes me as a move toward the right direction.
My experience may be different because I'm new to competitive magic,but for the first three turns I'm constantly flying by the seat of my pants. It's pure panic and I'm flailing about trying to stay alive. It's resident evil 1, and I haven't found a weapon yet.
Now what I want the most of the deck is for each card to do something for me in this time. I want things that scale so that I don't have a hand of nothing at the start, and draw appropriate "level" spells at the end. As a very limited paper player, I have partially judged my spell choices based on how my opponents react physically. Spell burst, rift, supreme will, and ballista/tolaria have all been all stars. They feel so strong or at least usable at any time. (Supreme will t3 just feels so GOOD). I just have a lot more confidence if my hand has a supreme will in it than a thirst. It seems better in most early game situations.
That being said, cutting more than one thirst feels like I'm sinning, and to cut it completely is blasphemy and I'll have none of it, good sir.
Part of shoks success is the not being sober part, guys. It's a key strategic detail you all are missing. I've never played at my lgs sober and I've never gone below 2-2.
I’m trying to develop a possible decklist from that data, but there are some incongruency with my experience. Chalice definitely overperformed most of the time. It’s a crucial spell against many archetypes. The issue with it is that sometimes isn’t great, but then you just sb it out. Anyway, Oblivion Stone is often a corner, that’s true. But Ugin is pretty much a third O-Stone with different merits and demerits. I definitely don’t think you should play more of this expensive effects, given our inconsistency in assembling Tron compared to Gx.
My focal points, even if we were to cut Thirst for Will, should be: 3 Wurmcoils (because yes, that’s just one of your best Spell in the 75), at least one Ballista + tutor (most likely 2 Ballista, too good against creature decks), 3 Repeal + 3 Dismember + 1 a Rift/Commit (Dismember on turn one is crucial on the draw, way better than having multiple Caverns), 3 sweeper (probably 2 Stone + 1 Ugin). I guess that’s it.
I understand if your recollection of personal experience with certain cards might be different than what the data reveals from pierakor's replays. I won't try to argue that your experience is wrong, only what the data seems to show. I could see maybe keeping it as a one-of in the main, based on the data. Before I'd looked at the data, I figured that maybe 3-4 in the main might be good, but the data just showed otherwise.
As for Oblivion Stone and Ugin: Ugin is only a third O-Stone if we hit Tron (or we've somehow lived long enough to safely tap eight lands), but as you mention, we do not hit Tron as consistent as the Gx build. While they devote their resources to reliably hitting Tron, we hope to just eventually get it while delaying our opponents ability to win. My perception of correct O-Stone use is to use it to force the opponent to either overcommit to kill us before we can pop it or to hold back to avoid losing material, buying us more precious time.
So I played a decent number of games tonight at the LGS. I played against UW Control, and lost after what felt like a two-hour game. He resolved a Jace, but didn't have a whole lot of threats and was forced to play around all of my counters, O-Stones, etc. He was able to keep me off of tron for most of the game, but eventually I was able to assemble and keep it. Then game ended when I was finally able to resolve a Mindslaver. The gamestate:
Me:
8 life
23 available mana from various tron lands and Islands, 13 after resolving and sacrificing Mindslaver
Platinum Angel and Walking Ballista in hand
Him (at my end step after I sacrificed Mindslaver):
16 life
13 lands, two available mana (both white and blue), two of them Colonnades
Gideon of the Trials, Jace, Gideon Jura, Snapcaster in play
Jace, Gideon of the Trials, 2x Path, Serum Visions, Detention Sphere, fetchland in hand, he draws a Cryptic on his draw step
A lot of trying to figure out a clearly winning line, to where I can then resolve both Angel and Ballista to win. I ended up messing it up (he was visibly not enjoying how long it was taking me to figure it all out, and I ended up botching it up trying to not take forever). What would you all have done?
I also played three matches against Humans. I was able to stabilize the first game thanks to O-Stone and Academy Ruins loops buying me time. The other two I just couldn't keep up, and between Cavern of Souls and Aether Vial, Condescend and Remand became worthless. I could barely hang on with Spatial Contortions and Repeals, but it wasn't enough.
I also played against Affinity twice, winning both games. It was relatively easy thanks to Repeals, Contortions, and being able to be picky about what I counter. Again, O-Stone and Contortion were all-stars here.
And I played four games against Naya Zoo. The first game I won mostly because my opponent got stuck on three mana and I was able to counter everything. I was then able to just keep board control with O-Stone and Ruins loops. The other game I won, I was able to use Supreme Will to assemble tron on my main phase and land a Platinum Angel. It lived for me to untap, at which point I was able to just keep her alive, continuously bounce my opponent's stuff with Repeals and Commits, and win with Wurmcoil Engine. The other two games, again, my opponent was just able to roll over me, mostly thanks to Noble Hierarchs putting him out of Condescend range for his spells, and Voice of Resurgence threatening to simply destroy me if I tried to play a counter.
I imagine I probably need to play against some other decks, more midrange, to see how that plays out, but I feel that I may need to go to four Contortions. I definitely feel that three O-Stones is going to be necessary if we want to reliably turn the corner. I'm extremely disappointed with how Condescend performs and wish there were something better for countering in the early turns. It's simply worthless until turn two, and even then it's not consistent enough to assure we are able to delay the opponent.
Anyways, I'll keep plugging away, entering data, and continue seeing where that takes us. If anyone has any candidate cards to suggest that might fill the gaps that we seem to be leaking, I'm up for hearing it.
I recently proxied a deck of GR Tron to see what it is all about and have been extremely impressed with how consistent it is. using Firespout against aggro early on and (hopefully) turn 3 Karn makes an easy game. I honestly think GR Tron is one of if not the best deck in the modern format right now, because even while you look for cards like Karn and you Urza lands, you have backups such as Wurmcoil, which I play 3 of.
To beat Tron (GR) what I have found the most consistently good is mono green land destruction. Tron really plays only by getting out your Urza lands, and if you destroy those lands and they have run out of ways to fetch for them, then good game.
This kind of data analysis is certainly interesting but it has some major flaws that need to be accounted for when interpreting the data. Just to show one of the problems, I will show an example with some made up numbers. Let's assume:
So now the winrate increase we would expect the data to show us is 10% (45% -> 55%). But that's not what the data shows, the data shows a -5% winrate change, because it will look at all starting hands without Hurkyl, not just the ones where we brought it in. Since our average winrate is 60% it registers a 5% decrease to 55% giving the unknowing reader of this data a completely wrong idea about the impact this card has. So a sb card that is boarded in for bad MUs will not be shown correctly at this point and needs to be manually compared to the winrate in those MUs. One way to combat this would be to separate the winrate changes per MU but that would require an insane amount of matches played to provide any meaningful data.
Additionally, this only tells you what is good in your starting hand, not what is good in your decklist. Rather than adjusting your decklist to this data I believe you should use this information to make better mulligan decisions. If you were to make this kind of analysis with all cards drawn during a game rather than just the cards in the starting hand it would be more meaningful for overall deckbuilding.
Anyway more data is always good but people have to be aware of what the data actually represents and where the weaknesses in the methodology are. Don't just look at the numbers and take them as they are, you need to understand why, and which factors are at play.
Youtube Channel
My stream:
www.twitch.tv/pierakor
My Disco:
https://discord.gg/gTt6xHd
@pierakor, I had the same problem when working on Lantern, and I agree that we have to keep a careful eye on problems like that. In Lantern, Leyline of Sanctity didn't score very well despite being an extremely important card in the Burn and Jund matchups (although Leyline was a maindeck card for a short time). I agree with your proposed solution, and that's why I would just suggest we keep a careful eye on these numbers and what they could mean. So the unknowing reader that you imagine would cannot be lazy about looking at the numbers. If they do, that's on them.
For your numbers:
Are those from your own personal tracking? I ask because one of the decks I tested against last night was Affinity, all preboard games, and they felt completely lopsided in our favor. I didn't keep track of how many games I played, unfortunately, but if memory serves me right, I only dropped one game. Between Condescends, Supreme Wills, Spatial Contortions, Repeals, and Commits, I was able to easily control the gamestate until just landed a Wurmcoil, Angel, Gearhulk a Memory, or Mindslaver. I would imagine that a rather major difference in our lists would have a very important role in our difference in observations of the matchup.
I agree that the data can be used to help inform mulligan decisions. However, that brings us back to the dilemma of a card being possibly good for the deck, but not good in our opener. If we want to mulligan a hand with Thirst for Knowledge in it nearly every time, then maybe we should consider not running four of them, in order to reduce the number of times we end up doing so. If we want to keep a hand with Supreme Will, then maybe we should consider increasing the number of those cards in order to have the opportunity to keep better hands.
The data is pretty much straight forward for maindeck cards, and we just have to keep a logical eye on strange outliers. For example, Urza's Mine and Urza's Power Plant currently have a negative win correlation. This does not necessarily mean that we need to run fewer Mines or Plants, of course. Since they are essentially identical in nature to Urza's Tower up until we hit Tron, we can logically deduce that this is an anomaly. The same cannot be said for cards like Thirst for Knowledge and Solemn Simulacrum, however.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
No I just made up those numbers to show the problem.
My actual data against affinity from a year ago:
50% match win
49% game win
41% on the draw
55% on the play
35% preboard
58% postboard
Youtube Channel
My stream:
www.twitch.tv/pierakor
My Disco:
https://discord.gg/gTt6xHd
I'm still entering data as often and as much as I can, and hopefully we continue to get a clear picture of how individual cards seem to perform when they're in the opening hand. It was quite a bit of work being both the main source of data (in videos) and entering the data for Lantern, so having players like you with lots of data to simply pull from is a great help! I just have another couple hundred and some odd matches of data to enter from you alone
EDIT: I've also joined the Tron Discord, so if anyone is interesting in talking live about the work, I leave it open in the background.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
While this is common consensus, there is no actual verifiable data to back this up. Thus, this is conjecture at best. Again, I understand that this is probably the popular belief, but according to data, it holds no water.
While still adding data to the sheet, I added another data point for observation - If having Gemstone Caverns active is actually worth it. I set it up to look at relative win rates between games when we're on the draw and we don't have Caverns and when we do. So far it doesn't look very good, even weighed for sample size, but I'll continue to enter data and see how it goes.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Here is an analysis of our mana base I made a lot time ago: Mana base analysis
See if it's helpful, and it also can be apply for other aspects of the deck like chance of drawing a counter spells or card in general by turn x.
360 Pauper Cube The Trinket Box
PDH Decks
Classic Pauper Decks
@BloodyRabbit_01, I understand where you're coming from, but I prefer data over experience because experience is susceptible to confirmation bias and anecdotal evidence. I'm not necessarily saying that Thirst just isn't good for the deck at all, but it definitely shows that it doesn't perform well when it's in the opening hand. This might imply that we might benefit from cutting down to fewer Thirsts, so that we are ensuring that we are doing something relevant in the early game but still have good draws in the late game. Personally, I used this same method when working on Lantern, and that's assured me that it is the most reliable method for building decks. Thus, we have inarguable evidence that this method is absolutely reliable. When you say that you are convinced it is wrong, that again is your speculation and conjecture. Anything not based on falsifiable evidence and data is exactly that: speculation and conjecture. Now, if you have further data analysis that shows that this current data set might be questionable or wrong, or, as I continue to enter data, we find that a larger set of data changes these numbers drastically, then we will have a stronger argument for your case. Otherwise, all we have to go on for your statement is your personal conviction.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
I understand that there are more components that leads to a deck's success than what's in the opening hand. The deck must be able to convert that opening advantage into a mid- and late-game advantage. But there is not going to be a mid- or late-game if the deck cannot survive the early game, and that is why the effectiveness of cards our opening hands is so crucial.
I'm not seeing what I want to see here. I didn't have an opinion about these cards before I started to accumulate the data. I only started to make observations as the data started to come together and show trends. If those trends change, my opinion will change accordingly.
Again, we can see the effectiveness of this method by it's previous use with Lantern. I imagine you are well aware of the development of the deck in these forums, and our use of this same method to develop that deck. The early stages began just like any other deck in this forum; with conjecture and some anecdotal evidence in testing. It wasn't until we started to use a data-based approach that it really started to take off and become what it is now. That is what I'm suggesting here. I understand if there is some push-back for this method, because this is new and not familiar at all for the most part. However, the proof is there, and we have a precedent of it working. So how seriously could we take ourselves if we were to ignore a proven method for better deckbuilding because some of the results don't match what we presume to be true?
And like I mention in my post with the list that I assembled, I'm not convinced that that list is particularly the best-tuned build. I only mention that it seems like a good starting point with what we're seeing in the trends in data. We can continue to tweak as necessary, using the data to get closer to an optimum build. I understand if others might prefer to not use this method, but seeing as how much it's contributed to the success of one deck, I personally want to continue using it and see what it can do for this one. I like Ux Tron, and I'd love to see it finally get a place at the top 8 at a major event.
EDIT: With all of that said, the data seems to be coming together rather nicely for what looks to be a decent shell. This is the list I plan on playing around with:
1x Academy Ruins
10x Island
1x Tolaria West
4x Urza's Mine
4x Urza's Power Plant
4x Urza's Tower
Instant (21)
2x Commit
4x Condescend
1x Cyclonic Rift
3x Remand
4x Repeal
3x Spatial Contortion
4x Supreme Will
1x Platinum Angel
1x Torrential Gearhulk
1x Walking Ballista
2x Treasure Mage
2x Wurmcoil Engine
Non-creature Artifact (8)
4x Expedition Map
1x Mindslaver
3x Oblivion Stone
2x Chalice of the Void
1x Gemstone Caverns
1x Spatial Contortion
4x Spreading Seas
1x Sundering Titan
3x Warping Wail
1x Ugin, the Spirit Dragon
This is mostly all pulled from the data, except the sideboard. I'm not certain that 1 Ballista is correct, and it might be better to run two and remove Torrential Gearhulk. I know that this is quite different from what is considered the accepted list, and I understand if it doesn't seem correct to others. This is simply what I plan on running for the time. I do need to pick up another two Oblivion Stones and possibly some Ballistas for the main and side. Unfortunately, my LGS has zero Stones.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
I've always run 2 and it feels weird not to run 2, but I am with everyone else here that we should be basing things off a real world data than a "feel".
Modern
Mono U-Tron U
Jeskai Control UWR
EDH
Ezuri, Renegade Leader UG
Tasigur, the Golden Fang UGB
The "feeling" is that 4x TKS, 4x Wurmcoil and 2x Ulamog in the main is super clunky. This list does not power them out like E Tron and stumbling into natural Tron just to cast a Wurmcoil feels like crap. I faced GR Ponza 6 times and had to put a Wastes in the list because TKS was constantly stuck in my hand after a Blood Moon. My overall winrate vs Ponza was still 5-1 but it was annoying.
Oddly enough (I am not used to this one...) I was absolutely crushed by this new Jund with Bloodbraid. I faced it 4 times and went 1-3 in matches.
I'm gonna take a break on that style of list and try out something closer to Agnara's.
@repeatsyx2, I'm still not sure. With the latest batch of data entered, Mindslaver seems to perform decently even when it's in the opening hand. A good number of cards fluctuate pretty quickly as more games are entered, though, just some exceptions that seem to consistently stay high or low with their correlations (Expedition Map, Supreme Will, and Spatial Contortion seem to consistently be among the top cards, while Chalice, Thirst, and Simulacrum seem to consistently be among the bottom). As I mention to BloodyRabbit_01 above, I'm interested as to how it will pan out as more games are entered. I'm currently just running one Mindslaver at the moment in my paper build, but that might change in accordance with the data.
@topkyle, Sorry to hear about your run, that's rough. While it looks like it could be pretty decent, I think I agree that it seems like a worse version of Eldrazi Tron that can occasionally pull the right cards when necessary.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Additionally, I have dug up this little video where Ross Merriam plays Mono-U Eldrazi tron which looks quite intriguing, although it's not our typical Mindslaver package, but it seems quite disruptive and controly still.
http://www.starcitygames.com/article/35803_Daily-Digest-When-Two-Trons-Collide.html
The deck performs quite differently from the regular Mono-U. I haven't seen the deck perform after the 2 weeks that it was on the 5-0 MTGO lists around the time the article was released though. The player used to be quite active on /r/TronMTG, but I don't know where the person's gone now.
My personal experience with Mindslaver has always been good. Taking a turn away usually is very good against almost every deck except for maybe some aggro decks (at 10 mana it's quite slow too). I'd like to hear from people why they run 1 vs 2 though. I run 2 because that is the core wincon of my deck, but I'm wondering if the slot is better as another Wurmcoil.
Also, how are you guys finding Trinket Mage? I've been testing it around with 1-2x Chalice, 1x EE, and 1-2x Walking Ballista, but I honestly always wished that it was another Treasure Mage or a TKS. I felt that getting a XX spell was always too slow with Trinket Mage. When is Trinket Mage actually better than Treasure Mage or a better body? I feel like getting a Chalice on 2 or a 2/2 Ballista on turn 4 (say we don't have Tron) is very underwhelming, especially when we're tapping out to play a 2/2 body on turn 3. Sure, it's enough on some games, but that seems too narrow for me. Even in the late game, I'd rather have a Treasure Mage to dig up another Wurmcoil, Sundering Titan, or Mindslaver to end a game other than play a big Ballista, Chalice, or what EE on 1 most of the time? It just seems too finicky.
Modern
Mono U-Tron U
Jeskai Control UWR
EDH
Ezuri, Renegade Leader UG
Tasigur, the Golden Fang UGB
win vs Jund
win vs Reanimator
win vs grixis shadow
loss vs humans
Some pictures and mini reports on top foreach round at instagramm: meddling_kids
www.magickeller.de
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/magickeller
Youtube:
Magickeller Hannover YOUTUBE Channel
Sorry to drag the discussion back a page or two - missed your reply. Splashing for white does mean the deck suffers a lot against blood moon, but in all honesty I've never had an enormous problem either resolving spells through it or removing them (at least post-board). Between the Purges and Repeals, it's not hard to keep them off the board. Plus in general I find that many decks that bring them in/rely on them a lot preboard (Ponza, UR Moon) already aren't great at putting on pressure so Im able to counter key spells and stall until I can resolve a bomb through the moon or get it off the moon an activate my Tron.
As far as chalice, I've noticed over the past few months it's been getting worse. GDS and burn are showing up less in my meta (when burn was prominent I maindecked 3 BA). Plus, with BBE out jail, artifacts are dying fast now. I'll agree that path isn't always active T1 while dismember is, but rarely am I taking 3 life for it - and if I am, then I do have it T1. Plus with the play set of BA and a few timelys, it's just a fact that my win % has really gone up against burn and other really quick count to 20 decks. Relying on chalice against decks that are packing at least a playset of drev never worked out for me.
A few of the cards have some decent amount of movement as data is entered. Examples of this are Wurmcoil Engine, Platinum Angel, and even Condescend to a degree. There are some cards that seem consistent in their rankings. Examples of this are Expedition Map, Supreme Will, and Spatial Contortion, which seem to consistently remain among the top cards in the ranking, and Chalice of the Void, Thirst for Knowledge, and Solemn Simulacrum, which consistently remain among the bottom in ranking.
With this in mind, I've started considering how we can use this data to find a good direction for the deck. As it stands, it seems that our main goal is to simply use our counters and bounce spells to stall the board state, and then try to stabilize and win through one of the heavy spells. This doesn't seem to be entirely consistent in how it plays out, but that seems to be the general direction.
Using the data, I am seeing that Oblivion Stone seems like a great reset button for when we inevitably run out of ways to stall our opponents. If we can stall to the point where we are constantly resetting the boardstate with O-Stone and Academy Ruins, this buys us time to just naturally keep drawing further counters and bounce spells. From there, we can slam our heavy hitters and win. Thus, my thoughts are that we use O-Stone as our "turn the corner" card, meaning it might be best to run three of them to ensure that we draw them in a timely manner. I'm still not sure of what the best 75 will end up being, but this seems to be heading in the correct direction.
For anyone who hasn't seen the link yet, you can find it here. I plan on bringing my list to my LGS and giving it some runs here in a bit. There were no Modern players there last night, but hopefully I'll get some decent games in today. I'll try to keep some notes and report back on how it goes.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
cutting any amounts of thirst is wrong. It's what makes mediocre and bad hands keepable, and we all know how bad this deck mulls. It's like saying death shadow isn't good in the opener, therefore death shadow decks shouldnt play the whole set
Is this your crazy list with Padeems from ages ago? I played a few games with that list before and my opponent tried to flickerwisp my angel to win with padeem out
My experience may be different because I'm new to competitive magic,but for the first three turns I'm constantly flying by the seat of my pants. It's pure panic and I'm flailing about trying to stay alive. It's resident evil 1, and I haven't found a weapon yet.
Now what I want the most of the deck is for each card to do something for me in this time. I want things that scale so that I don't have a hand of nothing at the start, and draw appropriate "level" spells at the end. As a very limited paper player, I have partially judged my spell choices based on how my opponents react physically. Spell burst, rift, supreme will, and ballista/tolaria have all been all stars. They feel so strong or at least usable at any time. (Supreme will t3 just feels so GOOD). I just have a lot more confidence if my hand has a supreme will in it than a thirst. It seems better in most early game situations.
That being said, cutting more than one thirst feels like I'm sinning, and to cut it completely is blasphemy and I'll have none of it, good sir.
Part of shoks success is the not being sober part, guys. It's a key strategic detail you all are missing. I've never played at my lgs sober and I've never gone below 2-2.
I understand if your recollection of personal experience with certain cards might be different than what the data reveals from pierakor's replays. I won't try to argue that your experience is wrong, only what the data seems to show. I could see maybe keeping it as a one-of in the main, based on the data. Before I'd looked at the data, I figured that maybe 3-4 in the main might be good, but the data just showed otherwise.
As for Oblivion Stone and Ugin: Ugin is only a third O-Stone if we hit Tron (or we've somehow lived long enough to safely tap eight lands), but as you mention, we do not hit Tron as consistent as the Gx build. While they devote their resources to reliably hitting Tron, we hope to just eventually get it while delaying our opponents ability to win. My perception of correct O-Stone use is to use it to force the opponent to either overcommit to kill us before we can pop it or to hold back to avoid losing material, buying us more precious time.
So I played a decent number of games tonight at the LGS. I played against UW Control, and lost after what felt like a two-hour game. He resolved a Jace, but didn't have a whole lot of threats and was forced to play around all of my counters, O-Stones, etc. He was able to keep me off of tron for most of the game, but eventually I was able to assemble and keep it. Then game ended when I was finally able to resolve a Mindslaver. The gamestate:
Me:
8 life
23 available mana from various tron lands and Islands, 13 after resolving and sacrificing Mindslaver
Platinum Angel and Walking Ballista in hand
Him (at my end step after I sacrificed Mindslaver):
16 life
13 lands, two available mana (both white and blue), two of them Colonnades
Gideon of the Trials, Jace, Gideon Jura, Snapcaster in play
Jace, Gideon of the Trials, 2x Path, Serum Visions, Detention Sphere, fetchland in hand, he draws a Cryptic on his draw step
A lot of trying to figure out a clearly winning line, to where I can then resolve both Angel and Ballista to win. I ended up messing it up (he was visibly not enjoying how long it was taking me to figure it all out, and I ended up botching it up trying to not take forever). What would you all have done?
I also played three matches against Humans. I was able to stabilize the first game thanks to O-Stone and Academy Ruins loops buying me time. The other two I just couldn't keep up, and between Cavern of Souls and Aether Vial, Condescend and Remand became worthless. I could barely hang on with Spatial Contortions and Repeals, but it wasn't enough.
I also played against Affinity twice, winning both games. It was relatively easy thanks to Repeals, Contortions, and being able to be picky about what I counter. Again, O-Stone and Contortion were all-stars here.
And I played four games against Naya Zoo. The first game I won mostly because my opponent got stuck on three mana and I was able to counter everything. I was then able to just keep board control with O-Stone and Ruins loops. The other game I won, I was able to use Supreme Will to assemble tron on my main phase and land a Platinum Angel. It lived for me to untap, at which point I was able to just keep her alive, continuously bounce my opponent's stuff with Repeals and Commits, and win with Wurmcoil Engine. The other two games, again, my opponent was just able to roll over me, mostly thanks to Noble Hierarchs putting him out of Condescend range for his spells, and Voice of Resurgence threatening to simply destroy me if I tried to play a counter.
I imagine I probably need to play against some other decks, more midrange, to see how that plays out, but I feel that I may need to go to four Contortions. I definitely feel that three O-Stones is going to be necessary if we want to reliably turn the corner. I'm extremely disappointed with how Condescend performs and wish there were something better for countering in the early turns. It's simply worthless until turn two, and even then it's not consistent enough to assure we are able to delay the opponent.
Anyways, I'll keep plugging away, entering data, and continue seeing where that takes us. If anyone has any candidate cards to suggest that might fill the gaps that we seem to be leaking, I'm up for hearing it.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
To beat Tron (GR) what I have found the most consistently good is mono green land destruction. Tron really plays only by getting out your Urza lands, and if you destroy those lands and they have run out of ways to fetch for them, then good game.
Don't know if this is consistent but it seems to work pretty well and is budget. Another deck I made is here: https://deckstats.net/decks/45453/921671-devastating-mono-red-modern/en
I think this is fun and budget and has surprisingly consistent turn 2/3 kills.