Are we talking about the state of modern on the competitive level or the average player level? Are the “best modern players” playing weekly modern in lgs? If so I’m really courious to see how those matches go. Are they playing the first three rounds at bigger tournaments where there is more “jank”. Annalitics only gets you so many answers just just the Cleveland Browns. Go to a lgs where modern events hit 20 plus people a night or play leagues online and you can clearly see a very wide variety of matchups that aren’t just the better player wins. Look at the guy who top 8’d with living end and scooped because he didn’t even know how known cards in the format work. That guy doesn’t make that mistake it’s very possible he wins the whole thing while not knowing the intricacies of the deck he’s playing but just having the right deck randomly.
Now this is largely a mean comment towards a player who succeeded in a very rough tournament. There is no way we know his actual skill level, but getting to a top 8 GP tells me that he is at least a good player. Not a pro by any stretch, but you can't top 8 a GP of 1500 players just with luck.
Plus, it's not like he didn't know the intricacies of his deck. The interaction is indeed hard to understand and it really depends on how many games you had against Scapeshift. Living End is not a deck you can randomly do well with. It is a rather hard deck to pilot properly, know when to go off and how to interact with the board.
The same bashing happened to the Skred Red guy, because he made a mistake with a trap at the finals of that GP. Sure, he wasn't the best of players. Yes, he made a mistake. But again, you don't get there by just being lucky. After 15 round of tournaments and a top 8, being there for the first time, under the spotlight, with the excitement of the top 8, anyone can do a mistake. Bashing players for mistakes and calling them bad/lucky is just mean.
Furthermore, people making some mistakes doesn't really prove much. We have seen great pros making mistakes on camera after long tournaments. Even silly mistakes. It is what it is, they are human after all. A mistake in 1 match doesn't prove anything for the format.
Don’t see how that was a mean statement at all but ok. So not understanding how your deck works vs other top decks means nothing huh.
You don't know that. You have but one mistake to make a case for a player who managed to top 8. There was one interaction he didn't understand. You can't judge an entire performance, and based on that, an entire format, just by pointing out one mistake by a guy who top 8ed.
While this is true, it says something about the other 40 Living End players that did know the interaction, but came nowhere near the top 8. Surely, their play skill would have gotten them as far, or are we assuming that the top 8 Living End player was the "best" Living End player in the tournament?
I remember locally when GPTs, PPTQs, and even Friday Night Magic all had a lot of competition to sort through just to have a decent evening. That was a meta in which I accelled in. Nowadays, it's rare for me to play a player who I believe should indeed beat me (based on play skill and achievements), but I do a lot worse in this type of meta. And when I do play a player who has achieved much more than myself, it is much, much easier to beat them. Many "good" players have left Modern because it simply isn't the format for them to accel in. I have nearly come to the conclusion that a newer player with a poor deck, but a quick goldfish, will beat me nearly 50% of the time, while players who play on the Pro Tour consistently will be less than 50%. I know the majority of players like this, but to me, well it's just sad.
(And yes, it's always been going up the curve on this type of play for the past 10 years, but it just seems like it is so amplified right now.) Realize this - I was saying this when I was winning. I am saying it now, while losing. Although I don't agree with a lot of what sisicat has said, I think he was certainly on to something when saying that there simply is too much variance in this format.
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)
People have brought up excellent argument backed up with good stats here and Sheridan has completely pushed them aside to favor his own bias loving view of the game.
Where on earth are these "good stats" and "excellent arguments"? I'm legitimately wondering where they are in this thread, because I don't think I've seen them. If I've missed them, please point them out. This goes to anyone who still believes in the matchup lottery or thinks Modern is high variance: just post the evidence and let us look it over.
There's zero bias in my analysis other than a bias towards quantitative data. But I don't think that's what you're accusing me of here. I just go where the data takes me, and right now, the SCG event dataset is extremely clear that there is no difference in variance and MWP in Legacy and Modern. I've sliced it up four different ways and the result is the same every time. There is no matchup lottery OR there is a matchup lottery and good players overcome it. Either way, we need to stop talking about the matchup lottery because it's either not real OR people who lose to it have a skill deficit they need to examine.
The only thing the SCG dataset does not speak to is Modern linearity. This may be a legitimate complaint. But it does not impact player performance for good players, so it cannot be a complaint about how hard it is to succeed in Modern.
Are we talking about the state of modern on the competitive level or the average player level? Are the “best modern players” playing weekly modern in lgs? If so I’m really courious to see how those matches go. Are they playing the first three rounds at bigger tournaments where there is more “jank”. Annalitics only gets you so many answers, just ask the Cleveland Browns. Go to a lgs where modern events hit 20 plus people a night or play leagues online and you can clearly see a very wide variety of matchups that aren’t just the better player wins. Look at the guy who top 8’d with living end and scooped because he didn’t even know how known cards in the format work. That guy doesn’t make that mistake it’s very possible he wins the whole thing while not knowing the intricacies of the deck he’s playing but just having the right deck randomly.
I have no clue if this effect is true in smaller tournaments. The analysis is limited to SCG Opens. It's very clear in those particular events.
It may be 2015 but it's 28k games.
And since then tron has gotten fatal push and a more proactive very efficient eldrazi build, so the numbers could even be worse. For the matchup.
Abzan is a bit better but still brutal.
This would explain why a geist list is the in thing aswell as a proactive shadow list. Which still apparently t struggles vs tron lands.
A 40 60 matchup is certainly a very lopsided near unwinnable matchup.
That's not matchup lottery. Even ignoring how old that data is, that's not what anyone is talking about. Read my post on the last page where I talked about matchup lottery.
I specifically stated that whatever the individual matchups are, good players overcome those matchup ranges and have consistent performance at big events. People only complain about the "lottery" because they think it screws up their performance at events. But this is not the case for good players. It doesn't matter what the individual matchups are, whether 50/50, 30/70, 60/40, etc. Good players are somehow able to consistently perform in Modern. Matchups have no impact on top player performance. That means either matchup lottery isn't real OR skilled players win in spite of it.
If one is not winning, they should examine the skills they lack that better players are leveraging towards consistent performance.
If the meta is full of tron why should someone play jund? This is modern. You just can't stick with your pet deck and always win. Any deck has a bad match up. If this wasn't the case that deck would surely become a tier 0 and deserve a ban. Since any deck has a bad match up just take advantage of this. A skill a modern player should have is the ability of choosing the right deck, the deck with less bad match up in that particular moment. Metagaming, adapting the deck etc. From ktk data this is possible at least at high level. But even at FNM my experience is positive. Good players may surely lose a tournament or two sometimes, but in the long run better players win more than bad ones. They may need to switch back and forth to two or three decks though, this is true.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks played: Modern:
0 Affinity;
URG Delver
URGW Countercats
(Here you can find some video contents about Countercats and Temur Delver decks)
Eh isnt this as simple as the matchup lottery hits everyone equally? So yes skilled players still rise up to the top over time and yes in any individual event they are as likely as a scrub to draw a string of bad matchups and a poor performance.
What id guess is a scrub has a 30/70 jund v tron while a pro has a 45/55. Is that logical?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
So, the take away from this is that: there doesn't seem to be a MU Lottery, however, you do best if you regularly use an average of 2 decks from which you choose 1 that has the best chance to avoid it's bad MUs given metagame trends.
I think that's too strong.
IMO, what people call MU lottery really is SB gunning limitations. The field is wide enough that your sideboard cannot consistently cover every possible bad match-ups. You tune your SB with your guess about what the metagame will be. If you guessed right then you get matched with decks you have prepared your SB for and do well. If not, you do poorly.
I still believe the problem in modern is the lack of universal answers à la FoW. That's what fuels the lottery feelings.
People have brought up excellent argument backed up with good stats here and Sheridan has completely pushed them aside to favor his own bias loving view of the game.
And enough brown nosing. Calling someone handsome and smart shows a huge bias. What are you his undercover wife?
And the go play another format argument is getting old. No, people want changes and aren't completely happy. The customer is always right.
Where are these stats? Where are these excellent arguments? A 2015 data set that is no longer relevant?
You are correct. The customer is always right. That's why Modern is back on the pro tour, that's why we get yearly Masters sets, that's why SCG is 90% Modern these days. Hasbro wants money. The money is in Modern. You are not the only customer.
Ahem.
And since we are doing the 'not so subtle personal attack' thing, let me enlighten you, Mr. Internet-Arguer-New/Anonymous-Account-Guy-Who-Might-Also-Be-Ghosting-As-Howwish.
I am extremely biased towards Sheridan. Sheridan does not have to do this work. Sheridan does not have to share his work. Sheridan is not getting paid to do or share his work. But yet, we have access to it. That is respectable. I respect Sheridan and all the effort he puts into the community. It's extremely time consuming to compile and analyze data. How many other people on the internet are doing this for you and not getting paid for it? Sheridan deserves all the praise we can give him. He is literally a beacon of sound reason and discussion on a forum full of people like you. And if we disagree with his assessment or find his claims to erroneous, he deserves more from us than "You're wrong because I think so" arguments.
It's called respect, child. Someday you might know it.
anyone who thinks matchup lottery does not have an impact on modern is ignorant beyond belief.
When a bgx player loses all the time to tron and says: "yea in my experience it's pretty close to unwinnable"
And then you have poeple like ktk saying it's cuz they suck. I'm pretty sure you can find a ton of "good" players who would agree with the matchup being brutal as hell.(pros say it all the time)
But are often discredited cuz they need skillz.... C'mon....
Soo burn and boggles are 50/50?
Merfolk and affinity are 50/50?
Read that. Read it again. Read it a third time. Read it until you understand it. Until you acquire understanding of the evidence and assertion, you aren't adding anything to the discussion and won't be taken seriously.
I'm afraid it may be slightly off topic, but I think you hit the nail on the head when you note that a good deal of ban talk, matchup analysis, "matchup lottery" claims, etc., seems influenced by articles on CFB, SCG, and their ilk, by people who are presumably authorities on the subject but provide zero data or evidence to back up their claims. More than anything, I feel that conversations about the state of Modern and suggested changes are largely knee-jerk reactions by people whose motives, judging by their methods of providing zero data, is to excuse away their lack of success that they somehow feel entitled to. It's a self-appointed feeling of superiority, which seems to say more about the character of the person than they may care to admit.
Pro player relevancy and money making are not non-issues in the realm of Modern reputation. If they can't write an article like "Look how awesome I did at X event" but their boss tells them they need to produce Modern content so their website can generate traffic, what do you think they will write about?
THIS 100X!!! If you don't agree with this then there is no amount of logic that will ever convince you that good, non-oppressive, combos should be allowed. If you don't agree with it then just don't play this game, and you certainly shouldn't feel entitled to make any comment on ban lists ever.
I'm beginning to think that the Gitaxian Probe ban was a bit premature
Hear me out:
Sure, infect/zoo shadow/Bloo could kill consistently on turn 3, and sometimes even turn 2 if you got lucky. BUT, each of these decks could be kept in check by decks packing plenty of removal: jeskai, grixis delver, jund ect ect
Not only that, but fatal push was RIGHT around the corner, providing yet another foil to each of these probe-using archetypes.
Bloo is dead. Bloo remains dead. And we have killed him.
Let's face it. All of the probe decks increased the necessity for interaction, leading to altogether better gameplay. Grixis Delver was quite well positioned in the infect era.
But wait - there's more.
Enter: BIG MANA
Probe decks were the natural foil to Tron and Valakut, hereby collectively named "big mana"
The cycle was thus perfect. Probe aggro lost to interactive decks, which lost to big mana, which in turn lost to probe aggro.
Now, the cycle has been broken
Big mana once again reigns supreme. How did this happen? It all harkens back to the Probe banning.
What's with all the sock puppet accounts? An account with 3 posts total goes on railing against sheridan? Same thing with an account with 7 posts?
Edit: I guess I should contribute something on topic to the post. Modern is definitely still a skill defined format. I don't see much of a chance win percentage wise for myself before. Yes I can get unlucky and run into meme decks like mill. Or I can accidentally chain matches against dredge, but that evens itself out typically over time.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you are stating that they are writing articles to generate traffic, and focusing those articles on their performance. If so, I would agree with this, and I personally feel disappointed that the two largest outlets of "informational" Magic the Gathering media works this way. I am simply stating that I would prefer to have actual information in my "informational media". Instead, what we get are:
...That's some free ones, let's get to the articles that are supposed to be so good, you have to pay for them. Of course, if I'm honest, I have to admit that I refuse to pay for them, so maybe there's some decent information to be had and it's just hidden. However:
Seriously, I have better things to do than try to find articles that are actually informative to the point where I feel I've actually learned something that I couldn't have just figured out by looking at the decklist. Frank Karsten's article is probably the only one that actually has some supporting data, and even then it's about a format that I just don't care about. So, while better, it's a gem that I wasn't actually looking for. Credit goes for maybe helping out someone else, though.
Could you imagine, however, if every article had that level of actual information? Not just, "Look at this deck that did well at an event! This is how it works, in case you couldn't figure it out" and other such "information". Maybe I'm just being mean, or my expectations are just too high, but that's where they are, for better or for worse. If that's the level of "informational media" we can expect, can we really expect a good amount of Magic players to have a deeper insight into the game, or at least deep enough to hold an intelligent conversation about something like the current state of Modern?
I don't know if this is directed at me or not, as I was the one who brought up garbage articles recently, but this is it really. I have SCG Premium, so I will use Chapin's No Ban article as a jump off point. He posts 10ish decklists he suspects would be good in NBM, without actually digging around the internet for results from NBM tournaments. The result of this is that he misses archetypes in the NBM format, like UWR Pyro Skullclamp and Tezzerator.
Most pro articles are conjecture. Conjecture does us no good without evidence. For example, https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/what-are-the-safest-cards-to-unban-in-modern/ this article, by Andrea Mengucci, is complete garbage. Including gems such as "...is a fair Magic card that gives life to fair games of Magic that involve attacking and blocking (which is how Magic should be played)" and "..we are witnessing the death of midrange—the death of Jund and Abzan—and with them the death of the format."
There is no factual evidence or data cited anywhere in the article. Just drivel from a guy who has no results in Modern and doesn't play Modern frequently and either feels entitled to an opinion or is told by his boss to write about Modern because CFB needs them site hits. Whether you agree or disagree with these opinions, these kind of articles are not immutable because they are on CFB. These are what we ought rally against.
THIS 100X!!! If you don't agree with this then there is no amount of logic that will ever convince you that good, non-oppressive, combos should be allowed. If you don't agree with it then just don't play this game, and you certainly shouldn't feel entitled to make any comment on ban lists ever.
I don't know if this is directed at me or not, as I was the one who brought up garbage articles recently, but this is it really. I have SCG Premium, so I will use Chapin's No Ban article as a jump off point. He posts 10ish decklists he suspects would be good in NBM, without actually digging around the internet for results from NBM tournaments. The result of this is that he misses archetypes in the NBM format, like UWR Pyro Skullclamp and Tezzerator.
Most pro articles are conjecture. Conjecture does us no good without evidence. For example, https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/what-are-the-safest-cards-to-unban-in-modern/ this article, by Andrea Mengucci, is complete garbage. Including gems such as "...is a fair Magic card that gives life to fair games of Magic that involve attacking and blocking (which is how Magic should be played)" and "..we are witnessing the death of midrange—the death of Jund and Abzan—and with them the death of the format."
I actually agreed with most of Andrea Mengucci's article, despite having a very different play style and likes.
I haven't read Patrick Chapin's Premium SCG article, but he doesn't do anything that most other players also do. I hear all the time that no fair deck can beat the 5 flavors of decks that win on turns 1 or 2. What they don't realize is that the fair decks are made to deal with decks like Storm, Eggs, and Elves, etc. Decks like BUG Midrange, UW Miracles, or RW Pyroclamp all have had solid results. But then, nobody really knows what the format will amount to because outside of Moxboardinghouse, it hasn't been played much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I don't know if this is directed at me or not, as I was the one who brought up garbage articles recently, but this is it really. I have SCG Premium, so I will use Chapin's No Ban article as a jump off point. He posts 10ish decklists he suspects would be good in NBM, without actually digging around the internet for results from NBM tournaments. The result of this is that he misses archetypes in the NBM format, like UWR Pyro Skullclamp and Tezzerator.
Most pro articles are conjecture. Conjecture does us no good without evidence. For example, https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/what-are-the-safest-cards-to-unban-in-modern/ this article, by Andrea Mengucci, is complete garbage. Including gems such as "...is a fair Magic card that gives life to fair games of Magic that involve attacking and blocking (which is how Magic should be played)" and "..we are witnessing the death of midrange—the death of Jund and Abzan—and with them the death of the format."
I actually agreed with most of Andrea Mengucci's article, despite having a very different play style and likes.
I haven't read Patrick Chapin's Premium SCG article, but he doesn't do anything that most other players also do. I hear all the time that no fair deck can beat the 5 flavors of decks that win on turns 1 or 2. What they don't realize is that the fair decks are made to deal with decks like Storm, Eggs, and Elves, etc. Decks like BUG Midrange, UW Miracles, or RW Pyroclamp all have had solid results. But then, nobody really knows what the format will amount to because outside of Moxboardinghouse, it hasn't been played much.
It's not about whether you agree or disagree, or Mengucci's article specifically. It's about articles like this, where pro players and community figures spew their opinions as facts, whether the topic is bans, unbans, matchups, sideboards, whatever. The presenting of his opinion as fact on something he has given no research on or proof about is perhaps entertaining, but not helpful discourse to the community. The issue is it trickles down into the not pro player sect, where it is also treated as fact. When it is not fact. Its opinion. The bar for these articles is set incredibly low.
THIS 100X!!! If you don't agree with this then there is no amount of logic that will ever convince you that good, non-oppressive, combos should be allowed. If you don't agree with it then just don't play this game, and you certainly shouldn't feel entitled to make any comment on ban lists ever.
Andrea menguichhi has spent a ton of time writing about how he hates the format and doesn't doesn't pay much attention to it. He also thinks shadow is a bad deck because his teammate flooded out a lot that day
Please don't put much weight into what he spews.
Peter Ingrams articles on modern are painful, too
Remember when LSV said shadow needed a ban?
Despite LSV being one of the best players of all time, have you guys watched him play grixis shadow? It's downright bad.
Despite LSV being one of the best players of all time, have you guys watched him play grixis shadow? It's downright bad.
This I would like to see. I don't think I've ever seen LSV do anything "badly" before, outside of maybe not doing the best choices in Limited (instead, doing the fun choice), but I think he's earned it at least.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
In the end it all comes down to what deck you play and against what deck you are going up to. I understand all the statistics about Modern vs Legacy win percentage but like said before in Legacy you can jam one deck and have a good chance against almost the whole field. In Modern you need to keep switching decks and read your local or tournament meta when you want to bring a deck out to have a good chance of winning.
I got a hard time udnerstanding why that is not a `matchup lotery`. If I bring the wrong deck I`m done for the rest of the tournament becasuse I get matched up against decks I almost can`t beat. Does that make me a bad player? Also if I choose the right deck I can sweep the field and take home to first price. Does that make me really that much more skilled than my opponents or did I just chose the right deck for that day.
To me that sounds like a `matchup lotery`.
I read this article from Tom Ross some time ago and he talked about how he likes to show up at tournaments with a deck that can either detroy the field or fail miserebly. He was talking about the tournament which he won playin Green Tron.
Does that not sound like a `matchup lotery` to you guys.
Maybe matchup lotery is not the right word to use for it but I dan`t think of a better one because English is not my native language. So please if someone can think of a better word for it let me know please.
I might lose credits by saying this but I actually think that xxhellfirexx3 knows what he is talking about and is not afraid to show this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Reanimator
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
@Vissah, The problem with all of that is that Sheridan actually showed, with evidence, that this is not the case. I see that you've made the claim that "in Legacy you can jam one deck and have a good chance against almost the whole field". Do you have any evidence to back up this statement, or is this something you just believe to be true?
Simply because Tom Ross says something doesn't mean it's true. So far we have Tom Ross saying what he prefers to do vs. actual verifiable evidence.
As far as xxhellfirexx3 goes, it seems to me that they can't construct and keep to a coherent argument without appealing to one or more fallacies of reason. I have yet to see a decent argument, supported by actual evidence, that contributes to any conversation. When they made the claim that Sheridan ignores posts from others that contains data that's been presented before, and then was called out for that being false, they posted a two year old article of an outdated metagame rather than the link to someone posting previous data.
As for how I view this "matchup lottery" debate, I feel that anyone making this claim needs to do two things:
1. Support this claim with evidence that others can verify. A claim made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
2. Consider the alternative. There seem to currently be quite a few viable options available in the modern metagame. If we don't like this diversity, and the correlating "matchup lottery" (should it actually exist, despite evidence to the contrary), then what is the alternative? That we all are forced to play one of a handful of decks that we may or may not enjoy?
I'd be inclined to think that the goalposts would then move when people continue to lose. No longer would people fall to the "matchup lottery" excuse, but to the RNGesus of drawing the right cards at the right time, and being outdrawn rather than outplayed, or losing to the dice roll of being on the play rather than the draw, or losing to unfortunate luck with mulligans.
It seems to me that the truth is that people in general look for external excuses for losing while claiming internal reasons for their wins.
So... simply put, 'matchup lottery' or unfavourable matchups exist, but in the grand scheme of things do not matter enough to make a significant impact on results/win percentage over a large sample size of matches.
So... simply put, 'matchup lottery' or unfavourable matchups exist, but in the grand scheme of things do not matter enough to make a significant impact on results/win percentage over a large sample size of matches.
Am I right to infer that?
'Matchup lottery' is not synonymous with unfavorable matchups.
Assume the next sentence is true: Burn has a bad matchup against Martyr of Sands, but a good matchup against Storm.
This is not 'matchup lottery'. Matchup lottery is best described as the effect of a very wide and/or varied meta game in relation to a single player's experience with any deck over the course of (or perhaps a single) events. For example: Player A brings Burn to 15 round event, plays against Storm five times, Griselbrand twice, Grixis Shadow once, Lantern three times, one Jund, one Tron, one UW control, and one Affinity. Player B brings Burn to a 15 round event, plays Affinity four times, Scapeshift twice, Storm once, Martyr of Sands six times, Abzan once, Amulet once, and Tron once. Obviously Player B had a worse day. However, we have data to prove that both A and B, over the course of several events, if skilled enough, will have a positive win percentage regardless of what decks they play or what decks they play against.
Individual deck choice has nothing to do with 'matchup lottery'
Though your understanding that they do not matter in regards to skill players putting up consistently results over the a period of time, is correct.
THIS 100X!!! If you don't agree with this then there is no amount of logic that will ever convince you that good, non-oppressive, combos should be allowed. If you don't agree with it then just don't play this game, and you certainly shouldn't feel entitled to make any comment on ban lists ever.
I've seen an uptick in Mardu decks on goldfish lately, anyone care to explain why?
I think there was an article recently about someone on MTGO who has had a lot of 5-0s with Mardu Reveler. That's the one you're talking about, right? Admittedly, it even intrigued me, despite the fact that Mardu has never really been good in any format ever.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I've seen an uptick in Mardu decks on goldfish lately, anyone care to explain why?
I think there was an article recently about someone on MTGO who has had a lot of 5-0s with Mardu Reveler. That's the one you're talking about, right? Admittedly, it even intrigued me, despite the fact that Mardu has never really been good in any format ever.
He (I'm assuming) has the most trophies, and it's not even close. I am unsure if this is the only deck piloted to those trophies.
Oh, I didn't realize that. I thought he was "to Mardu Reveler" what shoktroopa is to Mono Blue Tron. I have never done MTGO myself, although I've watched millions of streams on twitchtv. I assumed he played mostly Mardu Reveler, at least recently.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Not sure if the deck is real. it does look like Seifer knows the in's and outs of the deck. He makes snap decisions and makes them well
He's the only one's who really had results with the deck though
That does slightly align with what Sheridan said, know your deck and it'll boost your win percentage even if it isn't the meta. I mean, we've seen this with Reid Duke and Jund, he plays the deck so well, I honestly don't know how he does it while refusing to play boardwipes in the board.
I've seen an uptick in Mardu decks on goldfish lately, anyone care to explain why?
I think there was an article recently about someone on MTGO who has had a lot of 5-0s with Mardu Reveler. That's the one you're talking about, right? Admittedly, it even intrigued me, despite the fact that Mardu has never really been good in any format ever.
that's the list I was referring to, it just seems so weird but interesting
I'm beginning to think that the Gitaxian Probe ban was a bit premature
Hear me out:
Sure, infect/zoo shadow/Bloo could kill consistently on turn 3, and sometimes even turn 2 if you got lucky. BUT, each of these decks could be kept in check by decks packing plenty of removal: jeskai, grixis delver, jund ect ect
Not only that, but fatal push was RIGHT around the corner, providing yet another foil to each of these probe-using archetypes.
Bloo is dead. Bloo remains dead. And we have killed him.
Let's face it. All of the probe decks increased the necessity for interaction, leading to altogether better gameplay. Grixis Delver was quite well positioned in the infect era.
But wait - there's more.
Enter: BIG MANA
Probe decks were the natural foil to Tron and Valakut, hereby collectively named "big mana"
The cycle was thus perfect. Probe aggro lost to interactive decks, which lost to big mana, which in turn lost to probe aggro.
Now, the cycle has been broken
Big mana once again reigns supreme. How did this happen? It all harkens back to the Probe banning.
The consequences will never be the same
There was another card around the corner too, Baral. I do on occasion still play storm (I find the gifts version less interesting to play than the ascension version) probe probably went when it did with WoTC knowing that card was coming, in addition to the speed of the bloo decks. As much as it made storm players angry at the time probe is probably a correct ban at the correct time (sadly)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern - E-Tron & UWControl
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While this is true, it says something about the other 40 Living End players that did know the interaction, but came nowhere near the top 8. Surely, their play skill would have gotten them as far, or are we assuming that the top 8 Living End player was the "best" Living End player in the tournament?
I remember locally when GPTs, PPTQs, and even Friday Night Magic all had a lot of competition to sort through just to have a decent evening. That was a meta in which I accelled in. Nowadays, it's rare for me to play a player who I believe should indeed beat me (based on play skill and achievements), but I do a lot worse in this type of meta. And when I do play a player who has achieved much more than myself, it is much, much easier to beat them. Many "good" players have left Modern because it simply isn't the format for them to accel in. I have nearly come to the conclusion that a newer player with a poor deck, but a quick goldfish, will beat me nearly 50% of the time, while players who play on the Pro Tour consistently will be less than 50%. I know the majority of players like this, but to me, well it's just sad.
(And yes, it's always been going up the curve on this type of play for the past 10 years, but it just seems like it is so amplified right now.) Realize this - I was saying this when I was winning. I am saying it now, while losing. Although I don't agree with a lot of what sisicat has said, I think he was certainly on to something when saying that there simply is too much variance in this format.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)That's not matchup lottery. Even ignoring how old that data is, that's not what anyone is talking about. Read my post on the last page where I talked about matchup lottery.
I specifically stated that whatever the individual matchups are, good players overcome those matchup ranges and have consistent performance at big events. People only complain about the "lottery" because they think it screws up their performance at events. But this is not the case for good players. It doesn't matter what the individual matchups are, whether 50/50, 30/70, 60/40, etc. Good players are somehow able to consistently perform in Modern. Matchups have no impact on top player performance. That means either matchup lottery isn't real OR skilled players win in spite of it.
If one is not winning, they should examine the skills they lack that better players are leveraging towards consistent performance.
Modern:
What id guess is a scrub has a 30/70 jund v tron while a pro has a 45/55. Is that logical?
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
I think that's too strong.
IMO, what people call MU lottery really is SB gunning limitations. The field is wide enough that your sideboard cannot consistently cover every possible bad match-ups. You tune your SB with your guess about what the metagame will be. If you guessed right then you get matched with decks you have prepared your SB for and do well. If not, you do poorly.
I still believe the problem in modern is the lack of universal answers à la FoW. That's what fuels the lottery feelings.
Where are these stats? Where are these excellent arguments? A 2015 data set that is no longer relevant?
You are correct. The customer is always right. That's why Modern is back on the pro tour, that's why we get yearly Masters sets, that's why SCG is 90% Modern these days. Hasbro wants money. The money is in Modern. You are not the only customer.
Ahem.
And since we are doing the 'not so subtle personal attack' thing, let me enlighten you, Mr. Internet-Arguer-New/Anonymous-Account-Guy-Who-Might-Also-Be-Ghosting-As-Howwish.
I am extremely biased towards Sheridan. Sheridan does not have to do this work. Sheridan does not have to share his work. Sheridan is not getting paid to do or share his work. But yet, we have access to it. That is respectable. I respect Sheridan and all the effort he puts into the community. It's extremely time consuming to compile and analyze data. How many other people on the internet are doing this for you and not getting paid for it? Sheridan deserves all the praise we can give him. He is literally a beacon of sound reason and discussion on a forum full of people like you. And if we disagree with his assessment or find his claims to erroneous, he deserves more from us than "You're wrong because I think so" arguments.
It's called respect, child. Someday you might know it.
No one is saying this. See Sheridan's original claim and evidence here: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/785096-the-state-of-modern-thread-rules-update-27-10-17?page=45#c1125
Or my less math involved summary here: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/785096-the-state-of-modern-thread-rules-update-27-10-17?comment=1490
Read that. Read it again. Read it a third time. Read it until you understand it. Until you acquire understanding of the evidence and assertion, you aren't adding anything to the discussion and won't be taken seriously.
Pro player relevancy and money making are not non-issues in the realm of Modern reputation. If they can't write an article like "Look how awesome I did at X event" but their boss tells them they need to produce Modern content so their website can generate traffic, what do you think they will write about?
I'm beginning to think that the Gitaxian Probe ban was a bit premature
Hear me out:
Sure, infect/zoo shadow/Bloo could kill consistently on turn 3, and sometimes even turn 2 if you got lucky. BUT, each of these decks could be kept in check by decks packing plenty of removal: jeskai, grixis delver, jund ect ect
Not only that, but fatal push was RIGHT around the corner, providing yet another foil to each of these probe-using archetypes.
Bloo is dead. Bloo remains dead. And we have killed him.
Let's face it. All of the probe decks increased the necessity for interaction, leading to altogether better gameplay. Grixis Delver was quite well positioned in the infect era.
But wait - there's more.
Enter: BIG MANA
Probe decks were the natural foil to Tron and Valakut, hereby collectively named "big mana"
The cycle was thus perfect. Probe aggro lost to interactive decks, which lost to big mana, which in turn lost to probe aggro.
Now, the cycle has been broken
Big mana once again reigns supreme. How did this happen? It all harkens back to the Probe banning.
The consequences will never be the same
Edit: I guess I should contribute something on topic to the post. Modern is definitely still a skill defined format. I don't see much of a chance win percentage wise for myself before. Yes I can get unlucky and run into meme decks like mill. Or I can accidentally chain matches against dredge, but that evens itself out typically over time.
An article full of opinions about specific decks and claims with zero supporting evidence or data to back it up.
A generic rundown of what did good and when, with claims as to why - Again with little evidence to show why. In this one, we are even presented with three golden nuggets of truth:
"We can see that change in the Modern metagame happen because of one of three main reasons.
1. Cards are banned or unbanned.
2. New cards are printed that impact the format.
3. The metagame adapts to beat the most popular decks.
...you don't say...
An interview with a Magic card.
A rundown of the most expensive basic lands.
Information about changes to said website's Season One tour.
A set of videos of a pro player playing a deck that did well at a PTQ the month before.
What looks to be a near copy/pasta of another website's article.
A quick video showing a preview card and a bit about another media source.
...That's some free ones, let's get to the articles that are supposed to be so good, you have to pay for them. Of course, if I'm honest, I have to admit that I refuse to pay for them, so maybe there's some decent information to be had and it's just hidden. However:
An autobiography
A list of top twelve cards for a cube
An article about a format that won't exist in sanctioned form
A rundown of a couple of decktypes with no data to support suggested gameplans
An article about a decktype, but with no data to show how each suggested tweak to it will actually play out
Two pro players playing a mirror match for troll purposes, where at least one misplays
So that's one media source. Let's try the other big one...
A rundown on some card choices for a tweak on a known deck that did well in one tournament
I think the title states this one well enough...
A freaking unicorn!
An explanation on how a pauper deck works
Seriously, I have better things to do than try to find articles that are actually informative to the point where I feel I've actually learned something that I couldn't have just figured out by looking at the decklist. Frank Karsten's article is probably the only one that actually has some supporting data, and even then it's about a format that I just don't care about. So, while better, it's a gem that I wasn't actually looking for. Credit goes for maybe helping out someone else, though.
Could you imagine, however, if every article had that level of actual information? Not just, "Look at this deck that did well at an event! This is how it works, in case you couldn't figure it out" and other such "information". Maybe I'm just being mean, or my expectations are just too high, but that's where they are, for better or for worse. If that's the level of "informational media" we can expect, can we really expect a good amount of Magic players to have a deeper insight into the game, or at least deep enough to hold an intelligent conversation about something like the current state of Modern?
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 don't know if this is directed at me or not, as I was the one who brought up garbage articles recently, but this is it really. I have SCG Premium, so I will use Chapin's No Ban article as a jump off point. He posts 10ish decklists he suspects would be good in NBM, without actually digging around the internet for results from NBM tournaments. The result of this is that he misses archetypes in the NBM format, like UWR Pyro Skullclamp and Tezzerator.
Most pro articles are conjecture. Conjecture does us no good without evidence. For example, https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/what-are-the-safest-cards-to-unban-in-modern/ this article, by Andrea Mengucci, is complete garbage. Including gems such as "...is a fair Magic card that gives life to fair games of Magic that involve attacking and blocking (which is how Magic should be played)" and "..we are witnessing the death of midrange—the death of Jund and Abzan—and with them the death of the format."
There is no factual evidence or data cited anywhere in the article. Just drivel from a guy who has no results in Modern and doesn't play Modern frequently and either feels entitled to an opinion or is told by his boss to write about Modern because CFB needs them site hits. Whether you agree or disagree with these opinions, these kind of articles are not immutable because they are on CFB. These are what we ought rally against.
I actually agreed with most of Andrea Mengucci's article, despite having a very different play style and likes.
I haven't read Patrick Chapin's Premium SCG article, but he doesn't do anything that most other players also do. I hear all the time that no fair deck can beat the 5 flavors of decks that win on turns 1 or 2. What they don't realize is that the fair decks are made to deal with decks like Storm, Eggs, and Elves, etc. Decks like BUG Midrange, UW Miracles, or RW Pyroclamp all have had solid results. But then, nobody really knows what the format will amount to because outside of Moxboardinghouse, it hasn't been played much.
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)It's not about whether you agree or disagree, or Mengucci's article specifically. It's about articles like this, where pro players and community figures spew their opinions as facts, whether the topic is bans, unbans, matchups, sideboards, whatever. The presenting of his opinion as fact on something he has given no research on or proof about is perhaps entertaining, but not helpful discourse to the community. The issue is it trickles down into the not pro player sect, where it is also treated as fact. When it is not fact. Its opinion. The bar for these articles is set incredibly low.
Please don't put much weight into what he spews.
Peter Ingrams articles on modern are painful, too
Remember when LSV said shadow needed a ban?
Despite LSV being one of the best players of all time, have you guys watched him play grixis shadow? It's downright bad.
This I would like to see. I don't think I've ever seen LSV do anything "badly" before, outside of maybe not doing the best choices in Limited (instead, doing the fun choice), but I think he's earned it at least.
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 got a hard time udnerstanding why that is not a `matchup lotery`. If I bring the wrong deck I`m done for the rest of the tournament becasuse I get matched up against decks I almost can`t beat. Does that make me a bad player? Also if I choose the right deck I can sweep the field and take home to first price. Does that make me really that much more skilled than my opponents or did I just chose the right deck for that day.
To me that sounds like a `matchup lotery`.
I read this article from Tom Ross some time ago and he talked about how he likes to show up at tournaments with a deck that can either detroy the field or fail miserebly. He was talking about the tournament which he won playin Green Tron.
Does that not sound like a `matchup lotery` to you guys.
Maybe matchup lotery is not the right word to use for it but I dan`t think of a better one because English is not my native language. So please if someone can think of a better word for it let me know please.
I might lose credits by saying this but I actually think that xxhellfirexx3 knows what he is talking about and is not afraid to show this.
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
Simply because Tom Ross says something doesn't mean it's true. So far we have Tom Ross saying what he prefers to do vs. actual verifiable evidence.
As far as xxhellfirexx3 goes, it seems to me that they can't construct and keep to a coherent argument without appealing to one or more fallacies of reason. I have yet to see a decent argument, supported by actual evidence, that contributes to any conversation. When they made the claim that Sheridan ignores posts from others that contains data that's been presented before, and then was called out for that being false, they posted a two year old article of an outdated metagame rather than the link to someone posting previous data.
As for how I view this "matchup lottery" debate, I feel that anyone making this claim needs to do two things:
1. Support this claim with evidence that others can verify. A claim made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
2. Consider the alternative. There seem to currently be quite a few viable options available in the modern metagame. If we don't like this diversity, and the correlating "matchup lottery" (should it actually exist, despite evidence to the contrary), then what is the alternative? That we all are forced to play one of a handful of decks that we may or may not enjoy?
I'd be inclined to think that the goalposts would then move when people continue to lose. No longer would people fall to the "matchup lottery" excuse, but to the RNGesus of drawing the right cards at the right time, and being outdrawn rather than outplayed, or losing to the dice roll of being on the play rather than the draw, or losing to unfortunate luck with mulligans.
It seems to me that the truth is that people in general look for external excuses for losing while claiming internal reasons for their wins.
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
Am I right to infer that?
'Matchup lottery' is not synonymous with unfavorable matchups.
Assume the next sentence is true: Burn has a bad matchup against Martyr of Sands, but a good matchup against Storm.
This is not 'matchup lottery'. Matchup lottery is best described as the effect of a very wide and/or varied meta game in relation to a single player's experience with any deck over the course of (or perhaps a single) events. For example: Player A brings Burn to 15 round event, plays against Storm five times, Griselbrand twice, Grixis Shadow once, Lantern three times, one Jund, one Tron, one UW control, and one Affinity. Player B brings Burn to a 15 round event, plays Affinity four times, Scapeshift twice, Storm once, Martyr of Sands six times, Abzan once, Amulet once, and Tron once. Obviously Player B had a worse day. However, we have data to prove that both A and B, over the course of several events, if skilled enough, will have a positive win percentage regardless of what decks they play or what decks they play against.
Individual deck choice has nothing to do with 'matchup lottery'
Though your understanding that they do not matter in regards to skill players putting up consistently results over the a period of time, is correct.
Edit: Sheridan's definition of 'matchup lottery' http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/785096-the-state-of-modern-thread-rules-update-27-10-17?comment=1511
I think there was an article recently about someone on MTGO who has had a lot of 5-0s with Mardu Reveler. That's the one you're talking about, right? Admittedly, it even intrigued me, despite the fact that Mardu has never really been good in any format ever.
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)He (I'm assuming) has the most trophies, and it's not even close. I am unsure if this is the only deck piloted to those trophies.
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)He's the only one's who really had results with the deck though
That does slightly align with what Sheridan said, know your deck and it'll boost your win percentage even if it isn't the meta. I mean, we've seen this with Reid Duke and Jund, he plays the deck so well, I honestly don't know how he does it while refusing to play boardwipes in the board.
that's the list I was referring to, it just seems so weird but interesting
There was another card around the corner too, Baral. I do on occasion still play storm (I find the gifts version less interesting to play than the ascension version) probe probably went when it did with WoTC knowing that card was coming, in addition to the speed of the bloo decks. As much as it made storm players angry at the time probe is probably a correct ban at the correct time (sadly)
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT