We can make up literally any number to justify the perceived matchup of Jeskai vs Tron by pulling from or analyzing and adjusting parameters of various data sets, but the fact remains that the matchup ranges from "really bad" to "sign the slip and get lunch" for the Jeskai player. Quibbling over a few % points in a horrendously lopsided matchup is kind of irrelevant.
What, in the name of Garefield, does that have to do with Modern Colt?
Those could be issues for magic (though I play OW, Fortnite, and played CS/CoD/Quake before) those are not issues related to Modern.
Even for you, the leap from 'Modern has systemic issues' to 'What issues' and then you list off some FPS games?
Seriously.
EDIT: Man you tilt me so hard, its hilarious. Are you talking Twitch numbers? Are you talking about zero sum 'there is only so much fun to extract from the world' are you talking about competitors to Modern (aka Magic, because Modern is suddenly Magic??) give me a hand in traversing your logical leaps.
I'm pointing out that there's always room to improve the game. To say there's nothing wrong with the modern format, let alone the game as a whole, is being near sighted. There are reasons from both showmanship, the kind of gameplay, etc, that put those games ahead of Magic the Gathering and it's why they have the viewership they do.
I appreciate Magic the Gathering for what it is, which has always been a game to enjoy with others at the table. I'm also a supporter of formats to help define limits on what people can play against one another, but on a competitive level? The game isn't on the level of other titles.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I'm literally speechless, that you think your prior post points that out, at all. Whatever man.
Sure there are ways to improve Modern, comparison to FORTNITE of all things is, well, it's not even moving the goal posts. You have invited me to play Football, and then asked why I don't have skates, a stick and you are standing in an ice rink.
We can make up literally any number to justify the perceived matchup of Jeskai vs Tron by pulling from or analyzing and adjusting parameters of various data sets, but the fact remains that the matchup ranges from "really bad" to "sign the slip and get lunch" for the Jeskai player. Quibbling over a few % points in a horrendously lopsided matchup is kind of irrelevant.
We are not making up numbers. We are literally using real numbers. The only post I have seen making up numbers in the past few pages, or suggesting made up numbers, is this post I am quoting here from you. "Really bad" and "sign the slip" are not numbers. They are also based on imaginary numbers that I don't think you can cite. If you have actual, auditable, real-world numbers to contribute to the dataset, then let's use those. I am sure I can dig through SCG/GP footage, plus MTGO/Twitch footage, to find more of those numbers. Right now, the real number we have is 33/67 with some confidence interval surrounding it. I'll stick with those real numbers until more real numbers are added.
We can make up literally any number to justify the perceived matchup of Jeskai vs Tron by pulling from or analyzing and adjusting parameters of various data sets, but the fact remains that the matchup ranges from "really bad" to "sign the slip and get lunch" for the Jeskai player. Quibbling over a few % points in a horrendously lopsided matchup is kind of irrelevant.
We are not making up numbers. We are literally using real numbers. The only post I have seen making up numbers in the past few pages, or suggesting made up numbers, is this post I am quoting here from you. "Really bad" and "sign the slip" are not numbers. They are also based on imaginary numbers that I don't think you can cite. If you have actual, auditable, real-world numbers to contribute to the dataset, then let's use those. I am sure I can dig through SCG/GP footage, plus MTGO/Twitch footage, to find more of those numbers. Right now, the real number we have is 33/67 with some confidence interval surrounding it. I'll stick with those real numbers until more real numbers are added.
We are "making up the numbers" by arbitrarily choosing a single event and one person as the source. You of all people know that numbers can easily be chosen and manipulated to represent just about anything we want. While this is *probably* indicative of the matchup, without massive MTGO data sets or dozens of other events to comb through, these numbers are still just extrapolated approximations from small samples. Hence why I gave a subjective representation in my reply. A subjective representation that likely carries as much weight with every Jeskai or Tron player as these arbitrarily-picked numbers do.
This is why its a pointless debate as of now. Without access to the actual win rate data out of real MTGO events, the ones populated by hardcore grinders, its just a waste of everone's time.
Outside of using very high level, and arbitrary metrics (GP Top 8's for example) everyone is able to make stats reach, stretch, and say whatever they want. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
UWR, unless warping itself, is a dog to tron, and its comparable, to Affinity being a dog to Twin. I dont particularly care what 1 small data set says, either way. You all want to believe that Jund is a 70% dog to UWR? Give me a break!
In the end, I know a tilted match up when I play one, and I know that I can make some adjustments for it if I desire.
I'll have Alpine in my Side, with Geist, and probably Damping, and maybe (though I hate it) Field of Ruin in my main. Thats the kind of stupidity it takes, to make Tron feel remotely fair, for UWR.
We can make up literally any number to justify the perceived matchup of Jeskai vs Tron by pulling from or analyzing and adjusting parameters of various data sets, but the fact remains that the matchup ranges from "really bad" to "sign the slip and get lunch" for the Jeskai player. Quibbling over a few % points in a horrendously lopsided matchup is kind of irrelevant.
We are not making up numbers. We are literally using real numbers. The only post I have seen making up numbers in the past few pages, or suggesting made up numbers, is this post I am quoting here from you. "Really bad" and "sign the slip" are not numbers. They are also based on imaginary numbers that I don't think you can cite. If you have actual, auditable, real-world numbers to contribute to the dataset, then let's use those. I am sure I can dig through SCG/GP footage, plus MTGO/Twitch footage, to find more of those numbers. Right now, the real number we have is 33/67 with some confidence interval surrounding it. I'll stick with those real numbers until more real numbers are added.
We are "making up the numbers" by arbitrarily choosing a single event and one person as the source. You of all people know that numbers can easily be chosen and manipulated to represent just about anything we want. While this is *probably* indicative of the matchup, without massive MTGO data sets or dozens of other events to comb through, these numbers are still just extrapolated approximations from small samples. Hence why I gave a subjective representation in my reply. A subjective representation that likely carries as much weight with every Jeskai or Tron player as these arbitrarily-picked numbers do.
This is why its a pointless debate as of now. Without access to the actual win rate data out of real MTGO events, the ones populated by hardcore grinders, its just a waste of everone's time.
Outside of using very high level, and arbitrary metrics (GP Top 8's for example) everyone is able to make stats reach, stretch, and say whatever they want. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
UWR, unless warping itself, is a dog to tron, and its comparable, to Affinity being a dog to Twin. I dont particularly care what 1 small data set says, either way. You all want to believe that Jund is a 70% dog to UWR? Give me a break!
In the end, I know a tilted match up when I play one, and I know that I can make some adjustments for it if I desire.
I'll have Alpine in my Side, with Geist, and probably Damping, and maybe (though I hate it) Field of Ruin in my main. Thats the kind of stupidity it takes, to make Tron feel remotely fair, for UWR.
We have two options with these numbers. We can use them to try and draw meaningful conclusions. I was responding to GK who alleged the matchup was actually 25% based on an n=21 dataset. Alternately, we can say that we don't have enough data to draw those conclusions from these datasets. That's fine! But then I don't want to hear hyperbolic, rhetorical claims about the matchup being so bad you should just "sign the slip." Give us the numbers that prove this or acknowledge that the numbers might prove your theoretical assertion wrong. The level of confidence that a matchup is insanely bad without any real numbers to back that up is baffling to me. Especially because whenever we challenge these hyperbolic assertions in this thread with actual data, we tend to find the hyperbole was way off base. I expect this is no different. Incidentally, I've added about 15 more matches to the dataset and the Jeskai vs. Tron matchup is about 36%/64%. I expect if we kept adding numbers we would normalize int he 35/65 to 40/60 range. Your personal experience may differ from this but the numbers we have indicate this trend, and it is a trend supported by most of the MWP analysis we have done in the past.
The level of confidence that a matchup is insanely bad without any real numbers to back that up is baffling to me.
Because people like me have played the matchup, a lot, and very often get completely blown out. If they have a remotely competent opening hand the game is basically over. The only wins come from drawing exactly perfect hands AND them bricking consistently for several turns and/or they mulligan into oblivion and don't just happen to draw natural Tron anyway. The matchup is awful. I play it out because my Jeskai builds had Geists and Quellers to beat in and my UR versions run main deck Blood Moon, but if I was on Azcanta/Teferi Jeskai, I would sign the slip and walk away if they keep an opening 7.
No game is sign the slip for me, I play my deck for exactly that reason. 40/60, 35/65, I mean really can we just be honest with eachother here? Those numbers dont matter.
How was your first 7?
How was your mana development?
Did you scry bottom 4 times in a row and STILL not find hate, even after you mull to 5?
Its a tilted match up, thats all that matters, and that is frankly fine.
Big Mana beats Control beats Midrange beats Aggro beats Combo beats Big Mana.
Isnt that kind of the circle of life here? Thats fine and dandy, and is why this whole 'we cannot have 50/50 decks' is a meaningless thing to me. Look at the Top 8s. If a pattern of performance forms, since we will NEVER be given enough meaningful (MTGO is all I would trust honestly) data to say 'yep this deck is legit 70/30 over this other one) then its relevant, otherwise I'm done with 'numbers' from SCG, 5-0's for leagues, and especially Pro Tours or any bastardized format event like the Team ones.
1 Week, till we know how Wizards feels about things, thats what matters.
There is no 'problem with Modern', and there is never going to be a power reset. 1 single ban (Probe) had a massive impact on the meta.
I mean, 'ultimate doom'..come on Colt. Is Vintage dead for any reason other than the Reserved List? Legacy is unplayable (again..reservist list)?
Hearthstone, Overwatch, Fortnite, Counter Strike: Global offensive, Super Smash bros Brawl, and... (facepalms saying this) Pokemon TCG.
No reason to facepalm. The Pokemon TCG is actually good, with a surprisingly high amount of strategy.
My biggest issue with it are that the type weaknesses make some matchups ridiculously slanted. I don't have a problem with type advantages existing, they're actually a good way to prevent one deck from ruling the metagame, but I wish they were changed so that instead of double damage, it just had an increase of something like 30 damage.
There is no 'problem with Modern', and there is never going to be a power reset. 1 single ban (Probe) had a massive impact on the meta.
I mean, 'ultimate doom'..come on Colt. Is Vintage dead for any reason other than the Reserved List? Legacy is unplayable (again..reservist list)?
Hearthstone, Overwatch, Fortnite, Counter Strike: Global offensive, Super Smash bros Brawl, and... (facepalms saying this) Pokemon TCG.
No reason to facepalm. The Pokemon TCG is actually good, with a surprisingly high amount of strategy.
My biggest issue with it are that the type weaknesses make some matchups ridiculously slanted. I don't have a problem with type advantages existing, they're actually a good way to prevent one deck from ruling the metagame, but I wish they were changed so that instead of double damage, it just had an increase of something like 30 damage.
It's just a personal bias towards the game since it's basically taken over all the stores in my area. People complain about walmart selling MtG product, but at mine all the MtG stuff recently has been getting buried under pokemon merchandise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
The level of confidence that a matchup is insanely bad without any real numbers to back that up is baffling to me.
Because people like me have played the matchup, a lot, and very often get completely blown out. If they have a remotely competent opening hand the game is basically over. The only wins come from drawing exactly perfect hands AND them bricking consistently for several turns and/or they mulligan into oblivion and don't just happen to draw natural Tron anyway. The matchup is awful. I play it out because my Jeskai builds had Geists and Quellers to beat in and my UR versions run main deck Blood Moon, but if I was on Azcanta/Teferi Jeskai, I would sign the slip and walk away if they keep an opening 7.
Have you considered you're bad at the game and that's why you lose? Because if you're losing way more than the numbers suggest that seems like a likely reason.
The level of confidence that a matchup is insanely bad without any real numbers to back that up is baffling to me.
Because people like me have played the matchup, a lot, and very often get completely blown out. If they have a remotely competent opening hand the game is basically over. The only wins come from drawing exactly perfect hands AND them bricking consistently for several turns and/or they mulligan into oblivion and don't just happen to draw natural Tron anyway. The matchup is awful. I play it out because my Jeskai builds had Geists and Quellers to beat in and my UR versions run main deck Blood Moon, but if I was on Azcanta/Teferi Jeskai, I would sign the slip and walk away if they keep an opening 7.
Have you considered you're bad at the game and that's why you lose? Because if you're losing way more than the numbers suggest that seems like a likely reason.
Have you considered that out of 3 people that have each played 50 matches vs. Mono Green Tron with Jeskai, they will have 3 different experiences? They will not all be 20-30 vs. it. Some will have better luck drawing hate and their opponent(s) happen to not always have Tron and gas every … single … game. Some will make play mistakes, yes, and perhaps lose because of it. But most players that are dedicated to playing that many matches vs. a tough matchup are probably not going to make as many mistakes as you'd think. There probably will also be some variance with deck lists and side boards as well.
Jeskai has a tough matchup vs. Tron. I know good Tron players in my area that claim to have "almost never lost to Jeskai" before. There are Jeskai players who claim that Tron " has gotten turn 3 Tron half the time." There's really not much to say, outside of it being a super poor matchup for Jeskai and very draw/play/variance dependent. Don't claim someone is a bad player because they are losing to a bad matchup. I don't think you know him well enough to say that.
*Also, if what you're saying holds water, then I am actually the worst Modern player here. I have won vs. Infect probably 10% of the time since 2012. When I ran Grishoalbrand, I read claims from several very good Grishoalbrand players that the matchup is around 30/70, but my record vs. it with Grishoalbrand was 5-27 when I stopped playing it. I lost more than others claimed, so … yes, I am terrible. Then again, I've read in the past that Affinity was 65/35 vs. Grishoalbrand and I've won slightly more than 50% of the time (19-17), so I am the worst player in Modern, yet a very good player as well. I'm sure there are many other anecdotal stories that jive with this. I am not going to see someone who is 6-2 vs. Tron with Jeskai and automatically assume that they play the game much better than Paulo Vitor Damo Da Rosa. Sorry, that's not the way Magic works.
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)
ut most players that are dedicated to playing that many matches vs. a tough matchup are probably not going to make as many mistakes as you'd think. There probably will also be some variance with deck lists and side boards as well.
Since moving from Jeskai to Blue Moon, I have actually taken out any dedicated Tron hate from the board. It's simply not worth the space when I can make myself unbeatable in midrange/control matches and fix a LOT of shortcomings against fast creature decks. My plan with Tron is essentially Blood Moon them and hope to Emrakul them on turn 5. I can at least justify Disdainful Stroke and the second Abrade, but wasting 3-5+ slots on a matchup I'm probably going to lose anyway was really disheartening when I was playing Grixis and Jeskai.
I tried Merfolk at the beginning of Modern at my LGS, but ran into half of the meta on Affinity. I tried 2, then 3, then 4 Hurkyll's Recall. I consistently still lost to Affinity. I think I was 3-2 at 2-3 tournaments before scrapping Merfolk. After all, there were Alliances packs on the line! The sad part is that the last week I tried Merfolk, someone opened a Force of Will in their winning pack. I got first the next week, with UW Caw Blade I think and got a rare that was a 2/2 flier for 4 and a Blue or a White. Terribly sad opening...
My point with my story is that you have to concede matchups that you're not really going to win anyway. You can't beat everything. At least unless you played Eye of Ugin Eldrazi during those times, lol. If you can't avoid a matchup, then you either change decks or realize that you're probably going to lose no matter how much you "outplay" your opponent. That only goes so far. (You're not going to see Seth Manfield claim to be 1,000,000-0 vs. Storm, Ad Nauseam, and Infect with Tron.)
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)
Takeaways: Jeskai Control looks super solid and a clear Tier 1 deck.
Jeskai Control is not the Humans killer we thought it was as seen in the GP Vegas data below(quoting Lejoon here)
Tron, KCI and Devoted Company are the best performers followed by Humans, Hollow One and UW Control(quoting Lejoon here).
Jeskai control vs Tron : 24%.
This is an answer to ktkenshinx, who really tried to convince us it;s only 60-40. He is wrong.
Too bad none of these numbers matter
Because confidence intervals were not taken into account
Its like they toss a coin 20 times, get 13 heads and conclude winrate is 13/20 = 65%. Yeah good luck betting your money on that winrate
Their highest matchup count is 31 (Jeskai vs Humans 17/31)
Lets use confidence intervals
n = 31, p = 17/31 = 55%, with 99% confidence we get real matchup winrate is somewhere in 55±2.576*sqrt((1-p)*p/n) = 55±23 = from 32% to 78%. cool
with 95% confidence we can say that matchup winrate is in 55±1.96*sqrt((1-p)*p/n) = 55±17.5 = from 37% to 72%. nice
all other concrete matchups numbers have even less sense because they have less data
thats where nonsense like Affinity is 10% vs Tron and Tron is 75% vs Storm comes from
This is why I stopped collecting meta data. It is a thankless job and usually it is discarded because n<1,000,000.
I dont think its to be discarded so easily, it was informative enough to provide me with enough info to make some pretty good (imo) predictions that have helped me win games.
This is why I stopped collecting meta data. It is a thankless job and usually it is discarded because n<1,000,000.
You can get a pretty narrow confidence interval with n=100. That's in the +/- 10% range, which helps us narrow a matchup in the favorable/unfavorable ranges. A 60/40 match at n=100, assuming an unbiased sample, is in that 50-70 range, so at least even and likely favorable. That's not to say it isn't thankless work, which it totally is. Just to say that one can do this work without n being 1000000. Although it sometimes feels that way when talking to people online haha.
See the Infernal Judgment entry. Notable quotes: "One of the tasks of Core Set 2019 was to make some cards relevant in Modern but not disruptive to Standard. "
"First, how do we make it relevant in Modern? Find a problem Modern has and try to solve it. How about the Eldrazi, especially the large legendary ones?" "This means that the spell has some functionality in Standard but has qualities that address a Modern issue."
We can quibble about whether or not this card accomplishes its stated goals, and/or whether or not Wizards is addressing the right issues. But the fact that they are deliberately addressing such issues and publicizing those efforts is a huge step in the right direction, even if there's more work to be done.
This is why I stopped collecting meta data. It is a thankless job and usually it is discarded because n<1,000,000.
You can get a pretty narrow confidence interval with n=100. That's in the +/- 10% range, which helps us narrow a matchup in the favorable/unfavorable ranges. A 60/40 match at n=100, assuming an unbiased sample, is in that 50-70 range, so at least even and likely favorable. That's not to say it isn't thankless work, which it totally is. Just to say that one can do this work without n being 1000000. Although it sometimes feels that way when talking to people online haha.
See the Infernal Judgment entry. Notable quotes: "One of the tasks of Core Set 2019 was to make some cards relevant in Modern but not disruptive to Standard. "
"First, how do we make it relevant in Modern? Find a problem Modern has and try to solve it. How about the Eldrazi, especially the large legendary ones?" "This means that the spell has some functionality in Standard but has qualities that address a Modern issue."
We can quibble about whether or not this card accomplishes its stated goals, and/or whether or not Wizards is addressing the right issues. But the fact that they are deliberately addressing such issues and publicizing those efforts is a huge step in the right direction, even if there's more work to be done.
thanks for sharing this
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I have in my bag of tricks- Needless to say, someone who wants to play will probably have a deck UB/x Faeries UR Storm XURWB Affinity G Elves UW control
i agree its a good sign. it would be a better sign if they correctly identified problems, and gave an appropriate solution.
By exiling the creature, it allows us to answer one of the biggest issues with Eldrazi—the fact that they keep coming back.
...
uhm...yeah...sure...i guess thats an issue...
Yeah, that statement makes no sense. He says he's referring to their ability to shuffle themselves back into your library. Ignoring the fact that this really isn't that big of a deal now that Eye of Ugin is gone, the problem is that this applies only to the original Emrakul, Ulamog, and Kozilek. Of those, only Emrakul sees any real play (though much less than in the past), and guess what? Emrakul can't be targeted by this spell. So this logic only applies to two cards that aren't seeing play. Or rather, I should say one card that isn't seeing play, because destroy effects can't get rid of OG Ulamog anyway so the shuffle ability is irrelevant.
It would make total sense if he said it was because you needed an exile effect to get rid of Ulamog (either version) due to the whole indestructible thing, but the explanation given is baffling.
Being able to buy back Worldbreaker could be added to the list of "Eldrazi coming back", but that's a very infrequent case from what I've seen among Tron players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
Being able to buy back Worldbreaker could be added to the list of "Eldrazi coming back", but that's a very infrequent case from what I've seen among Tron players.
Worldbreaker is a thing (albeit not much of one), but again, the article refers specifically to the Eldrazi that shuffle themselves back. Worldbreaker can recur, but it can't do that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
UB Wight Phantasm
RB Burn
UR Faerie Rites of Initiation
Legacy:
R Burn
CG-Post
I'm pointing out that there's always room to improve the game. To say there's nothing wrong with the modern format, let alone the game as a whole, is being near sighted. There are reasons from both showmanship, the kind of gameplay, etc, that put those games ahead of Magic the Gathering and it's why they have the viewership they do.
I appreciate Magic the Gathering for what it is, which has always been a game to enjoy with others at the table. I'm also a supporter of formats to help define limits on what people can play against one another, but on a competitive level? The game isn't on the level of other titles.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Sure there are ways to improve Modern, comparison to FORTNITE of all things is, well, it's not even moving the goal posts. You have invited me to play Football, and then asked why I don't have skates, a stick and you are standing in an ice rink.
Spirits
We are not making up numbers. We are literally using real numbers. The only post I have seen making up numbers in the past few pages, or suggesting made up numbers, is this post I am quoting here from you. "Really bad" and "sign the slip" are not numbers. They are also based on imaginary numbers that I don't think you can cite. If you have actual, auditable, real-world numbers to contribute to the dataset, then let's use those. I am sure I can dig through SCG/GP footage, plus MTGO/Twitch footage, to find more of those numbers. Right now, the real number we have is 33/67 with some confidence interval surrounding it. I'll stick with those real numbers until more real numbers are added.
We are "making up the numbers" by arbitrarily choosing a single event and one person as the source. You of all people know that numbers can easily be chosen and manipulated to represent just about anything we want. While this is *probably* indicative of the matchup, without massive MTGO data sets or dozens of other events to comb through, these numbers are still just extrapolated approximations from small samples. Hence why I gave a subjective representation in my reply. A subjective representation that likely carries as much weight with every Jeskai or Tron player as these arbitrarily-picked numbers do.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Outside of using very high level, and arbitrary metrics (GP Top 8's for example) everyone is able to make stats reach, stretch, and say whatever they want. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
UWR, unless warping itself, is a dog to tron, and its comparable, to Affinity being a dog to Twin. I dont particularly care what 1 small data set says, either way. You all want to believe that Jund is a 70% dog to UWR? Give me a break!
In the end, I know a tilted match up when I play one, and I know that I can make some adjustments for it if I desire.
I'll have Alpine in my Side, with Geist, and probably Damping, and maybe (though I hate it) Field of Ruin in my main. Thats the kind of stupidity it takes, to make Tron feel remotely fair, for UWR.
Spirits
We have two options with these numbers. We can use them to try and draw meaningful conclusions. I was responding to GK who alleged the matchup was actually 25% based on an n=21 dataset. Alternately, we can say that we don't have enough data to draw those conclusions from these datasets. That's fine! But then I don't want to hear hyperbolic, rhetorical claims about the matchup being so bad you should just "sign the slip." Give us the numbers that prove this or acknowledge that the numbers might prove your theoretical assertion wrong. The level of confidence that a matchup is insanely bad without any real numbers to back that up is baffling to me. Especially because whenever we challenge these hyperbolic assertions in this thread with actual data, we tend to find the hyperbole was way off base. I expect this is no different. Incidentally, I've added about 15 more matches to the dataset and the Jeskai vs. Tron matchup is about 36%/64%. I expect if we kept adding numbers we would normalize int he 35/65 to 40/60 range. Your personal experience may differ from this but the numbers we have indicate this trend, and it is a trend supported by most of the MWP analysis we have done in the past.
Because people like me have played the matchup, a lot, and very often get completely blown out. If they have a remotely competent opening hand the game is basically over. The only wins come from drawing exactly perfect hands AND them bricking consistently for several turns and/or they mulligan into oblivion and don't just happen to draw natural Tron anyway. The matchup is awful. I play it out because my Jeskai builds had Geists and Quellers to beat in and my UR versions run main deck Blood Moon, but if I was on Azcanta/Teferi Jeskai, I would sign the slip and walk away if they keep an opening 7.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
How was your first 7?
How was your mana development?
Did you scry bottom 4 times in a row and STILL not find hate, even after you mull to 5?
Its a tilted match up, thats all that matters, and that is frankly fine.
Big Mana beats Control beats Midrange beats Aggro beats Combo beats Big Mana.
Isnt that kind of the circle of life here? Thats fine and dandy, and is why this whole 'we cannot have 50/50 decks' is a meaningless thing to me. Look at the Top 8s. If a pattern of performance forms, since we will NEVER be given enough meaningful (MTGO is all I would trust honestly) data to say 'yep this deck is legit 70/30 over this other one) then its relevant, otherwise I'm done with 'numbers' from SCG, 5-0's for leagues, and especially Pro Tours or any bastardized format event like the Team ones.
1 Week, till we know how Wizards feels about things, thats what matters.
Spirits
My biggest issue with it are that the type weaknesses make some matchups ridiculously slanted. I don't have a problem with type advantages existing, they're actually a good way to prevent one deck from ruling the metagame, but I wish they were changed so that instead of double damage, it just had an increase of something like 30 damage.
It's just a personal bias towards the game since it's basically taken over all the stores in my area. People complain about walmart selling MtG product, but at mine all the MtG stuff recently has been getting buried under pokemon merchandise.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Have you considered you're bad at the game and that's why you lose? Because if you're losing way more than the numbers suggest that seems like a likely reason.
Have you considered that out of 3 people that have each played 50 matches vs. Mono Green Tron with Jeskai, they will have 3 different experiences? They will not all be 20-30 vs. it. Some will have better luck drawing hate and their opponent(s) happen to not always have Tron and gas every … single … game. Some will make play mistakes, yes, and perhaps lose because of it. But most players that are dedicated to playing that many matches vs. a tough matchup are probably not going to make as many mistakes as you'd think. There probably will also be some variance with deck lists and side boards as well.
Jeskai has a tough matchup vs. Tron. I know good Tron players in my area that claim to have "almost never lost to Jeskai" before. There are Jeskai players who claim that Tron " has gotten turn 3 Tron half the time." There's really not much to say, outside of it being a super poor matchup for Jeskai and very draw/play/variance dependent. Don't claim someone is a bad player because they are losing to a bad matchup. I don't think you know him well enough to say that.
*Also, if what you're saying holds water, then I am actually the worst Modern player here. I have won vs. Infect probably 10% of the time since 2012. When I ran Grishoalbrand, I read claims from several very good Grishoalbrand players that the matchup is around 30/70, but my record vs. it with Grishoalbrand was 5-27 when I stopped playing it. I lost more than others claimed, so … yes, I am terrible. Then again, I've read in the past that Affinity was 65/35 vs. Grishoalbrand and I've won slightly more than 50% of the time (19-17), so I am the worst player in Modern, yet a very good player as well. I'm sure there are many other anecdotal stories that jive with this. I am not going to see someone who is 6-2 vs. Tron with Jeskai and automatically assume that they play the game much better than Paulo Vitor Damo Da Rosa. Sorry, that's not the way Magic works.
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)Since moving from Jeskai to Blue Moon, I have actually taken out any dedicated Tron hate from the board. It's simply not worth the space when I can make myself unbeatable in midrange/control matches and fix a LOT of shortcomings against fast creature decks. My plan with Tron is essentially Blood Moon them and hope to Emrakul them on turn 5. I can at least justify Disdainful Stroke and the second Abrade, but wasting 3-5+ slots on a matchup I'm probably going to lose anyway was really disheartening when I was playing Grixis and Jeskai.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I tried Merfolk at the beginning of Modern at my LGS, but ran into half of the meta on Affinity. I tried 2, then 3, then 4 Hurkyll's Recall. I consistently still lost to Affinity. I think I was 3-2 at 2-3 tournaments before scrapping Merfolk. After all, there were Alliances packs on the line! The sad part is that the last week I tried Merfolk, someone opened a Force of Will in their winning pack. I got first the next week, with UW Caw Blade I think and got a rare that was a 2/2 flier for 4 and a Blue or a White.
My point with my story is that you have to concede matchups that you're not really going to win anyway. You can't beat everything. At least unless you played Eye of Ugin Eldrazi during those times, lol. If you can't avoid a matchup, then you either change decks or realize that you're probably going to lose no matter how much you "outplay" your opponent. That only goes so far. (You're not going to see Seth Manfield claim to be 1,000,000-0 vs. Storm, Ad Nauseam, and Infect with Tron.)
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)Because confidence intervals were not taken into account
Its like they toss a coin 20 times, get 13 heads and conclude winrate is 13/20 = 65%. Yeah good luck betting your money on that winrate
Their highest matchup count is 31 (Jeskai vs Humans 17/31)
Lets use confidence intervals
n = 31, p = 17/31 = 55%, with 99% confidence we get real matchup winrate is somewhere in 55±2.576*sqrt((1-p)*p/n) = 55±23 = from 32% to 78%. cool
with 95% confidence we can say that matchup winrate is in 55±1.96*sqrt((1-p)*p/n) = 55±17.5 = from 37% to 72%. nice
all other concrete matchups numbers have even less sense because they have less data
thats where nonsense like Affinity is 10% vs Tron and Tron is 75% vs Storm comes from
G Green Stompy
RG Shamans
UB Mill
UG Infect
WUBRG Slivers!
I dont think its to be discarded so easily, it was informative enough to provide me with enough info to make some pretty good (imo) predictions that have helped me win games.
Spirits
You can get a pretty narrow confidence interval with n=100. That's in the +/- 10% range, which helps us narrow a matchup in the favorable/unfavorable ranges. A 60/40 match at n=100, assuming an unbiased sample, is in that 50-70 range, so at least even and likely favorable. That's not to say it isn't thankless work, which it totally is. Just to say that one can do this work without n being 1000000. Although it sometimes feels that way when talking to people online haha.
EDIT: Also, some great design insights from Maro's article today -
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/cards-part-1-2018-06-25
See the Infernal Judgment entry. Notable quotes:
"One of the tasks of Core Set 2019 was to make some cards relevant in Modern but not disruptive to Standard. "
"First, how do we make it relevant in Modern? Find a problem Modern has and try to solve it. How about the Eldrazi, especially the large legendary ones?"
"This means that the spell has some functionality in Standard but has qualities that address a Modern issue."
We can quibble about whether or not this card accomplishes its stated goals, and/or whether or not Wizards is addressing the right issues. But the fact that they are deliberately addressing such issues and publicizing those efforts is a huge step in the right direction, even if there's more work to be done.
thanks for sharing this
UB/x Faeries
UR Storm
XURWB Affinity
G Elves
UW control
Spirits
...
uhm...yeah...sure...i guess thats an issue...
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)It would make total sense if he said it was because you needed an exile effect to get rid of Ulamog (either version) due to the whole indestructible thing, but the explanation given is baffling.