No matter what point you're trying to make regarding Vampire Nighthawks inclusion in Jund, or the competitive deckbuilding aspect of Standard in general, I can't take you seriously when you say things like this.
Stop acting like a child, this isn't the kind of writing that will get people to agree with your views. Also, isn't it ironic that you were complaining about a "thinly veiled personal attack" earlier? At least he attempted to hide it.
You can't take me seriously when I say things like what, because of what? I'm the one defending myself here. I wouldn't call him a liar if he didn't lie. I can't control anothers actions. Only defend myself.
He's a liar. He's being dishonest about my claims. I have evidence to back that up.
You need to go into detail with your argument about VNH rather than make statements like:
"I disagree with you because I disagree with you".
You can't take me seriously when I say things like what, because of what? I'm the one defending myself here. I wouldn't call him a liar if he didn't lie. I can't control anothers actions. Only defend myself.
He's a liar. He's being dishonest about my claims. I have evidence to back that up.
You need to go into detail with your argument about VNH rather than make statements like:
"I disagree with you because I disagree with you".
Awesome childish circular logic.
I agree with your logic, Secularon, and believe it is very sound. I know you as the kind of person who frequently gives such solid, logical arguments that stand up well to opposing scrutiny. I believe you are in the right, in regards to this argument.
However, I am in agreement with Jehn about the name-calling. It doesn't contribute to your argument and merely detracts from your own air. Regardless of how much your opponent is pissing you off (or calling you names, himself), it is completely unnecessary to resort to name-calling of any kind.
It doesn't make people listen to you anymore than they already would have.
Sorry to get involved, but when did he say that? Now your making baseless attacks. Not once did he say Or imply that he ONLY plays cards that have won major tournaments. He says himself that he sees how VNH is a valid conclusion for some Jund players.
He said, and I quote:
Even with that being the case, VNH will have to hit 1rst several more times just to be on par with all the 1rst place Jund decks that didn't run it.
What else could he mean, if he doesn't mean that vampire nighthawk needs to place 1st multiple times before it can be on par with the other cards in Jund?
My point was that nissa revane was in the exact same situation before the $5k- it never placed 1st at anything major. Yet was it a weak card? No. It just didn't place 1st because nobody was even trying to use it. Whatever, I don't have a problem with the poster, I have issues with his logic.
I simply disagree with his statement that a card has to place 1st X number of times before it is "on par". You are right that he never directly said he didn't use these unproven cards, so I suppose he could be playing them, even though he argues in the post that they aren't "on par" with tested and proven 1st place finishing decks.
Consider:
Jund wins 1rst place 30 times w/o using VNH.
Jund wins 1rst place 1 time using VNH. (Which it hasn't.)
Jund will have to win several more times with VNH to be statistically on par with the build that didn't run VNH.
That's all I'm saying from a statistical standpoint relative to VNH within JUND, within the current standard.
Consider: mono-green with Nissa Revane didn't win a single major tournament prior to the 5k. After, it has won several major tournaments. There is no such thing as being "statistically on par". A deck or card can do incredibly well based on a lot of reasons, and a card or deck that is not even played won't do well, simply because an unplayed deck can't win. If a deck does win reliably, that is evidence that it is probably a good deck, but if a deck/card doesn't win that isn't evidence of anything at all- it could be that it's not winning because it's not "on par", to use your words, but it's also very likely that it didn't win because it WAS NOT PLAYED AT ALL. If you use the winning results as your only measure of a cards worth, you would never want to play any new cards because none of them have won anything. It creates a vicious cycle and isn't really useful for discussion on a forum.
I agree with your logic, Secularon, and believe it is very sound. I know you as the kind of person who frequently gives such solid, logical arguments that stand up well to opposing scrutiny. I believe you are in the right, in regards to this argument.
However, I am in agreement with Jehn about the name-calling. It doesn't contribute to your argument and merely detracts from your own air. Regardless of how much your opponent is pissing you off (or calling you names, himself), it is completely unnecessary to resort to name-calling of any kind.
It doesn't make people listen to you anymore than they already would have.
Agreed, and I apologize for the detracting remarks in my posts. I'll give my responses more thought in the future.
My point was that nissa revane was in the exact same situation before the $5k- it never placed 1st at anything major. Yet was it a weak card? No. It just didn't place 1st because nobody was even trying to use it. Whatever, I don't have a problem with the poster, I have issues with his logic.
I simply disagree with his statement that a card has to place 1st X number of times before it is "on par". You are right that he never directly said he didn't use these unproven cards, so I suppose he could be playing them, even though he argues in the post that they aren't "on par" with tested and proven 1st place finishing decks.
You disagree with statistics? That's your problem. What I'm stating is factual evidence from a statistical stand point. Nothing more, nothing less.
VNH is statistically deficient 34 matches within a Jund build since the Zendikar release to be batting at the same average for 1rst place. Doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not. It's a fact.
Nissa Revene isn't relative to our argument. Has nothing to do with being a card slot within a JUND deck. Do you understand that we are talking about VNH, relative to JUND? Do you understand what relative means?
The argument: Is VNH a viable card within JUND from a statistical standpoint? Answer: Currently deficient 34 matches for 1rst place to have a win ratio of 50%.
Your misinterpretation of the argument: Once X card has be deemed statistically nonviable, it's useless to consider.
Sorry I called you a liar earlier. You've misinterpreted several statements, so I'll attempt to detail my answers more thoroughly.
Deck A wins 90 games out of 150.
Deck B wins 1 game out of 150.
You, sir, committed a Base Rate Fallacy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I find it amusing that Secularon, the guy with the sig that attacks anyone with religious beliefs, is accusing someone of attacking him by supposedly "misrepresenting" his statements. Cute.
Now, back to the discussion about VNH: Yes, Secularon is bad with statistics. He's committing the cardinal sin of statistical analysis: approaching the subject impartially and misrepresenting (see what I did there?) the situation by selectively interpreting the data to reach a conclusion he already made.
So, can we all agree that VNH is a solid card? I think we can all agree to at least that. I hope so. Does it belong in Jund? I would say it's doubtful, but I'd have to test it to say further. Does theory-craft say that it's a bad choice? Not really, no, but it does say that it's not as strong as the other 3-drops the deck can readily support.
There are two types of people in this world: people who think that countermagic is the most powerful effect in the game and people who aren't morons.
My color is Purple. I value diversity, smashed color pies and obsolete Inquest articles. At my best, I can redefine MTG in a new and wonderful way. At my worst, I can end up as an Unhinged joke. My symbol is not defined. My enemies are 5 old and bureaucratic angry colors.
i get what you are trying to say but your statement in this context is nonsense. these are not 2 different decks but 1 deck with different card choices. i also believe very strongly that you did not look up all the numbers of jund decks with which did not make top 8 but top 16 and played VNH compared to the numbers of jund decks which placed top 8 in the same tourny :x
without a full list of data all debate is nonsense.
Actually, his statement is completely correct and you are the one posting nonsense. They are indeed two different decks, insomuch as they do not have exactly the same list of cards. Are the small variants on each other? Yes, that is true.
Also, he didn't say that either is stronger; he simply pointed out the flaws in Secularon's arguments (Base Rate Fallacy). As such, his post is hardly "nonsense."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are two types of people in this world: people who think that countermagic is the most powerful effect in the game and people who aren't morons.
My color is Purple. I value diversity, smashed color pies and obsolete Inquest articles. At my best, I can redefine MTG in a new and wonderful way. At my worst, I can end up as an Unhinged joke. My symbol is not defined. My enemies are 5 old and bureaucratic angry colors.
This is a ridiculous arguments that assumes the best version of a deck is known at the beginning of a season and no metagame changes take place throughout the season.
For example, last year in Extended, Naya Zoo was a good deck. It put many people into the top 8 for many weeks. Then someone figured out at the end of the season that Ranger of Eos was good in Naya Zoo. It put a few people into the top 8 in the few weeks before the season ended. To say that because it put fewer people into the top 8 that it was worse is ridiculous. Ranger won the mirror and stats don't take discovering it into consideration.
I don't know why you're being obtuse about this, Secularon.
The bottom line is that stats are a tool. You shouldn't base a card's worth around stats and you shouldn't dismiss stats. You should use stats to help make decisions. Cards are discovered. The metagame changes. All of these factors go into making a card choice decision.
*Quality testing: Good decklists, proper sideboarding, good opponents.
it is for it did not bring anything to the table which we didn't know already. i mean i can make posts all day about the most obvious things but will this bring us towards a solution? no it will not.
Then you should have said that the first time, rather than attempting to critique him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are two types of people in this world: people who think that countermagic is the most powerful effect in the game and people who aren't morons.
My color is Purple. I value diversity, smashed color pies and obsolete Inquest articles. At my best, I can redefine MTG in a new and wonderful way. At my worst, I can end up as an Unhinged joke. My symbol is not defined. My enemies are 5 old and bureaucratic angry colors.
Deck A wins 90 games out of 150.
Deck B wins 1 game out of 150.
You, sir, committed a Base Rate Fallacy.
I understand what you're conveying, and depending on the context, you are absolutely correct. There is a way to express what I'm saying without committing such a fallacy. The best I can do to clear up what I'm conveying is to try and define my argument further with some kind of logic expression. From a statistical point of view when attempting to build Jund from a subset of cards that have finished 1rst, it's not about Deck A or Deck B. The concept is about X card within the build of Jund relative to all other cards within Jund.
Let us define our variables.
1Z(Jund 60) = The universe of all Jund cards within a 60 card build. No cards are known but it is assumed all netted a 1rst place finish during Zendikar.
1Z(Jund 60) - 4 Lightning bolt = The universe of all Jund cards within a 60 card build. 4 Lightning Bolt are known cards the other cards are unknown but it is assumed all netted a 1rst place finish during Zendikar
Therefore:
Which isn't worth getting infracted for. You of all people should know that, if you know what I mean.
I think that's quite enough. There's not point in dragging this into a realm where it doesn't belong, and where, frankly, you have no place taking it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are two types of people in this world: people who think that countermagic is the most powerful effect in the game and people who aren't morons.
My color is Purple. I value diversity, smashed color pies and obsolete Inquest articles. At my best, I can redefine MTG in a new and wonderful way. At my worst, I can end up as an Unhinged joke. My symbol is not defined. My enemies are 5 old and bureaucratic angry colors.
I don't know what you guys are arguing, as I also choose not to take a side here, so my post here is just an fyi, You should know that just because there is no fallacy does not mean that the argument is valid. Also, to say that something is better in terms of performance based on percentages demonstrates the relativity of those results. To say something is objectively better, aka better all the time irregardless of the context, only presupposes the subjectivity on which those results were taken. That is to say the results are contingent on circumstances in which they were obtained, aka not objective. This creates a contradiction and a basic fallacy of faulty methodology. I'm commenting only because I do this for a living and it bugs me to see fallacies and argument forms misrepresented.
Secularon -- that made no sense. It seems like you're trying to hide a bad argument behind obscure symbols.
It would be extremely hard to determine whether VNH was a good card in Jund from just 1 or 2 decks placing high with them. You'd have to have a lot more information than just who went into the top 8 at States. You'd have to know how many of ALL of the decks at States attempted to play Nighthawks. You'd also have to analyze the person's other choices. Someone brazen enough to play Nighthawks and NOT be a lemming with a complete net-decklist may have made other different deck choices which may or may not have been correct. The lemmings with the complete net-decklists have the advantage of not having to make deck choices or take risks.
Jund is already tuned pretty high in terms of efficiency. Say that a perfect decklist with (insert new genius tech card here) could get a consistent 2% edge over standard builds. As in, 2/100 games they will win instead of losing. But it's all contingent on whether they made all the right OTHER choices, whether they play well, etc. That kind of small change would be practically invisible when 90% of the field is net-decking, and perhaps only a handful would be trying to use the new card.
I think it's pretty hard to draw any kind of definite conclusions based on top-8 from states. You'd have to know all the decks that even entered states, and a lot of other info which isn't available. I mean, look at what won Texas. Is that the optimal Jund?
The bottom line is that stats are a tool. You shouldn't base a card's worth around stats and you shouldn't dismiss stats. You should use stats to help make decisions. Cards are discovered. The metagame changes. All of these factors go into making a card choice decision.
*Quality testing: Good decklists, proper sideboarding, good opponents.
This is essentially what I attempted to say but failed posts ago, VNH was an example I used that got caught in the crossfire (which may have been wrongfully placed beside Runeclaw Bears).
The point I attempted to make, and I hope can be ended on topic is that horrendous suggestions are thrown into the mix at such a large sum that the automatic decision of dismissing decklists is more then reasonable.
My personal testing has said that VNH gives more negative results in more match-ups then positive deters me from playing it. That is all. It's not right or wrong, I just feel that the line is a lot more fuzzy then Leech Vs Growth.
Secularon -- that made no sense. It seems like you're trying to hide a bad argument behind obscure symbols.
Particleman -- There's nothing obscure about my symbols. I defined them clearly. Furthermore, why are you stating that I'm arguing anything at all? I'm not. From the very beginning I've been giving a statistic. Nothing more nothing less. Just like everyone else, you're reading into it too much.
The current statistics show VNH hasn't placed 1rst in a Jund deck. That statement is a statistic. Not an argument.
How much clearer can I make this?
If you break it down into a logic expression based on 1rst place finishers relative to Jund, that's what I've done. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think it's pretty hard to draw any kind of definite conclusions based on top-8 from states. You'd have to know all the decks that even entered states, and a lot of other info which isn't available. I mean, look at what won Texas. Is that the optimal Jund?
I think it's very easy to draw definite conclusions based on the data below.
Look into the decks. It's obvious BBE, Lightning Bolt, Thrinax, Verdant Catacombs and Blightning take 20 slots. We've just defined 33% of the MD from a statistical standpoint. SB is another matter.
I still think an objective test on forum rules is the better route to go than full on segregation. Make it to where anyone can view any thread but to post in the higher threads, pass the easy peasy test on what the rules mean on posting.
You disagree with statistics? That's your problem. What I'm stating is factual evidence from a statistical stand point. Nothing more, nothing less.
VNH is statistically deficient 34 matches within a Jund build since the Zendikar release to be batting at the same average for 1rst place. Doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not. It's a fact. Your misinterpretation of the argument: Once X card has be deemed statistically nonviable, it's useless to consider.
You can't just say 'Statistics say this card doesn't work!' without a firm understanding of the ameliorating factors behind that. Maybe Nighthawk doesn't work, but you can't just go "Oh, it didn't show up in builds! THEREFORE IT IS BAD." Correlation without causation. We don't have a large enough sample size, at any rate, to overtly dismiss Nighthawk because of statistics. Until the deck is played hundreds of times by people who have all considered Nighthawk, we won't.
The Nissa Revane example is exactly what we're talking about. Testing is the only real way to determine a card's playability. You can't go "Oh, Statistics means I'm right!" when statistics are not the be-all and end-all of arguments. They are good support for an argument. They are not the argument itself.
As for testing: obviously I mean testing as in Testing/theory/etc. and not just testing and blind statistical choices. Because generally, in this game, there are too many variables to control to get clear decisions via analysis alone.
@ 1nf1del:
Your name has too many 1's in it. Oh wait. ...
Anyways, I have no idea. I haven't been playing Jund. I wouldn't accept my advice on playing Jund.
If people have been trying Nighthawk out since Zendikar and have decided that the deck is worse with Nighthawk in it as opposed to ... whatever, then that's fine. What do people replace with Nighthawk, by the way? Thrinax? That would be colossally stupid, IMHO, just because I think Thrinax is one of the best cards in Jund [maybe second-best, even].
Also, I'm not attacking Growth - that's a clear tempo choice, and a concession to Jund's horrific manabase [as well as Leech's multiplying weaknesses - too much bolt in the format makes the baby go blind]. I'd assume it makes the deck run smoother. I don't know where Jund would get the room to run Nighthawk, honestly. What do they cut? Bolt? Blightning? Really??
my mouth is full of winsome lies -
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
I think that the the real point here is that Vampire Nighthawk has been seeing play and HASN'T put up the numbers that the Rampant Growth/Master of the Wild Hunt tech has. This isn't some potential new tech, people HAVE been trying him out since Zendikar came out, and it hasn't been paying off.
Well, that's strange. I thought Rampant Growth was accepted as needed currently in Jund, over Leech, and yet Leech won all those events! On man, I guess Growth wasn't playable in standard. Then, as soon as all the pro players made the switch, it was magically viable. Only it really doesn't matter, because it wasn't that the card was bad, it was that people accepted the idea of using the card in the first place.
Right on. It's like people need mandated approval on what to run. Isn't it hilarious that people abandoned one of the best creatures in standard en-masse, all at the same time, to run a bad-cascade mana-fixer? Shows how much "intelligence" goes into most decklists, even top decklists.
As for testing... it helps, but statistically it takes more testing than most people actually do to make clear decisions on small refinements. Being a lemming is easy, but fails to get you ahead of the pack. Testing requires a great deal of time and effort, and is subject to random chance. Experience + theory, combined with testing and critical observation of others' choices is still the best bet.
Sorry to add more flame to this fire, but it bothers me when people misuse statistics. Anyways:
You make one assertion here, rephrased several times. That assertion is:
1 - Because a card wasn't played in a deck when that deck won, it isn't optimal in that deck. You DO make this assertion.
I never misused the data. I stated results. I never said people should soley base their decisions on 1rst place finishes, yes there is more to consider. I'm simply giving the data to help further analyze a card from different angles.
I stated VNH has never netted a 1rst place spot within Jund relative to Zendikar. That is a fact. Not an argument stating VNH isn't optimal in Jund. However that data can be used as a reason not to run VNH.
Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that's all I'm saying?
I don't know and I don't care. You obviously didn't read the few posts where I stated I understand why a Jund player would run VNH. Because VNH hasn't netted 1rst in a Jund build raises questions, that's all. And you shot yourself in the foot with your "logic": Rampant Growth and Vampire Nighthawk have each seen equal playtime within Zendikar. Which of those two cards have netted 1rst place? Not VNH. Another fact relative to Jund backed by 33 tangible results.
Well, that's strange. I thought Rampant Growth was just as viable as Leech. Yet Leech won all those events! And Growth won - get this - none! Oh Man, I guess Growth wasn't playable in standard. Then, as soon as all the pro players made the switch, it was magically viable. Only it really doesn't matter, because it wasn't that the card was bad, it was that people accepted the idea of using the card in the first place.
You can't just say 'Statistics say this card doesn't work!' without a firm understanding.... BLAH BLAH BLAH
Are you arguing with the straw guy talking about RG or talking to me? I'm starting to think you're talking to someone else because your statements don't follow what we're talking about. I never said statistics are the only reason to deem why X card doesn't work. Only that they are a variable to consider. Nothing more, nothing less. You have a serious problem with fabricating what others say. Draw your own conclusions with the data, but don't put words in my mouth.
I never said statistics say this card doesn't work. Only that it's a variable to consider. Nothing more, nothing less. You have a serious problem with fabricating what others say. Draw your own conclusions with the data, but don't put words in my mouth.
Others have said what I have been trying to get across better than I could, but there still seems to be a misunderstanding. Let me try to explain this another way:
Your statistics are flawed, as explained by other posters. You say you just want to add another variable to consider, but flawed statistics do more harm than good. It's not a useful thing to consider, at all. When you throw out bad statistics, even if you try to protect yourself by saying "draw your own conclusions" it's still very misleading and can give people the wrong ideas. It's better to simply not mention the statistics at all, unless they are thoroughly calculated and 100% accurate AND useful.
Examples (made up and fake):
23 different RDW decks made top 8 in states, only 1 of them included punishing fire! I think this shows punishing fire is sub-par! Draw your own conclusions!
This would be an example of bad and worthless statistics that actually do more harm than good, which is why your VNH comment really sounded like. It doesn't really tell us any useful information, because without knowing the total number of each deck that entered the results are worthless.
23 different RDW decks made top 8 in states. 74 RDW decks in total were played in states. Of those 74, 49 included punishing fire and 25 did not. Of the 49 with punishing fire, only 1 made top 8, while 22 of the 25 non- punishing fire builds made top 8. I think this shows punishing fire is sub-par! Draw your own conclusions!
This example, while still somewhat flawed, actually would have some useful statistics. I wouldn't make this sort of argument myself without further details to back up my assertion, but I couldn't say that the statistics are totally worthless.
Others have said what I have been trying to get across better than I could, but there still seems to be a misunderstanding. Let me try to explain this another way:
Your statistics are flawed, as explained by other posters. You say you just want to add another variable to consider, but flawed statistics do more harm than good. It's not a useful thing to consider, at all. When you throw out bad statistics, even if you try to protect yourself by saying "draw your own conclusions" it's still very misleading and can give people the wrong ideas. It's better to simply not mention the statistics at all, unless they are thoroughly calculated and 100% accurate AND useful.
1.) Milk has Vitamin A and D. Draw your own conclusions.
2.) Sunlight will darken your skin. Draw your own conclusions.
3.) VNH hasn't been in a 1rst place Jund deck. Draw your own conclusions.
You want to tell me what's so misleading about the above three statements?
Examples (made up and fake):
23 different RDW decks made top 8 in states, only 1 of them included punishing fire! I think this shows punishing fire is sub-par! Draw your own conclusions!
This would be an example of bad and worthless statistics that actually do more harm than good, which is why your VNH comment really sounded like. It doesn't really tell us any useful information, because without knowing the total number of each deck that entered the results are worthless.
Well hey, that's cool guy. Thanks for admitting you're making up an example that has nothing do with the information I've given. The examples I've given are REAL.
33 Jund Decks. 0 Nighthawk. (Me - Real Numbers)
23 RDW Decks. 1 Punishing Fire (You - Fake Numbers)
You're right. Your statistic is worthless. Mine isn't.
My statements aren't your arguments so really, just stop it. I don't sound anything like you. I'm not talking about FAKE results.
23 different RDW decks made top 8 in states. 74 RDW decks in total were played in states. Of those 74, 49 included punishing fire and 25 did not. Of the 49 with punishing fire, only 1 made top 8, while 22 of the 23 non- punishing fire builds made top 8. I think this shows punishing fire is sub-par! Draw your own conclusions!
This example, while still somewhat flawed, actually would have some useful statistics. I wouldn't make this sort of argument myself without further details to back up my assertion, but I couldn't say that the statistics are totally worthless.
Your example isn't relative to Jund. Do you know the definition of strawman? It's like you're some kind of machine that can't stop misrepresenting me.
You can't take me seriously when I say things like what, because of what? I'm the one defending myself here. I wouldn't call him a liar if he didn't lie. I can't control anothers actions. Only defend myself.
He's a liar. He's being dishonest about my claims. I have evidence to back that up.
You need to go into detail with your argument about VNH rather than make statements like:
"I disagree with you because I disagree with you".
Awesome childish circular logic.
I agree with your logic, Secularon, and believe it is very sound. I know you as the kind of person who frequently gives such solid, logical arguments that stand up well to opposing scrutiny. I believe you are in the right, in regards to this argument.
However, I am in agreement with Jehn about the name-calling. It doesn't contribute to your argument and merely detracts from your own air. Regardless of how much your opponent is pissing you off (or calling you names, himself), it is completely unnecessary to resort to name-calling of any kind.
It doesn't make people listen to you anymore than they already would have.
He said, and I quote:
What else could he mean, if he doesn't mean that vampire nighthawk needs to place 1st multiple times before it can be on par with the other cards in Jund?
My point was that nissa revane was in the exact same situation before the $5k- it never placed 1st at anything major. Yet was it a weak card? No. It just didn't place 1st because nobody was even trying to use it. Whatever, I don't have a problem with the poster, I have issues with his logic.
I simply disagree with his statement that a card has to place 1st X number of times before it is "on par". You are right that he never directly said he didn't use these unproven cards, so I suppose he could be playing them, even though he argues in the post that they aren't "on par" with tested and proven 1st place finishing decks.
Consider: mono-green with Nissa Revane didn't win a single major tournament prior to the 5k. After, it has won several major tournaments. There is no such thing as being "statistically on par". A deck or card can do incredibly well based on a lot of reasons, and a card or deck that is not even played won't do well, simply because an unplayed deck can't win. If a deck does win reliably, that is evidence that it is probably a good deck, but if a deck/card doesn't win that isn't evidence of anything at all- it could be that it's not winning because it's not "on par", to use your words, but it's also very likely that it didn't win because it WAS NOT PLAYED AT ALL. If you use the winning results as your only measure of a cards worth, you would never want to play any new cards because none of them have won anything. It creates a vicious cycle and isn't really useful for discussion on a forum.
Agreed, and I apologize for the detracting remarks in my posts. I'll give my responses more thought in the future.
You disagree with statistics? That's your problem. What I'm stating is factual evidence from a statistical stand point. Nothing more, nothing less.
VNH is statistically deficient 34 matches within a Jund build since the Zendikar release to be batting at the same average for 1rst place. Doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not. It's a fact.
Nissa Revene isn't relative to our argument. Has nothing to do with being a card slot within a JUND deck. Do you understand that we are talking about VNH, relative to JUND? Do you understand what relative means?
The argument: Is VNH a viable card within JUND from a statistical standpoint?
Answer: Currently deficient 34 matches for 1rst place to have a win ratio of 50%.
Your misinterpretation of the argument: Once X card has be deemed statistically nonviable, it's useless to consider.
Sorry I called you a liar earlier. You've misinterpreted several statements, so I'll attempt to detail my answers more thoroughly.
I think it was perfectly relevant to the thread, but it's done and has run it's course so I don't see any reason to continue it.
Deck A wins 90 games.
Deck B wins 1 game.
Doesn't result in Deck A > Deck B unless:
Deck A wins 90 games out of 150.
Deck B wins 1 game out of 150.
You, sir, committed a Base Rate Fallacy.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Now, back to the discussion about VNH: Yes, Secularon is bad with statistics. He's committing the cardinal sin of statistical analysis: approaching the subject impartially and misrepresenting (see what I did there?) the situation by selectively interpreting the data to reach a conclusion he already made.
So, can we all agree that VNH is a solid card? I think we can all agree to at least that. I hope so. Does it belong in Jund? I would say it's doubtful, but I'd have to test it to say further. Does theory-craft say that it's a bad choice? Not really, no, but it does say that it's not as strong as the other 3-drops the deck can readily support.
Actually, his statement is completely correct and you are the one posting nonsense. They are indeed two different decks, insomuch as they do not have exactly the same list of cards. Are the small variants on each other? Yes, that is true.
Also, he didn't say that either is stronger; he simply pointed out the flaws in Secularon's arguments (Base Rate Fallacy). As such, his post is hardly "nonsense."
For example, last year in Extended, Naya Zoo was a good deck. It put many people into the top 8 for many weeks. Then someone figured out at the end of the season that Ranger of Eos was good in Naya Zoo. It put a few people into the top 8 in the few weeks before the season ended. To say that because it put fewer people into the top 8 that it was worse is ridiculous. Ranger won the mirror and stats don't take discovering it into consideration.
I don't know why you're being obtuse about this, Secularon.
Testing* >>>>>> PT Results >> GP Results >> PTQ results >>>>>>>>>> FNM results.
The bottom line is that stats are a tool. You shouldn't base a card's worth around stats and you shouldn't dismiss stats. You should use stats to help make decisions. Cards are discovered. The metagame changes. All of these factors go into making a card choice decision.
*Quality testing: Good decklists, proper sideboarding, good opponents.
Then you should have said that the first time, rather than attempting to critique him.
Which isn't worth getting infracted for. You of all people should know that, if you know what I mean.
I understand what you're conveying, and depending on the context, you are absolutely correct. There is a way to express what I'm saying without committing such a fallacy. The best I can do to clear up what I'm conveying is to try and define my argument further with some kind of logic expression. From a statistical point of view when attempting to build Jund from a subset of cards that have finished 1rst, it's not about Deck A or Deck B. The concept is about X card within the build of Jund relative to all other cards within Jund.
Let us define our variables.
1Z(Jund 60) = The universe of all Jund cards within a 60 card build. No cards are known but it is assumed all netted a 1rst place finish during Zendikar.
1Z(Jund 60) - 4 Lightning bolt = The universe of all Jund cards within a 60 card build. 4 Lightning Bolt are known cards the other cards are unknown but it is assumed all netted a 1rst place finish during Zendikar
Therefore:
1Z(Jund 60) = 100%
1Z(Jund 60) - 4 Lighting Bolt = 100 %
1Z(Jund 60) - 4 Lightning Bolt - 1 Chanra Nalaar = 11%
1Z(Jund 60) - 1 Chandra Nalaar = 11%
1Z(Jund 60) - 1 Vampire Nighthawk = 0 %
Therefore
1Z(Jund 60) > 1Z(Jund 60) - 1 Vampire Nighthawk
Within this context, there is no fallacy.
I think that's quite enough. There's not point in dragging this into a realm where it doesn't belong, and where, frankly, you have no place taking it.
I don't know what you guys are arguing, as I also choose not to take a side here, so my post here is just an fyi, You should know that just because there is no fallacy does not mean that the argument is valid. Also, to say that something is better in terms of performance based on percentages demonstrates the relativity of those results. To say something is objectively better, aka better all the time irregardless of the context, only presupposes the subjectivity on which those results were taken. That is to say the results are contingent on circumstances in which they were obtained, aka not objective. This creates a contradiction and a basic fallacy of faulty methodology. I'm commenting only because I do this for a living and it bugs me to see fallacies and argument forms misrepresented.
It would be extremely hard to determine whether VNH was a good card in Jund from just 1 or 2 decks placing high with them. You'd have to have a lot more information than just who went into the top 8 at States. You'd have to know how many of ALL of the decks at States attempted to play Nighthawks. You'd also have to analyze the person's other choices. Someone brazen enough to play Nighthawks and NOT be a lemming with a complete net-decklist may have made other different deck choices which may or may not have been correct. The lemmings with the complete net-decklists have the advantage of not having to make deck choices or take risks.
Jund is already tuned pretty high in terms of efficiency. Say that a perfect decklist with (insert new genius tech card here) could get a consistent 2% edge over standard builds. As in, 2/100 games they will win instead of losing. But it's all contingent on whether they made all the right OTHER choices, whether they play well, etc. That kind of small change would be practically invisible when 90% of the field is net-decking, and perhaps only a handful would be trying to use the new card.
I think it's pretty hard to draw any kind of definite conclusions based on top-8 from states. You'd have to know all the decks that even entered states, and a lot of other info which isn't available. I mean, look at what won Texas. Is that the optimal Jund?
This is essentially what I attempted to say but failed posts ago, VNH was an example I used that got caught in the crossfire (which may have been wrongfully placed beside Runeclaw Bears).
The point I attempted to make, and I hope can be ended on topic is that horrendous suggestions are thrown into the mix at such a large sum that the automatic decision of dismissing decklists is more then reasonable.
My personal testing has said that VNH gives more negative results in more match-ups then positive deters me from playing it. That is all. It's not right or wrong, I just feel that the line is a lot more fuzzy then Leech Vs Growth.
Particleman -- There's nothing obscure about my symbols. I defined them clearly. Furthermore, why are you stating that I'm arguing anything at all? I'm not. From the very beginning I've been giving a statistic. Nothing more nothing less. Just like everyone else, you're reading into it too much.
The current statistics show VNH hasn't placed 1rst in a Jund deck. That statement is a statistic. Not an argument.
How much clearer can I make this?
If you break it down into a logic expression based on 1rst place finishers relative to Jund, that's what I've done. Nothing more, nothing less.
Not making an argument. Simply giving a fact.
I think it's very easy to draw definite conclusions based on the data below.
Look into the decks. It's obvious BBE, Lightning Bolt, Thrinax, Verdant Catacombs and Blightning take 20 slots. We've just defined 33% of the MD from a statistical standpoint. SB is another matter.
I still think an objective test on forum rules is the better route to go than full on segregation. Make it to where anyone can view any thread but to post in the higher threads, pass the easy peasy test on what the rules mean on posting.
You make one assertion here, rephrased several times. That assertion is:
1 - Because a card wasn't played in a deck when that deck won, it isn't optimal in that deck. You DO make this assertion. Otherwise, your statistics - your "proof" - would be useless. You aren't making an argument about the playability of nighthawk relative to ANYTHING ELSE.
Here are 1st-place Jund decks that were played before the time Rampant Growth tech was discovered:
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=28856
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=28864
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=28867
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=28874
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=28877
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=28958
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=29471
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=29447
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=29630
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=29804
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=29860
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=29828
[There may be more, I only went through the last two pages, because I'm lazy.]
GUESS HOW MANY DECKS WERE RUNNING RAMPANT GROWTH?!?
0!
Well, that's strange. I thought Rampant Growth was just as viable as Leech. Yet Leech won all those events! And Growth won - get this - none! Oh Man, I guess Growth wasn't playable in standard. Then, as soon as all the pro players made the switch, it was magically viable. Only it really doesn't matter, because it wasn't that the card was bad, it was that people accepted the idea of using the card in the first place.
You can't just say 'Statistics say this card doesn't work!' without a firm understanding of the ameliorating factors behind that. Maybe Nighthawk doesn't work, but you can't just go "Oh, it didn't show up in builds! THEREFORE IT IS BAD." Correlation without causation. We don't have a large enough sample size, at any rate, to overtly dismiss Nighthawk because of statistics. Until the deck is played hundreds of times by people who have all considered Nighthawk, we won't.
The Nissa Revane example is exactly what we're talking about. Testing is the only real way to determine a card's playability. You can't go "Oh, Statistics means I'm right!" when statistics are not the be-all and end-all of arguments. They are good support for an argument. They are not the argument itself.
As for testing: obviously I mean testing as in Testing/theory/etc. and not just testing and blind statistical choices. Because generally, in this game, there are too many variables to control to get clear decisions via analysis alone.
@ 1nf1del:
Your name has too many 1's in it. Oh wait. ...
Anyways, I have no idea. I haven't been playing Jund. I wouldn't accept my advice on playing Jund.
If people have been trying Nighthawk out since Zendikar and have decided that the deck is worse with Nighthawk in it as opposed to ... whatever, then that's fine. What do people replace with Nighthawk, by the way? Thrinax? That would be colossally stupid, IMHO, just because I think Thrinax is one of the best cards in Jund [maybe second-best, even].
Also, I'm not attacking Growth - that's a clear tempo choice, and a concession to Jund's horrific manabase [as well as Leech's multiplying weaknesses - too much bolt in the format makes the baby go blind]. I'd assume it makes the deck run smoother. I don't know where Jund would get the room to run Nighthawk, honestly. What do they cut? Bolt? Blightning? Really??
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
Right on. It's like people need mandated approval on what to run. Isn't it hilarious that people abandoned one of the best creatures in standard en-masse, all at the same time, to run a bad-cascade mana-fixer? Shows how much "intelligence" goes into most decklists, even top decklists.
As for testing... it helps, but statistically it takes more testing than most people actually do to make clear decisions on small refinements. Being a lemming is easy, but fails to get you ahead of the pack. Testing requires a great deal of time and effort, and is subject to random chance. Experience + theory, combined with testing and critical observation of others' choices is still the best bet.
I never misused the data. I stated results. I never said people should soley base their decisions on 1rst place finishes, yes there is more to consider. I'm simply giving the data to help further analyze a card from different angles.
I stated VNH has never netted a 1rst place spot within Jund relative to Zendikar. That is a fact. Not an argument stating VNH isn't optimal in Jund. However that data can be used as a reason not to run VNH.
Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that's all I'm saying?
I don't know and I don't care. You obviously didn't read the few posts where I stated I understand why a Jund player would run VNH. Because VNH hasn't netted 1rst in a Jund build raises questions, that's all. And you shot yourself in the foot with your "logic": Rampant Growth and Vampire Nighthawk have each seen equal playtime within Zendikar. Which of those two cards have netted 1rst place? Not VNH. Another fact relative to Jund backed by 33 tangible results.
Are you arguing with the straw guy talking about RG or talking to me? I'm starting to think you're talking to someone else because your statements don't follow what we're talking about. I never said statistics are the only reason to deem why X card doesn't work. Only that they are a variable to consider. Nothing more, nothing less. You have a serious problem with fabricating what others say. Draw your own conclusions with the data, but don't put words in my mouth.
Others have said what I have been trying to get across better than I could, but there still seems to be a misunderstanding. Let me try to explain this another way:
Your statistics are flawed, as explained by other posters. You say you just want to add another variable to consider, but flawed statistics do more harm than good. It's not a useful thing to consider, at all. When you throw out bad statistics, even if you try to protect yourself by saying "draw your own conclusions" it's still very misleading and can give people the wrong ideas. It's better to simply not mention the statistics at all, unless they are thoroughly calculated and 100% accurate AND useful.
Examples (made up and fake):
23 different RDW decks made top 8 in states, only 1 of them included punishing fire! I think this shows punishing fire is sub-par! Draw your own conclusions!
This would be an example of bad and worthless statistics that actually do more harm than good, which is why your VNH comment really sounded like. It doesn't really tell us any useful information, because without knowing the total number of each deck that entered the results are worthless.
23 different RDW decks made top 8 in states. 74 RDW decks in total were played in states. Of those 74, 49 included punishing fire and 25 did not. Of the 49 with punishing fire, only 1 made top 8, while 22 of the 25 non- punishing fire builds made top 8. I think this shows punishing fire is sub-par! Draw your own conclusions!
This example, while still somewhat flawed, actually would have some useful statistics. I wouldn't make this sort of argument myself without further details to back up my assertion, but I couldn't say that the statistics are totally worthless.
1.) Milk has Vitamin A and D. Draw your own conclusions.
2.) Sunlight will darken your skin. Draw your own conclusions.
3.) VNH hasn't been in a 1rst place Jund deck. Draw your own conclusions.
You want to tell me what's so misleading about the above three statements?
Well hey, that's cool guy. Thanks for admitting you're making up an example that has nothing do with the information I've given. The examples I've given are REAL.
33 Jund Decks. 0 Nighthawk. (Me - Real Numbers)
23 RDW Decks. 1 Punishing Fire (You - Fake Numbers)
You're right. Your statistic is worthless. Mine isn't.
My statements aren't your arguments so really, just stop it. I don't sound anything like you. I'm not talking about FAKE results.
Your example isn't relative to Jund. Do you know the definition of strawman? It's like you're some kind of machine that can't stop misrepresenting me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man