There are a few problems with analyzing the "goodness" of a deck based on percentage making it to day to vs percentage piloting the deck. For one, who is to say that the result is not due to error (i.e. pure chance) rather than some mechanism of the deck? I mean, you can safely say that living end did statistically well but the problem is the power is near jack and squat (i.e. too low of a sample size to draw any sort of inference) while other decks with a large showing but did not having equal turn out compared to their representation might have actually only had a statistically insignificant difference and thus mathematically, just a cause of chance rather than the deck.
Day two performance, if all the decklists are available can give some insight. And if you really wanted to crack open the analysis, you could do a multilevel analysis if there is actually some covariance going on with decks (i.e. what deck a player used was a statistically significant predictor of his success).
from a statistical standpoint, its questionable if you can draw sufficient inference. I mean if you really wanted to analyze this, you would have to run an ANOVA (analysis of variance). I have always been curious about running this tournament data and others through a program and do a meta analysis to look at the real top decks. The biggest problem to analyzing this easily is aquiring meaningful statistical samples, i.e. you only can look at the top 8 of a given event.
This means you cant really gauge the true variance of a given deck's performance, you only get to look at the right hand side of the distribution.
I don't think there's anything wrong with being a shark, as long as both players understand that the other is trying to trade for a profit. If you are ripping off some little kids *cough Pulse cough* (J/K bro), then that's wrong, but otherwise, an adult should be aware of the resources available to him and not feel bad about it.
I purchased two Wastelands for a quarter a piece at a flea market. The guy had everything priced how he wanted to sell it, so I felt no problem taking his hundred dollars. Should've done some research.
-edit- I also didn't realize that you were specifically talking about sharks belittling others. Don't let that happen at all. It's called the internet, that punk can get over it.
Sharking seems like such a waste of time and in the long run probably hurts your ability to trade...causing you more harm than the ~25 in profit you make over a year or so.
I run it in my 360, but I support a strong artifact deck in U/B as well as the standard stax fair.
From what I see, it usually ends up like this-
1. Someone cracks it pack one and then builds around it the rest of the draft.2. Someone cracks it pack two or three and it ends up being a last pick.
3. Its opened and past in either pack one or two and gets picks it up if going in an archetype (usually they let it wheel though).
I find it to be one of the things that pushes artifact strategies over the edge. But its probably on the chopping block considering how modal it is (its either busted or a bust...)
Have a helicopter drop you off out front. Light your cigar with a small Indonesian boy holding a black lotus. Then bust out a craw wurm deck with no sleeves. Raw dog shuffle, loose terribly, flip the table, leave in a hovercraft.
I am moving and that means a new play group. I know how important first impressions are so the question at hand is whether to come out strong or more subdued. What I mean by this is that I have an extensive collection (played only vintage from 1998 to 2006) and numerous big foils.
For example, should I roll with my foil unhinged lands or just go with normal basics?
I don't necessarily mean making a deck more or less competitive but on the level of "pimp".
This guy makes one MEAN grixis/artifact control deck.
Have to shell out the cash for a nether void though to really make it tick. Get that out and blood funnel and MAN...can that deck really roll.
Its just such an expensive deck to put together. You need a mountain of tutors, solid artifacts worth focusing on, and it will usually end up being a d-bag deck considering it leans heavily towards combo.
I thought I would necro this thread and give some of my thoughts from testing it the past month-
recruiter has largely been played in control. Often it acts as a weak tutor that then just chumps a turn and on a slow body. Yes, the effect is fairly strong, and I even saw it get resto-angeled.
The truth is, as far as I have seen it, is that the decks that want this creature usually dont go into red and if they do, are going to pick other options way over it. Recruiter was usually a last five pick.
when I go to a new playgroup, I usually like to play an obscure general or one of the original legends or one of my tri color dragons :). I like to think that I can do some fairly interesting things with my adun oakenshield or invasion dragon decks!
But I also think it has more to do with attitude than actual cards used. If you are the guy smiling, being friendly, etc...that goes quite a bit further than playing some pile of cards your first time and then showing up with a $5000 deck the next time.
What are the top three's that everyone is talking about?
Day two performance, if all the decklists are available can give some insight. And if you really wanted to crack open the analysis, you could do a multilevel analysis if there is actually some covariance going on with decks (i.e. what deck a player used was a statistically significant predictor of his success).
This means you cant really gauge the true variance of a given deck's performance, you only get to look at the right hand side of the distribution.
Your red is super deep. Toss in some green for xenegos and its filler and you are good.
Sharking seems like such a waste of time and in the long run probably hurts your ability to trade...causing you more harm than the ~25 in profit you make over a year or so.
From what I see, it usually ends up like this-
1. Someone cracks it pack one and then builds around it the rest of the draft.2. Someone cracks it pack two or three and it ends up being a last pick.
3. Its opened and past in either pack one or two and gets picks it up if going in an archetype (usually they let it wheel though).
I find it to be one of the things that pushes artifact strategies over the edge. But its probably on the chopping block considering how modal it is (its either busted or a bust...)
Three drop creatures in blue for one-
1 Man-o'-War
1 Phyrexian Metamorph
1 Serendib Efreet
1 Vendilion Clique
1 Willbender
Where in the world do I put a pestermite in that?
There is a lot of win there
For example, should I roll with my foil unhinged lands or just go with normal basics?
I don't necessarily mean making a deck more or less competitive but on the level of "pimp".
This guy makes one MEAN grixis/artifact control deck.
Have to shell out the cash for a nether void though to really make it tick. Get that out and blood funnel and MAN...can that deck really roll.
Its just such an expensive deck to put together. You need a mountain of tutors, solid artifacts worth focusing on, and it will usually end up being a d-bag deck considering it leans heavily towards combo.
recruiter has largely been played in control. Often it acts as a weak tutor that then just chumps a turn and on a slow body. Yes, the effect is fairly strong, and I even saw it get resto-angeled.
The truth is, as far as I have seen it, is that the decks that want this creature usually dont go into red and if they do, are going to pick other options way over it. Recruiter was usually a last five pick.
floating mana to cast your general isnt a bad plan....
But I also think it has more to do with attitude than actual cards used. If you are the guy smiling, being friendly, etc...that goes quite a bit further than playing some pile of cards your first time and then showing up with a $5000 deck the next time.