This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Better Lucky than Good Part 1: Grand Prix Montreal. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
I've never played in the pro-tour games or any really serious tournaments, but I think there's a much more serious and calculating mindset at work for most players who play in them, just based on the "serious" players I know.
Their primary focus is taking as much of the element of chance/luck out of their deck and sideboard. Most of them probably can tell if they have a good chance of winning and what turn they should win, just based on the cards in their opening hand.
The tournament players I know, constantly test each other and scour message boards and internet sites (like this one) for what the "hot" card/combo is and why and how to beat it. They're very surgical about it.
You seem to really know your stuff, but based on your article, it seemed like most of your problems were mana-based and not helped with all the land destruction. I'm wondering if maybe just playing around with your mana mix or including lands or additional mana sources in your sideboard might've helped ? I'm not so sure luck was the main factor here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I'm working on:
:symb::symu: Gravy Boat
:symu::symg: PickleStorm 2.0
:symr::symu::symb: You Have To Follow The Ruels
Scryb-Death
Man-Pudding FTW!
:symu::symr::symg: Hot, Wet Meat
Pull My Finkle
Tight Clams Aggro
Randy Buehler's Day Off
:symu::symb: Naughty Uncle
:symw::symb: We'll get rid of it at the prom (Tempo)
:symr::symr: Bloody Beaver
:symu::symr::symw::symb::symg: 5-Color Cockfight
Someone around our hometown area always said "I'd rather be lucky than good." It always rings true, if you built a halfway decent deck, you can play a bad game and win on luck alone. Being consistantly lucky is far, far better than being consistantly good.
Great article, I always enjoy insight into larger events.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want a banner or avatar? Click my banner to visit Aether! Thanks Guys!
Quote from RanDomino »
I think you mean "PoN", but it seems to me that "PwN" is more appropriate
(the 'w' stands for 'win', I think)
Quote from Tang4433 »
I think that WoTC felt that a lot of the players thought Standard was becoming mundane and a joke from all the nuked cards floating around. R&D took a vacation, and MaRo just started reprinting things.
Even though I accept that being lucky could be better than good. The bad thing is if you tell that to yourself over and over, you'll really believe that you don't have to be good and everything goes according to your daily luck and eventually don't do much to improve your play skills. Which ultimately makes you rely on an uncontrollable factor.
In conclusion, such mindset is a trap, don't fall in it. It a long run, skills would pay off.
The point he's making is that Magic isn't like Chess where you can go to a tournament, play your best and expect a good result every time (if you have the skills).
And he's completely right. Sure, weak players like to blame losses on bad luck when other factors were involved, but that doesn't mean good players aren't victims of bad luck too.
Wizards goes to some lengths to emphasise the skill in the game. Things like byes, automatic qualifications and paying people's air fares to tournaments all help to improve the number of wins the best players achieve, creating an illusion that it's a more reliable process than it really is.
There's a lot of skill in Magic and the element of skill in the game is increasing all the time as R&D get better at their job. But still, the randomness is there and you'll need skill and luck to T8 a Grand Prix.
I really liked this article. Looking forward to the next part.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
The point he's making is that Magic isn't like Chess where you can go to a tournament, play your best and expect a good result every time (if you have the skills).
And he's completely right. Sure, weak players like to blame losses on bad luck when other factors were involved, but that doesn't mean good players aren't victims of bad luck too.
And I'm not against that point. My point is that you're what you think you are. So I'm worried that some people (especially the new ones) could be misled by this article, get stuck at believing that luck matters much more than skills and never try well enough to get better.
The article was fine and the point was clear enough for me. It's just that there's a possibility that it could deliver a wrong message to the public. And that's what I've been talking about.
Isn't Mwonvuli Acid-Moss a Sorcery? How could the GR player use Radha to cast it if the mana is added during the combat phase?
Or the GR player coulved used radha as a llanowar elf to cast it. Didnt need to attack with Radha.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
Honestly, I think he's got too much going on here and might've been better off going two colors (Black & Blue) instead of 3.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I'm working on:
:symb::symu: Gravy Boat
:symu::symg: PickleStorm 2.0
:symr::symu::symb: You Have To Follow The Ruels
Scryb-Death
Man-Pudding FTW!
:symu::symr::symg: Hot, Wet Meat
Pull My Finkle
Tight Clams Aggro
Randy Buehler's Day Off
:symu::symb: Naughty Uncle
:symw::symb: We'll get rid of it at the prom (Tempo)
:symr::symr: Bloody Beaver
:symu::symr::symw::symb::symg: 5-Color Cockfight
I don't play block, but looking at the options for block I think I like the red splash better than white... Teferi's Moat or Void?
Anywho, good article. Although I agree about the old "60% luck, 40% skill" thinking, I still hope people don't take it that seriously. I don't think of it like luck- it's chance. There's a difference. You can't control luck... But you CAN control chance. Just like there's a whole difference between playing well and building a deck well. Both can be done wrongly. How often have you said "If I had just done that, I would have won". If you were playing at the top of your game, you would have done that. It IS like Chess, in the fact that you have to think ahead. And playing control, you have to think that way. Aggro is more luck in the draw, and the response (not that I'm saying it's skilless, it's just a simpler gameplan).
Also- like I said, I don't play block or control like this, but your mana is severely fragile. And seeing that Mwonvuli Acid Moss is such a great card, shouldn't there be some more defense against it? Or at least more control? Maybe you should do the tried and true way, mainboard the Cancels, and sideboard for aggro...? Anyways, nice to see such a varied metagame for block!
Being consistantly lucky is far, far better than being consistantly good.
Except it doesn't exist. Luck, by definition, isn't consistent.
As for the luck vs skill arguement: skill definitely matters more. At the start of any given PTQ, assuming I'd know all the players and had seen them play several times before, I'd easily be able to divide them in two groups, so that one group would have a combined 99.5% to win it, and the other group 0.5%.
Yeah, you can lose to luck. If you're actually good though, you know it's a random fluctuation which you can't control, and which affects the outcome of the game less often than skill difference does. And you'll look back at your own decisions, figure out what you did wrong, 'cause don't kid yourself: you made mistakes. Even if you happened to lose to luck, it's a waste of time to look at that, because you just can't influence it. Your skill is what you can work at, and as I said it's the more important factor anyway.
In fact GP Montreal itself is "proof" of that. Just look at the names of the top 32, it's a very impressive list. Did all the pros get lucky at the same time? The odds against it are fenomenal. Isn't it far more likely that skill decided who ended where? Of course, there are fluctuations by luck; some skilled players surely ended lower than they deserved and others weren't as good but just lucky. But in general the skill level mattered far more.
I went to a PTQ last Sunday, and the best player in the room won it. If luck was really 60% of it, again, the odds of this one best player winning would be very low, no?
You really just need to embrace the rage. I keep a small colony of hamsters next to my computer and every time I lose a match to mana screw I throw one against the wall.
I completely agree with Tahn, except that luck (chance) really does matter roughly 60% of the time. Being able to add another 40% of your own chance, or luck, or whatever through skill, will win games though.
Their primary focus is taking as much of the element of chance/luck out of their deck and sideboard. Most of them probably can tell if they have a good chance of winning and what turn they should win, just based on the cards in their opening hand.
The tournament players I know, constantly test each other and scour message boards and internet sites (like this one) for what the "hot" card/combo is and why and how to beat it. They're very surgical about it.
You seem to really know your stuff, but based on your article, it seemed like most of your problems were mana-based and not helped with all the land destruction. I'm wondering if maybe just playing around with your mana mix or including lands or additional mana sources in your sideboard might've helped ? I'm not so sure luck was the main factor here.
:symb::symu: Gravy Boat
:symu::symg: PickleStorm 2.0
:symr::symu::symb: You Have To Follow The Ruels
Scryb-Death
Man-Pudding FTW!
:symu::symr::symg: Hot, Wet Meat
Pull My Finkle
Tight Clams Aggro
Randy Buehler's Day Off
:symu::symb: Naughty Uncle
:symw::symb: We'll get rid of it at the prom (Tempo)
:symr::symr: Bloody Beaver
:symu::symr::symw::symb::symg: 5-Color Cockfight
Great article, I always enjoy insight into larger events.
Want a banner or avatar? Click my banner to visit Aether! Thanks Guys!
In conclusion, such mindset is a trap, don't fall in it. It a long run, skills would pay off.
Sure, but the author isn't claiming otherwise.
The point he's making is that Magic isn't like Chess where you can go to a tournament, play your best and expect a good result every time (if you have the skills).
And he's completely right. Sure, weak players like to blame losses on bad luck when other factors were involved, but that doesn't mean good players aren't victims of bad luck too.
Wizards goes to some lengths to emphasise the skill in the game. Things like byes, automatic qualifications and paying people's air fares to tournaments all help to improve the number of wins the best players achieve, creating an illusion that it's a more reliable process than it really is.
There's a lot of skill in Magic and the element of skill in the game is increasing all the time as R&D get better at their job. But still, the randomness is there and you'll need skill and luck to T8 a Grand Prix.
I really liked this article. Looking forward to the next part.
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
And I'm not against that point. My point is that you're what you think you are. So I'm worried that some people (especially the new ones) could be misled by this article, get stuck at believing that luck matters much more than skills and never try well enough to get better.
The article was fine and the point was clear enough for me. It's just that there's a possibility that it could deliver a wrong message to the public. And that's what I've been talking about.
I WANT YOUR DEATH BARONS! Message me if you want to get rid of them!
Or the GR player coulved used radha as a llanowar elf to cast it. Didnt need to attack with Radha.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
5 Island
2 Swamp
1 Plains
4 Terramorphic Expanse
3 River of Tears
3 Calciform Pools
3 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
2 Tolaria West
2 Urza's Factory
1 Academy Ruins
Creatures
2 Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir
2 Draining Whelk
1 TriskelavusSpells
4 Prismatic Lens
3 Phyrexian Totem
4 Mystical Teachings
3 Careful Consideration
4 Damnation
3 Teferi's Moat
2 Take Possession
2 Tendrils of Corruption
1 Slaughter Pact
1 Pact of Negation
1 Extirpate
1 Temporal IsolationSideboard
3 Aven Riftwatcher
2 Slaughter Pact
2 Pull from Eternity
2 Temporal Isolation
2 Cancel
1 Pact of Negation
1 Disenchant
1 Haunting Hymn
1 Teferi's Moat
I don't like the mana set up he's got here; I think he only needed 1 Urza's Factory and 2 Urborgs and I would have taken the Calciform Pools out and replaced them with Plains.
Honestly, I think he's got too much going on here and might've been better off going two colors (Black & Blue) instead of 3.
:symb::symu: Gravy Boat
:symu::symg: PickleStorm 2.0
:symr::symu::symb: You Have To Follow The Ruels
Scryb-Death
Man-Pudding FTW!
:symu::symr::symg: Hot, Wet Meat
Pull My Finkle
Tight Clams Aggro
Randy Buehler's Day Off
:symu::symb: Naughty Uncle
:symw::symb: We'll get rid of it at the prom (Tempo)
:symr::symr: Bloody Beaver
:symu::symr::symw::symb::symg: 5-Color Cockfight
Anywho, good article. Although I agree about the old "60% luck, 40% skill" thinking, I still hope people don't take it that seriously. I don't think of it like luck- it's chance. There's a difference. You can't control luck... But you CAN control chance. Just like there's a whole difference between playing well and building a deck well. Both can be done wrongly. How often have you said "If I had just done that, I would have won". If you were playing at the top of your game, you would have done that. It IS like Chess, in the fact that you have to think ahead. And playing control, you have to think that way. Aggro is more luck in the draw, and the response (not that I'm saying it's skilless, it's just a simpler gameplan).
Also- like I said, I don't play block or control like this, but your mana is severely fragile. And seeing that Mwonvuli Acid Moss is such a great card, shouldn't there be some more defense against it? Or at least more control? Maybe you should do the tried and true way, mainboard the Cancels, and sideboard for aggro...? Anyways, nice to see such a varied metagame for block!
Good luck.
Art Page
Alters for sale
...
.
Homebrew is creating Magic.
Are you a pilot or a creator??
Except it doesn't exist. Luck, by definition, isn't consistent.
As for the luck vs skill arguement: skill definitely matters more. At the start of any given PTQ, assuming I'd know all the players and had seen them play several times before, I'd easily be able to divide them in two groups, so that one group would have a combined 99.5% to win it, and the other group 0.5%.
Yeah, you can lose to luck. If you're actually good though, you know it's a random fluctuation which you can't control, and which affects the outcome of the game less often than skill difference does. And you'll look back at your own decisions, figure out what you did wrong, 'cause don't kid yourself: you made mistakes. Even if you happened to lose to luck, it's a waste of time to look at that, because you just can't influence it. Your skill is what you can work at, and as I said it's the more important factor anyway.
In fact GP Montreal itself is "proof" of that. Just look at the names of the top 32, it's a very impressive list. Did all the pros get lucky at the same time? The odds against it are fenomenal. Isn't it far more likely that skill decided who ended where? Of course, there are fluctuations by luck; some skilled players surely ended lower than they deserved and others weren't as good but just lucky. But in general the skill level mattered far more.
I went to a PTQ last Sunday, and the best player in the room won it. If luck was really 60% of it, again, the odds of this one best player winning would be very low, no?
Art Page
Alters for sale