There's just too much luck in the game. Not even talking about my own play experiences, if you just watch the videos on channelfireball or SCG, the best players in the world struggle on to win a consistent basis. Owen and Huey just recently did those couple of BTT drafts and got destroyed. Two of the best magic minds in the world, probably several times better than their opponents, and it doesn't matter because of luck.
The only reason the pros are able to place at events is because they go to tons of them. If I show up at a PTQ of 200 people and have an 80% chance to win every game, I still probably won't even top 8. You have to really grind out lots big tournaments to even start placing a few times a year.
MTG just does not have enough choices for you to make to consistently allow you to win events. Every deck has a matchup where there's just not much you can do because your opponent's cards match up very well against you. In fact, MTG rewards playing non-interactive strategies because the less your opponent is able to do, the better.
MTG is a game where you flip a coin, if heads, you get to make a meaningful choice that improves your position in the game. Then you flip another coin, if heads, this choice actually matters. Why does anyone put up with a game that has so much randomness in it?
I feel like part of the problem too is that the MTG community is very outcome oriented. There's a lot of pressure to put up straight wins both in the swiss tournament structure and in general the player culture judges you based on the results you put up. This is kind of exacerbated by the fact that everyone walks around bragging about their wins but shuts up about the time they went 1-3 and lost to some little kid playing a green deck. But WOTC also can't change the tournament structures to be more permissive of losses because then tournaments would go foreverrrr and it would be an implicit admission that there's a ton of variance in the game so you have to play a hundred matches to find out who truly deserves #1.
Overall I feel like MTG is marketed and perceived as being a lot more skill oriented than it really is. I think people would have a lot less incentive to play it if they had to really internalize how much luck their is in any given match. MTG players seem to sustain themselves by patting themselves on the back when they win, and blaming luck when they lose. While it's true that you will occasionally get the opportunity to make interesting and game altering decisions, more often than not, the monoblack mirror comes down to who can draw underworld connections first. I've seen Turtenwald lose to some scrub who forgot his Erebos was active on camera because his opponent had UWC and he didn't. Owned Turtenwasted.
I guess I'm just dumb for feeling like you should always be able to win a strategy game against opponents who have a double digit IQ.
Stop playing limited, then. Play constructed. The further back you go (standard, modern, legacy, vintage) the less luck really matters.
Luck will always matter, since your library is in a randomized order, but it will matter much less the further back you go.
And the point of competitive magic is twofold: First, to challenge yourself by playing against some of the best players around, and secondly, of course, to win.
While it is true that there is plenty of variance in Magic, it is still very much a skill game. You can improve consistency with good deckbuilding skills and in many matchups there are decisions you can make to mitigate the effects of bad luck.
The amount of really bad matchups really varies depending on the format. In my view most of the good decks in Standard don't have horrible unwinnable matchups. In Eternal formats, where the card pool is very large, it is natural that strong hate cards exist and some matchups are very sideboard dependent. Even so, good decks can win tough matchups when the pilot is skilled enough.
There are tons of decisions to be made in every game and while not all of them matter every time, you won't know that until the game is over. The pros don't place well just because they go to lots of tournaments. Do you honestly think that Owen Turtenwald won all those events in a row just because he got lucky?
Magic has a lot of variance because if it didn't, the best player would ALWAYS win and if you weren't as good, you'd just concede when you saw who your opponent was. I know I wouldn't play that kind of game. Magic is marketed as a skill game because despite all the variance the same players keep posting good results consistently. Variance just means that the "kid playing green" has a chance against the likes of Jon Finkel, Owen Turtenwald and the like.
I was actually going to speculate that there might be less luck in limited since you have a lot more choices to make when constructing or drafting your deck.
It could be argued that there's some skill in selecting a standard deck, but like BBD and a bunch of other pros have started recommending this new Esper control list, and I seriously doubt anyone could fault you for just doing whatever they seem to agree on.
I agree that your library behaves better the further back you go in constructed formats, but I don't know if this means there's less luck to it. Are the win rates of the best players appreciably different for modern vs standard?
I relate to a lot of what you're saying, and can see where you're coming from. If there's anything you should expect in Magic, it's to expect/be prepared for what seems like shouldn't be the outcome - aka the ridiculous bad beats stories to bad opponents.
At first you're talking about draft, and I am inclined/biased (as a bad limited player who really doesn't like limited) to completely agree, that despite their skill, these things can be very lopsided.
As for constructed, I think it's a different story.
I think a lot of the competitive spike-grinders out there, at least the successful ones, are very scientific minded. You see a lot of cross-over in competitive poker with MTG sometimes (David Williams) - I'm purely speaking in the psychological aspect here, that there are similarities between the competitive crowds.
You play with your awesome sideboard cards for the CHANCE to be awesome against deck X or Y. You don't always see it, and a lot of effort went into figuring out that sideboard, for instance. There is a bit of expectation that follows the preparation and work involved in competitive magic. And consequently, we as human beings tend to remember humiliation/defeat/loss more strongly than the "smooth outcomes" like winning (if you expected to, anyway). Everyone does this, and we all remember our bad beat stories vividly.
The logical/scientific/cold "overly rational" minded spikes I believe are that way, because it's the only way to stay in the game / not get burnt out on the losses. Ask Brian Kibler how to go pro, his response has always simply been "Get good at losing". The opportunities to learn, the minute and subtle gameplay decisions DO matter, but the times that they don't seem to stand out more in our minds. The more games you play (pro level grinders here), the more you start to just see probabilities, and can be like, okay, whatever, when carefully laid plans don't pan out right.
It all matters, sideboard, preparation, playskill, experience, even if it isn't evident at the time to you. And some of us competitive folks, I don't speak for anyone but myself here, but I'm motivated by the challenge. In the face of all these bad odds, it makes me want to try that much more. Whether I'll get there or not is completely beside the point, the point is that I'm having fun going for it - being too outcome oriented on matchup percentage will absolutely burn out any competitive player (another nugget of wisdom from Kibler, he stresses to just keep learning).
And then you start to see, that a lot of the pros and top placing people have consistently done so for years, you say it's because they just go to so many events (well, logically why shouldn't they, then?) - I say it's probably because these same people that continue to consistently perform well are doing something right.
EDIT: In conclusion regarding how you say "maybe you just feel dumb for believing" - well, I don't think it's dumb, in all seriousness. I know it sounds anal to suggest looking for another game, but it sounds like you want to play with less variance, and let skill be the major deciding factor(s).
Yo dawg Frites Player, we herd you liked getting 1 for 3'd by Angel of Serenity, so we put some Angels in your Angel (Avacyn) so you can get chained while you get exiled. ANGELCEPTION.
I think a lot of the competitive spike-grinders out there, at least the successful ones, are very scientific minded. You see a lot of cross-over in competitive poker with MTG sometimes (David Williams) - I'm purely speaking in the psychological aspect here, that there are similarities between the competitive crowds.
Hehe... well in poker there is not the expectation that you have to win every hand
You play with your awesome sideboard cards for the CHANCE to be awesome against deck X or Y. You don't always see it, and a lot of effort went into figuring out that sideboard, for instance. There is a bit of expectation that follows the preparation and work involved in competitive magic. And consequently, we as human beings tend to remember humiliation/defeat/loss more strongly than the "smooth outcomes" like winning (if you expected to, anyway). Everyone does this, and we all remember our bad beat stories vividly.
I am actually pretty obsessed with being rational and don't place a lot of stock in my bad beat stories. What I remember most of all is just losing a lot in general despite doing everything I could to outplay bad opponents. MTGO has reasonable opponents but in your local game stores there are a lot of very... special... people who would be straightforward opponents in any sort of reasonable contest of skill. I remember losing to these people a lot less than I remember how I lost. Something about a bad draw... idk.
The logical/scientific/cold "overly rational" minded spikes I believe are that way, because it's the only way to stay in the game / not get burnt out on the losses. Ask Brian Kibler how to go pro, his response has always simply been "Get good at losing". The opportunities to learn, the minute and subtle gameplay decisions DO matter, but the times that they don't seem to stand out more in our minds. The more games you play (pro level grinders here), the more you start to just see probabilities, and can be like, okay, whatever, when carefully laid plans don't pan out right.
Yeah I definitely agree with all of this. I think Kibler also said that if you can't lose, you can't play MTG (paraphrasing). The thing is that this would also be true if I started playing chess. I would lose a lot at first but thoughtful grinding would get me better. It's just that if I become a top tier magic player, I put my win rate from 65% to 75%. That doesn't seem like a huge incentive to get better.
It all matters, sideboard, preparation, playskill, experience, even if it isn't evident at the time to you. And some of us competitive folks, I don't speak for anyone but myself here, but I'm motivated by the challenge. In the face of all these bad odds, it makes me want to try that much more. Whether I'll get there or not is completely beside the point, the point is that I'm having fun going for it - being too outcome oriented on matchup percentage will absolutely burn out any competitive player (another nugget of wisdom from Kibler, he stresses to just keep learning).
I mean any game is going to be a huge challenge. It's just that in magic you're trying to outthink the randomness of your deck and I'd rather win or lose because I am asked to outthink my opponent.
And then you start to see, that a lot of the pros and top placing people have consistently done so for years, you say it's because they just go to so many events (well, logically why shouldn't they, then?) - I say it's probably because these same people that continue to consistently perform well are doing something right.
I agree. They're way better than the people they play against. But you also have to grind out a lot of tournaments to even have a hope of getting what you deserve. The odds are always against you even if you are the best player in the room by a factor of 2.
EDIT: In conclusion regarding how you say "maybe you just feel dumb for believing" - well, I don't think it's dumb, in all seriousness. I know it sounds anal to suggest looking for another game, but it sounds like you want to play with less variance, and let skill be the major deciding factor(s).
Yeah this seems like it's going to be part of "how I talked myself into selling all my magic cards and playing X".
The only reason the pros are able to place at events is because they go to tons of them. If I show up at a PTQ of 200 people and have an 80% chance to win every game, I still probably won't even top 8. You have to really grind out lots big tournaments to even start placing a few times a year.
I hope you realize that an 80% chance to win every game translates into about a 89.6%(almost 90%) chance to win a match.
The thing is that this would also be true if I started playing chess. I would lose a lot at first but thoughtful grinding would get me better. It's just that if I become a top tier magic player, I put my win rate from 65% to 75%. That doesn't seem like a huge incentive to get better.
True. There is very little incentive or probability of going pro in this game, and I think it's healthy to take a very polarizing, but honest stance on this. If you're going to go competitive, go balls to the wall, put your full effort in, and enjoy yourself, but I refuse to half-ass it if I'm going to try. That's my personal stance and you have to honestly address the old real life vs hobby conundrum. Pro players have been doing this for years, they have their affairs in order, and manage their other side projects/lives whatever, but I'm certain any of them would advise against anyone wanting to go pro unless they truly love the game, know the odds are against them, and have everything else in order - and still want to do it.
Most of my friends are brewers, and being a brewer at heart myself, it's worth it to see how we fare (competitively) with rogue ideas. The payoff has to be worth it to YOU. YOU have to be getting something else out of it, fulfillment-wise - especially when as you said you look at the odds of making top 8, the costs of travel/play/other costs, it's all against you.
Yeah this seems like it's going to be part of "how I talked myself into selling all my magic cards and playing X".
When you say all of this isn't a huge incentive to get better, I think you've answered your own questions. I won't try to talk you out of it or convince you to stay the course, but I believe you made this thread because you're looking for other people's "other reasons" for sticking it out. Like, fulfillment in brewing and challenge, whatever it may be, I'm sure you've heard all this before.
That's my own personal/honest take as for why I continue, and hope you find some other insight from others who might post in here. Good luck either way mate.
Some of my own personal stories on competitive grinding, if you care, doing this 4chan /greentext style :>
>>Start MTG in 1998 as a kid, Urza's block, collecting only.
>>"got back into it competitively" when New Phyrexia rolled out
>>RTR spoilers start in the fall (2012), begin grinding games on Cockatrice erryday as spoilers come in
>>Crush my first States, suddenly become popular in town + start getting VERY overconfident
>>Get invited to play at the TCG 50k Indiana the following November for free
>>Get paid by TCGplayer to write states article, overconfidence x9000
>>Following month with roughly the same deck, lose all day at GP Charleston, irrationally rage profusely when friends tell me there's no chance of making day 2 after my third loss.
>>One of those losses was to one of those horrible players we keep referring to - a B/R Zombies (fast aggro) player chose to bring in Slaughter Gamesnaming Armada Wurm instead of actually choosing to name Thragtusk. /Facepalm
>>Take lots of time off work, save up cash, fly to Indiana "because I have the invitation to play for free"
>>Get crushed in Indiana, go back home to I'm quitting magic rageland, population me, fixate on all the things that went wrong for me etc
>>Slowly made my way back to competitive magic, came back in Spring 2013 and top 4'd at Spring States
>>Fast forward to today, nothing significant and totally fine with FNM once a month, play competitively at the pace that's right for you
Yo dawg Frites Player, we herd you liked getting 1 for 3'd by Angel of Serenity, so we put some Angels in your Angel (Avacyn) so you can get chained while you get exiled. ANGELCEPTION.
MTG is a game where you flip a coin, if heads, you get to make a meaningful choice that improves your position in the game. Then you flip another coin, if heads, this choice actually matters. Why does anyone put up with a game that has so much randomness in it?
I feel like part of the problem too is that the MTG community is very outcome oriented.
I guess I'm just dumb for feeling like you should always be able to win a strategy game against opponents who have a double digit IQ.
How about "because it's fun"?
Honestly, I just really like games, and think Magic is the best game ever made. I'm good enough at it that I win more than I lose, and that's good enough for me. Sometimes when I win or lose it's due to luck, and I'm ok with that.
And not to be rude, but you seem a bit on the arrogant side, as if you somehow always make the right plays, but lose because your opponent "with a double digit IQ" is playing some stupid green deck and drew a god hand. Bluntly, you're probably not as good as you think you are. I know with certainty that I'm well above average intelligence, but I make plenty of play errors, and they lose me games sometimes. On the other hand, sometimes my opponents make play errors and they win me games. I think Magic players overall are of above average intelligence... I've played against a lot of people that were not very good players, but that was more often because they were new to the game (or new to competitive play) than because they were on the dim side. I've found this to be even more true in legacy and modern. Magic players who can't keep up mentally tend to quit after a couple years, tend to stick to the casual table rather than FNM, and don't tend to get into the formats where they can be easily out-played. Another aspect of magic (again more true in modern & legacy) is that a significant part of playing well has more to do repetition, memorization, knowledge of the various popular or "tier 1" decks, and correct sideboard choices than about strict intelligence. I rarely feel like my opponent is smarter, but I often feel like they were able to make better decisions because they knew exactly what I was trying to do from turn 1 and played accordingly, whereas I let a seemingly innocent card slip by, not realizing it was going to spell doom for me when they slammed the other lock piece down 2 turns later. It's the price I pay for only playing a couple times a month instead of practically living at the card shop. Also the price I pay for playing legacy, where there's like 100 viable archtypes rather than half a dozen.
So my advice is: the point is to have fun. If you're not having fun, why are you there? And if you can't have fun at a competitive event without winning every single round, then you should take up a different hobby or stick to casual play or EDH where it's less about winning and more about socialization.
Nobody "deserves" to win. Ever. You deserve basic human rights. Beating your opponent at a cardgame so you can feel better about yourself or win a prize or go to the pro tour or whatever other reason is not a basic human right.
I hope you realize that an 80% chance to win every game translates into about a 89.6%(almost 90%) chance to win a match.
90% chance to win a match means that you'll be undefeated in an 8 round Swiss less than half the time (about 43%).
Let's see, 7-1 or 8-0 would be...about 81%.
I don't imagine anyone makes Top 8 81% of the time. 80% chance to win a game is a huge edge, one I doubt is enjoyed by many, if any, especially in the mid to late rounds of a PTQ.
What game doesn't have at least some degree of luck? I mean, besides Chess, I guess.
Chess actually still has luck in it, and the luck can be pretty stupid Since you can't see infinitely far ahead, it's always possible that a move you make will turn out to be far above or far below your skill level. This is particularly true when I myself play chess because I am not very good
When you say all of this isn't a huge incentive to get better, I think you've answered your own questions. I won't try to talk you out of it or convince you to stay the course, but I believe you made this thread because you're looking for other people's "other reasons" for sticking it out. Like, fulfillment in brewing and challenge, whatever it may be, I'm sure you've heard all this before.
Well I mainly wanted to make sure there weren't any huge counterarguments against my viewpoint. I actually do understand people who are satisfied with just trying to get as good as possible but are willing to go unrewarded for it unless they go into pro-grinding mode. Okay maybe I don't... actually... but there's no analytical argument against it
Well yeah, sure. Magic is a heap of fun but I'm asking what the point in trying to get competitively good in magic is. Showing up once or twice a week to events can be its own reward.
And not to be rude, but you seem a bit on the arrogant side, as if you somehow always make the right plays, but lose because your opponent "with a double digit IQ" is playing some stupid green deck and drew a god hand.
Yeah I really don't always play perfectly. It's just that I shouldn't have to play perfectly to beat morons. Kind of like how if I were playing chess with them, I could make a lot of mistakes, and still win almost every time.
Bluntly, you're probably not as good as you think you are. I know with certainty that I'm well above average intelligence, but I make plenty of play errors, and they lose me games sometimes. On the other hand, sometimes my opponents make play errors and they win me games. I think Magic players overall are of above average intelligence... I've played against a lot of people that were not very good players, but that was more often because they were new to the game (or new to competitive play) than because they were on the dim side.
Okay I am on the arrogant side
Also, regardless of how good I am now, I specifically said in the OP that I wanted to avoid talking about my own games. The pros I reference play better than any of us ever will (probably), and still don't get rewarded as much as they should. It's probably naive of me but I think the best player should win the event. Failing that, I think the best player should have a great chance to win the event. But they're don't. No one has good odds to win the event because there are so many people participating and so much randomness in the game. MTG would be more tolerable on an elo based system (OKAY I KNOW THIS HAD TONS OF PROBLEMS IN THE PAST!!!) where you get rewarded for going 6-2 consistently and no one cares that you went x-0 one because duh that's just going to happen if you play enough events.
I've found this to be even more true in legacy and modern. Magic players who can't keep up mentally tend to quit after a couple years, tend to stick to the casual table rather than FNM, and don't tend to get into the formats where they can be easily out-played. Another aspect of magic (again more true in modern & legacy) is that a significant part of playing well has more to do repetition, memorization, knowledge of the various popular or "tier 1" decks, and correct sideboard choices than about strict intelligence. I rarely feel like my opponent is smarter, but I often feel like they were able to make better decisions because they knew exactly what I was trying to do from turn 1 and played accordingly, whereas I let a seemingly innocent card slip by, not realizing it was going to spell doom for me when they slammed the other lock piece down 2 turns later. It's the price I pay for only playing a couple times a month instead of practically living at the card shop. Also the price I pay for playing legacy, where there's like 100 viable archtypes rather than half a dozen.
I do not have much experience with modern and none with legacy, but I'll ask if the win rates for the best players are appreciably different than those for standard? I played storm in modern for a little while, and while it did give me lots of decisions and consistency, it seemed like there was still a lot of luck in games where I have a turn 3 kill, or they stumble, or they draw their hate card, etc.
It is rarely about luck. It is often about money (barrier to entry into competitive magic) but rarely does it boil down to well I got mana flood/drought (if it does, learn to shuffle properly reduces your chance of either). It is about deck building, and decision making, risk mitigation. You need to balance a lot of stuff to play a pro level, even then to be a professional magic player it means doing multiple events weekly. That is your job (grinding tournaments).
I do not have much experience with modern and none with legacy, but I'll ask if the win rates for the best players are appreciably different than those for standard?
To be honest I'm not sure. If I had to guess I'd say at large events the answer is probably no.
At the local level I really do think so, though. I have a 58% win rate playing legacy maverick (sometimes GWb, sometimes GWr) and honestly I'm not good at playing that deck at all. Plus, these days maverick is generally regarded as a Tier 1.5 or Tier 2 deck. I have a 59% win rate playing loam pox, which is considered Tier 2 at best, although I find it about a billion times easier to play than maverick, which means I make fewer mistakes.
I'd regard myself as a mediocre legacy player and my experience is limited. Some of my wins are due to having the money for a competitive deck... I definitely play against budget decks, brews, and sub-optimal builds sometimes. Other wins are because my opponents are also mediocre players with limited legacy experience. Others (especially when playing pox) are because my opponents don't know how to play against my specific deck or get irritated and start making mistakes after I stop their initial assault (but before I win with a cursed scroll 15 turns later).
The point is, were I to strictly go to big legacy events, I wouldn't have a ~60% win rate, because I'd be playing against a higher caliber of player and most of them would be wielding Tier 1 decks. The pros probably have the same ~60% win rate, but that's strictly at those big events. If they came to my game shop, they'd be more like 80%. Skill is ABSOLUTELY a huge factor in that format.
My experience with standard is limited because I don't play enough to keep up with it. That said, when I was playing it, I found that outcomes were substantially more likely to be related to either a good/bad matchup or good/bad draws (i.e. "luck"). I also found that there was a MUCH larger difference in the competitiveness of a "tier 1" deck vs. various brews, sub-optimal builds, rogue decks, and lower tiers. It's just really hard to brew with such a limited pool, and there's very little if any ability to make off the wall combos (so that your opponent has no idea what you're doing until you combo off) or meta hate-based decks like soldier stompy where you land a turn 1 chalice of the void set to 1 and watch your opponent cry while you beat face. That's kind of how pox works... I remember winning against URW delver at 1 life while he had a hand full of burn because I had wastelanded his only two red sources. Stuff like that doesn't happen in standard.
Yeah I definitely agree with all of this. I think Kibler also said that if you can't lose, you can't play MTG (paraphrasing). The thing is that this would also be true if I started playing chess. I would lose a lot at first but thoughtful grinding would get me better. It's just that if I become a top tier magic player, I put my win rate from 65% to 75%. That doesn't seem like a huge incentive to get better.
Maybe not to you, but to some people those little percentages are worth it. Some people are content with being good; some are only content with being the best. This is true for just about every competitive activity.
There are a lot of popular games in the world that have significant aspects of luck. Magic can be frustrating in the sense that you can play better than your opponent and still lose. However, the opposite is also true.
And think about how long it takes to get to where you master the game. I remember getting into the game in high school, and it probably took 2-3 years before I could confidently say that I was a solid player. I think on average it's going to take 1-2 years to really get a hang of the mechanics. When you factor that in and compare it to other benchmark competitive "mental" games like Poker and Chess... it compares quite well.
And the rest of the reason has to do with making the game accessible to newer players. A lot of people probably wouldn't have gotten into the game if skill was a much bigger factor. Again, look at Chess and see how popular it is despite being one of the oldest and most complex board games. Games like that will scare off everyone but the most competitive players.
It sounds like that's the type of person you are, and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people get really into the competitive aspect of the game. And if it bothers you too much, there are games out there that reward skill and still take long enough to master. Again, Chess. Or something like Pool or Ping Pong comes to mind.
Think the game is a lot less luck oriented than people believe. I mean I watch a lot of BBD vs. CVM and have seen BBD mount amazing comebacks just by playing extremely well. When he had that first Bantwalkers deck, BBD was at 2 facing a lot more than lethal next turn, and CVM was at 42 and BBD came back. And just tonight in the 5th round of his game, CVM appeared to have the board locked down well with a ratchet bomb and desecration demon, and BBD knew his outs and came back. I remember watching BBD on starcity a very long time ago, think he was playing Jund, and he was making some less than stellar plays, especially at such a high caliber tournament, but he squeaked by and you could see why he did all those plays.
There's just another level of skill these guys are on. And I think it is best illustrated when they step out of their best formats. I feel these pros just know standard inside and out, but when they step into modern, or god forbid draft, you see that skill level sink.
Finally, there is a guy at my LGS who is generally considered the best draft player there. Drafting itself is a serious skill, and playing in the draft format is a totally separate skill. He's probably not very good at standard since I've never seen him in the standard tournaments, but he's a force in draft. He doesn't make mistakes, he drafts well, and knows his gameplay. The pros say that playing on their level is about making no gameplay mistakes and winning 60% of all your games.
It's just that if I become a top tier magic player, I put my win rate from 65% to 75%. That doesn't seem like a huge incentive to get better.
Improving from 65% game win to 75% game win, increases your match win from 72% to 84%. That increases your chances of going 4-0 at FNM from 27% to 51%. In short, small changes in game win percentage translate into bigger match win, and even bigger event win, percentages.
You might still decide it's not worth it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Because we cannot prevent draws in paper Magic we allow IDs. If we could prevent draws we would not have IDs in paper Magic. " Scott Larabee.
Stop playing limited, then. Play constructed. The further back you go (standard, modern, legacy, vintage) the less luck really matters.
Luck will always matter, since your library is in a randomized order, but it will matter much less the further back you go.
And the point of competitive magic is twofold: First, to challenge yourself by playing against some of the best players around, and secondly, of course, to win.
I actually agree with all of this. For competitive players, prizes is a big reason to play. And the further back you go, the more selective you can be with events (ie; making sure the payout is worth the costs/travel/effort).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
Keeping with the poker analogy, I was drawn to magic because of the similarities it held to Poker. Being an avid poker player, it was apparent to me that Magic was similar in many ways including the fact that at the bottom line it revolved around luck. The reason that I like poker (and now mtg) is that you can get a significant advantage if you know what the hell you are doing and make the "right" choices at any given moment. Poker and mtg are a skill game as much as a luck game, why do you think you see the same poker players at final tables over and over? It is not all luck, and that edge you can gain is what makes it worth playing competitively.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out our podcast exploring the casually-competitive side of Magic! Extra Turns Podcast
Keeping with the poker analogy, I was drawn to magic because of the similarities it held to Poker. Being an avid poker player, it was apparent to me that Magic was similar in many ways including the fact that at the bottom line it revolved around luck. The reason that I like poker (and now mtg) is that you can get a significant advantage if you know what the hell you are doing and make the "right" choices at any given moment. Poker and mtg are a skill game as much as a luck game, why do you think you see the same poker players at final tables over and over? It is not all luck, and that edge you can gain is what makes it worth playing competitively.
"Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker EVERY YEAR? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas?"
For most people being competitively good at magic is still about nothing more than fun. Yes winning is fun, but winning against random kids at FNM every week is only so fun... for those that rise to the top of the local play group they need to go bigger to find fun. The mental exercise of trying to make the best plays is what is fun. They are robbed of this fun if they can win through mistakes because their opponent is making more of them or just plain can't compete on the same level.
Competitive games and sports do NOT guarantee the best will win. The NFL is a perfect example. It's a multi-billion dollar competitive sport, but week to week the best team can lose to the worst team, and the best team may not even get to play in the Super Bowl. In the NFL they call this parity. It's part of what drives the popularity of the game. Any given Sunday you do not know for certain what will happen.
Parity tends to be good for games in general. If you recall when Texas Hold'em poker became popular it was right after Chris Moneymaker won the world poker tournament on an invite he won from playing internet poker. He was not a "professional" poker player and he won it all. That win caused the popularity of Texas Hold'em to explode.
If the top 20 magic players in the world were the only people that won Pro Tours and World Championships the popularity of the game would drop to incredible lows. It's fun for people to have dreams of winning big events even if their chances are small.
Yeah I definitely agree with all of this. I think Kibler also said that if you can't lose, you can't play MTG (paraphrasing). The thing is that this would also be true if I started playing chess. I would lose a lot at first but thoughtful grinding would get me better. It's just that if I become a top tier magic player, I put my win rate from 65% to 75%. That doesn't seem like a huge incentive to get better.
Maybe not to you, but to some people those little percentages are worth it. Some people are content with being good; some are only content with being the best. This is true for just about every competitive activity.
Not to mention that percentages can be so decieving in those cases. Tehy can be looked at as just 10% more. They can also be looked at as in going from losing 1/3 of your matches to losing 1/4 of them, which is a pretty steep step.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
What game doesn't have at least some degree of luck? I mean, besides Chess, I guess.
Chess actually still has luck in it, and the luck can be pretty stupid Since you can't see infinitely far ahead, it's always possible that a move you make will turn out to be far above or far below your skill level. This is particularly true when I myself play chess because I am not very good
It all depends on how you define "luck".
If you factor in the possibility of your opponent carelessly neglecting to properly analyze the game state and making a "mistake" (as in a sub-par move which you happen to notice and are able to easily capitalize on), then it's fair to say there's a luck factor.
The problem with chess is that the board is too small and the number of viable moves is very limited more often than not, which means a simple mislplay can be catastrophic and very difficult (if not impossible) to recover from. The game is simply too linear, and once you start playing regularly for months or years (regularly as in a few hours per day every day) you eventually start playing from memory and every opening sequence becomes boringly predetermined. You don't even have to "study" the openings for this to happen, because for most logical minds and good chess players this comes quite naturally. There's simply a very limited number of options which is why computers like Deep Blue are able to beat the best players like Kasparov. Even games of chance like backgammon are eventually played on auto-pilot because there's a level of statistically beneficial move predetermination which encourages certain optimal moves with particular die rolls given specific board positions. Obviously you can still deviate from "the formula" and it'll work out in your favor, but it's akin to hitting or standing in a hand of blackjack when you're "not supposed to" and just getting lucky with the order of the shoe.
If you really want a game with no luck whatsoever, start playing Go on a 19x19 grid.
In my years of experience as a gaming enthusiast, I can say with absolute certainly that despite being a very simple game to learn, it's the most complex game to master because of its abstract nature. Suffice it to say I've never found a computer program which can play this game "properly" because digital players are too systematic and lack creativity.
The best things about Go are that unlike chess every game is truly unique, and it also allows players of different skill levels to compete with one another by using handicap stones for black (who also plays first) and/or komi (a spread where white will gain additional bonus points as compensation for going second). Playing Go will also improve your chess game about tenfold.
Anyhow, the best I can come up with myself is a game in the top 8 of a PTQ back during Urza block in which we were starting game 3 with time already expired, so the tiebreaker rule was that whoever had more life after 3 turns would win. And I lost to... healing salve.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The only reason the pros are able to place at events is because they go to tons of them. If I show up at a PTQ of 200 people and have an 80% chance to win every game, I still probably won't even top 8. You have to really grind out lots big tournaments to even start placing a few times a year.
MTG just does not have enough choices for you to make to consistently allow you to win events. Every deck has a matchup where there's just not much you can do because your opponent's cards match up very well against you. In fact, MTG rewards playing non-interactive strategies because the less your opponent is able to do, the better.
MTG is a game where you flip a coin, if heads, you get to make a meaningful choice that improves your position in the game. Then you flip another coin, if heads, this choice actually matters. Why does anyone put up with a game that has so much randomness in it?
I feel like part of the problem too is that the MTG community is very outcome oriented. There's a lot of pressure to put up straight wins both in the swiss tournament structure and in general the player culture judges you based on the results you put up. This is kind of exacerbated by the fact that everyone walks around bragging about their wins but shuts up about the time they went 1-3 and lost to some little kid playing a green deck. But WOTC also can't change the tournament structures to be more permissive of losses because then tournaments would go foreverrrr and it would be an implicit admission that there's a ton of variance in the game so you have to play a hundred matches to find out who truly deserves #1.
Overall I feel like MTG is marketed and perceived as being a lot more skill oriented than it really is. I think people would have a lot less incentive to play it if they had to really internalize how much luck their is in any given match. MTG players seem to sustain themselves by patting themselves on the back when they win, and blaming luck when they lose. While it's true that you will occasionally get the opportunity to make interesting and game altering decisions, more often than not, the monoblack mirror comes down to who can draw underworld connections first. I've seen Turtenwald lose to some scrub who forgot his Erebos was active on camera because his opponent had UWC and he didn't. Owned Turtenwasted.
I guess I'm just dumb for feeling like you should always be able to win a strategy game against opponents who have a double digit IQ.
Luck will always matter, since your library is in a randomized order, but it will matter much less the further back you go.
And the point of competitive magic is twofold: First, to challenge yourself by playing against some of the best players around, and secondly, of course, to win.
The amount of really bad matchups really varies depending on the format. In my view most of the good decks in Standard don't have horrible unwinnable matchups. In Eternal formats, where the card pool is very large, it is natural that strong hate cards exist and some matchups are very sideboard dependent. Even so, good decks can win tough matchups when the pilot is skilled enough.
There are tons of decisions to be made in every game and while not all of them matter every time, you won't know that until the game is over. The pros don't place well just because they go to lots of tournaments. Do you honestly think that Owen Turtenwald won all those events in a row just because he got lucky?
Magic has a lot of variance because if it didn't, the best player would ALWAYS win and if you weren't as good, you'd just concede when you saw who your opponent was. I know I wouldn't play that kind of game. Magic is marketed as a skill game because despite all the variance the same players keep posting good results consistently. Variance just means that the "kid playing green" has a chance against the likes of Jon Finkel, Owen Turtenwald and the like.
It could be argued that there's some skill in selecting a standard deck, but like BBD and a bunch of other pros have started recommending this new Esper control list, and I seriously doubt anyone could fault you for just doing whatever they seem to agree on.
I agree that your library behaves better the further back you go in constructed formats, but I don't know if this means there's less luck to it. Are the win rates of the best players appreciably different for modern vs standard?
At first you're talking about draft, and I am inclined/biased (as a bad limited player who really doesn't like limited) to completely agree, that despite their skill, these things can be very lopsided.
As for constructed, I think it's a different story.
I think a lot of the competitive spike-grinders out there, at least the successful ones, are very scientific minded. You see a lot of cross-over in competitive poker with MTG sometimes (David Williams) - I'm purely speaking in the psychological aspect here, that there are similarities between the competitive crowds.
You play with your awesome sideboard cards for the CHANCE to be awesome against deck X or Y. You don't always see it, and a lot of effort went into figuring out that sideboard, for instance. There is a bit of expectation that follows the preparation and work involved in competitive magic. And consequently, we as human beings tend to remember humiliation/defeat/loss more strongly than the "smooth outcomes" like winning (if you expected to, anyway). Everyone does this, and we all remember our bad beat stories vividly.
The logical/scientific/cold "overly rational" minded spikes I believe are that way, because it's the only way to stay in the game / not get burnt out on the losses. Ask Brian Kibler how to go pro, his response has always simply been "Get good at losing". The opportunities to learn, the minute and subtle gameplay decisions DO matter, but the times that they don't seem to stand out more in our minds. The more games you play (pro level grinders here), the more you start to just see probabilities, and can be like, okay, whatever, when carefully laid plans don't pan out right.
It all matters, sideboard, preparation, playskill, experience, even if it isn't evident at the time to you. And some of us competitive folks, I don't speak for anyone but myself here, but I'm motivated by the challenge. In the face of all these bad odds, it makes me want to try that much more. Whether I'll get there or not is completely beside the point, the point is that I'm having fun going for it - being too outcome oriented on matchup percentage will absolutely burn out any competitive player (another nugget of wisdom from Kibler, he stresses to just keep learning).
And then you start to see, that a lot of the pros and top placing people have consistently done so for years, you say it's because they just go to so many events (well, logically why shouldn't they, then?) - I say it's probably because these same people that continue to consistently perform well are doing something right.
EDIT: In conclusion regarding how you say "maybe you just feel dumb for believing" - well, I don't think it's dumb, in all seriousness. I know it sounds anal to suggest looking for another game, but it sounds like you want to play with less variance, and let skill be the major deciding factor(s).
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9157664&postcount=1
South Carolina State Champion: 2012
Yo dawg Frites Player, we herd you liked getting 1 for 3'd by Angel of Serenity, so we put some Angels in your Angel (Avacyn) so you can get chained while you get exiled. ANGELCEPTION.
I am actually pretty obsessed with being rational and don't place a lot of stock in my bad beat stories. What I remember most of all is just losing a lot in general despite doing everything I could to outplay bad opponents. MTGO has reasonable opponents but in your local game stores there are a lot of very... special... people who would be straightforward opponents in any sort of reasonable contest of skill. I remember losing to these people a lot less than I remember how I lost. Something about a bad draw... idk.
Yeah I definitely agree with all of this. I think Kibler also said that if you can't lose, you can't play MTG (paraphrasing). The thing is that this would also be true if I started playing chess. I would lose a lot at first but thoughtful grinding would get me better. It's just that if I become a top tier magic player, I put my win rate from 65% to 75%. That doesn't seem like a huge incentive to get better.
I mean any game is going to be a huge challenge. It's just that in magic you're trying to outthink the randomness of your deck and I'd rather win or lose because I am asked to outthink my opponent.
I agree. They're way better than the people they play against. But you also have to grind out a lot of tournaments to even have a hope of getting what you deserve. The odds are always against you even if you are the best player in the room by a factor of 2.
Yeah this seems like it's going to be part of "how I talked myself into selling all my magic cards and playing X".
I hope you realize that an 80% chance to win every game translates into about a 89.6%(almost 90%) chance to win a match.
How To Keep Your FOIL Cards From Curling: http://youtu.be/QTmubrS8VnI
The Best Deck Boxes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEwgLph_Pjk
The Best Binders: http://youtu.be/H5IauASYWjk
True. There is very little incentive or probability of going pro in this game, and I think it's healthy to take a very polarizing, but honest stance on this. If you're going to go competitive, go balls to the wall, put your full effort in, and enjoy yourself, but I refuse to half-ass it if I'm going to try. That's my personal stance and you have to honestly address the old real life vs hobby conundrum. Pro players have been doing this for years, they have their affairs in order, and manage their other side projects/lives whatever, but I'm certain any of them would advise against anyone wanting to go pro unless they truly love the game, know the odds are against them, and have everything else in order - and still want to do it.
Most of my friends are brewers, and being a brewer at heart myself, it's worth it to see how we fare (competitively) with rogue ideas. The payoff has to be worth it to YOU. YOU have to be getting something else out of it, fulfillment-wise - especially when as you said you look at the odds of making top 8, the costs of travel/play/other costs, it's all against you.
When you say all of this isn't a huge incentive to get better, I think you've answered your own questions. I won't try to talk you out of it or convince you to stay the course, but I believe you made this thread because you're looking for other people's "other reasons" for sticking it out. Like, fulfillment in brewing and challenge, whatever it may be, I'm sure you've heard all this before.
That's my own personal/honest take as for why I continue, and hope you find some other insight from others who might post in here. Good luck either way mate.
Some of my own personal stories on competitive grinding, if you care, doing this 4chan /greentext style :>
>>"got back into it competitively" when New Phyrexia rolled out
>>RTR spoilers start in the fall (2012), begin grinding games on Cockatrice erryday as spoilers come in
>>Crush my first States, suddenly become popular in town + start getting VERY overconfident
>>Get invited to play at the TCG 50k Indiana the following November for free
>>Get paid by TCGplayer to write states article, overconfidence x9000
>>Following month with roughly the same deck, lose all day at GP Charleston, irrationally rage profusely when friends tell me there's no chance of making day 2 after my third loss.
>>One of those losses was to one of those horrible players we keep referring to - a B/R Zombies (fast aggro) player chose to bring in Slaughter Gamesnaming Armada Wurm instead of actually choosing to name Thragtusk. /Facepalm
>>Take lots of time off work, save up cash, fly to Indiana "because I have the invitation to play for free"
>>Get crushed in Indiana, go back home to I'm quitting magic rageland, population me, fixate on all the things that went wrong for me etc
>>Slowly made my way back to competitive magic, came back in Spring 2013 and top 4'd at Spring States
>>Fast forward to today, nothing significant and totally fine with FNM once a month, play competitively at the pace that's right for you
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9157664&postcount=1
South Carolina State Champion: 2012
Yo dawg Frites Player, we herd you liked getting 1 for 3'd by Angel of Serenity, so we put some Angels in your Angel (Avacyn) so you can get chained while you get exiled. ANGELCEPTION.
How about "because it's fun"?
Honestly, I just really like games, and think Magic is the best game ever made. I'm good enough at it that I win more than I lose, and that's good enough for me. Sometimes when I win or lose it's due to luck, and I'm ok with that.
And not to be rude, but you seem a bit on the arrogant side, as if you somehow always make the right plays, but lose because your opponent "with a double digit IQ" is playing some stupid green deck and drew a god hand. Bluntly, you're probably not as good as you think you are. I know with certainty that I'm well above average intelligence, but I make plenty of play errors, and they lose me games sometimes. On the other hand, sometimes my opponents make play errors and they win me games. I think Magic players overall are of above average intelligence... I've played against a lot of people that were not very good players, but that was more often because they were new to the game (or new to competitive play) than because they were on the dim side. I've found this to be even more true in legacy and modern. Magic players who can't keep up mentally tend to quit after a couple years, tend to stick to the casual table rather than FNM, and don't tend to get into the formats where they can be easily out-played. Another aspect of magic (again more true in modern & legacy) is that a significant part of playing well has more to do repetition, memorization, knowledge of the various popular or "tier 1" decks, and correct sideboard choices than about strict intelligence. I rarely feel like my opponent is smarter, but I often feel like they were able to make better decisions because they knew exactly what I was trying to do from turn 1 and played accordingly, whereas I let a seemingly innocent card slip by, not realizing it was going to spell doom for me when they slammed the other lock piece down 2 turns later. It's the price I pay for only playing a couple times a month instead of practically living at the card shop. Also the price I pay for playing legacy, where there's like 100 viable archtypes rather than half a dozen.
So my advice is: the point is to have fun. If you're not having fun, why are you there? And if you can't have fun at a competitive event without winning every single round, then you should take up a different hobby or stick to casual play or EDH where it's less about winning and more about socialization.
Nobody "deserves" to win. Ever. You deserve basic human rights. Beating your opponent at a cardgame so you can feel better about yourself or win a prize or go to the pro tour or whatever other reason is not a basic human right.
90% chance to win a match means that you'll be undefeated in an 8 round Swiss less than half the time (about 43%).
Let's see, 7-1 or 8-0 would be...about 81%.
I don't imagine anyone makes Top 8 81% of the time. 80% chance to win a game is a huge edge, one I doubt is enjoyed by many, if any, especially in the mid to late rounds of a PTQ.
Well I mainly wanted to make sure there weren't any huge counterarguments against my viewpoint. I actually do understand people who are satisfied with just trying to get as good as possible but are willing to go unrewarded for it unless they go into pro-grinding mode. Okay maybe I don't... actually... but there's no analytical argument against it
Well yeah, sure. Magic is a heap of fun but I'm asking what the point in trying to get competitively good in magic is. Showing up once or twice a week to events can be its own reward.
Yeah I really don't always play perfectly. It's just that I shouldn't have to play perfectly to beat morons. Kind of like how if I were playing chess with them, I could make a lot of mistakes, and still win almost every time.
Okay I am on the arrogant side
Also, regardless of how good I am now, I specifically said in the OP that I wanted to avoid talking about my own games. The pros I reference play better than any of us ever will (probably), and still don't get rewarded as much as they should. It's probably naive of me but I think the best player should win the event. Failing that, I think the best player should have a great chance to win the event. But they're don't. No one has good odds to win the event because there are so many people participating and so much randomness in the game. MTG would be more tolerable on an elo based system (OKAY I KNOW THIS HAD TONS OF PROBLEMS IN THE PAST!!!) where you get rewarded for going 6-2 consistently and no one cares that you went x-0 one because duh that's just going to happen if you play enough events.
I do not have much experience with modern and none with legacy, but I'll ask if the win rates for the best players are appreciably different than those for standard? I played storm in modern for a little while, and while it did give me lots of decisions and consistency, it seemed like there was still a lot of luck in games where I have a turn 3 kill, or they stumble, or they draw their hate card, etc.
BEEEES!
Rabble Red
Modern
Burn
Infect
To be honest I'm not sure. If I had to guess I'd say at large events the answer is probably no.
At the local level I really do think so, though. I have a 58% win rate playing legacy maverick (sometimes GWb, sometimes GWr) and honestly I'm not good at playing that deck at all. Plus, these days maverick is generally regarded as a Tier 1.5 or Tier 2 deck. I have a 59% win rate playing loam pox, which is considered Tier 2 at best, although I find it about a billion times easier to play than maverick, which means I make fewer mistakes.
I'd regard myself as a mediocre legacy player and my experience is limited. Some of my wins are due to having the money for a competitive deck... I definitely play against budget decks, brews, and sub-optimal builds sometimes. Other wins are because my opponents are also mediocre players with limited legacy experience. Others (especially when playing pox) are because my opponents don't know how to play against my specific deck or get irritated and start making mistakes after I stop their initial assault (but before I win with a cursed scroll 15 turns later).
The point is, were I to strictly go to big legacy events, I wouldn't have a ~60% win rate, because I'd be playing against a higher caliber of player and most of them would be wielding Tier 1 decks. The pros probably have the same ~60% win rate, but that's strictly at those big events. If they came to my game shop, they'd be more like 80%. Skill is ABSOLUTELY a huge factor in that format.
My experience with standard is limited because I don't play enough to keep up with it. That said, when I was playing it, I found that outcomes were substantially more likely to be related to either a good/bad matchup or good/bad draws (i.e. "luck"). I also found that there was a MUCH larger difference in the competitiveness of a "tier 1" deck vs. various brews, sub-optimal builds, rogue decks, and lower tiers. It's just really hard to brew with such a limited pool, and there's very little if any ability to make off the wall combos (so that your opponent has no idea what you're doing until you combo off) or meta hate-based decks like soldier stompy where you land a turn 1 chalice of the void set to 1 and watch your opponent cry while you beat face. That's kind of how pox works... I remember winning against URW delver at 1 life while he had a hand full of burn because I had wastelanded his only two red sources. Stuff like that doesn't happen in standard.
Maybe not to you, but to some people those little percentages are worth it. Some people are content with being good; some are only content with being the best. This is true for just about every competitive activity.
There are a lot of popular games in the world that have significant aspects of luck. Magic can be frustrating in the sense that you can play better than your opponent and still lose. However, the opposite is also true.
And think about how long it takes to get to where you master the game. I remember getting into the game in high school, and it probably took 2-3 years before I could confidently say that I was a solid player. I think on average it's going to take 1-2 years to really get a hang of the mechanics. When you factor that in and compare it to other benchmark competitive "mental" games like Poker and Chess... it compares quite well.
And the rest of the reason has to do with making the game accessible to newer players. A lot of people probably wouldn't have gotten into the game if skill was a much bigger factor. Again, look at Chess and see how popular it is despite being one of the oldest and most complex board games. Games like that will scare off everyone but the most competitive players.
It sounds like that's the type of person you are, and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people get really into the competitive aspect of the game. And if it bothers you too much, there are games out there that reward skill and still take long enough to master. Again, Chess. Or something like Pool or Ping Pong comes to mind.
There's just another level of skill these guys are on. And I think it is best illustrated when they step out of their best formats. I feel these pros just know standard inside and out, but when they step into modern, or god forbid draft, you see that skill level sink.
Finally, there is a guy at my LGS who is generally considered the best draft player there. Drafting itself is a serious skill, and playing in the draft format is a totally separate skill. He's probably not very good at standard since I've never seen him in the standard tournaments, but he's a force in draft. He doesn't make mistakes, he drafts well, and knows his gameplay. The pros say that playing on their level is about making no gameplay mistakes and winning 60% of all your games.
Improving from 65% game win to 75% game win, increases your match win from 72% to 84%. That increases your chances of going 4-0 at FNM from 27% to 51%. In short, small changes in game win percentage translate into bigger match win, and even bigger event win, percentages.
You might still decide it's not worth it.
I actually agree with all of this. For competitive players, prizes is a big reason to play. And the further back you go, the more selective you can be with events (ie; making sure the payout is worth the costs/travel/effort).
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
"Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker EVERY YEAR? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas?"
-Rounders
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
Competitive games and sports do NOT guarantee the best will win. The NFL is a perfect example. It's a multi-billion dollar competitive sport, but week to week the best team can lose to the worst team, and the best team may not even get to play in the Super Bowl. In the NFL they call this parity. It's part of what drives the popularity of the game. Any given Sunday you do not know for certain what will happen.
Parity tends to be good for games in general. If you recall when Texas Hold'em poker became popular it was right after Chris Moneymaker won the world poker tournament on an invite he won from playing internet poker. He was not a "professional" poker player and he won it all. That win caused the popularity of Texas Hold'em to explode.
If the top 20 magic players in the world were the only people that won Pro Tours and World Championships the popularity of the game would drop to incredible lows. It's fun for people to have dreams of winning big events even if their chances are small.
Not to mention that percentages can be so decieving in those cases. Tehy can be looked at as just 10% more. They can also be looked at as in going from losing 1/3 of your matches to losing 1/4 of them, which is a pretty steep step.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
It all depends on how you define "luck".
If you factor in the possibility of your opponent carelessly neglecting to properly analyze the game state and making a "mistake" (as in a sub-par move which you happen to notice and are able to easily capitalize on), then it's fair to say there's a luck factor.
The problem with chess is that the board is too small and the number of viable moves is very limited more often than not, which means a simple mislplay can be catastrophic and very difficult (if not impossible) to recover from. The game is simply too linear, and once you start playing regularly for months or years (regularly as in a few hours per day every day) you eventually start playing from memory and every opening sequence becomes boringly predetermined. You don't even have to "study" the openings for this to happen, because for most logical minds and good chess players this comes quite naturally. There's simply a very limited number of options which is why computers like Deep Blue are able to beat the best players like Kasparov. Even games of chance like backgammon are eventually played on auto-pilot because there's a level of statistically beneficial move predetermination which encourages certain optimal moves with particular die rolls given specific board positions. Obviously you can still deviate from "the formula" and it'll work out in your favor, but it's akin to hitting or standing in a hand of blackjack when you're "not supposed to" and just getting lucky with the order of the shoe.
If you really want a game with no luck whatsoever, start playing Go on a 19x19 grid.
In my years of experience as a gaming enthusiast, I can say with absolute certainly that despite being a very simple game to learn, it's the most complex game to master because of its abstract nature. Suffice it to say I've never found a computer program which can play this game "properly" because digital players are too systematic and lack creativity.
The best things about Go are that unlike chess every game is truly unique, and it also allows players of different skill levels to compete with one another by using handicap stones for black (who also plays first) and/or komi (a spread where white will gain additional bonus points as compensation for going second). Playing Go will also improve your chess game about tenfold.