Alright, I'm kind of confused by "Boros". The primer mentions "1-drop", "landfall" and "midrange" Boros decks. I brought up the Norin Soul Sisters deck, which is, apparently, not what I'm looking for. And then there's a recent post in the thread about a RW Twin deck.
So I'll ask: what exactly is this "Boros" deck that has enough Daily wins to get it to Established? Or does any RW deck count for those purposes?
Secondly, just to clarify, are the Loam decks all BRG with Young Pyromancer, Loam and a bunch of Retrace spells?
I guess my main gripe is with the primers of those threads. I look through them and see the author waxing lyrical about 3+ different decks, some of which are outdated, some of which are brews, and only 1 or 2 are about recent tournament-winning decks (i.e. those that actually fit the criteria for Established).
Lastly, regarding data: is there a link I could follow?
Alright, I'm kind of confused by "Boros". The primer mentions "1-drop", "landfall" and "midrange" Boros decks. I brought up the Norin Soul Sisters deck, which is, apparently, not what I'm looking for. And then there's a recent post in the thread about a RW Twin deck.
So I'll ask: what exactly is this "Boros" deck that has enough Daily wins to get it to Established? Or does any RW deck count for those purposes?
So I went through and looked at all the decks I classified as Boros (I'm not doing this for every deck because it's time consuming but I wanted to be sure on this one deck). All of them are Landfall style Boros decks with Steppe Lynx and/or Plated Geopede. Some of them are pretty similar to traditional Burn with the exception of those cards and PtE (others are more different).
I guess my main gripe is with the primers of those threads. I look through them and see the author waxing lyrical about 3+ different decks, some of which are outdated, some of which are brews, and only 1 or 2 are about recent tournament-winning decks (i.e. those that actually fit the criteria for Established).
I agree. I think I will get in touch with the thread authors and ask for updates and clarifications.
1) "Emergency Update"
We are going to be doing an "emergency update" for the forum after GP Richmond. Some decks will probably need to be moved up to reflect the metagame (notably Naya Zoo). Because we are only working off limited data, I do not think we will be demoting decks for this emergency update, even if technically those decks aren't meeting the Proven/Established criteria at the time of the update. So how does this affect your pet deck? If it got better, it moves up. If it stayed the same or got worse, it probably won't change it's place in our forum.
2) New Daily cutoff proposal
Staff is considering increasing the number of daily wins to get in Established from 6 to 12. There are a few reasons for this idea. First, we think that some decks in Established don't really belong there. This includes really fringe decks like Zur and Boros. These decks sort of eked in with 6 or 7 daily wins, and it's unclear if they really belong in the same subforum as a solidly established deck like BW Tokens or Soul Sisters.
The other reason we are considering this move is mathematical. Technically, the average number of 4-0/3-1 finishes of a deck over 3-4 months is about 11. And that's if we exclude the mega-decks from the sample (decks like Twin and Affinity which are >3+ standard devs over the average). Increasing the threshold from 6+ to 12+ makes the subforum more accurately reflect what an "established" deck probably should be (that is, a deck with above average performance).
This change is NOT set in stone and I am happy to hear what others think about it.
I agree that in light of the metagame changes and the corresponding ban shakeup, it is necessary to move some threads up accordingly.
However, because the results of the Pro Tour is skewed by 6 rounds of draft, I feel that it may be a good idea to wait until the results of GP Richmond in a week and a half to finalize any decisions, since results of decks may not be a super great representation of the true underlying Modern metagame.
I also agree that the 6+ daily events is too loose a criterion. Note that a cursory analysis of the decks listed in Established show that a full 20 of the decks listed are in Established solely because of that criterion. This suggests that such a criterion is somewhat more loose than the other ones by which a deck can be slotted for Established. It also overweights the MODO metagame relative to the paper one to the extent that there are significant differences in the two. Since I do not and will not play online Magic via the official program, I can't give a good estimate of what such a cutoff should be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
I agree that in light of the metagame changes and the corresponding ban shakeup, it is necessary to move some threads up accordingly.
However, because the results of the Pro Tour is skewed by 6 rounds of draft, I feel that it may be a good idea to wait until the results of GP Richmond in a week and a half to finalize any decisions, since results of decks may not be a super great representation of the true underlying Modern metagame.
As I mentioned in the post, we will not be doing the reorganization until after the GP. This is mostly so we can have data from that event. Also, on the issue of PT Valencia, we are going to be treating it as two separate events for analysis purposes. We will consider the published Top 8 as one T8 tournament result. But we will also consider the T8/T16 decks FOR MODERN ONLY; that is, the 16 decks which had the most points in Modern, regardless of their pilot's performance in draft. This will give us more data points while also accounting for the unique format of the PT.
I also agree that the 6+ daily events is too loose a criterion. Note that a cursory analysis of the decks listed in Established show that a full 20 of the decks listed are in Established solely because of that criterion. This suggests that such a criterion is somewhat more loose than the other ones by which a deck can be slotted for Established. It also overweights the MODO metagame relative to the paper one to the extent that there are significant differences in the two. Since I do not and will not play online Magic via the official program, I can't give a good estimate of what such a cutoff should be.
I agree. As a quick note, here are the decks that would NOT be in Established if the cutoff were to change tomorrow (which it won't! But I just want to show people what sorts of decks are getting excluded if we moved it from 6+ to 12+). I also give the Daily finish count for that deck. Note that all of these stats are from the last cycle.
Restore Balance (7)
DredgeVine (8)
Boros (6)
Zur (8)
Assault Loam (8)
8Rack (8... how appropriate!)
Nykthos Green (9)
I'm not saying those are bad decks. I honestly think at least a few of them probably belong in Established, although maybe not all. But there have been some concerns expressed that 6+ is too lenient, so these are the decks in the current organization that would be cut out.
Could the cutoff for Established be any deck that makes it to the more inclusive of a 12-3 or better (i.e. >= 36 points) finish at a GP OR Top 16 at the same? I feel like 16 is somewhat of an arbitrary cutoff where there could be other high-performing decks that finish just shy due to supbar breakers; this is especially pronounced if the pilot in question actually played all 15 rounds without byes since having to play the early rounds trashes breakers late.
In short, this makes it so that if there are 17 players with X-3 or better records, the 17th place finish still counts toward the criterion for making a deck "Established". If only 15 players are X-3 are better, then the 16th place finish would still count.
If the issue is that only the top 16 lists are published, that's fine, but I feel that using a cardinal criterion (i.e. X wins) over an ordinal one (Xth place) does have some merit. I just don't feel at ease with the fact that we might ultimately be deciding these things because a player didn't have enough byes or got bad opponent draws.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
And I agree with raising the Daily 3-1/4-0 cutoff.
Storm is probably a deck that would be bumped up. But it's too early to say for sure. I don't want to talk myself into a corner where I say "deck x is going to subforum A!" and then have GP Richmond and/or the next few weeks of MTGO data prove me wrong.
Could the cutoff for Established be any deck that makes it to the more inclusive of a 12-3 or better (i.e. >= 36 points) finish at a GP OR Top 16 at the same? I feel like 16 is somewhat of an arbitrary cutoff where there could be other high-performing decks that finish just shy due to supbar breakers; this is especially pronounced if the pilot in question actually played all 15 rounds without byes since having to play the early rounds trashes breakers late.
In short, this makes it so that if there are 17 players with X-3 or better records, the 17th place finish still counts toward the criterion for making a deck "Established". If only 15 players are X-3 are better, then the 16th place finish would still count.
If the issue is that only the top 16 lists are published, that's fine, but I feel that using a cardinal criterion (i.e. X wins) over an ordinal one (Xth place) does have some merit. I just don't feel at ease with the fact that we might ultimately be deciding these things because a player didn't have enough byes or got bad opponent draws.
It really is just a matter of list availability. If we had access to every list at the GP, or even lists that made day 2, I would probably try to find ways to expand that criterion. But as it stands, we only have T8/T16 lists, and random deck techs throughout the day. That said, I honestly don't think a lot of decks are being passed over because of this data shortcoming. Between MTGO Dailies/Premiers and the non-GP large paper events, we are getting a ton of decks in the sample.
Merfolk, as played by Petr Sochurek, had the 6th highest score of any Modern deck at PT Valencia. When considering the PT results, we divided it between both the Top 8 decks overall (the ones everyone saw in the finals), but also the Top 16 decks that had the highest Modern portion score in that event. Sochurek's Merfolk was 6th overall in that bracket.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
By my count it doesn't have enough Daily wins.
So I'll ask: what exactly is this "Boros" deck that has enough Daily wins to get it to Established? Or does any RW deck count for those purposes?
Secondly, just to clarify, are the Loam decks all BRG with Young Pyromancer, Loam and a bunch of Retrace spells?
I guess my main gripe is with the primers of those threads. I look through them and see the author waxing lyrical about 3+ different decks, some of which are outdated, some of which are brews, and only 1 or 2 are about recent tournament-winning decks (i.e. those that actually fit the criteria for Established).
Lastly, regarding data: is there a link I could follow?
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
So I went through and looked at all the decks I classified as Boros (I'm not doing this for every deck because it's time consuming but I wanted to be sure on this one deck). All of them are Landfall style Boros decks with Steppe Lynx and/or Plated Geopede. Some of them are pretty similar to traditional Burn with the exception of those cards and PtE (others are more different).
That's right.
I agree. I think I will get in touch with the thread authors and ask for updates and clarifications.
I just record the events as they appear into a spreadsheet.
I don't suppose you could upload this? I'd settle for a chart like the ones I always see in Blippy's articles.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
1) "Emergency Update"
We are going to be doing an "emergency update" for the forum after GP Richmond. Some decks will probably need to be moved up to reflect the metagame (notably Naya Zoo). Because we are only working off limited data, I do not think we will be demoting decks for this emergency update, even if technically those decks aren't meeting the Proven/Established criteria at the time of the update. So how does this affect your pet deck? If it got better, it moves up. If it stayed the same or got worse, it probably won't change it's place in our forum.
2) New Daily cutoff proposal
Staff is considering increasing the number of daily wins to get in Established from 6 to 12. There are a few reasons for this idea. First, we think that some decks in Established don't really belong there. This includes really fringe decks like Zur and Boros. These decks sort of eked in with 6 or 7 daily wins, and it's unclear if they really belong in the same subforum as a solidly established deck like BW Tokens or Soul Sisters.
The other reason we are considering this move is mathematical. Technically, the average number of 4-0/3-1 finishes of a deck over 3-4 months is about 11. And that's if we exclude the mega-decks from the sample (decks like Twin and Affinity which are >3+ standard devs over the average). Increasing the threshold from 6+ to 12+ makes the subforum more accurately reflect what an "established" deck probably should be (that is, a deck with above average performance).
This change is NOT set in stone and I am happy to hear what others think about it.
However, because the results of the Pro Tour is skewed by 6 rounds of draft, I feel that it may be a good idea to wait until the results of GP Richmond in a week and a half to finalize any decisions, since results of decks may not be a super great representation of the true underlying Modern metagame.
I also agree that the 6+ daily events is too loose a criterion. Note that a cursory analysis of the decks listed in Established show that a full 20 of the decks listed are in Established solely because of that criterion. This suggests that such a criterion is somewhat more loose than the other ones by which a deck can be slotted for Established. It also overweights the MODO metagame relative to the paper one to the extent that there are significant differences in the two. Since I do not and will not play online Magic via the official program, I can't give a good estimate of what such a cutoff should be.
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
As I mentioned in the post, we will not be doing the reorganization until after the GP. This is mostly so we can have data from that event. Also, on the issue of PT Valencia, we are going to be treating it as two separate events for analysis purposes. We will consider the published Top 8 as one T8 tournament result. But we will also consider the T8/T16 decks FOR MODERN ONLY; that is, the 16 decks which had the most points in Modern, regardless of their pilot's performance in draft. This will give us more data points while also accounting for the unique format of the PT.
I agree. As a quick note, here are the decks that would NOT be in Established if the cutoff were to change tomorrow (which it won't! But I just want to show people what sorts of decks are getting excluded if we moved it from 6+ to 12+). I also give the Daily finish count for that deck. Note that all of these stats are from the last cycle.
Restore Balance (7)
DredgeVine (8)
Boros (6)
Zur (8)
Assault Loam (8)
8Rack (8... how appropriate!)
Nykthos Green (9)
I'm not saying those are bad decks. I honestly think at least a few of them probably belong in Established, although maybe not all. But there have been some concerns expressed that 6+ is too lenient, so these are the decks in the current organization that would be cut out.
And I agree with raising the Daily 3-1/4-0 cutoff.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Could the cutoff for Established be any deck that makes it to the more inclusive of a 12-3 or better (i.e. >= 36 points) finish at a GP OR Top 16 at the same? I feel like 16 is somewhat of an arbitrary cutoff where there could be other high-performing decks that finish just shy due to supbar breakers; this is especially pronounced if the pilot in question actually played all 15 rounds without byes since having to play the early rounds trashes breakers late.
In short, this makes it so that if there are 17 players with X-3 or better records, the 17th place finish still counts toward the criterion for making a deck "Established". If only 15 players are X-3 are better, then the 16th place finish would still count.
If the issue is that only the top 16 lists are published, that's fine, but I feel that using a cardinal criterion (i.e. X wins) over an ordinal one (Xth place) does have some merit. I just don't feel at ease with the fact that we might ultimately be deciding these things because a player didn't have enough byes or got bad opponent draws.
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
Storm is probably a deck that would be bumped up. But it's too early to say for sure. I don't want to talk myself into a corner where I say "deck x is going to subforum A!" and then have GP Richmond and/or the next few weeks of MTGO data prove me wrong.
It really is just a matter of list availability. If we had access to every list at the GP, or even lists that made day 2, I would probably try to find ways to expand that criterion. But as it stands, we only have T8/T16 lists, and random deck techs throughout the day. That said, I honestly don't think a lot of decks are being passed over because of this data shortcoming. Between MTGO Dailies/Premiers and the non-GP large paper events, we are getting a ton of decks in the sample.
I couldn't find one either. Also, Deadguy Ale and UW Tron (I am not sure if UW Tron qualifies though) haven't been moved to Established yet.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Only Proven got finished today. Established will be done tomorrow and then I'll post the full changelog and announcement.