Are you guys using bootstrap to even the the different types of cards? Like for instance increasing the size of planes-walkers by resampling into a high number of them.
You can't do basic division using your calculator accessory? This isn't exactly calculating a standard deviation or some long arduous calculation.
the odds are never higher than 100% when drawing a single card. When drawing 5 cards the odds are multiplied by 5. So if there's a 40% chance of drawing a land on a single draw, theres a 200% chance of drawing a land on 5 draws, so you should draw 2 lands if you draw 5 cards.
This quote doesn't show laziness. It shows a lack of knowledge about probability or misconstruing math in a way to support your bias which would be worst then ignorance. "drawing 5 cards the odds are multiplied by 5" is probably the most ignorant statement I have seen on this forum. You might as well tell people that getting mana screwed/flooded is impossible and in a way you really are.
It's not that either...
(22/60)^7 would mean you have less chances to draw what you wanted to draw when you draw more, but it has at least the right idea. Lol I can't believe there isn't a primer on this already.
Anyone and I mean anyone can blindly goldfish an aggro deck but to pilot it against a diverse metagame is about a tough as a piloting a control deck give or take certain other factors like metagame diversity and card pool size.
If you think creature combat is simple (most times it is but many other times it isn't) then you really haven't piloted an aggro in a tourney.
I used to favor playing aggro over control since games would either lose or win fast (giving you ample time to rest before the next games) but I always sucked at creature combat so I started to play control instead.
this literally made me laugh from the ignorance. yes, control is more thought intensive than "turning dudes sideways". with control, you have to know WHAT the threats are. Contrary to popular belief, not every card that is whirlwind slammed on the table is a threat to control. So saving your counter for the right spells, along with bounce for the right creatures is crucial. unlike with aggro where you dont give a crap if your dudes die or not, cause for every one that dies, another 3 pop up.
By what metric of thought units do you measure by? Tesla?
Contrary to popular belief, aggro isn't just windmill slam creatures on the board and goldfish on autopilot. Aggro is the pursuit of maximizing your damage given the resources you have. This requires knowing what answers your opponents may have and reading what they have up.
It's funny, the very attempt to rebut a quote is a case example of the narcissism that players who don't play aggro have. What's going to be next? people claiming that combo requires no skill outside of mull or no mull.
"If you can't beat them, than join them. If you can't join them than sue them for all their worth because of discrimination and giving you a way to beat them."
-Blueconcept
"I believe this quote is self-explanatory"
-Blueconcept
If all of the richest people in the world came together and created a giant nuclear arsenal and launch missiles around the world then we will finally be able to end poverty and the human race as well.
This is the easiest way to end poverty. Probably not the most moral way, but it's an idea. =)
1. On a more serious note, most billionaires are "philanthropists" who donate enormous amounts of money to charities or form charities of their own. To accuse, rich people of not being charitable is ignoring who Bill Gates is and his foundation. For sure, they could probably donate more and what they donate is probably a drop in the bucket of what they have but it is a bit ingeniousness to accuse group people of being uncharitable. Or at least imply that they are.
2. You can't buy solutions to the world's problem. Just like you can't buy out global warming or disease. There are political and logistical limitations to attempts to end poverty. For example, government corruption (Oil for Food program much?) or more mundane problems like who is living poverty and how to deliver what they need to elevate them out of poverty.
Hypothesis: He works in certain decks.
Requires extensive testing to reach conclusion.
Now does anyone know what kind of a slot or role he fulfills?
This quote doesn't show laziness. It shows a lack of knowledge about probability or misconstruing math in a way to support your bias which would be worst then ignorance. "drawing 5 cards the odds are multiplied by 5" is probably the most ignorant statement I have seen on this forum. You might as well tell people that getting mana screwed/flooded is impossible and in a way you really are.
(22/60)^7 would mean you have less chances to draw what you wanted to draw when you draw more, but it has at least the right idea. Lol I can't believe there isn't a primer on this already.
If you think creature combat is simple (most times it is but many other times it isn't) then you really haven't piloted an aggro in a tourney.
I used to favor playing aggro over control since games would either lose or win fast (giving you ample time to rest before the next games) but I always sucked at creature combat so I started to play control instead.
By what metric of thought units do you measure by? Tesla?
Contrary to popular belief, aggro isn't just windmill slam creatures on the board and goldfish on autopilot. Aggro is the pursuit of maximizing your damage given the resources you have. This requires knowing what answers your opponents may have and reading what they have up.
It's funny, the very attempt to rebut a quote is a case example of the narcissism that players who don't play aggro have. What's going to be next? people claiming that combo requires no skill outside of mull or no mull.
That being said it suffers from the effect of not serving the role that the dominant decks desires.
This goodstuff argument is just so stupid. It almost sounds like trolling in fact.
-Blueconcept
"I believe this quote is self-explanatory"
-Blueconcept
This is the easiest way to end poverty. Probably not the most moral way, but it's an idea. =)
1. On a more serious note, most billionaires are "philanthropists" who donate enormous amounts of money to charities or form charities of their own. To accuse, rich people of not being charitable is ignoring who Bill Gates is and his foundation. For sure, they could probably donate more and what they donate is probably a drop in the bucket of what they have but it is a bit ingeniousness to accuse group people of being uncharitable. Or at least imply that they are.
2. You can't buy solutions to the world's problem. Just like you can't buy out global warming or disease. There are political and logistical limitations to attempts to end poverty. For example, government corruption (Oil for Food program much?) or more mundane problems like who is living poverty and how to deliver what they need to elevate them out of poverty.
3. The developing world is getting better. See this link: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html