Anyone else feeling like bolt is consistently our worst card in revolt zoo? It doesn't really clear anything relevant in the current format and I'm just finding that the reach isn't all that relevant a lot of the time. The deck feels great and I've been winning with it, but it honestly feels like bolt is the first thing I side out in just about every matchup.
Yes. I was on 20 ones, 16 combo, 4 Bolt, 1 Mutagenic, 19 land until yesterday. I've put Path in Bolt's stead. I'm also considering dropping Hidden Herbalist from the list since too often it's a 1- or 2-mana bear. You need 3 G spells or a BTE to shape her up, but this happens like less than a third of the time. Considering Devil and memnite atm.
Thanks for the reply. The 3 missing sideboard cards are Exquisite Firecraft. The event I attended had the following decks: Omnitack, Elves, Elves, Eldrazi, BUG Delver, Burn, D&T, and Burn (me). It's typically a loaner-deck night (me and Eldrazi borrowed), but I think the other 6 decks were run by usuals and I think they're their decks. Looks like Flame Rift -> Searing Blaze and Barbarian Ring -> Mountain would be good.
I'm going to my first Legacy event tonight. I developed the following list by looking at all 33 of the most-recent placing lists. I just did it mathematically, so I don't know if anything should be different. Please let me know if so.
From what I've heard, there's: Junk, Aluren, Storm, various Delver decks, and a few Deaths and Taxes.
You're obviously misunderstanding his actual, contextual argument. Clearly, he is arguing that the additional splash brings about inconsistency issues that he's not willing to accommodate.
He's not compelled to splash green because he already conceded to splashing white. It simply doesn't follow.
It seems like your argument is that if he's willing to splash white despite the color-fixing issue, he might as well splash a second color. That's a pretty slippery slope, Man, especially since:
Pr(2-lander doesn't have white in a Boros deck) = 4/19*3/18 (two mountains) = 0.0316.
Pr(2-lander doesn't have green/white/both in a Naya deck) = 3/19*2/18 (two white-only sources) + 2/19*1/18 (two green-only sources) + 3/19*18/18*2 (a mountain and anything else) = 0.3392.
Pr(3-lander "") = 4/19*3/18*2/17 = 0.0041 (three mountains).
Pr(3-lander "") = 3/19*2/18*1/17 (three white-only sources) + 3/19*2/18*17/17*3 (two mountains and anything else) + 3/19*3/18*2/17*3 (a mountain and two white-only sources) + 3/19*2/18*1/17*3 (a mountain and two green-only sources) = 0.0660.
I mean, sure, if your keeps are predicated on you drawing 3 lands while it's still relevant, then there's a less-than-6% you get dicked since there are some hands that don't have the color(s) you're deprived of. But, you have 19 lands in your deck, Man. 81% of your hands will have at least one colored spell (38% one, 30% two, 11% three, and so on), and 23% of them will have both colors present!
For disclosure, I'm on Naya too, but I run a very high number of fetches relative to others and I DO prioritize color-fixing in my opening hands.
I ran some math myself and the results are rather surprising.
If your goal is to see exactly 2 or 3 mana by turn 3, then you want 15 lands in your deck, assuming that all 1, 2, and 3-land hands are keeps, all lands you draw are fetches, and mulls to 4 never pan out. In this case, you have a 61.78% chance of success. For 17, 18, 19, and 20 land decks, the chances of success are 61.16%, 60.24%, 58.99%, and 57.48%, respectively.
If your goal is to keep the highest percentage of hands, then, for pr(keep a 1-lander) = 0.00, 0.10, ..., 1.00, you want 21, 21, 20, 20, 19, 19, 18, 18, 17, 17, 16 lands in your deck, giving you respective keep probabilities of 59.63%, 61.41%, 63.32%, 65.31%, 67.44%, 69.65%, 72.02%, 74.46%, 77.09%, 79.78%, and 82.67%.
I just looked at 100 1-landers from an 18-land deck and, by my account, 62% of them were keepers, so 18 lands might be just about perfect, giving you roughly 72.02% chance to keep and 60.24% of seeing exactly 2 or 3 lands by turn 3.
What % of the meta has remand for that to even be relevant? Even if it is a high percentage, you don't let the counterspell deck play that game. They have to answer your board. Summons is also a very good follow-up to a Wrath effects.
This is a nut draw deck. I think the 10 damage offered by Summons, 3 lands, and Bushwhacker merits its consideration. I don't know if it will make the cut, but it does increase the number of nut draws we have and does offer flood insurance.
1 land 6 ones is keepable? 4 lands, 2 Command, Experiment One is keepable? There are tons of non-keepable hands that meet your requirements. That's why analytical solutions are hard. Because, yes, comuting what you said is easy, but it's not actually realistic until we have tons more requirements. Hmmm. Just trying to optimistic the deck.
Of course an analytical solution exists for a given set of criteria, but the devil is in the details. What are the criteria for you to keep a 1/2/3 lander?
Sometimes analytical solutions are less convenient than experimental ones.
Suppose you want to maximize the probability of keeping your opening hand with the following assumptions: 0- and 4-or-more-land hands are unkeepable, 1-landers are keepable 50% of the time, 2-landers are keepable 100% of the time, and 3-landers are keepable 75% of the time. Then, you want 18 land, yup! Can you estimate these probabilities from your memory of your games?
Yes. I was on 20 ones, 16 combo, 4 Bolt, 1 Mutagenic, 19 land until yesterday. I've put Path in Bolt's stead. I'm also considering dropping Hidden Herbalist from the list since too often it's a 1- or 2-mana bear. You need 3 G spells or a BTE to shape her up, but this happens like less than a third of the time. Considering Devil and memnite atm.
From what I've heard, there's: Junk, Aluren, Storm, various Delver decks, and a few Deaths and Taxes.
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
4 Goblin Guide
4 Monastery Swiftspear
2 Grim Lavamancer
Non-creature spells
4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
1 Searing Blaze
4 Chain Lightning
1 Flame Rift
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
1 Sulfuric Vortex
10 Mountain
8 fetches
1 Barbarian Ring
2 Ensnaring Bridge
3 Faerie Macabre
1 Pyrostatic Pillar
1 Sulfuric Vortex
1 Searing Blaze
1 Searing Blood
3 Smash to Smithereens
He's not compelled to splash green because he already conceded to splashing white. It simply doesn't follow.
Pr(2-lander doesn't have white in a Boros deck) = 4/19*3/18 (two mountains) = 0.0316.
Pr(2-lander doesn't have green/white/both in a Naya deck) = 3/19*2/18 (two white-only sources) + 2/19*1/18 (two green-only sources) + 3/19*18/18*2 (a mountain and anything else) = 0.3392.
Pr(3-lander "") = 4/19*3/18*2/17 = 0.0041 (three mountains).
Pr(3-lander "") = 3/19*2/18*1/17 (three white-only sources) + 3/19*2/18*17/17*3 (two mountains and anything else) + 3/19*3/18*2/17*3 (a mountain and two white-only sources) + 3/19*2/18*1/17*3 (a mountain and two green-only sources) = 0.0660.
I mean, sure, if your keeps are predicated on you drawing 3 lands while it's still relevant, then there's a less-than-6% you get dicked since there are some hands that don't have the color(s) you're deprived of. But, you have 19 lands in your deck, Man. 81% of your hands will have at least one colored spell (38% one, 30% two, 11% three, and so on), and 23% of them will have both colors present!
For disclosure, I'm on Naya too, but I run a very high number of fetches relative to others and I DO prioritize color-fixing in my opening hands.
4 Experiment One
4 Kird Ape
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Narnam Renegade
1 Grim Lavamancer (61st card; couldn't decide on 17 vs. 18 lands)
4 Hidden Herbalist
4 Burning-Tree Emissary
4 Reckless Bushwhacker
4 Atarka's Command
2 Mutagenic Growth
4 Arid Mesa
4 Windswept Heath
4 Wooded Foothills
1 Bloodstained Mire
1 Mountain
2 Stomping Ground
1 Temple Garden
1 Sacred Foundry
1 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
2 Path to Exile
2 Gruul Charm
2 Boros Charm
1 Grafdigger's Cage
2 Destructive Revelry
2 Lightning Helix
1 Stony Silence
4-1
2-1 vs. Death's Shadow Zoo
2-1 vs. Esper Control
2-1 vs. Abzan Company
1-2 vs. Burn
2-1 vs. RG Tron
If your goal is to see exactly 2 or 3 mana by turn 3, then you want 15 lands in your deck, assuming that all 1, 2, and 3-land hands are keeps, all lands you draw are fetches, and mulls to 4 never pan out. In this case, you have a 61.78% chance of success. For 17, 18, 19, and 20 land decks, the chances of success are 61.16%, 60.24%, 58.99%, and 57.48%, respectively.
If your goal is to keep the highest percentage of hands, then, for pr(keep a 1-lander) = 0.00, 0.10, ..., 1.00, you want 21, 21, 20, 20, 19, 19, 18, 18, 17, 17, 16 lands in your deck, giving you respective keep probabilities of 59.63%, 61.41%, 63.32%, 65.31%, 67.44%, 69.65%, 72.02%, 74.46%, 77.09%, 79.78%, and 82.67%.
I just looked at 100 1-landers from an 18-land deck and, by my account, 62% of them were keepers, so 18 lands might be just about perfect, giving you roughly 72.02% chance to keep and 60.24% of seeing exactly 2 or 3 lands by turn 3.
What's your current list? Anything spicy?
Sometimes analytical solutions are less convenient than experimental ones.