As you will see, there's a page for entering data and two pages for parsing that data. I've already entered some data (I haven't been religious about entering—I'll try to improve!).
I'm hoping that over time we can use this resource to learn more about matchups we're seeing, how to sideboard, and the like.
If you have suggestions or notice any bugs, please let me know. And feel free to add this to the primer.
It sure does shine against blood moon decks - but its pretty bad vs everything else - not sure why ppl are such fans of EE'ing there own ramp - worse then someone bolting your dork..
Yes exactly. Lately I've really hated drawing Talisman or seeing it in my opening hand. It feels too narrow and just antithetical to what we're trying to. And as you mention, it's a nonbo with several of our cards.
I'm probably going to drop it soon, but keep the increased skyspawner count.
What follows isn't remotely useful from a practical standpoint. But it might help us at least be clearer in our discussion of winrates:
I think that there are essentially two winrates: "real" and "theoretical."
But we can never know the true theoretical winrate, since no player makes no error.
And I'd argue that the "relevant" winrate is the winrate that one achieves in a meta that has an aggregate skill-level equal to whatever pool of players I care about.
For instance, if my goal is to win a GP, then I care about my winrate against a pool of players reflective of the pool of players I would expect to see at a GP. If I have other goals, then I care about other pools of players.
I care about the real winrate and not the theoretical winrate because imperfect play against a deck can actually be used to a decks advantage. How? Some decks are harder to play against that other: some decks invite mistakes because the opponent must play extremely tightly to avoid a loss; others are new and not fully understood by most players; still others rely on interactions that are easy to miss or to forget to play around, etc.
A winrate that looks only to perfect play against perfect play ignores this human element. And that human element can be beneficial to real-world results.
Thus I do think we should care about "real" winrates instead of "theoretical" ones. Sure, maybe the pool of players you care about (say the finals at a GP) plays close to perfect. In that case, your "real" winrate would approach the "theoretical" one. But you should nonetheless care about the real winrate.
Hey guys, I am a long time elves player and I've been playing Titanshift since right around the Eye of Ugin Banning. A good friend of mine is trying to sell Merfolk and I want to buy it from him. Where would you point me to learn about the deck. I have been reading the forum here a bit lately and I love the community but if there is a video talking about learning to play the deck, or some articles, I'd love to see that stuff as well.
Nikachu has some great videos on his channel where you can see the deck in action and the strategy employed. Highly recommend watching his stuff.
1
For the past few months, I've been working on a Google Sheet that I've used for aggregating match data and learning more about our matchups.
You can find it here.
As you will see, there's a page for entering data and two pages for parsing that data. I've already entered some data (I haven't been religious about entering—I'll try to improve!).
I'm hoping that over time we can use this resource to learn more about matchups we're seeing, how to sideboard, and the like.
If you have suggestions or notice any bugs, please let me know. And feel free to add this to the primer.
Thank you!
1
Yes exactly. Lately I've really hated drawing Talisman or seeing it in my opening hand. It feels too narrow and just antithetical to what we're trying to. And as you mention, it's a nonbo with several of our cards.
I'm probably going to drop it soon, but keep the increased skyspawner count.
1
I think that there are essentially two winrates: "real" and "theoretical."
But we can never know the true theoretical winrate, since no player makes no error.
And I'd argue that the "relevant" winrate is the winrate that one achieves in a meta that has an aggregate skill-level equal to whatever pool of players I care about.
For instance, if my goal is to win a GP, then I care about my winrate against a pool of players reflective of the pool of players I would expect to see at a GP. If I have other goals, then I care about other pools of players.
I care about the real winrate and not the theoretical winrate because imperfect play against a deck can actually be used to a decks advantage. How? Some decks are harder to play against that other: some decks invite mistakes because the opponent must play extremely tightly to avoid a loss; others are new and not fully understood by most players; still others rely on interactions that are easy to miss or to forget to play around, etc.
A winrate that looks only to perfect play against perfect play ignores this human element. And that human element can be beneficial to real-world results.
Thus I do think we should care about "real" winrates instead of "theoretical" ones. Sure, maybe the pool of players you care about (say the finals at a GP) plays close to perfect. In that case, your "real" winrate would approach the "theoretical" one. But you should nonetheless care about the real winrate.
1
Also, take a look at Merfolk Joe on YouTube. He has a very thorough primer and tons of match videos too.