Starting July 10th, you will no longer be able to log in to a Curse account that was not merged with a Twitch account. If you have not yet merged your Curse account with a Twitch account, please do so here! Otherwise, your account and its content will be inaccessible.
Dismiss
 
The Limited Archetypes of Core 2019
 
Magic Market Index for June 22nd, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for June 8th, 2018
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    Quote from pizzap »
    This is why I stopped collecting meta data. It is a thankless job and usually it is discarded because n<1,000,000.

    You can get a pretty narrow confidence interval with n=100. That's in the +/- 10% range, which helps us narrow a matchup in the favorable/unfavorable ranges. A 60/40 match at n=100, assuming an unbiased sample, is in that 50-70 range, so at least even and likely favorable. That's not to say it isn't thankless work, which it totally is. Just to say that one can do this work without n being 1000000. Although it sometimes feels that way when talking to people online haha.

    EDIT: Also, some great design insights from Maro's article today -
    https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/cards-part-1-2018-06-25

    See the Infernal Judgment entry. Notable quotes:
    "One of the tasks of Core Set 2019 was to make some cards relevant in Modern but not disruptive to Standard. "
    "First, how do we make it relevant in Modern? Find a problem Modern has and try to solve it. How about the Eldrazi, especially the large legendary ones?"
    "This means that the spell has some functionality in Standard but has qualities that address a Modern issue."

    We can quibble about whether or not this card accomplishes its stated goals, and/or whether or not Wizards is addressing the right issues. But the fact that they are deliberately addressing such issues and publicizing those efforts is a huge step in the right direction, even if there's more work to be done.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    We can make up literally any number to justify the perceived matchup of Jeskai vs Tron by pulling from or analyzing and adjusting parameters of various data sets, but the fact remains that the matchup ranges from "really bad" to "sign the slip and get lunch" for the Jeskai player. Quibbling over a few % points in a horrendously lopsided matchup is kind of irrelevant.

    We are not making up numbers. We are literally using real numbers. The only post I have seen making up numbers in the past few pages, or suggesting made up numbers, is this post I am quoting here from you. "Really bad" and "sign the slip" are not numbers. They are also based on imaginary numbers that I don't think you can cite. If you have actual, auditable, real-world numbers to contribute to the dataset, then let's use those. I am sure I can dig through SCG/GP footage, plus MTGO/Twitch footage, to find more of those numbers. Right now, the real number we have is 33/67 with some confidence interval surrounding it. I'll stick with those real numbers until more real numbers are added.

    We are "making up the numbers" by arbitrarily choosing a single event and one person as the source. You of all people know that numbers can easily be chosen and manipulated to represent just about anything we want. While this is *probably* indicative of the matchup, without massive MTGO data sets or dozens of other events to comb through, these numbers are still just extrapolated approximations from small samples. Hence why I gave a subjective representation in my reply. A subjective representation that likely carries as much weight with every Jeskai or Tron player as these arbitrarily-picked numbers do.
    Quote from idSurge »
    This is why its a pointless debate as of now. Without access to the actual win rate data out of real MTGO events, the ones populated by hardcore grinders, its just a waste of everone's time.

    Outside of using very high level, and arbitrary metrics (GP Top 8's for example) everyone is able to make stats reach, stretch, and say whatever they want. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

    UWR, unless warping itself, is a dog to tron, and its comparable, to Affinity being a dog to Twin. I dont particularly care what 1 small data set says, either way. You all want to believe that Jund is a 70% dog to UWR? Give me a break!

    In the end, I know a tilted match up when I play one, and I know that I can make some adjustments for it if I desire.

    I'll have Alpine in my Side, with Geist, and probably Damping, and maybe (though I hate it) Field of Ruin in my main. Thats the kind of stupidity it takes, to make Tron feel remotely fair, for UWR.

    We have two options with these numbers. We can use them to try and draw meaningful conclusions. I was responding to GK who alleged the matchup was actually 25% based on an n=21 dataset. Alternately, we can say that we don't have enough data to draw those conclusions from these datasets. That's fine! But then I don't want to hear hyperbolic, rhetorical claims about the matchup being so bad you should just "sign the slip." Give us the numbers that prove this or acknowledge that the numbers might prove your theoretical assertion wrong. The level of confidence that a matchup is insanely bad without any real numbers to back that up is baffling to me. Especially because whenever we challenge these hyperbolic assertions in this thread with actual data, we tend to find the hyperbole was way off base. I expect this is no different. Incidentally, I've added about 15 more matches to the dataset and the Jeskai vs. Tron matchup is about 36%/64%. I expect if we kept adding numbers we would normalize int he 35/65 to 40/60 range. Your personal experience may differ from this but the numbers we have indicate this trend, and it is a trend supported by most of the MWP analysis we have done in the past.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    We can make up literally any number to justify the perceived matchup of Jeskai vs Tron by pulling from or analyzing and adjusting parameters of various data sets, but the fact remains that the matchup ranges from "really bad" to "sign the slip and get lunch" for the Jeskai player. Quibbling over a few % points in a horrendously lopsided matchup is kind of irrelevant.

    We are not making up numbers. We are literally using real numbers. The only post I have seen making up numbers in the past few pages, or suggesting made up numbers, is this post I am quoting here from you. "Really bad" and "sign the slip" are not numbers. They are also based on imaginary numbers that I don't think you can cite. If you have actual, auditable, real-world numbers to contribute to the dataset, then let's use those. I am sure I can dig through SCG/GP footage, plus MTGO/Twitch footage, to find more of those numbers. Right now, the real number we have is 33/67 with some confidence interval surrounding it. I'll stick with those real numbers until more real numbers are added.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    Quote from gkourou »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from gkourou »
    Excellent post by Lejoon on reddit. About Las Vegas metagame picture and Modern metagame picture overall.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/ModernMagic/comments/8tk9yr/special_latest_developments_in_the_modern/

    Takeaways: Jeskai Control looks super solid and a clear Tier 1 deck.

    Jeskai Control is not the Humans killer we thought it was as seen in the GP Vegas data below(quoting Lejoon here)

    Tron, KCI and Devoted Company are the best performers followed by Humans, Hollow One and UW Control(quoting Lejoon here).

    Jeskai control vs Tron : 24%.
    This is an answer to ktkenshinx, who really tried to convince us it;s only 60-40. He is wrong.

    It's a great post and I appreciate his work. I find it a little disappointing that you are extrapolating a win rate from an n=21 sample; I think we all know this is problematic for a few reasons. Sicsmoo is 60/40 against Jeskai with a 28 game sample. Some very simple math show us that the win rate is probably not what you claim it is:

    Jeskai wins GP: 5
    Jeskai wins sicsmoo: 11
    Total Jeskai wins: 16

    Tron wins GP: 16
    Tron wins sicsmoo: 17
    Total Tron wins: 33

    Jeskai vs. Tron: 16/49 (33%)

    Just by doubling the sample size, we had an almost 50% increase in the win rate. I expect this would continue to approach 40% as we added more matchups. Do I think it would be truly 40/60? Maybe it is worse than that in aggregate; I'm not sure. But it's not 24%, that I'm pretty confident in. The 35-40% range seems totally accurate, and it's WAY more accurate than the 24% you cited here. I understand we have strong feelings about matchups but we need to not forget our methods here.


    To be honest, I am not claiming it's 24%. I just feel that it's worse than 40-60 that you are claiming.
    35-65? Maybe.
    30-70? Maybe.
    I just can't take 40-60, even by your estimation.
    Don't also forget that sicsmoo had a 63% winrate vs UW Control, which makes the 60% winrate vs Jeskai a little bit baffling, since UW is tuned to beat Tron with all of that maindeck land hate(although his work is excellent and I thank him a lot).

    All I am saying is that it's not a 40-60 matchup, but (slightly) worse than this.

    I can believe it's 65/35 normally (i.e the Affinity vs. Twin mwp back in the day) and 60/40, maybe better but not by much, for an experienced Jeskai pilot. This would reflect my own experience that better pilots can often add 5-10% to any MWP with experience and skill alone.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    Quote from gkourou »
    Excellent post by Lejoon on reddit. About Las Vegas metagame picture and Modern metagame picture overall.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/ModernMagic/comments/8tk9yr/special_latest_developments_in_the_modern/

    Takeaways: Jeskai Control looks super solid and a clear Tier 1 deck.

    Jeskai Control is not the Humans killer we thought it was as seen in the GP Vegas data below(quoting Lejoon here)

    Tron, KCI and Devoted Company are the best performers followed by Humans, Hollow One and UW Control(quoting Lejoon here).

    Jeskai control vs Tron : 24%.
    This is an answer to ktkenshinx, who really tried to convince us it;s only 60-40. He is wrong.

    It's a great post and I appreciate his work. I find it a little disappointing that you are extrapolating a win rate from an n=21 sample; I think we all know this is problematic for a few reasons. Sicsmoo is 60/40 against Jeskai with a 28 game sample. Some very simple math show us that the win rate is probably not what you claim it is:

    Jeskai wins GP: 5
    Jeskai wins sicsmoo: 11
    Total Jeskai wins: 16

    Tron wins GP: 16
    Tron wins sicsmoo: 17
    Total Tron wins: 33

    Jeskai vs. Tron: 16/49 (33%)

    Just by doubling the sample size, we had an almost 50% increase in the win rate. I expect this would continue to approach 40% as we added more matchups. Do I think it would be truly 40/60? Maybe it is worse than that in aggregate; I'm not sure. But it's not 24%, that I'm pretty confident in. The 35-40% range seems totally accurate, and it's WAY more accurate than the 24% you cited here. I understand we have strong feelings about matchups but we need to not forget our methods here.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    I'm not saying it was the Twin ban alone. If that wasn't clear, sorry for not making it clearer. The Twin ban was one of many factors that accomplished it and GP data supports an overall increase (for a variety of factors) in blue diversity than we saw before the ban. Wizards is unlikely to risk that by bringing Twin back.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    I just don't understand what data you all want to use anymore to evaluate the format. We can't use SCG data because you view it as nonrepresntative and illegitimate. We can't use smaller events because GP/PT results are the ones that most matter for bans. But now we can't use GP/PT T8s because it includes random decks that spike events. What CAN we use that will have any credibility with this vocal pro-Twin camp? I feel like any data anyone presents that does not prove Twin should be unbanned will be dismissed for any number of new and old reasons.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    But saying GP T8 data is skewed is a much less legitimate approach to that argument.

    For the record, I never once cited T8 GP data as the deciding factor at any point. Many random decks spike random GPs (as evidenced by some of the wacky or one-off decks you've listed) and what's lacking is the continued stay or repeated success and popularity (however we would like to define that). But if we're putting Turns, Bring To Light, and Esper Control in the same camp as Twin-era Grixis Control or Delver, I fundamentally disagree with the method of classifications. A handful of lucky <1% decks are not the same as multiple >3-5% decks.

    Again, Wizards just said they banned Twin so more unique, non-Twin blue decks saw play. This has been accomplished by a GP metric. If someone has alternate data to show it has not been accomplished then I would love to see it. I agree that the total blue share is definitely down, but that's an open question as to how to fix that or even if it needs fixing.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    It all depends on how you skew the data. You could frame it that way, mostly because ex-Twin players begrudgingly migrated to all of those other decks, which mostly represent a single-success, flash-in-the-pan appearance, and then a fade into obscurity. It's easy to inflate the "non-Twin blue decks" when Twin is no longer an option and those players are stuck with ~$1500 of otherwise-unplayable cards to either sell out for a competitive deck or just try to make it work with something mediocre in the meantime. But it's less impressive when it actually represents a huge loss of overall "blue decks," and a lack of any real success for any particular archetype within them. The only remotely successful deck post-Twin is Jeskai which again, is only where it is because of multiple new cards, and still gets crushed at GPs and PTs.

    How is this skewing the data? I'm literally counting GP and PT T8 decks, which we have all agreed are the gold standard for bans and unbannings. I'm deliberately excluding SCG data because I know it has been rejected in the past. I think you are just so entrenched on this issue that no amount of argument on the other side will shift your position. That's fine. But I will still present these numbers to show others that the pro-Twin camp has a notable counter argument they have yet to address. As for the theory about ex-Twin players begrudgingly migrating to other decka, that was literally the point of the ban. And it was successful as shown here.

    The legitimate counter to this, which you talked about, is that the total share of BLUE decks has definitely dropped. I've cited this in the past. It's down at least 10-15% since 2015. This doesn't necessarily justify a Twin urban alone, but it's at least an objective starting point from which we can debate whether or not this is good/bad and how to address it. But saying GP T8 data is skewed is a much less legitimate approach to that argument.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    Quote from micarc »
    ...also, lots of decks that had a good mathcup against twin were indeed interactive Ux/x decks. Paradoxically (but just apparently), one legitimate way to increase the number of interactive decks in the format (and to limit the percentage of uninteractive ones) would be a twin unban, like it or not.
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    Quote from Narvuntien »
    I don't know if I can be sure that UW or Jeskai control decks would exist if you could play combo control of Twin instead.

    Couple of things: Multiple other Uxx decks existed with Twin. Multiple Uxx decks had AMAZING matchups against Twin. Jeskai with Teferi and Azcanta is going to be a very different deck and probably isn't going to want Twin, it's also going to destroy Twin whenever paired. Blue Moon is not amazing, shuffles between multiple win cons (none of which are great or consistent), and would likely homogenize to Twin. UW is mostly irrelevant today anyway, regardless of Twin, but would likely beat up on Twin pretty hard between its mana denial, removal, and counterspells.

    But basically, saying these decks wouldn't exist is completely ignoring the fact that multiple other Uxx decks DID coexist with Twin, often with better success than they are seeing today. The only deck that has actually seen an improvement is Jeskai, as a result of multiple new printings, and unbans that did either relatively little or literally nothing. Everything else has popped up for a week or two and then disappeared back to irrelevance, and NONE OF THEM have benefited directly from the removal of Twin.

    Again, I'm all for Twin unban talk. But these points are simply not true.

    As previously posted, non-Twin blue decks made up only 9% o the PT/GP T8 decks in 2015. This consisted of four unique decks: Grixis Control, Scapeshift, Temur Delver, Grixis Delver. In the post-Twin period from 2017-2018, non-Twin blue decks made up 14% of those T8 listings with 9 unique decks: Esper Control, GDS, Jeskai Control, Taking Turns, Jeskai Breach, BtL Scapeshift, UR Pyromancer, UW COntrol, and Grixis Control. The share and diversity of competitive non-Twin blue decks increased at the level that we all agree matters most. There may still be good reasons to unban Twin, but this is not one of those reasons.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Core Set 2019 Spoiler Discussion Thread
    Before this gets too off-topic, back to M19:

    I don't play the deck, but I'm quite excited about Remorseful Cleric. This card is sweet. Spirit strategies were a perfectly viable Tier 2 option before this set, but with another lord and a maindeck piece of hate/interaction with a decent body, the deck becomes much better. As already noted, this is also an excellent bullet for Chord decks, whether MD or SB (Spirits will play this in the main). Add in Supreme Phantom and you have two major upgrades for an already competitive deck. I like that Spirits has a lot of built-in interaction such as Wanderer, Queller, and now Cleric, particularly against decks that try to interact profitably with the strategy, and against spell-based combo decks.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Dragon Tribal - What's needed
    If Dragons had an Eldrazi Temple/Eye of Ugin equivalent, they would be much more playable. The problem is not really their cost or power level once they get cast. The problem is casting them on curve with everything else Modern is doing. Dragons would also benefit from a 4-5 CMC creature that would seriously impede an opponent's ability to win the game on T3-T4. Sort of like the equivalent of Thought-Knot Seer for Eldrazi. These two things would help the tribe a lot.

    Right now, the best you can really do in Modern Dragons is T1 dork, T2 Sarkhan, T3 Glorybringer. Glorybringer is a pretty strong threat with immunity to Bolt, Push, and Decay. Once GB hits, you can take out your opponent's best creature (unless it's a 4/5 Goyf, an Angler, or a Tasigur). That's not terrible interaction but honestly, it's not that great and is still dead against many decks. With a better 5 CMC payoff, and another +2 mana engine, the deck could be decent.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [POLL] What cards do you want banned or unbanned in the July 2, 2018 announcement?
    I'm pretty confident saying that Wizards will never unban any of the cards that violated the T4 rule, especially cards that did so as part of a real metagame (e.g. Bloom, Song, Probe). Bloom was a demonstrably broken card in a format where it had a natural top tier predator in another banned deck. KCI comparisons are almost certainly off base as I am sure no one has numbers on KCI's T3 kill rate, whereas we had damming ones for Bloom. Never happening.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    Re: Pod
    Not going to happen. This was a demonstrable format diversity violator that lost no significant cards since its banning and has gained numerous cards since then. This is in contrast to BBE, which lost DRS from Jund. It is also in contrast to Nacatl, in that the effect of the Nacatl ban never materialized but the effect of the Pod ban absolutely did. Pod was banned for the following reason: "The high percentage of the field playing Pod suppresses decks, especially other creature decks, that have an unfavorable matchup. In the interest of supporting a diverse format, Birthing Pod is banned." Given that creature decks have extensive diversity right now, why would Wizards risk this with a demonstrated format diversity violator? This is just too improbable and too risky.

    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Modern Hollow One discussion
    Quote from deaddrift »
    Raphaël Lévy has a new article and video up at TCG with a Vengevine/Lotleth Troll build that looks pretty good, might be worth a look. It's got me convinced.

    http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=14699&writer=Raphael+Levy&articledate=6-19-2018

    I haven't been digging the BR deck too much lately, personally, so it'll be fun to give a new version a whirl.

    I like the idea but can't see this being better than the BR version. Sigrist went 12-3 with the list, as did Warren Smith on the FB page (he's a H1 diehard). The lack of interaction makes me nervous in this format; even so-called all-in combo decks are packing it. See KCI with EE and Pyrite. Or Storm with more Remand/Repeal/Unsub in the main. All of this points me back towards the 4 Bolt and 1-2 Brutality in the main plus the Hymn-esque effect of Inquiry. But the new build does look fun!

    Personally, I need to jam some Wargear on MTGO and see how it works. I think Wargear is better suited to a metagame where you would want Souls instead of Brutality, and I'm still not sure about when you want Souls vs. Brutality anyway in a metagame setting. Anyone have insights on that?
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.