This is why I always promote the practicing of the dice roll in this format, it is one of the FEW things you can actually control the outcome of a match with. Going second in Modern is a death sentence more often than not.
This is exactly the reason I strongly disagree with leaving the play/draw outcome to random chance. Players like this who will cheat to get around it
My GWP with UW Control on the play is about 65%. It's about 61% on the draw. The differenece is much smaller than many claim. It's certainly a disadvantage, but it's not nearly as catastrophic as many make it out to be. It's also not really a Modern-specific issue. I'd guess that GWP dropoff is similar in all formats, not just Modern.
My GWP with UW Control on the play is about 65%. It's about 61% on the draw. The differenece is much smaller than many claim. It's certainly a disadvantage, but it's not nearly as catastrophic as many make it out to be. It's also not really a Modern-specific issue. I'd guess that GWP dropoff is similar in all formats, not just Modern.
I wonder how different the outcome would be with a deck like Affinity, for example. UW Control isn't exactly known for its speedy clock or taking advantage of being on the play.
Got some stats here using an old dataset. This is the 2015 MTGO datamined dataset. Yes, it's old and a lot has changed since then, but it's the best baseline we have with a large N. That said, I'm excited for someone to go through coverage games and see what the results are at the coverage level. Smaller N but more recent; will be interesting!
Anyway, back to the data. In a sample of about 30,000 games from 2015, the average win % on the play was 51.5% and the average win % on the draw was 48.5%. This was more pronounced in game 1, where it was about 54% to 46%.
Again, I'm sure these numbers have changed since that time as we have both removed fast/slow decks and added fast/slow decks. But given how tight the gap was back then, and given my own experience today, I'm sure it's not nearly as stark as many people in this thread are saying. I'd guess it's around 53%-54% vs. 47%-46% in today's metagame. I'd also bet these numbers are almost identical in Modern as in other formats, which makes the play/draw problem a game problem, not a format problem.
Got some stats here using an old dataset. This is the 2015 MTGO datamined dataset. Yes, it's old and a lot has changed since then, but it's the best baseline we have with a large N. That said, I'm excited for someone to go through coverage games and see what the results are at the coverage level. Smaller N but more recent; will be interesting!
Anyway, back to the data. In a sample of about 30,000 games from 2015, the average win % on the play was 51.5% and the average win % on the draw was 48.5%. This was more pronounced in game 1, where it was about 54% to 46%.
Again, I'm sure these numbers have changed since that time as we have both removed fast/slow decks and added fast/slow decks. But given how tight the gap was back then, and given my own experience today, I'm sure it's not nearly as stark as many people in this thread are saying. I'd guess it's around 53%-54% vs. 47%-46% in today's metagame. I'd also bet these numbers are almost identical in Modern as in other formats, which makes the play/draw problem a game problem, not a format problem.
Dude we have to find you a way to get adequately paid to do MtG statistical analysis for a living again. The community benefits from your work.
An 8% edge in game 1 is titanic, cataclysmic, ridiculous. I don't think the advantage is exaggerated much in modern but I think it is a MTG issue that needs solving.
An 8% edge in game 1 is titanic, cataclysmic, ridiculous. I don't think the advantage is exaggerated much in modern but I think it is a MTG issue that needs solving.
I agree that even 8% is too large of a different, assuming this is a correct statistic. What can be done to remedy it other than making reactive cards much, much stronger?
The easiest thing to do is find a way to distribute the first turn equitably based on who has gone first and who hasn't. There are a million ways it could be done to increase fairness ranging from simple to moderate difficulty.
The other angle of attack is game rules, akin to the scry rule. Allowing some kind of incremental advantage to the player on the draw until it becomes balanced.
* A scry 1 before the game starts
* A partial paris mulligan 1 (e.g. shuffle one card back in and draw a card before the game starts)
* Search your library for a basic land and put it in hand then shuffle a card into your library
* Player on the play's first land enters tapped unless he exiles a card from his hand (or shuffles a card into library)
* blah blah etc etc
There're again a million angles but someone's gotta analyze and playtest them
My leaning is toward doing the 'balancing who gets the play how often' thing then following up. Ideally the game should be as close to equitable as possible.
Got some stats here using an old dataset. This is the 2015 MTGO datamined dataset. Yes, it's old and a lot has changed since then, but it's the best baseline we have with a large N. That said, I'm excited for someone to go through coverage games and see what the results are at the coverage level. Smaller N but more recent; will be interesting!
Anyway, back to the data. In a sample of about 30,000 games from 2015, the average win % on the play was 51.5% and the average win % on the draw was 48.5%. This was more pronounced in game 1, where it was about 54% to 46%.
Again, I'm sure these numbers have changed since that time as we have both removed fast/slow decks and added fast/slow decks. But given how tight the gap was back then, and given my own experience today, I'm sure it's not nearly as stark as many people in this thread are saying. I'd guess it's around 53%-54% vs. 47%-46% in today's metagame. I'd also bet these numbers are almost identical in Modern as in other formats, which makes the play/draw problem a game problem, not a format problem.
Dude we have to find you a way to get adequately paid to do MtG statistical analysis for a living again. The community benefits from your work.
Second. Assuming he wants to do so, of course.
Also I agree with Pokken: 8% win/loss seems like it's enough to warrant a more balanced system such as the ones they were talking about above.
I agree it should not be determined by something as simple as a "roll of the dice", but should always be based on a merit system like how it is done in top 8s of SCG Opens, GPs, and Pro Tours.
Maybe have the player with more Planeswalker Points / Pro Points always have the play game 1? This would further incentive gaining these points and playing more Magic, especially at higher levels.
Leaving such an important part of the game to chance is not something I like to see at the highest levels of competition, of which I consider GPs and SCG Opens to be part of. Even FNMs should do away with this, and focus on a merit system of benefiting the players who play more often.
I strongly disagree with this. This will just incentive the pro players to play hyper aggressive decks like burn or decks that can really take advantage of the play/draw rule.
I think the issue is there needs to be more cards that can potentially incentive when players are on the draw. Cards like Knight of the White Orchid, Gemstone Caverns or Spell Snare. Legacy has force of will that works alot better when players are on the draw.
I'm actively maintaining a comprehensive article to help explain to new cube players how some complex vintage level cards work in a cube environment. Vintage Cube Cards Explained
I think the issue is there needs to be more cards that can potentially incentive when players are on the draw. Cards like Knight of the White Orchid, Gemstone Caverns or Spell Snare. Legacy has force of will that works alot better when players are on the draw.
Also Timely Reinforcements and Collective Brutality. Yes, given enough effects like this it may give more incentive, or at least allow for greater catchup when on the draw. I too would love to see more designs tailored to "coming back" from play disadvantage.
I think the issue is there needs to be more cards that can potentially incentive when players are on the draw. Cards like Knight of the White Orchid, Gemstone Caverns or Spell Snare. Legacy has force of will that works alot better when players are on the draw.
Also Timely Reinforcements and Collective Brutality. Yes, given enough effects like this it may give more incentive, or at least allow for greater catchup when on the draw. I too would love to see more designs tailored to "coming back" from play disadvantage.
I wish Timely was an instant that couldn't be cast during the combat phase. It would be a usable card then.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
I just wanted to second the response to sisicat - that's called cheating. I am amazed someone came to this forum and literally advocated practicing how to cheat on a die roll. Now I have to worry about players trying to load dice...
I just wanted to second the response to sisicat - that's called cheating. I am amazed someone came to this forum and literally advocated practicing how to cheat on a die roll. Now I have to worry about players trying to load dice...
Yeah it's a big annoyance. I've gotten to the point of just flipping a coin to decided play/draw. And even there if I wanted to I could learn how to flip the coin in a manner where I'd always win.
The WER needs to be what decides the play/draw for players, not random chance that can be manipulated.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
I just wanted to second the response to sisicat - that's called cheating. I am amazed someone came to this forum and literally advocated practicing how to cheat on a die roll. Now I have to worry about players trying to load dice...
Pretty sure it was intended as a joke. That said, if someone was to cheat, p/d would be the most impactful and likely easiest place to do it. I've gotten a lot of snarky looks for telling opponents [who were new to the game] we have to use the same die but it's a very important thing to watch out for.
The LGS I play it runs a monthly modern 1k of almost exclusively local guys, very few travelers, considering pushing for a coalition for using the chess p/d system, anyone have experience/advice for running an event with that system?
The LGS I play it runs a monthly modern 1k of almost exclusively local guys, very few travelers, considering pushing for a coalition for using the chess p/d system, anyone have experience/advice for running an event with that system?
Where is it you play? That sounds very similar to what one of my local LGS does.
As for implementing something like that though, you'd also need to convince whoever is running the tournament to do the pairings manually. One of the issues with using WER for something like that (which I assume is what they would do as I'd assume the event is sanctioned) is that to properly do the chess pairings, you'd need to take the P/D of every round into account in addition to how the WER already does it's pairings. So basically you'd need to program up your own pairings calculator.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Hmm interesting, I'll propose it to some of the guys and see what they say, generally a group of magic players are pretty equipped to handle math and programming easily
The LGS I play it runs a monthly modern 1k of almost exclusively local guys, very few travelers, considering pushing for a coalition for using the chess p/d system, anyone have experience/advice for running an event with that system?
The play/draw analogue in chess is white/black, and it is fairly easy.
The article is a bit technical but gives you all the information you need. Here is some of the most important:
"5.
Colour Allocation:
5.1
In the first round the colour assigned to player No.1 shall be decided by drawing a lot. All other odd numbered players in the top half of the initial list shall receive the same colour.
5.2
The difference of the number of black and the number of white games shall not be greater than 2 or less than –2.
5.3
A player shall not have the same colour three times in a row.
5.4
After pairing two players’ colours shall be assigned based on giving descending priority to:
giving both players their due colour
equalizing the numbers of black and white games played before
alternating the colours of both players regarding the first difference of their colour history going back from the previous round to the first round.
assigning his due colour to the player with the higher SB
assigning his due colour to the player with the higher Buchholz, and so on."
It's a bit hard to explain how to do it by hand in text form, but with any chess tournament organizing software you can do play/draw assignments and pairings automatically.
To summarize: Start the event by seeding all players (randomly given no ELO or other score to seed with) and randomly assigning player 1 the play/draw. Then, each odd numbered seed also gets the same allocation, and the even numbers the opposite. Then the pairings just need to be readjusted every round so that you follow the alternating play/draw system (5.4) while keeping each player in their SCORE GROUP (i.e the group of players who have the same score).
Chiming in even though I haven't read the whole thread yet.
I've talked about this subject with my friends a lot in the past. Going first is such a huge advantage that no player will ever choose to go second in this game outside of rare corner cases like Dredge. I think the solution is to increase the advantage given for going second. In Go they have something called Komi. Komi are free points awarded to the player going second to offset the disadvantage. Komi did not always exist, it was added into the game and since it was added it has been increased several times. Right now in Magic the player going second gets to draw first giving them the advantage of an extra card however when they mulligan their extra card advantage has been taken away, the same is not true for the player going first. When you are on the play, even if you mulligan, you still have the advantage of being on the play. To remedy this my suggestion is that the player on the draw receives a free mulligan. I think the advantage of a free mulligan in addition to the extra card might not only be enough to offset the advantage of going first but it may actually incentivize players to go second.
Unfortunately every try hard from Sacramento to Shanghai preaches from the top of their 27 lands + Mana Reflection that Tooth and Nail and Time Stretch are fine to play in the same turn but Armageddon is unfair.
This is exactly the reason I strongly disagree with leaving the play/draw outcome to random chance. Players like this who will cheat to get around it
Thank you for proving a point
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Anyway, back to the data. In a sample of about 30,000 games from 2015, the average win % on the play was 51.5% and the average win % on the draw was 48.5%. This was more pronounced in game 1, where it was about 54% to 46%.
Again, I'm sure these numbers have changed since that time as we have both removed fast/slow decks and added fast/slow decks. But given how tight the gap was back then, and given my own experience today, I'm sure it's not nearly as stark as many people in this thread are saying. I'd guess it's around 53%-54% vs. 47%-46% in today's metagame. I'd also bet these numbers are almost identical in Modern as in other formats, which makes the play/draw problem a game problem, not a format problem.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I agree that even 8% is too large of a different, assuming this is a correct statistic. What can be done to remedy it other than making reactive cards much, much stronger?
The other angle of attack is game rules, akin to the scry rule. Allowing some kind of incremental advantage to the player on the draw until it becomes balanced.
* A scry 1 before the game starts
* A partial paris mulligan 1 (e.g. shuffle one card back in and draw a card before the game starts)
* Search your library for a basic land and put it in hand then shuffle a card into your library
* Player on the play's first land enters tapped unless he exiles a card from his hand (or shuffles a card into library)
* blah blah etc etc
There're again a million angles but someone's gotta analyze and playtest them
My leaning is toward doing the 'balancing who gets the play how often' thing then following up. Ideally the game should be as close to equitable as possible.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Second. Assuming he wants to do so, of course.
Also I agree with Pokken: 8% win/loss seems like it's enough to warrant a more balanced system such as the ones they were talking about above.
I strongly disagree with this. This will just incentive the pro players to play hyper aggressive decks like burn or decks that can really take advantage of the play/draw rule.
I think the issue is there needs to be more cards that can potentially incentive when players are on the draw. Cards like Knight of the White Orchid, Gemstone Caverns or Spell Snare. Legacy has force of will that works alot better when players are on the draw.
Vintage Cube Cards Explained
Here are some other articles I've written about fine tuning your cube:
1. Minimum Archetype Support
2. Improving Green Archetypes
3. Improving White Archetypes
4. Matchup Analysis
5. Cube Combos (Work in Progress)
Draft my Cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/d8i
Also Timely Reinforcements and Collective Brutality. Yes, given enough effects like this it may give more incentive, or at least allow for greater catchup when on the draw. I too would love to see more designs tailored to "coming back" from play disadvantage.
I wish Timely was an instant that couldn't be cast during the combat phase. It would be a usable card then.
If it was an instant you couldn't cast in combat, those reinforcements wouldn't be very timely now would they?
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Yeah it's a big annoyance. I've gotten to the point of just flipping a coin to decided play/draw. And even there if I wanted to I could learn how to flip the coin in a manner where I'd always win.
The WER needs to be what decides the play/draw for players, not random chance that can be manipulated.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Pretty sure it was intended as a joke. That said, if someone was to cheat, p/d would be the most impactful and likely easiest place to do it. I've gotten a lot of snarky looks for telling opponents [who were new to the game] we have to use the same die but it's a very important thing to watch out for.
The LGS I play it runs a monthly modern 1k of almost exclusively local guys, very few travelers, considering pushing for a coalition for using the chess p/d system, anyone have experience/advice for running an event with that system?
Where is it you play? That sounds very similar to what one of my local LGS does.
As for implementing something like that though, you'd also need to convince whoever is running the tournament to do the pairings manually. One of the issues with using WER for something like that (which I assume is what they would do as I'd assume the event is sanctioned) is that to properly do the chess pairings, you'd need to take the P/D of every round into account in addition to how the WER already does it's pairings. So basically you'd need to program up your own pairings calculator.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
I play at Mox Mania in Madison, WI
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Here is fide's document on how to do pairings: https://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=85&view=article
The article is a bit technical but gives you all the information you need. Here is some of the most important:
"5.
Colour Allocation:
5.1
In the first round the colour assigned to player No.1 shall be decided by drawing a lot. All other odd numbered players in the top half of the initial list shall receive the same colour.
5.2
The difference of the number of black and the number of white games shall not be greater than 2 or less than –2.
5.3
A player shall not have the same colour three times in a row.
5.4
After pairing two players’ colours shall be assigned based on giving descending priority to:
giving both players their due colour
equalizing the numbers of black and white games played before
alternating the colours of both players regarding the first difference of their colour history going back from the previous round to the first round.
assigning his due colour to the player with the higher SB
assigning his due colour to the player with the higher Buchholz, and so on."
It's a bit hard to explain how to do it by hand in text form, but with any chess tournament organizing software you can do play/draw assignments and pairings automatically.
To summarize: Start the event by seeding all players (randomly given no ELO or other score to seed with) and randomly assigning player 1 the play/draw. Then, each odd numbered seed also gets the same allocation, and the even numbers the opposite. Then the pairings just need to be readjusted every round so that you follow the alternating play/draw system (5.4) while keeping each player in their SCORE GROUP (i.e the group of players who have the same score).
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
It's a sorcery you can't cast in combat now, so how timely are they?
Why should the player with worse results results get an advantage?
I've talked about this subject with my friends a lot in the past. Going first is such a huge advantage that no player will ever choose to go second in this game outside of rare corner cases like Dredge. I think the solution is to increase the advantage given for going second. In Go they have something called Komi. Komi are free points awarded to the player going second to offset the disadvantage. Komi did not always exist, it was added into the game and since it was added it has been increased several times. Right now in Magic the player going second gets to draw first giving them the advantage of an extra card however when they mulligan their extra card advantage has been taken away, the same is not true for the player going first. When you are on the play, even if you mulligan, you still have the advantage of being on the play. To remedy this my suggestion is that the player on the draw receives a free mulligan. I think the advantage of a free mulligan in addition to the extra card might not only be enough to offset the advantage of going first but it may actually incentivize players to go second.