I am glad I read through all the comments before posting, because this is spot. I play Storm, and some sideboard cards hose me. I have ways of dealing with them in my sb. If I draw my answers I have a good shot in those match ups, if I don’t, then I am likely to lose. This is past of playing fast Aggro/non interactive combo. It does not make modern match up based. If you don’t like the match up lotto play something that is 50/50 against the field, and out play everyone since being pro means you are that much better.
If you don’t like the match up lotto play something that is 50/50 against the field, and out play everyone since being pro means you are that much better.
Those decks no longer exist in the competitive field.
If you don’t like the match up lotto play something that is 50/50 against the field, and out play everyone since being pro means you are that much better.
Those decks no longer exist in the competitive field.
This is by design. Wizards no longer wants those decks and, honestly, they don't make for a diverse field. The closest to a 50-50 deck is either GDS or ETron.
People just don't want bad matchups. I personally think this is because Magic players, and Modern players especially, just hate losing and want to personally win even if the cost of doing so is a less diverse format overall. This is never going to change in Modern or Standard, and is starting to even define Vintage and Legacy. Players need to get used to this new reality and stop complaining about the "good old days" where your worst matchup was 50-50 and your best matchup was 70-30 or higher.
The game already has variance itself with card draws; it feels awful losing to someone worse because a matchup is so lopsided. It's a totally different genre, but in games like street fighter, wouldn't it be upsetting to lose to someone so much worse to you?
I understand the 50/50 dilemma, too. Why play a deck with some awful matchups when I can play this deck that can beat anything. I get it, I really do--I just dislike the extra added variance on top of the inherent variance of the game. My opponent shouldn't win the matchup because he got up that morning, brushed his teeth, and sat down across from me.
I don't think Eldrazi Tron is a 50-50 deck, to be honest, it really can't beat go wide aggro archetypes or non graveyard spell based combo decks; I'm finding E-Tron to be poorly positioned right now (but a very powerful deck, even if the meta isn't great). I mean, E-Tron can have the nut hands and race aggro, or drop all is dust, but it's not really something that does that consistently in time. Chalice was meant to stop aggro that's so reliant on 1 drops, it can't handle diverse 1, 2 3 cmc drops.
Shadow was forcing the format to slow down and E-Tron really took advantage of that---I think the meta needs to shift again for this deck to really thrive again.
The game already has variance itself with card draws; it feels awful losing to someone worse because a matchup is so lopsided. It's a totally different genre, but in games like street fighter, wouldn't it be upsetting to lose to someone so much worse to you?
I understand the 50/50 dilemma, too. Why play a deck with some awful matchups when I can play this deck that can beat anything. I get it, I really do--I just dislike the extra added variance on top of the inherent variance of the game. My opponent shouldn't win the matchup because he got up that morning, brushed his teeth, and sat down across from me.
I don't think Eldrazi Tron is a 50-50 deck, to be honest, it really can't beat go wide aggro archetypes or non graveyard spell based combo decks; I'm finding E-Tron to be poorly positioned right now (but a very powerful deck, even if the meta isn't great). I mean, E-Tron can have the nut hands and race aggro, or drop all is dust, but it's not really something that does that consistently in time. Chalice was meant to stop aggro that's so reliant on 1 drops, it can't handle diverse 1, 2 3 cmc drops.
Shadow was forcing the format to slow down and E-Tron really took advantage of that---I think the meta needs to shift again for this deck to really thrive again.
As you said, if there's a deck that is 50-50 against most things, 45-55 against like 1-2 decks, and then 60-40 or better against the rest, that is going to be the best deck for most tournaments. As Wizards has talked about, and as we have seen in most metagames, these kinds of decks slowly take over until you are either playing that deck or playing the deck that specifically beats that deck; not a healthy metagame. Wizards has also explicitly moved away from these metagames.
I will also say that this is a myth:
"My opponent shouldn't win the matchup because he got up that morning, brushed his teeth, and sat down across from me. "
To paraphrase Ari Lax and his recent article, anyone who genuinely believes that in a tournament is definitely bad at Modern and probably bad at Magic. I'm not saying you believe that because I think you were just trying to make a rhetorical point, but anyone who really does operate off that assumption is honestly, as Lax said, not very good. There are many ways to minimize this alleged variance before and during a tournament, and it's no coincidence that top Magic players are also consistently top placing Modern players. Based on a previous analysis I did, at the tournament level, Modern does tend to have a little more variance than Legacy which amounts to something like 2%-5% depending on the matchup. But there is no difference between top players placing well in Modern tourneys vs. Legacy tourneys. The variance, something to the order of 3%, just appears in win-rates, but it affects everyone equally. Therefore, better players can ignore that effect and place just as frequently in Modern events as Legacy ones. See below for more: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/779266-how-much-luck-is-involved-in-magic?page=3#c70
Modern variance is frequently a myth perpetuated by players who don't want bad matchups, don't like losing, don't want to innovate new strategies, and just want their deck to be the best. There IS a degree to which Modern variance decides games (see above), but it's a very small fraction of games and it has no impact whatsoever on a top player's ability to place well in a Modern tournament.
If you don’t like the match up lotto play something that is 50/50 against the field, and out play everyone since being pro means you are that much better.
Those decks no longer exist in the competitive field.
While this may be true for the modern field as a whole, it is not true at any given tournament. Right now, you can expect going into a modern tournament that Storm, E-Tron, and GDS will probably be a lot of what you face. The SCG Open last weekend was taken down by that awesome new humans deck that went undefeated because it had strong matchups against these decks (and a lot of others as well) and it was the right choice for the tournament. Playing the meta is part of the skill of modern, and part of what makes it hard. In standard, this happens with rotations forcing everyone to learn new decks entirely. In Modern it only happens because of the rock paper scissors metagame. Modern would get real stale without the diversity that comes with having no absolute "best" deck, and this complicated shifting meta makes the game more competitive. Pro's like this one whining about how the particular skill they have is not suited to the format is a little bit ridiculous.
For 90% of Modern decks you have to know not only your own deck, but the entire format. Watching Pros create video content for Modern you see time and time again that they are not willing to put in the work to keep up with what everyone else is doing. LSV boarded in Reclamation Sage against Gifts Storm because "they might have Pyromancer Ascension in their sideboard" (spoiler alert: they don't.) Corey Burkhart failed to identify an obvious Lantern start T1, scried a Spell Snare to the top, and still had it in his hand 20 turns later because, as I know and I suppose he doesn't, the only 2-drop in a stock Lantern list is Abrupt Decay. Etc. etc.
And it's not even enough to quickly look up the opponent's decklist on mtggoldfish. I hear fellow UW Control players complain all the time about how Storm is an unwinnable matchup. Me? I've actually played Storm myself so I understand exactly what they're doing and how to disrupt them. Therefore, I win my fair share against Storm. Now, that fair share might be only 40% due to my deck and sideboard choices, but it's still a lot better than 0%.
Yep, when he said something like it may be some "Tezzeret deck," that nearly made me laugh. I haven't played against Lantern in months. Still, I know that Whir of Invention Lantern is very good and have some idea of the deck list.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Thanks for that. Honestly, I've never played against a Lantern deck.. it's totally absent in my meta. So if I've seen opal, shores and bauble.. might also think that it might be a homebrew that has tezz.
that opening play does actually follow a turbo tezz build so he was not incorrect that it could have been a tezzeret deck. also if it was keep snare was the right call
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tooth & Nail........Grishoalbrand....Living Dominance....Tezzerator.........Vannifar Pod
My Decks that have been BANNED
DRS Jund | Kiki-Pod | Bloom Titan | Splinter Twin | KCI
that opening play does actually follow a turbo tezz build so he was not incorrect that it could have been a tezzeret deck. also if it was keep snare was the right call
This is true but the odds of Tezz were much lower than that of Lantern, and the cost of keeping Snare against the wrong deck was way higher than the benefit of keeping it against the right one. Definitely a bad call.
that opening play does actually follow a turbo tezz build so he was not incorrect that it could have been a tezzeret deck. also if it was keep snare was the right call
I don't know Modo. I have never played it before, despite watching a lot of streams. But, I do know that Tezz is NOT a good deck. Whir of Invention Lanter IS a good deck - Tier 1 in my opinion. I think you have to give your opponent credit first until you're proven otherwise. Anyway, it doesn't matter much who knows what in Modern right now. I know players who do well with decks that barely know how ot play them.
that opening play does actually follow a turbo tezz build so he was not incorrect that it could have been a tezzeret deck. also if it was keep snare was the right call
This is true but the odds of Tezz were much lower than that of Lantern, and the cost of keeping Snare against the wrong deck was way higher than the benefit of keeping it against the right one. Definitely a bad call.
This was my thinking. Maybe Corey is infallible to some. He is no doubt an amazing player, and I even learned some different lines in Bogles from watching him, but I am not completely sure that putting the opponent on Tezz is correct.
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I've been playing Magic since 2008 and only just recently got into playing Modern a few weeks ago. I'm glad I came across this article because it puts into writing all of the gripes I have with the format and why I probably won't be playing it anymore. It's all just based on luck. As I have been playing, I've found it almost impossible to prepare for tournaments because I don't know what my opponents will be playing that particular night. I've found no matter what the matchup is, however, the point is usually to simply race me to their combo before I kill them. If they combo off, I lose. If they don't, I win. It's just a matter of whether or not they have the particular cards they need or whether or not I have the particular cards I need. Or more specifically in games two/three, which one of us draws the "you win" sideboard card first. That's not skill...and it's not really that fun either.
I've noticed that when I win games, I feel like I didn't deserve the win or make any decisions leading up to the win. I was just handed the win. The same is true of my losses. There is nothing I could have done differently in most of the games that could have changed the outcome. So what's really the point in playing?
I'll stick to draft, sealed, and standard until this format gets healthier.
I've been playing Magic since 2008 and only just recently got into playing Modern a few weeks ago. I'm glad I came across this article because it puts into writing all of the gripes I have with the format and why I probably won't be playing it anymore. It's all just based on luck. As I have been playing, I've found it almost impossible to prepare for tournaments because I don't know what my opponents will be playing that particular night. I've found no matter what the matchup is, however, the point is usually to simply race me to their combo before I kill them. If they combo off, I lose. If they don't, I win. It's just a matter of whether or not they have the particular cards they need or whether or not I have the particular cards I need. Or more specifically in games two/three, which one of us draws the "you win" sideboard card first. That's not skill...and it's not really that fun either.
I've noticed that when I win games, I feel like I didn't deserve the win or make any decisions leading up to the win. I was just handed the win. The same is true of my losses. There is nothing I could have done differently in most of the games that could have changed the outcome. So what's really the point in playing?
I'll stick to draft, sealed, and standard until this format gets healthier.
At the SCG level (primarily Opens), the so-called "matchup lottery" is not the influencer people claim. It either doesn't exist at all or doesn't exist to the extent that good players are held back by it. See the following two links/analyses for some stats on this:
In essence, Open-level Modern has zero indicators of a matchup lottery effect when compared to Legacy (a format basically no one says is high-variance). More specifically, there is no win-percentage effect of matchup lottery in Modern. The best Modern players are as consistent and as high-performing in Modern as the best Legacy players are in Legacy.
This might be different in smaller, local events. My dataset doesn't cover those. But at the Open level, i.e. big events with 15ish rounds, Modern is not high varince and there is no performance impact on good players. Players who struggle at this level should not blame Modern as a format or some myth of variance. They should instead examine their own skill deficits, whether in gameplay, deck selection, deck construction, etc.
Well I have been playing it at the local level and thus far I have never seen the same deck twice. I have seen this in three tournaments:
Tournament 1
Naya Burn
8 Rack
Humans
Tournament 2
Emrakul Ramp
Affinity
Ad Naseum Combo
Tournament 3
Spirits
Eldrazi tron
Dredge
9 games, 9 different decks.
Matchup lottery isn't about diversity. Everyone knows Modern is diverse and you can face lots of decks. Matchup lottery is a pejorative term that implies Modern has a diversity of matchups that leads to lower performance at events. THIS performance effect is the "matchup lottery" people complain about. It also isn't real. Yes, matchups are diverse and yes, you can basically play against 30 decks in any given event. But this should not impact your performance at large Modern events. If one thinks their performance at events is suboptimal, the fault isn't with diverse and unexpected matchups. It's something the player is doing wrong.
Yes it does affect your performance because you can't sideboard against 30 decks. I couldn't even sideboard against the 9 I played in the first three tournaments. There just isn't enough room in the sideboard. So you have to sideboard against certain matchups and then just "kick" other matchups and hope you don't see them. So for example I had no room in my SB the Kor Firewalkers I would have normally put in against Burn because my SB was devoted to things like Affinity and Tron. As such, I had no changes between games 1 and 2. Not good.
So if you don't see the matchups you kicked, you will do well in the tournament (or at least decent). If you do see them, you'll do poorly. And therein lies the problem. I don't want to go to a tournament where I might go 3-0 or I might go 0-3 simply depending on what I see. I'd rather go to a tournament knowing that if I play well I should at least pick up some wins no matter what I am seeing.
Yes it does affect your performance because you can't sideboard against 30 decks. I couldn't even sideboard against the 9 I played in the first three tournaments. There just isn't enough room in the sideboard. So you have to sideboard against certain matchups and then just "kick" other matchups and hope you don't see them. So for example I had no room in my SB the Kor Firewalkers I would have normally put in against Burn because my SB was devoted to things like Affinity and Tron. As such, I had no changes between games 1 and 2. Not good.
So if you don't see the matchups you kicked, you will do well in the tournament (or at least decent). If you do see them, you'll do poorly. And therein lies the problem. I don't want to go to a tournament where I might go 3-0 or I might go 0-3 simply depending on what I see. I'd rather go to a tournament knowing that if I play well I should at least pick up some wins no matter what I am seeing.
You are speaking theoretically. Look at the data and analysis I posted. It empirically does not affect performance at that event level. You may believe it does but, statistically and in practice, it does not.
The only limitation I will concede is that I don't know how this works at the local level with 3-5 round events. But I expect if it doesn't matter at the harder 15 round level, it shouldn't matter at more local one.
This might be different in smaller, local events. My dataset doesn't cover those. But at the Open level, i.e. big events with 15ish rounds, Modern is not high varince and there is no performance impact on good players. Players who struggle at this level should not blame Modern as a format or some myth of variance. They should instead examine their own skill deficits, whether in gameplay, deck selection, deck construction, etc.
Bingo! Not everybody has the means to travel the SCG East Coast Circuit. Byes certainly help, but you don't get them at the local level (nor would I want them for that matter). Byes are nice to have at GPs and certainly make the variance go down somewhat. But then you could end up playing against a great player like Patrick Tierney running Jeskai ... BREACH. Who could have prepared you for that game 1? Sure, you adjust in the SB'd games if you see Breach, but outside of that, there is no real way to put him on Breach, outside of discard.
I have seen the same thing on the local level. The Modern players locally that I know that used to stick with their deck all the time are branching out. They are trying new decks, they are trying new archetypes, and they are trying the newer, better deck currently. When I played Modern before, I used to be one of very few players who could or would change their deck. Now, it seems that everybody does because it's a game of "who can metagame correctly and dodge all of their poor matchups?" Wonderful game.
I am a very cognizant player who realizes most of the options that can be done in the game and also later on. Last FNM when I lost to Infect 0-2, I realized that if I had not blocked a Glistener Elf with my Arbor Elf, I could have had 6 mana on turn 3 (another Arbor Elf and a BoP in hand). On turn 3, I drew Inferno Titan and that would have been pretty much game. Instead, I had to wait until a turn 4 that never came. My thought process was that he is attacking because he probably has a million pump spells and will only have to use a Mutagenic Growth to punch through. When he let them die, I knew I was screwed because of Blighted Agents. Since I can't do anything against a Blighted Agent except draw Bonfire of the Damned, I felt my line was fine. I LOST because I made that block.
For reference, in Round 3 of FNM, I was GR Ponza vs. an Infect player who was on the play. Oddly enough, the matchup lottery favored me in the other 3 matches - Tron 2-0, Burn 2-1 top decking a 1 of Thragtusk in game 1, and GW Company 2-1 all 3 games decided by mana screw.
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Bingo! Not everybody has the means to travel the SCG East Coast Circuit.
I don't even feel like it's an "East Coast" circuit. It's more a "Mid-West" circuit. I'm in Boston and feel completely isolated from SCG except the twice a year they come to either Providence or Worcester.
Yes, I'm certainly closer in a geographic sense to the Ohio/Indiana/Virginia/Michigan/Texas loop they always make, but it's still a plane ticket and hotel room and probably the same price. Only their New Jersey events are driving distance for me and those still require 2 nights of hotel room at a minimum, 3 if you feel you're going to day 2.
Bingo! Not everybody has the means to travel the SCG East Coast Circuit.
I don't even feel like it's an "East Coast" circuit. It's more a "Mid-West" circuit. I'm in Boston and feel completely isolated from SCG except the twice a year they come to either Providence or Worcester.
Yes, I'm certainly closer in a geographic sense to the Ohio/Indiana/Virginia/Michigan/Texas loop they always make, but it's still a plane ticket and hotel room and probably the same price. Only their New Jersey events are driving distance for me and those still require 2 nights of hotel room at a minimum, 3 if you feel you're going to day 2.
I realize that it was very uninformed of me to make the comment. It comes from not having access to these types of tournaments regularly. I used to compete in them when they went to the West Coast, along with TCG tournaments as well. I was qualified for the Invitational, but wouldn't be able to make it because they're just SO far. It's not worth it, despite 3 Invitationals that I did attend being my favorite tournaments that I ever played in despite 5-3 in 2 of them and 4-4 in another. Just a few months ago was the last Invitational I was qualified for. I wish I could play in them more, but it's not worth alienating my family any more than going to GPs already does.
That is interesting to know - SCG being more of a Midwest circuit. I'm sorry if I was insensitive about the SCG comment. It's just that most Californians know very little about the SCG circuit because there isn't really much reason to know it, outside of watching the solid coverage.
*Also I should point out that RamsayBolton756's comments echo mine 100%. I see exactly the same thing. Maybe I have just become a terrible Modern player and new Modern players come into the format with gobs and gobs of play skill? I guess I just have to accept that I will never get to a 66.6% win percentage (not counting IDs). That makes me very sad.
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Bingo! Not everybody has the means to travel the SCG East Coast Circuit.
I don't even feel like it's an "East Coast" circuit. It's more a "Mid-West" circuit. I'm in Boston and feel completely isolated from SCG except the twice a year they come to either Providence or Worcester.
Yes, I'm certainly closer in a geographic sense to the Ohio/Indiana/Virginia/Michigan/Texas loop they always make, but it's still a plane ticket and hotel room and probably the same price. Only their New Jersey events are driving distance for me and those still require 2 nights of hotel room at a minimum, 3 if you feel you're going to day 2.
I realize that it was very non-informed of me to make the comment. It comes from not having access to these types of tournaments regularly. I used to compete in them when they went to the West Coast, along with TCG tournaments as well. I was qualified for the Invitational, but wouldn't be able to make it because they're just SO far. It's not worth it, despite 3 Invitationals that I did attend being my favorite tournaments that I ever played in despite 5-3 in 2 of them and 4-4 in another. Just a few months ago was the last Invitational I was qualified for. I wish I could play in them more, but it's not worth alienating my family any more than going to GPs already does.
That is interesting to know - SCG being more of a Midwest circuit. I'm sorry if I was insensitive about the SCG comment. It's just that most Californians know very little about the SCG circuit because there isn't really much reason to know it, outside of watching the solid coverage.
*Also I should point out that RamsayBolton756's comments echo mine 100%. I see exactly the same thing. Maybe I have just become a terrible Modern player and new Modern players come into the format with gobs and gobs of play skill? I guess I just have to accept that I will never get to a 66.6% win percentage (not counting IDs). That makes me very sad.
It's not insensitive, I'm just saying that I feel removed from it too. If I were an SCG circuit regular maybe it'd be a lot easier for me than for you, despite how I feel about it now.
They do come to either Providence or Worcester about twice a year, each of which are only 1 hour driving. I think they do Syracuse, NY also, which is about 5 hours of driving. Their NJ events are also about 5 or 6 hours of driving. So 3 plus however many NJ events are certainly more than the 0 on the West Coast.
Also, I know they're based in Virginia and Virginia is a coastal state, but if you're from the New York / New England area you think of Virginia as either the South or the Mid-West.
I would probably do most of those events within 6 hours from me, of course depending on what the drive's like. Southern California, where I live, is about a 6 hour drive to the Bay Area (San Francisco/Oakland/Santa Clara). That is really about as far as I'd like to go. Las Vegas is a 3 hour drive, depending on traffic of course.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Well I have been playing it at the local level and thus far I have never seen the same deck twice. I have seen this in three tournaments:
Tournament 1
Naya Burn
8 Rack
Humans
Tournament 2
Emrakul Ramp
Affinity
Ad Naseum Combo
Tournament 3
Spirits
Eldrazi tron
Dredge
9 games, 9 different decks.
i would need to know what you are playing to make an assessment because if you are running anything white 6 slots in your SB deal with 6 of those 9 decks. also 6 of those 9 decks are quite frequently played and should be prepared for anyway. I dont really play in bigger events but ive never felt like i was an auto loss to a specific deck unless i was playing something that was glass cannon. I also play a wide variety of decks so i try to play what has the best chance against an unknown field. There are definitely matches i wish i could dodge while playing deck X or deck Y but even while playing bad match ups ive never felt like there wasnt something i could have done better to win a match.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tooth & Nail........Grishoalbrand....Living Dominance....Tezzerator.........Vannifar Pod
My Decks that have been BANNED
DRS Jund | Kiki-Pod | Bloom Titan | Splinter Twin | KCI
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Those decks no longer exist in the competitive field.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
This is by design. Wizards no longer wants those decks and, honestly, they don't make for a diverse field. The closest to a 50-50 deck is either GDS or ETron.
People just don't want bad matchups. I personally think this is because Magic players, and Modern players especially, just hate losing and want to personally win even if the cost of doing so is a less diverse format overall. This is never going to change in Modern or Standard, and is starting to even define Vintage and Legacy. Players need to get used to this new reality and stop complaining about the "good old days" where your worst matchup was 50-50 and your best matchup was 70-30 or higher.
The game already has variance itself with card draws; it feels awful losing to someone worse because a matchup is so lopsided. It's a totally different genre, but in games like street fighter, wouldn't it be upsetting to lose to someone so much worse to you?
I understand the 50/50 dilemma, too. Why play a deck with some awful matchups when I can play this deck that can beat anything. I get it, I really do--I just dislike the extra added variance on top of the inherent variance of the game. My opponent shouldn't win the matchup because he got up that morning, brushed his teeth, and sat down across from me.
I don't think Eldrazi Tron is a 50-50 deck, to be honest, it really can't beat go wide aggro archetypes or non graveyard spell based combo decks; I'm finding E-Tron to be poorly positioned right now (but a very powerful deck, even if the meta isn't great). I mean, E-Tron can have the nut hands and race aggro, or drop all is dust, but it's not really something that does that consistently in time. Chalice was meant to stop aggro that's so reliant on 1 drops, it can't handle diverse 1, 2 3 cmc drops.
Shadow was forcing the format to slow down and E-Tron really took advantage of that---I think the meta needs to shift again for this deck to really thrive again.
As you said, if there's a deck that is 50-50 against most things, 45-55 against like 1-2 decks, and then 60-40 or better against the rest, that is going to be the best deck for most tournaments. As Wizards has talked about, and as we have seen in most metagames, these kinds of decks slowly take over until you are either playing that deck or playing the deck that specifically beats that deck; not a healthy metagame. Wizards has also explicitly moved away from these metagames.
I will also say that this is a myth:
"My opponent shouldn't win the matchup because he got up that morning, brushed his teeth, and sat down across from me. "
To paraphrase Ari Lax and his recent article, anyone who genuinely believes that in a tournament is definitely bad at Modern and probably bad at Magic. I'm not saying you believe that because I think you were just trying to make a rhetorical point, but anyone who really does operate off that assumption is honestly, as Lax said, not very good. There are many ways to minimize this alleged variance before and during a tournament, and it's no coincidence that top Magic players are also consistently top placing Modern players. Based on a previous analysis I did, at the tournament level, Modern does tend to have a little more variance than Legacy which amounts to something like 2%-5% depending on the matchup. But there is no difference between top players placing well in Modern tourneys vs. Legacy tourneys. The variance, something to the order of 3%, just appears in win-rates, but it affects everyone equally. Therefore, better players can ignore that effect and place just as frequently in Modern events as Legacy ones. See below for more:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/779266-how-much-luck-is-involved-in-magic?page=3#c70
Modern variance is frequently a myth perpetuated by players who don't want bad matchups, don't like losing, don't want to innovate new strategies, and just want their deck to be the best. There IS a degree to which Modern variance decides games (see above), but it's a very small fraction of games and it has no impact whatsoever on a top player's ability to place well in a Modern tournament.
While this may be true for the modern field as a whole, it is not true at any given tournament. Right now, you can expect going into a modern tournament that Storm, E-Tron, and GDS will probably be a lot of what you face. The SCG Open last weekend was taken down by that awesome new humans deck that went undefeated because it had strong matchups against these decks (and a lot of others as well) and it was the right choice for the tournament. Playing the meta is part of the skill of modern, and part of what makes it hard. In standard, this happens with rotations forcing everyone to learn new decks entirely. In Modern it only happens because of the rock paper scissors metagame. Modern would get real stale without the diversity that comes with having no absolute "best" deck, and this complicated shifting meta makes the game more competitive. Pro's like this one whining about how the particular skill they have is not suited to the format is a little bit ridiculous.
beautifully written.
just curious: what was the obvious lantern start?
Yep, when he said something like it may be some "Tezzeret deck," that nearly made me laugh. I haven't played against Lantern in months. Still, I know that Whir of Invention Lantern is very good and have some idea of the deck list.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Thanks for that. Honestly, I've never played against a Lantern deck.. it's totally absent in my meta. So if I've seen opal, shores and bauble.. might also think that it might be a homebrew that has tezz.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
Tooth & Nail........Grishoalbrand....Living Dominance....Tezzerator.........Vannifar Pod
My Decks that have been BANNED
DRS Jund | Kiki-Pod | Bloom Titan | Splinter Twin | KCI
This is true but the odds of Tezz were much lower than that of Lantern, and the cost of keeping Snare against the wrong deck was way higher than the benefit of keeping it against the right one. Definitely a bad call.
I don't know Modo. I have never played it before, despite watching a lot of streams. But, I do know that Tezz is NOT a good deck. Whir of Invention Lanter IS a good deck - Tier 1 in my opinion. I think you have to give your opponent credit first until you're proven otherwise. Anyway, it doesn't matter much who knows what in Modern right now. I know players who do well with decks that barely know how ot play them.
This was my thinking. Maybe Corey is infallible to some. He is no doubt an amazing player, and I even learned some different lines in Bogles from watching him, but I am not completely sure that putting the opponent on Tezz is correct.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)I've noticed that when I win games, I feel like I didn't deserve the win or make any decisions leading up to the win. I was just handed the win. The same is true of my losses. There is nothing I could have done differently in most of the games that could have changed the outcome. So what's really the point in playing?
I'll stick to draft, sealed, and standard until this format gets healthier.
At the SCG level (primarily Opens), the so-called "matchup lottery" is not the influencer people claim. It either doesn't exist at all or doesn't exist to the extent that good players are held back by it. See the following two links/analyses for some stats on this:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/785096-the-state-of-modern-thread-rules-update-27-10-17?page=45#c1125
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/785096-the-state-of-modern-thread-rules-update-27-10-17?page=60#c1491
In essence, Open-level Modern has zero indicators of a matchup lottery effect when compared to Legacy (a format basically no one says is high-variance). More specifically, there is no win-percentage effect of matchup lottery in Modern. The best Modern players are as consistent and as high-performing in Modern as the best Legacy players are in Legacy.
This might be different in smaller, local events. My dataset doesn't cover those. But at the Open level, i.e. big events with 15ish rounds, Modern is not high varince and there is no performance impact on good players. Players who struggle at this level should not blame Modern as a format or some myth of variance. They should instead examine their own skill deficits, whether in gameplay, deck selection, deck construction, etc.
Tournament 1
Naya Burn
8 Rack
Humans
Tournament 2
Emrakul Ramp
Affinity
Ad Naseum Combo
Tournament 3
Spirits
Eldrazi tron
Dredge
9 games, 9 different decks.
Matchup lottery isn't about diversity. Everyone knows Modern is diverse and you can face lots of decks. Matchup lottery is a pejorative term that implies Modern has a diversity of matchups that leads to lower performance at events. THIS performance effect is the "matchup lottery" people complain about. It also isn't real. Yes, matchups are diverse and yes, you can basically play against 30 decks in any given event. But this should not impact your performance at large Modern events. If one thinks their performance at events is suboptimal, the fault isn't with diverse and unexpected matchups. It's something the player is doing wrong.
So if you don't see the matchups you kicked, you will do well in the tournament (or at least decent). If you do see them, you'll do poorly. And therein lies the problem. I don't want to go to a tournament where I might go 3-0 or I might go 0-3 simply depending on what I see. I'd rather go to a tournament knowing that if I play well I should at least pick up some wins no matter what I am seeing.
You are speaking theoretically. Look at the data and analysis I posted. It empirically does not affect performance at that event level. You may believe it does but, statistically and in practice, it does not.
The only limitation I will concede is that I don't know how this works at the local level with 3-5 round events. But I expect if it doesn't matter at the harder 15 round level, it shouldn't matter at more local one.
Bingo! Not everybody has the means to travel the SCG East Coast Circuit. Byes certainly help, but you don't get them at the local level (nor would I want them for that matter). Byes are nice to have at GPs and certainly make the variance go down somewhat. But then you could end up playing against a great player like Patrick Tierney running Jeskai ... BREACH. Who could have prepared you for that game 1? Sure, you adjust in the SB'd games if you see Breach, but outside of that, there is no real way to put him on Breach, outside of discard.
I have seen the same thing on the local level. The Modern players locally that I know that used to stick with their deck all the time are branching out. They are trying new decks, they are trying new archetypes, and they are trying the newer, better deck currently. When I played Modern before, I used to be one of very few players who could or would change their deck. Now, it seems that everybody does because it's a game of "who can metagame correctly and dodge all of their poor matchups?" Wonderful game.
I am a very cognizant player who realizes most of the options that can be done in the game and also later on. Last FNM when I lost to Infect 0-2, I realized that if I had not blocked a Glistener Elf with my Arbor Elf, I could have had 6 mana on turn 3 (another Arbor Elf and a BoP in hand). On turn 3, I drew Inferno Titan and that would have been pretty much game. Instead, I had to wait until a turn 4 that never came. My thought process was that he is attacking because he probably has a million pump spells and will only have to use a Mutagenic Growth to punch through. When he let them die, I knew I was screwed because of Blighted Agents. Since I can't do anything against a Blighted Agent except draw Bonfire of the Damned, I felt my line was fine. I LOST because I made that block.
For reference, in Round 3 of FNM, I was GR Ponza vs. an Infect player who was on the play. Oddly enough, the matchup lottery favored me in the other 3 matches - Tron 2-0, Burn 2-1 top decking a 1 of Thragtusk in game 1, and GW Company 2-1 all 3 games decided by mana screw.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Yes, I'm certainly closer in a geographic sense to the Ohio/Indiana/Virginia/Michigan/Texas loop they always make, but it's still a plane ticket and hotel room and probably the same price. Only their New Jersey events are driving distance for me and those still require 2 nights of hotel room at a minimum, 3 if you feel you're going to day 2.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
I realize that it was very uninformed of me to make the comment. It comes from not having access to these types of tournaments regularly. I used to compete in them when they went to the West Coast, along with TCG tournaments as well. I was qualified for the Invitational, but wouldn't be able to make it because they're just SO far. It's not worth it, despite 3 Invitationals that I did attend being my favorite tournaments that I ever played in despite 5-3 in 2 of them and 4-4 in another. Just a few months ago was the last Invitational I was qualified for. I wish I could play in them more, but it's not worth alienating my family any more than going to GPs already does.
That is interesting to know - SCG being more of a Midwest circuit. I'm sorry if I was insensitive about the SCG comment. It's just that most Californians know very little about the SCG circuit because there isn't really much reason to know it, outside of watching the solid coverage.
*Also I should point out that RamsayBolton756's comments echo mine 100%. I see exactly the same thing. Maybe I have just become a terrible Modern player and new Modern players come into the format with gobs and gobs of play skill? I guess I just have to accept that I will never get to a 66.6% win percentage (not counting IDs). That makes me very sad.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)They do come to either Providence or Worcester about twice a year, each of which are only 1 hour driving. I think they do Syracuse, NY also, which is about 5 hours of driving. Their NJ events are also about 5 or 6 hours of driving. So 3 plus however many NJ events are certainly more than the 0 on the West Coast.
Also, I know they're based in Virginia and Virginia is a coastal state, but if you're from the New York / New England area you think of Virginia as either the South or the Mid-West.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)i would need to know what you are playing to make an assessment because if you are running anything white 6 slots in your SB deal with 6 of those 9 decks. also 6 of those 9 decks are quite frequently played and should be prepared for anyway. I dont really play in bigger events but ive never felt like i was an auto loss to a specific deck unless i was playing something that was glass cannon. I also play a wide variety of decks so i try to play what has the best chance against an unknown field. There are definitely matches i wish i could dodge while playing deck X or deck Y but even while playing bad match ups ive never felt like there wasnt something i could have done better to win a match.
Tooth & Nail........Grishoalbrand....Living Dominance....Tezzerator.........Vannifar Pod
My Decks that have been BANNED
DRS Jund | Kiki-Pod | Bloom Titan | Splinter Twin | KCI