Seeing a disappointing amount of hyperbole and unbased conspiracy-talk in here I would have hoped that, in a game that rewards critical thinking, we would see more of that.
I did, and continued compiling data from it. Unfortunately, the data shows a few things that don't look promising. It seems that the cards that correlate the best with increased win percentages are the same cards that are the core of other successful decks: Liliana of the Veil, Inquisition of Kozilek, Ensnaring Bridge...and the cards that correlate with decreased win percentages are the cards that make the deck 8rack: The Rack, Shrieking Affliction, Smallpox...
This seems to imply that 8rack really just isn't a very good deck. I figured that no one would really care to hear that 8rack simply is not a very good deck, as shown via the data, so thought it best that I didn't post a follow up at all if all I was going to do was tell people something that they might not want to hear. Maybe a card will be printed in the future that could help the deck, but out of all of the decks that I've used the data approach on, this one stands out to me as the one where the data seems clear on the nature of the deck itself.
Personally, I would suggest removing the Chandras, the Raost, and maybe even the Banefire for Jets. Chandras are the easy cut for me, particularly due to the data on them. Yeah, Skred has worse numbers, but Skred actually has a much better function in the first few turns when we're trying to ramp into the turn three Koth (removing creatures to help ensure he ults). Chandra is basically additional copies of Koth that takes longer to ult, imo. As for the control matchups, Eternal Scourge has been an all-star for me.
Hey everyone, just got back from being away for a bit. Got some games in today, recorded and uploaded the teplays, then entered the data into the spreadsheet.
Skred still has poor numbers, but I'm still running them. Otherwise, some cards' numbers have moved around. The Mind Stones and Relics are still showing great numbers. Bolt is doing well, too. Koth's ranking went up quite a bit. The biggest, and most important, ranking change (in my opinion) is Magma Jet. Jet's numbers are quite impressive. I'm at the point now where I really think that at least three Jets should be a mainstay in Scourge builds.
@BloodyRabbit_01, I'm not sure that you're looking at the same spreadsheet that I am. Can you tell me what significant variance in playstyle might exist when 963 of the 970 games entered are by the same player? There are currently two people whose games are entered, and one of them has a total of seven games on there. Additionally, a change in playstyle seems a bit of a stretch. How many "playstyles" does a control deck that primarily controls the game through Condescend, Remand, Repeal, and Thirst for Knowledge have? There is some variance in pierakor's lists, but nothing significant enough to change the playstyle of the entire deck.
Now, if this is all a response to Summary Dismissal, did you do what I suggested and look through pierakor's videos and actually try to see how the card helped in the matches it was played? Or did you decide that your initial opinion on the card was sufficient and that seeing actual gameplay is inferior to your assumptions about how the card would perform?
As far as the data method itself, I'm not sure why anyone would feel the need to argue with it. First, it's been demonstrated as effective. The first deck that this method was used with ended up winning the Pro Tour. Second, even if there are some unknowns, we can compare the two methods available to us. Either we can use data and attempt to adjust our decks accordingly, trying to find out why some cards correlate better with wins when they're in the opening hand. Or we can assume that our conjecture and anecdotal evidence is enough and tweak our decks accordingly.
As for sample size, I suppose I should point out that each card's data is weighted for sample size. That problem was already considered and a solution was built in to solve it.
I can't definitely say why the card seems to correlate so well with win percentages, according to the data. We could go back and watch the videos on pierakor's channel and watch how it's used to see for ourselves. The spreadsheet is set up so that you can filter to see the games which had Dismissal in the opener, find what was played against and when, to make it easier to pick out the videos to watch. Otherwise, we're just running on conjecture.
I think you make some decent points about Chalice, but the same arguments could be said about Condescend and/or Remand. These cards do little to nothing against Humans if they have Vial or Cavern of Souls out. Tron can usually just get Tron online (faster and more reliable than we can) and pay the extra mana. I don't think that means we should cut either of those cards, though. It just means that Humans will be a tough matchup that we need a prepared sideboard for. Summary Dismissal is great for Tron, and Silent Arbiter is great for the Humans matchup while also being strong against Dredge, Merfolk, Spirits, etc.
We can't be perfectly prepared for every other deck, and we will have bad matchups. It just so happens that we are better (preboard) in a meta that is full of decks that Chalice and our counters is good against. As for Chalice vs. Burn, it is very effective in cutting them off a lot of spells, and two Chalice nearly wins the get outright (see pierakor's most recent Burn video to see this in action).
Hi barrin_master_wizard It took a while, but I already had the template pretty much made thanks to my previous work on Lantern.
So, breaking down the data, this is what's going on (please forgive me if you have already figured some of this out, I don't know what parts you don't know, and I'd rather be thorough in the explanation):
Opening Hand Data tab: This is where all of the data from the gameplay videos is entered. I enter in if it's preboard or postboard, what deck the opponent is playing, if the Utron pilot is on the play or draw, if the game is won or lost, if the match is won or lost, who the pilot was, and how many of each card are in the opening hand. The columns on the far right automatically calculate various things, like how many cards are in the opening hand, how many lands are in the opening hand, if there is a blue source in the opening hand, if the hand contains natural tron, if the hand contains two of the three tron lands, etc.
The data in the Opening Hand Data tab is used to create pivot tables that show win rates with various numbers of each card in the opening hand, or comparing statistics based on the columns on the far right (natural tron, etc.).
Weighted Data Trends tab:
Column A has each card name, referenced from the associated pivot table for that card.
Column B shows the number of wins with no copies of the associated card in the opening hand.
Column C shows the number of games with no copies of the associated card in the opening hand.
Column D calculates that win rate, using the numbers from columns B and C.
Column E shows the number of wins with one copy of the associated card in the opening hand.
Column F shows the number of games with one copy of the associated card in the opening hand.
Column G calculates that win rate using the numbers from columns E and F.
Column H finds the difference in win rates between having one copy (column G) and zero copies (column D).
Column I is used to weigh the data. There will be different numbers of games to be compared for each card, since the cards are randomized in the deck. The issue before weighing the data was that something may have a great increase or decrease in win rates when the card is in the opener, but the sample size is too small to be reliable. Thus, I use a function in column I to weigh the data according to sample size. The way the function works is that I divide the number of games the card was in the opener by the total number of games. The more games that the card was in the opener, the larger this fraction will be, and the greater the weight is that will be applied to column G.
Column J is the product of the difference in win rates from zero to one (column H) and the weight (column I).
I also wanted to be aware of diminishing returns, though. Sometimes a card will be great in the opener, but having multiples is not so great for us. So the block of columns K through O do the same steps for the difference between one and two copies, the blocks of columns P through T do the same steps for the difference between two and three copies, and so on.
Columns AE and AF are used to find the overall weighted data trends with diminishing returns considered. If there is no data on having multiples of a card, then column AF will display "No Data". If the overall diminishing returns is negative, column AF will display "Negative". If the overall diminishing returns is positive, the a value (the product of column J and column AE) will be displayed. The function isn't perfect, but it's what I've been using for now.
After I've entered the gameplay data into the Opening Hand Data tab, I update the Weighted Data Trends tab to see if there is new data for having multiples of a card and then sort the rows by columns AF, AE, and J, in that order. Those columns are also color-coded to help read the cards that correlate with wins better or worse.
Additional Data Points tab: Some decks have specific data points that make it unique from others. For example, with this deck we might want to compare hands that have natural tron to hands that do not. Or, we might want to compare win rates of being on the draw naturally versus being on the draw with Gemstone Caverns in hand (putting us "on the play", in a sense). It gives us win rates for the different numbers of lands in the opener, number of cards in the opener (mulligan trends), win rates if we have a blue source in our opener, etc. There's plenty more data points we can look at, but that's where I ask for suggestions. What specific combinations of cards do people want to see? I can set up the spreadsheet to look at exactly that, usually.
As for using the spreadsheet for deckbuilding and tweaking, I need to reiterate what I've posted before (and on reddit).
First, I should probably explain the approach. Using the idea that every competitive Modern deck is designed to either deny the opponent the ability to have significant interaction with the gamestate, or to minimize what interaction they are allowed to have with the gamestate, the first few turns of the game are key to how each Modern deck will successfully accomplish this task. The phrase "Modern is a turn four format" is probably not new to anyone reading this, and pretty much aligns with this concept. If a deck isn't trying to either win as quickly as possible, denying the opponent the "time" (future turns) to make significant interaction, then it's probably trying to stop the opponent from achieving a quick win. Our goal in Mono Blue Tron is to either deny the opponent from making the plays they need to win as soon as possible or to delay them until we can make more significant plays. In those first four turns each player will have access to ten cards on the play or 11 cards on the draw, assuming neither player takes a mulligan. Thus, the opening hand will account for between 64% to 70% of the resources available to maintain control of the direction of the game during those crucial turns.
So, with the idea that our ability to maintain some control over the first few turns of the game is (or just survive that long) is going to be crucial to winning the game, I focus on the opening hand. It is very important to pay attention to more than just columns AF, AE, and J! For example, it may look like Island is the "worst card correlating with win percentages in the deck". But this does not take into account the context! What kind of opening hands would an experienced Utron pilot keep that did not have an Island in the opening hand? Well, a hand with natural tron and a Wurmcoil is a great example. That's quite a good opening hand. If we actually look at the win rates of opening hands with an Island, we'll see that the win rate is 66.46% (315/474 games). That's still quite an impressive win rate. It just happens to be lower than the win rate of hands that are kept without one Island. Paying careful attention to each number is very important here, otherwise we could easily be misguided or misinterpret the numbers, as you mention above.
What I've been doing to use this data to tweak my list is to pay attention to the cards that correlate the best with increased win percentages, but also pay attention to the diminishing returns. Here are some examples:
Supreme Will: This card seems to correlating quite well with increased wins, but the diminishing returns shows a sharp decline. The sample size on the diminishing returns is also quite small, though. Thus, for now, I know that I would love to have one in the opening hand, but I'm not ready to risk increasing the chance of having two. Therefore, I run three in my main.
Chalice of the Void: Nearly the exact same scenario as Supreme Will, above. I run three of these as well.
Thirst for Knowledge: Yes, it's pretty much ubiquitous that we run a full playset of this card. For me, though, it's comforting to see the numbers support this decision. I don't want to simply believe something is true because it's popular and everyone agrees that it's true, I want to know what is true.
Remand: See Supreme Will and Chalice of the Void explanations Same scenario, I run three.
Now, I've skipped over Condescend and Anticipate. It appears that it might be better if we cut a Condescend for the same reason that I only run three Will, Chalice, and Remand. I just haven't personally pulled the trigger on that yet. I'm inclined to cut the fourth Condescend for an Anticipate, which scores great. These are my flex numbers for now.
The wincons (Mindslaver, Wurmcoil Engine, Ugin, etc.) are obviously not the best to have in the opener. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that having a 6+ drop in the opener isn't going to get us far in the first few turns without somehow assembling a fast tron. This does not mean we cut these cards, it just means that we need to be aware of how these cards are going to affect our chances at winning when they're in the opening hand. Most of that's relatively common sense, though.
I also use the data to figure out what the best performing sideboard cards are. For example, Summary Dismissal seems to perform very well, as does Spreading Seas, Negate, Silent Arbiter, and Filigree Familiar. Each of these cards are great at multiple matchups (Silent Arbiter being amazing in one of our worst matchups, Merfolk!).
So that's the spreadsheet, explained, and how I prefer to use the data. When combined with pierakor's MORT data (which gives better data on which wincons and singletons work the best, but isn't so good at finding correlating wins for cards that are run in multiples), we can use actual empirical data to tweak and build the deck.
I would agree that we shouldn't be surprised when people base an argument on invalid grounds, but I think it is healthy to respectfully point out why those grounds are invalid. Pointing this out might, in some cases, help a person understand why their logic was faulty. If they refuse to accept that their logic was faulty then we can infer that their motives were not to arrive at truth, but to attempt to convince others that what they feel is true must be true. Personally, this whole Twin thing feels much like a religion, and I am not surprised in the coincidence that the believers were, more often than not, former Twin players.
First, let me start off by saying, "whew". That was a lot of work
Just finished entering all of the matches from pierakor's "mono best tron" playlist, plus SwissRolls' games, into the sheet. We now have 960 games of Utron analyzed. You can view the spreadsheet here. Some key takeaways that I've noticed:
Best scoring three cards: The tron lands
Gemstone Caverns gets us just under a percent increase in win percentages when we're on the draw.
Best nonland cards to have in the opening hand are, in order, Repeal, Condescend, Supreme Will, Chalice of the Void, Anticipate, Thirst for Knowledge, and Remand.
Worst cards to have in the opening hand, in order from worst to best, are Treasure Mage, Ugin, and Wurmcoil Engine. Expedition Map is the next worst after that, but actually has a positive correlation to win percentages so long as there are no multiples. Ugin and Wurmcoil seem pretty self-explanatory for not being so great in the opener, but I'm a little more surprised at Treasure Mage. I suppose it makes sense, though. The body is fine, but what we get is useless if we don't live long enough to cast it. Having something that actually disrupts the opponent seems to perform much better for us.
The deck mulligans relatively well, going from a 69.41% win percentage with a full opener to 63.59% with six cards.
The deck performs relatively well with varied numbers of lands. Four is best (74.89%), followed by three (68.38%), five (64.15%), and two (63.12%).
Quite a bit more information to be gleaned there. Feel free to check it out, I figure it could help lead to some good conversation about deck tweaks.
I went down in Rack effects, but up in win conditions overall (15 now), and diversified my wincons to work with Bridge (another well performing card). When Smallpox is good, it's pretty good, but it requires certain conditions to be met for that to happen. I think I'd prefer Bridge over Smallpox, as it permanently answers an opponent's topdecked threats rather than needing to draw the right removal at the right time. To be fair, though, my perception on this is only based on hindsight after seeing the numbers coming out the way they do, with Bridge far outperforming Smallpox, even when weighed for sample size. I could see an argument for both, but every other nonland card also beats Smallpox.
I wrote above about diversifying threats, using the six token generators, to force an opponent into a sort of zugzwang. If they expend cards from hand to answer the tokens, then they will lose to Rack effects. If they don't, they will lose to tokens. All of that being a dilemma for them while simultaneously having their hand disrupted. It seems that if we go all-in on the Rack plan, we become a slower glass-cannon sort of deck, where it is easier to combat us with strategies like sandbagging lands, racing us with harder-hitting threats (forcing us to have to draw and expend resources answering the threats), or with cards like Leyline. This new direction allows us to play a true control game. With classic lists, we have to draw the right combination of cards, in the right order, at the right time, for the deck to function. Too many Rack effects and not enough discard or removal means we just fall behind. Too much discard and removal and not enough Rack effects means we lose to topdecked with no clock for the opp. With the new game plan, we've solved this problem.
Smallpox numbers have plummeted. Is now the poorest scoring nonland card in the deck.
Raven's Crimes numbers are back up. Still not great in multiples, but good numbers despite that.
The Rack and Shrieking Affliction are pretty close together, both performing not so great.
Funeral Charm performing pretty well.
With the above information, I reworked the deck as follows:
I've dropped the Rack and Affliction numbers to five, with a 3/2 split of Affliction/Rack. I went with 3 Affliction over 3 Rack due to the nature of there being more sideboard cards against The Rack.
I've dropped Smallpox altogether. When it's good, it's pretty good, but more often than not it seems to be just as bad for us as it is the for the opponent.
In place of Smallpox, I've added Lingering Souls. That makes three copies of Souls and three copies of Bitterblossom. What this does for us is diversify our threats. Before now, opponents could simply lay a threat and try to race our Rack effects, holding cards (usually lands, if possible) to win that race. This meant that we had to not only answer their threat, but continue being able to discard the cards they're holding. This was often tough, if not impossible, to do. With the token generators, however, we put the opponent into a sort of zugzwang. If they don't answer our tokens, they will clock them. If they do expend resources (cards) to answer our tokens, then our Rack effects will clock them. Our discard works with either plan, as our discard can enable Rack damage, or protect our tokens and make sure the opponent can't stabilize. Ensnaring Bridge works just fine with our flying tokens, while impeding the opponent from having the opportunity to topdeck a bigger threat.
We now have a decent "removal" suite, in Fatal Push, Funeral Charm, Collective Brutality, and Ensnaring Bridge, bringing our "removal" numbers to 11 cards. Funeral Charm and Brutality serve double-duty with discard, bringing our discard to 20 (not including lands when we have a Raven's Crime in the graveyard). 10 of those discard spells we have are able to hit lands as well, helping to shore up that weakness (again, not including lands when we have a Raven's Crime in the graveyard). Three of them being instant-speed helps to ensure the opponent can't topdeck a sorcery-speed effect to stabilize when they're hellbent.
All of this combined pressure allows Liliana, who is often safe behind chump blockers or a Bridge, to continuously tick up until we force our opponents to make very difficult sacrifices.
The Wrench Minds were delegated to the sideboard, to be brought in depending on if we're on the play/draw against decks running few (if any) artifacts. I'm running three Delirium Skeins in the side as well, avoiding our Rack plan to be shut off by Leyline of Sanctity. This means that the opponent can still put the Leyline into play and be down that card, but will have little or no effect on us. Waste Not works with this plan, allowing us to refill our hand and/or make more threats that can often swing under Bridge or chump block until our Liliana ultimates. Leyline of the Void seems to have performed very well for the deck, so I stuck with that for graveyard hate. The fourth Collective Brutality is for small-creature matchups and Burn.
I'll continue to keep testing this list, feels really good right now. Unfortunately, it is very expensive. I plan on building it in paper, but that's going to take a little while.
Anyways, I look forward to the feedback, and I hope that this helpful!
This seems to imply that 8rack really just isn't a very good deck. I figured that no one would really care to hear that 8rack simply is not a very good deck, as shown via the data, so thought it best that I didn't post a follow up at all if all I was going to do was tell people something that they might not want to hear. Maybe a card will be printed in the future that could help the deck, but out of all of the decks that I've used the data approach on, this one stands out to me as the one where the data seems clear on the nature of the deck itself.
Personally, I would suggest removing the Chandras, the Raost, and maybe even the Banefire for Jets. Chandras are the easy cut for me, particularly due to the data on them. Yeah, Skred has worse numbers, but Skred actually has a much better function in the first few turns when we're trying to ramp into the turn three Koth (removing creatures to help ensure he ults). Chandra is basically additional copies of Koth that takes longer to ult, imo. As for the control matchups, Eternal Scourge has been an all-star for me.
What matchups do you bring in Spitebellows?
Skred still has poor numbers, but I'm still running them. Otherwise, some cards' numbers have moved around. The Mind Stones and Relics are still showing great numbers. Bolt is doing well, too. Koth's ranking went up quite a bit. The biggest, and most important, ranking change (in my opinion) is Magma Jet. Jet's numbers are quite impressive. I'm at the point now where I really think that at least three Jets should be a mainstay in Scourge builds.
Now, if this is all a response to Summary Dismissal, did you do what I suggested and look through pierakor's videos and actually try to see how the card helped in the matches it was played? Or did you decide that your initial opinion on the card was sufficient and that seeing actual gameplay is inferior to your assumptions about how the card would perform?
As far as the data method itself, I'm not sure why anyone would feel the need to argue with it. First, it's been demonstrated as effective. The first deck that this method was used with ended up winning the Pro Tour. Second, even if there are some unknowns, we can compare the two methods available to us. Either we can use data and attempt to adjust our decks accordingly, trying to find out why some cards correlate better with wins when they're in the opening hand. Or we can assume that our conjecture and anecdotal evidence is enough and tweak our decks accordingly.
As for sample size, I suppose I should point out that each card's data is weighted for sample size. That problem was already considered and a solution was built in to solve it.
We can't be perfectly prepared for every other deck, and we will have bad matchups. It just so happens that we are better (preboard) in a meta that is full of decks that Chalice and our counters is good against. As for Chalice vs. Burn, it is very effective in cutting them off a lot of spells, and two Chalice nearly wins the get outright (see pierakor's most recent Burn video to see this in action).
So, breaking down the data, this is what's going on (please forgive me if you have already figured some of this out, I don't know what parts you don't know, and I'd rather be thorough in the explanation):
Opening Hand Data tab: This is where all of the data from the gameplay videos is entered. I enter in if it's preboard or postboard, what deck the opponent is playing, if the Utron pilot is on the play or draw, if the game is won or lost, if the match is won or lost, who the pilot was, and how many of each card are in the opening hand. The columns on the far right automatically calculate various things, like how many cards are in the opening hand, how many lands are in the opening hand, if there is a blue source in the opening hand, if the hand contains natural tron, if the hand contains two of the three tron lands, etc.
The data in the Opening Hand Data tab is used to create pivot tables that show win rates with various numbers of each card in the opening hand, or comparing statistics based on the columns on the far right (natural tron, etc.).
Weighted Data Trends tab:
Column A has each card name, referenced from the associated pivot table for that card.
Column B shows the number of wins with no copies of the associated card in the opening hand.
Column C shows the number of games with no copies of the associated card in the opening hand.
Column D calculates that win rate, using the numbers from columns B and C.
Column E shows the number of wins with one copy of the associated card in the opening hand.
Column F shows the number of games with one copy of the associated card in the opening hand.
Column G calculates that win rate using the numbers from columns E and F.
Column H finds the difference in win rates between having one copy (column G) and zero copies (column D).
Column I is used to weigh the data. There will be different numbers of games to be compared for each card, since the cards are randomized in the deck. The issue before weighing the data was that something may have a great increase or decrease in win rates when the card is in the opener, but the sample size is too small to be reliable. Thus, I use a function in column I to weigh the data according to sample size. The way the function works is that I divide the number of games the card was in the opener by the total number of games. The more games that the card was in the opener, the larger this fraction will be, and the greater the weight is that will be applied to column G.
Column J is the product of the difference in win rates from zero to one (column H) and the weight (column I).
I also wanted to be aware of diminishing returns, though. Sometimes a card will be great in the opener, but having multiples is not so great for us. So the block of columns K through O do the same steps for the difference between one and two copies, the blocks of columns P through T do the same steps for the difference between two and three copies, and so on.
Columns AE and AF are used to find the overall weighted data trends with diminishing returns considered. If there is no data on having multiples of a card, then column AF will display "No Data". If the overall diminishing returns is negative, column AF will display "Negative". If the overall diminishing returns is positive, the a value (the product of column J and column AE) will be displayed. The function isn't perfect, but it's what I've been using for now.
After I've entered the gameplay data into the Opening Hand Data tab, I update the Weighted Data Trends tab to see if there is new data for having multiples of a card and then sort the rows by columns AF, AE, and J, in that order. Those columns are also color-coded to help read the cards that correlate with wins better or worse.
Additional Data Points tab: Some decks have specific data points that make it unique from others. For example, with this deck we might want to compare hands that have natural tron to hands that do not. Or, we might want to compare win rates of being on the draw naturally versus being on the draw with Gemstone Caverns in hand (putting us "on the play", in a sense). It gives us win rates for the different numbers of lands in the opener, number of cards in the opener (mulligan trends), win rates if we have a blue source in our opener, etc. There's plenty more data points we can look at, but that's where I ask for suggestions. What specific combinations of cards do people want to see? I can set up the spreadsheet to look at exactly that, usually.
As for using the spreadsheet for deckbuilding and tweaking, I need to reiterate what I've posted before (and on reddit).
So, with the idea that our ability to maintain some control over the first few turns of the game is (or just survive that long) is going to be crucial to winning the game, I focus on the opening hand. It is very important to pay attention to more than just columns AF, AE, and J! For example, it may look like Island is the "worst card correlating with win percentages in the deck". But this does not take into account the context! What kind of opening hands would an experienced Utron pilot keep that did not have an Island in the opening hand? Well, a hand with natural tron and a Wurmcoil is a great example. That's quite a good opening hand. If we actually look at the win rates of opening hands with an Island, we'll see that the win rate is 66.46% (315/474 games). That's still quite an impressive win rate. It just happens to be lower than the win rate of hands that are kept without one Island. Paying careful attention to each number is very important here, otherwise we could easily be misguided or misinterpret the numbers, as you mention above.
What I've been doing to use this data to tweak my list is to pay attention to the cards that correlate the best with increased win percentages, but also pay attention to the diminishing returns. Here are some examples:
Supreme Will: This card seems to correlating quite well with increased wins, but the diminishing returns shows a sharp decline. The sample size on the diminishing returns is also quite small, though. Thus, for now, I know that I would love to have one in the opening hand, but I'm not ready to risk increasing the chance of having two. Therefore, I run three in my main.
Chalice of the Void: Nearly the exact same scenario as Supreme Will, above. I run three of these as well.
Thirst for Knowledge: Yes, it's pretty much ubiquitous that we run a full playset of this card. For me, though, it's comforting to see the numbers support this decision. I don't want to simply believe something is true because it's popular and everyone agrees that it's true, I want to know what is true.
Remand: See Supreme Will and Chalice of the Void explanations
Now, I've skipped over Condescend and Anticipate. It appears that it might be better if we cut a Condescend for the same reason that I only run three Will, Chalice, and Remand. I just haven't personally pulled the trigger on that yet. I'm inclined to cut the fourth Condescend for an Anticipate, which scores great. These are my flex numbers for now.
The wincons (Mindslaver, Wurmcoil Engine, Ugin, etc.) are obviously not the best to have in the opener. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that having a 6+ drop in the opener isn't going to get us far in the first few turns without somehow assembling a fast tron. This does not mean we cut these cards, it just means that we need to be aware of how these cards are going to affect our chances at winning when they're in the opening hand. Most of that's relatively common sense, though.
I also use the data to figure out what the best performing sideboard cards are. For example, Summary Dismissal seems to perform very well, as does Spreading Seas, Negate, Silent Arbiter, and Filigree Familiar. Each of these cards are great at multiple matchups (Silent Arbiter being amazing in one of our worst matchups, Merfolk!).
So that's the spreadsheet, explained, and how I prefer to use the data. When combined with pierakor's MORT data (which gives better data on which wincons and singletons work the best, but isn't so good at finding correlating wins for cards that are run in multiples), we can use actual empirical data to tweak and build the deck.
Just finished entering all of the matches from pierakor's "mono best tron" playlist, plus SwissRolls' games, into the sheet. We now have 960 games of Utron analyzed. You can view the spreadsheet here. Some key takeaways that I've noticed:
Best scoring three cards: The tron lands
Gemstone Caverns gets us just under a percent increase in win percentages when we're on the draw.
Best nonland cards to have in the opening hand are, in order, Repeal, Condescend, Supreme Will, Chalice of the Void, Anticipate, Thirst for Knowledge, and Remand.
Worst cards to have in the opening hand, in order from worst to best, are Treasure Mage, Ugin, and Wurmcoil Engine. Expedition Map is the next worst after that, but actually has a positive correlation to win percentages so long as there are no multiples. Ugin and Wurmcoil seem pretty self-explanatory for not being so great in the opener, but I'm a little more surprised at Treasure Mage. I suppose it makes sense, though. The body is fine, but what we get is useless if we don't live long enough to cast it. Having something that actually disrupts the opponent seems to perform much better for us.
The deck mulligans relatively well, going from a 69.41% win percentage with a full opener to 63.59% with six cards.
The deck performs relatively well with varied numbers of lands. Four is best (74.89%), followed by three (68.38%), five (64.15%), and two (63.12%).
Quite a bit more information to be gleaned there. Feel free to check it out, I figure it could help lead to some good conversation about deck tweaks.
I wrote above about diversifying threats, using the six token generators, to force an opponent into a sort of zugzwang. If they expend cards from hand to answer the tokens, then they will lose to Rack effects. If they don't, they will lose to tokens. All of that being a dilemma for them while simultaneously having their hand disrupted. It seems that if we go all-in on the Rack plan, we become a slower glass-cannon sort of deck, where it is easier to combat us with strategies like sandbagging lands, racing us with harder-hitting threats (forcing us to have to draw and expend resources answering the threats), or with cards like Leyline. This new direction allows us to play a true control game. With classic lists, we have to draw the right combination of cards, in the right order, at the right time, for the deck to function. Too many Rack effects and not enough discard or removal means we just fall behind. Too much discard and removal and not enough Rack effects means we lose to topdecked with no clock for the opp. With the new game plan, we've solved this problem.
Got quite a bit more data entered now (spreadsheet can be found here, up to 263 games worth. Quick take-aways:
Smallpox numbers have plummeted. Is now the poorest scoring nonland card in the deck.
Raven's Crimes numbers are back up. Still not great in multiples, but good numbers despite that.
The Rack and Shrieking Affliction are pretty close together, both performing not so great.
Funeral Charm performing pretty well.
With the above information, I reworked the deck as follows:
1x Godless Shrine
4x Marsh Flats
4x Mutavault
9x Swamp
2x Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
3x Ensnaring Bridge
2x The Rack
3x Collective Brutality
4x Inquisition of Kozilek
3x Lingering Souls
3x Raven's Crime
3x Thoughtseize
3x Funeral Charm
4x Liliana of the Veil
3x Bitterblossom
3x Shrieking Affliction
3x Delirium Skeins
3x Leyline of the Void
4x Waste Not
4x Wrench Mind
I've dropped the Rack and Affliction numbers to five, with a 3/2 split of Affliction/Rack. I went with 3 Affliction over 3 Rack due to the nature of there being more sideboard cards against The Rack.
I've dropped Smallpox altogether. When it's good, it's pretty good, but more often than not it seems to be just as bad for us as it is the for the opponent.
In place of Smallpox, I've added Lingering Souls. That makes three copies of Souls and three copies of Bitterblossom. What this does for us is diversify our threats. Before now, opponents could simply lay a threat and try to race our Rack effects, holding cards (usually lands, if possible) to win that race. This meant that we had to not only answer their threat, but continue being able to discard the cards they're holding. This was often tough, if not impossible, to do. With the token generators, however, we put the opponent into a sort of zugzwang. If they don't answer our tokens, they will clock them. If they do expend resources (cards) to answer our tokens, then our Rack effects will clock them. Our discard works with either plan, as our discard can enable Rack damage, or protect our tokens and make sure the opponent can't stabilize. Ensnaring Bridge works just fine with our flying tokens, while impeding the opponent from having the opportunity to topdeck a bigger threat.
We now have a decent "removal" suite, in Fatal Push, Funeral Charm, Collective Brutality, and Ensnaring Bridge, bringing our "removal" numbers to 11 cards. Funeral Charm and Brutality serve double-duty with discard, bringing our discard to 20 (not including lands when we have a Raven's Crime in the graveyard). 10 of those discard spells we have are able to hit lands as well, helping to shore up that weakness (again, not including lands when we have a Raven's Crime in the graveyard). Three of them being instant-speed helps to ensure the opponent can't topdeck a sorcery-speed effect to stabilize when they're hellbent.
All of this combined pressure allows Liliana, who is often safe behind chump blockers or a Bridge, to continuously tick up until we force our opponents to make very difficult sacrifices.
The Wrench Minds were delegated to the sideboard, to be brought in depending on if we're on the play/draw against decks running few (if any) artifacts. I'm running three Delirium Skeins in the side as well, avoiding our Rack plan to be shut off by Leyline of Sanctity. This means that the opponent can still put the Leyline into play and be down that card, but will have little or no effect on us. Waste Not works with this plan, allowing us to refill our hand and/or make more threats that can often swing under Bridge or chump block until our Liliana ultimates. Leyline of the Void seems to have performed very well for the deck, so I stuck with that for graveyard hate. The fourth Collective Brutality is for small-creature matchups and Burn.
I'll continue to keep testing this list, feels really good right now. Unfortunately, it is very expensive. I plan on building it in paper, but that's going to take a little while.
Anyways, I look forward to the feedback, and I hope that this helpful!