Cards like Tinker, Natural order etc will have many less 3-0's simply due to them being opened later in the draft, or be abandoned to the sideboard if the drafter switches game plans. That's why it's not surprising to see cards like Mana confluence, versatile artifacts and swords to plowshares at the top.
It's probably too ambitious to track all these cards main deck %, but doing so would greatly increase the accuracy of the project (assuming the goal is to better identify a cards power level). This also gets around the issue of combining data results from cubes that don't have the same card list.
In the original post I stated this: "Keep in mind that the cards with the highest numbers aren’t necessarily the most powerful cards, but the most versatile cards that can appear in multiple decks."
Yeah, I read into your initial post a bit, thinking you were talking more about relative power level than you were.
My latest response was in response to Tjornan's response to me "While it’s true that this correlation is not 100%, I’d argue it’s much higher than you think."
Which I disagreed with.
This data set is comparing the total number of 3-0's of cards that have effectively participated in a different number of drafts... Thankfully, the total number of drafts a card participates in IS correlated to how good it is and how versatile it is (main deck%). So this is very useful data to get a general sense of how good a card is.. in an entangled mess of perceived value, versatility and actual effect on win%.
If a card shows up here at the top of the list, there's a very good chance that it's a very good card... which is useful information. Enormous differences in data from expectation, is good grounds to question, why?
Example: I am surprised Clique is as high as it is on this list, given that it costs UU, thus harder to play than some other blue cards. If it maintains it's rank when the data set doubles or tripples, I would take a serious look at what's making clique do so well.
If you are looking to get a sense if your data sample is becoming more accurate, the mana elves are probably the best anchor... Since there are 4 that are basically functionally equivalent.
Llanowar, Elvish mystic, Fyndhorn elfs and Arbor elf*.
If you are comparing two cards who's spread in 3-0% is less than the spread between the elves, it's probably not that useful.
Tho, I know you answered that that's not what this is for. Question generating ,not answering etc.
I agree with most of what you are saying, and glad you are putting in the work! Overall fully encourage the work!
The biggest problem with using this list as an indicator for a cards power level, is that the differences in main deck % between the cards, plays a much larger roll on their relative 3-0 frequency than the relative power between the cards when they do make main decks.
Unless the card is black lotus, time walk etc.. Most indvidual cards don't effect an overall decks win% by a factor of more than 0.1-2%. Variations of main deck %'s differ by dramatically larger numbers between cards with similar power level.
If a card misses a main deck, it's no different than it not being included in the cube period, and that has an enormous effect on the likelyhood it shows up in a 3-0 deck.
That's why it's not surprising to see cards like Mana confluence, artifacts and swords to plowshares at the top.
It's probably too ambitious to track all these cards main deck %, but doing so would enormously increase the accuracy of the project (assuming the goal is to better identify a cards power level). This also gets around the issue of combining data results from cubes that don't have the same card list.
While there are correlations to a cards true power level and how many 3-0 decks it shows up in, the correlation is not 100%... also the sample required to get a very accurate picture is obscenely high.
You can see that by comparing Strip mine and wasteland, one card is vastly strictly superior to the other, and it has 15% less top 3-0 decks.
City of brass and mana confluence are functionally identical, yet are almost as far apart as Elspeth and Gideon.
Sorry to be negative, just worried that people will misinterpret these results. Not trying to discourage the exercise as it's a fun project, and as the samples grow, the more interesting it becomes... Only suggest being tepid in drawing any conclusions that Card A is better than Card B because of what this data shows.
Yeah, I read into your initial post a bit, thinking you were talking more about relative power level than you were.
My latest response was in response to Tjornan's response to me "While it’s true that this correlation is not 100%, I’d argue it’s much higher than you think."
Which I disagreed with.
This data set is comparing the total number of 3-0's of cards that have effectively participated in a different number of drafts... Thankfully, the total number of drafts a card participates in IS correlated to how good it is and how versatile it is (main deck%). So this is very useful data to get a general sense of how good a card is.. in an entangled mess of perceived value, versatility and actual effect on win%.
If a card shows up here at the top of the list, there's a very good chance that it's a very good card... which is useful information. Enormous differences in data from expectation, is good grounds to question, why?
Example: I am surprised Clique is as high as it is on this list, given that it costs UU, thus harder to play than some other blue cards. If it maintains it's rank when the data set doubles or tripples, I would take a serious look at what's making clique do so well.
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg
If you are looking to get a sense if your data sample is becoming more accurate, the mana elves are probably the best anchor... Since there are 4 that are basically functionally equivalent.
Llanowar, Elvish mystic, Fyndhorn elfs and Arbor elf*.
If you are comparing two cards who's spread in 3-0% is less than the spread between the elves, it's probably not that useful.
Tho, I know you answered that that's not what this is for. Question generating ,not answering etc.
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg
The biggest problem with using this list as an indicator for a cards power level, is that the differences in main deck % between the cards, plays a much larger roll on their relative 3-0 frequency than the relative power between the cards when they do make main decks.
Unless the card is black lotus, time walk etc.. Most indvidual cards don't effect an overall decks win% by a factor of more than 0.1-2%. Variations of main deck %'s differ by dramatically larger numbers between cards with similar power level.
If a card misses a main deck, it's no different than it not being included in the cube period, and that has an enormous effect on the likelyhood it shows up in a 3-0 deck.
That's why it's not surprising to see cards like Mana confluence, artifacts and swords to plowshares at the top.
It's probably too ambitious to track all these cards main deck %, but doing so would enormously increase the accuracy of the project (assuming the goal is to better identify a cards power level). This also gets around the issue of combining data results from cubes that don't have the same card list.
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg
You can see that by comparing Strip mine and wasteland, one card is vastly strictly superior to the other, and it has 15% less top 3-0 decks.
City of brass and mana confluence are functionally identical, yet are almost as far apart as Elspeth and Gideon.
Sorry to be negative, just worried that people will misinterpret these results. Not trying to discourage the exercise as it's a fun project, and as the samples grow, the more interesting it becomes... Only suggest being tepid in drawing any conclusions that Card A is better than Card B because of what this data shows.
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg