So I say it wins on turn 1 less than 10% of the time, you show evidence it wins less than 10% of the time and I'm wrong? Goldfishing is not a representation of a deck irl. Half those games (statistically) would be the opponent goes first, and could disrupt. You can not brute force the number up that way and claim it as evidence.
So, again you've replied without your "data". If you had read the post you would have seen how it's much more likely that the true number is well over 10%. The 7.5% number was wrong because it didn't include all the possible turn 1 combos. Secondly, the turn 1 goldfishing stats were done all on the play, so outside of force of negation, there is 0 interaction you could have. Turn 2 goldfishing was a whopping 48% so even if you take some off of that due to interaction, it's still absurdly high and that's with the Vancouver mulligan. With London mulligan it's much higher, the guy said his turn 1 on the play winrate is closer to 20% now. It's laughable that you're talking about evidence again and yet you have still provided none. I went from providing my personal experience to actually providing some data for analysis. You have made statements that you've provided no evidence for, and I provided a decent amount of evidence that what you said is false. I said if you had any data to share yourself, feel free and you didn't. So unless you got something more than just blindly trying to refute what I'm saying, then I guess we're done here.
I didn't make a claim to the deck's overall win rate. You did. I shared personal experience only. Therefore since you introduced the stat the onus is on you to cite it or provide evidence that the number you stated is accurate. You didn't include a sample size, you didn't say if it was pre or post london mulligan rule, and you also didn't address the fact that any deck winning on turn 1 at anywhere near 10% (if that's even accurate) is still easily worthy of a ban in modern.
Here you go friend. A deck that's less than 2% of the meta, which posts a single 5-0 roughly every 2-3 days. As I said before, you are free to watch people who actually test the deck on twitch. No I will no do it for you. You ARE the one who made the claim that " Neobrand goes off on turn 1 at least once every match I play against it, and quite frequently twice." which is outlandish and supported by no evidence other than your word. You are now walking that back saying you didn't claim anything and shared personal experience, but expect WotC to ban the deck based on your personal experience. Multiple other people have refuted your outlandish claims.
Uhh,except they haven't. First of all, when a deck is new, meta share is largely irrelevant to brokenness. Modern is an expensive format. Usually until a deck makes a few top 8s at some larger events, people are not going to buy in. Again, KCI, was 2% of the meta for a long ass time, but was always just as broken, the same with AmuletBloom. Hogaak didn't have top meta share or even large meta share right off the bat, and people had an easier transition to it, because bridgevine was already a thing. Also people don't like to buy into a deck that may be immediately on the chopping block. Neobrand is not a thing without the London Mulligan and that went into effect 2 weeks ago. So saying a deck isn't broken because it doesnt have meta share after 15 days is absurd. As far as my claim, again I made a personal experience claim. The last match I played against it I lost on turn 1 twice. I have yet to play against Neobrand without it getting at least 1 turn 1 win. Here's screenshots form my last match. If there was easier ways to find specific games in MTGO I could definitely get more. Watched some content on youtube today from a popular streamer playing against neobrand and guess what? Turn 1 win.
You on the other made a general claim about what the deck can do and provided no evidence at all, and no detail about how those numbers were reached. I didn't post screens with what I said because I was making a statement based on anecdotal evidence and stated so, so evidence is largely irrelevant. But YOU made a claim about the deck as a whole backed by "data" and then provided no data. I don't expect WOTC to do anything, it's dumb to expect anything from WOTC even if scores of people want them to, but that's not what this thread is about is it? So stop making baseless claims with no evidence. After a little bit of searching I only found one real reference to the turn 1 win rate and it was wrong, as pointed out by someone else.
"Number of possible opening hands is 60C7=~386 million. A lower bound for the number of T1-win opening hands is 4 Neoform*4 Rider*4 Chancellor*8 Cavern/Spirit Guide*19 other green cards*55 generic cards*54 generic cards = ~29 million.
29/386=~7.5% Not perfect, but it's a definitive lower bound, and mulligans will improve it significantly."
"I think you've missed a lot of the opening hand variation. I'd suggest that the best way to approach is classifying functional T1 hands in 7 categories:
Chancellor + Land + Neo + Pact/Rider + Green
Ch + Sim Spirit Guide + Morphose + Neo + P/R + Gr
Ch + Ch + Mor + Neo + P/R
SSG + Land + Mor + Neo + P/R + Gr + Gr
SSG + SSG + Ch + Eldritch Evo + P/R + Mor + Gr
SSG + Land + Ch + Evo + P/R + Gr
Ch + Ch + Land/Guide/Ch + Eldritch Evo + P/R
(and potentially SSG + SSG + Land + Morphose + P/R + Green + Pickup a Green card on the draw)"
So without even including all the possible turn 1 combos, mathematically it can go off at roughly 7.5% That doesn't include mulligans, and especially doesn't include the London Mulligan rule, so I'd say your statement of it only wins turn 1 less than 10% is almost certainly false. If you got some better data then stop hiding it and post it. Regardless, none of this takes account how often the deck can put together a turn 2 or turn 3 win. If it can win turn 1 at 10% and turn 2 30%, is that worth a ban to you? What numbers of people barely getting to play magic are acceptable to you? Because the fact is decks have been banned in modern for being less explosive than that.
I didn't make a claim to the deck's overall win rate. You did. I shared personal experience only. Therefore since you introduced the stat the onus is on you to cite it or provide evidence that the number you stated is accurate. You didn't include a sample size, you didn't say if it was pre or post london mulligan rule, and you also didn't address the fact that any deck winning on turn 1 at anywhere near 10% (if that's even accurate) is still easily worthy of a ban in modern.
Is this really a conversation about the actual numbers of a deck in MODERN going off on turn 1? Is there any deck ever in modern that was even capable of winning on turn 1 at all, much less at a 10%? A deck that's winning 10% on turn 2 in modern has a fair shot of getting banned, and no, it was on MTGO, not paper. Not to mention it's a deck that can combo turn 1, that can dodge any way to stop it outside of a 1 or 0 mana blue answer even if you actually get a turn to play something. It's unaffected by graveyard hate, unaffected by a chalice on 1, only slightly affected by a chalice on 0. You do nothing and they either have it or they don't. And for a deck that wins on turn 3 that wouldn't be a problem but it isn't winning on turn 3, it's winning before I play my first land. And I'd love to see your <10% data, make sure it's post London Mulligan.
Lol are you kidding me about the format being great right now? Neobrand goes off on turn 1 at least once every match I play against it, and quite frequently twice. At least against hogaak, there was a chance to do something, the last match I played, I lost twice in a row on turn 1. There literally 0 percent chance that deck makes it past a major tournament before it gets hit with the hammer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, again you've replied without your "data". If you had read the post you would have seen how it's much more likely that the true number is well over 10%. The 7.5% number was wrong because it didn't include all the possible turn 1 combos. Secondly, the turn 1 goldfishing stats were done all on the play, so outside of force of negation, there is 0 interaction you could have. Turn 2 goldfishing was a whopping 48% so even if you take some off of that due to interaction, it's still absurdly high and that's with the Vancouver mulligan. With London mulligan it's much higher, the guy said his turn 1 on the play winrate is closer to 20% now. It's laughable that you're talking about evidence again and yet you have still provided none. I went from providing my personal experience to actually providing some data for analysis. You have made statements that you've provided no evidence for, and I provided a decent amount of evidence that what you said is false. I said if you had any data to share yourself, feel free and you didn't. So unless you got something more than just blindly trying to refute what I'm saying, then I guess we're done here.
Uhh,except they haven't. First of all, when a deck is new, meta share is largely irrelevant to brokenness. Modern is an expensive format. Usually until a deck makes a few top 8s at some larger events, people are not going to buy in. Again, KCI, was 2% of the meta for a long ass time, but was always just as broken, the same with AmuletBloom. Hogaak didn't have top meta share or even large meta share right off the bat, and people had an easier transition to it, because bridgevine was already a thing. Also people don't like to buy into a deck that may be immediately on the chopping block. Neobrand is not a thing without the London Mulligan and that went into effect 2 weeks ago. So saying a deck isn't broken because it doesnt have meta share after 15 days is absurd. As far as my claim, again I made a personal experience claim. The last match I played against it I lost on turn 1 twice. I have yet to play against Neobrand without it getting at least 1 turn 1 win. Here's screenshots form my last match. If there was easier ways to find specific games in MTGO I could definitely get more. Watched some content on youtube today from a popular streamer playing against neobrand and guess what? Turn 1 win.
You on the other made a general claim about what the deck can do and provided no evidence at all, and no detail about how those numbers were reached. I didn't post screens with what I said because I was making a statement based on anecdotal evidence and stated so, so evidence is largely irrelevant. But YOU made a claim about the deck as a whole backed by "data" and then provided no data. I don't expect WOTC to do anything, it's dumb to expect anything from WOTC even if scores of people want them to, but that's not what this thread is about is it? So stop making baseless claims with no evidence. After a little bit of searching I only found one real reference to the turn 1 win rate and it was wrong, as pointed out by someone else.
"Number of possible opening hands is 60C7=~386 million. A lower bound for the number of T1-win opening hands is 4 Neoform*4 Rider*4 Chancellor*8 Cavern/Spirit Guide*19 other green cards*55 generic cards*54 generic cards = ~29 million.
29/386=~7.5% Not perfect, but it's a definitive lower bound, and mulligans will improve it significantly."
"I think you've missed a lot of the opening hand variation. I'd suggest that the best way to approach is classifying functional T1 hands in 7 categories:
Chancellor + Land + Neo + Pact/Rider + Green
Ch + Sim Spirit Guide + Morphose + Neo + P/R + Gr
Ch + Ch + Mor + Neo + P/R
SSG + Land + Mor + Neo + P/R + Gr + Gr
SSG + SSG + Ch + Eldritch Evo + P/R + Mor + Gr
SSG + Land + Ch + Evo + P/R + Gr
Ch + Ch + Land/Guide/Ch + Eldritch Evo + P/R
(and potentially SSG + SSG + Land + Morphose + P/R + Green + Pickup a Green card on the draw)"
So without even including all the possible turn 1 combos, mathematically it can go off at roughly 7.5% That doesn't include mulligans, and especially doesn't include the London Mulligan rule, so I'd say your statement of it only wins turn 1 less than 10% is almost certainly false. If you got some better data then stop hiding it and post it. Regardless, none of this takes account how often the deck can put together a turn 2 or turn 3 win. If it can win turn 1 at 10% and turn 2 30%, is that worth a ban to you? What numbers of people barely getting to play magic are acceptable to you? Because the fact is decks have been banned in modern for being less explosive than that.
Edit: here's a little more evidence for you: