I think I have a problem, I'm not playing enough blue. My two favourite decks as of yet are Elves and Death & Taxes. I do own a playset of Force of Will, Brainstorm, and Ponder, and the one deck I have that can use them all is OmniTell (I'd prefer duals so I can play other blue decks). Although I find it boring after a while since I am doing nothing but searching for my win con. I do have Merfolk which is fun but I don't think they are good enough in the current meta and I only get to play the Forces. I would like UR Delver with pyromancer and swiftspear, but again, without duals it's not great enough. I am actually more interested in collecting, building and playing colourless MUD and Burn over a cantripping deck. Is there something wrong with me?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
No, play what you like, that's the point of the game. To have fun.
I have the option of time play anything that doest need SnT and I am almost always playing Lands (Combo) or Elves. There is nothing wrong with not playing Blue. It's what you have fun doing.
Are you playing to win, or are you playing to have fun?
If you're playing to win, then yeah, not playing blue is hurting you. Blue decks are just better.
If your goal is to have fun, then you should try to stick with something you like playing. Elves and D&T *can* do quite well, when they're positioned well in the metagame. As long as your meta isn't a shooter's row of combo decks, either of those will probably do at least decently well.
Are you playing to win, or are you playing to have fun?
If you're playing to win, then yeah, not playing blue is hurting you. Blue decks are just better.
If your goal is to have fun, then you should try to stick with something you like playing. Elves and D&T *can* do quite well, when they're positioned well in the metagame. As long as your meta isn't a shooter's row of combo decks, either of those will probably do at least decently well.
The Top 8s for those tournaments paint a fairly different picture.
MUD, for example, posts a sweet 64% win ratio. But I've only found one instance of it making top8 from your list. Win% is useless if you can't convert it into actual placings. It's easy to argue that it lacks placings because it was underrepresented, but that raises another question: Why was it underrepresented? Because if a deck like MUD or Enchantress or so starts really making waves in a Meta, sideboard hate shuts them down *Hard*.
But that's a metagame issue. You're an individual player. Feel free to play the fringe decks. Just don't put all your eggs in one basket, or you'll feel like crap when everyone in your area packs Energy Flux and/or Shattering Spree.
The Top 8s for those tournaments paint a fairly different picture.
They paint pretty much the same picture. Decks with higher win-rates see more top eight play in proportion to their representation in the event. Of course this is still subject to variance:
A deck with a 50% win rate could win no matches one event and every match another event, earning a top eight. Or it could win half its matches in both events and not top eight at all.
The only way the top eight actually paints a different picture is if you look at the winning decks with no consideration to representation. Obviously if we omit relevant data we will get a different (and very wrong) conclusion - nothing profound about that.
MUD, for example, posts a sweet 64% win ratio. But I've only found one instance of it making top8 from your list. Win% is useless if you can't convert it into actual placings. It's easy to argue that it lacks placings because it was underrepresented, but that raises another question: Why was it underrepresented? Because if a deck like MUD or Enchantress or so starts really making waves in a Meta, sideboard hate shuts them down *Hard*.
I would say it is underrepresented because people are not aware of its strong win-rate. Too may people mindlessly look at the top eights, and as you noted, see a very different picture than is reality. There are no doubt other factors, but this is probably a big one
Your suggestion makes no sense. You are saying that competitive players will forgo a well positioned deck with a strong win-rate today because it might be less well positioned tomorrow? Why not just switch up after your deck makes waves and the meta reacts?
But even if you are (somehow) correct, this does not support your assertion that playing a non-blue deck will hurt your success rate!
Feel free to play the fringe decks. Just don't put all your eggs in one basket, or you'll feel like crap when everyone in your area packs Energy Flux and/or Shattering Spree.
Again, putting all your eggs in one basket (aka, not changing decks) will hurt you. Playing (well positioned) blueless decks will not! OP already has Elves and D&T, so I don't know why you think he's going to build MUD and never play anything else.
Still, I don't think MUD is as easy to hate as you seem to think. Energy Flux comes down pretty late - with all the mana-denial MUD runs it will be much later than turn three (Delver decks will probably never resolve this against MUD). Beyond that, MUD has lots of mana and should play through easily enough - especially later when their board is developed. Welder plays around it nicely too. Shattering Spree? How many decks are producing a lot of red mana? Meanwhile, the first copy likely goes through 3-Sphere, Chalice, or Lodestone. This will rarely be better than a two-for-one. These are good cards vs MUD, but they don't exactly shut it down.
Furthermore, playing MUD doesn't make you the elephant in the room! I played at my LGS on Saturday with the following meta:
Miracles x3
Elves x2
Sneak Show x2
Dredge
Lands
BUG Control
Imperial Painter
R/W D&T
Patriot Delver
Belcher
Infect
Goblins
Goblins was a unusual sight, and we usually see more tempo decks. Otherwise, nothing out of the ordinary.
There is a guy who reguarly plays MUD or sometimes Storm (he wasn't there on Saturday). Am I to believe that everyone should be stuffing their boards with artifact hate because of that one player? When I choose to pack SB hate for a given deck I consider the following:
How bad is the match for me?
How likely am I to run into the deck?
How much do the cards I'm considering improve the match?
I'm not going to devote SB slots to hate out a deck just because I can! Neither will anyone else.
And why mention Enchantress? I love the deck, but it is very weak and boasts a 27% win-rate. Why would you lump strong decks in with that pile of cardboard?
If Delver decks are such a problemfor MUD, how does it come by so high a win rate?
What Megadeus means is that a lot of people hate being blown out by Daze and Force of Will, which Delver runs 8 of. A lot of people do not want a deck with high risk for a high reward. They don't have a counterspell, you win usually turn 1. Otherwise it is usually a blowout.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
Basically. Lose the die roll. They delver go, you go tomb into whatever, they daze. They waste, play another delver. Nice deck. Just like in vintage, the deck is extremely powerful on the play, but your running a deck with no manipulation in a format where you can play 4 Ponder and 4 Brainstorm. Like someone said, if MUD were played to the same numbers that delver or blade variants are played, they would have like a 40% win rate because the hate that does exist for it is just a massive blow out.
So how does a deck that loses 50% of it's Delver matches end up with a 64% win-rate? I challenge your unsupported numbers! Please enlighten me.
I don't think you understand what a win-rate means! MUD has lost 36% of it's matches - and that includes all those times it lost to turn one counters! It's as though you think those losses are somehow not accounted for in its win-rate.
People don't play MUD because it's inconsistent...
I'd be just fascinated to hear your definition of 'consistent'. Apparently a deck which wins 50% of its matches is more consistent than a deck which wins 64% of its matches. Please explain what you think that word means in this context.
A lot of people do not want a deck with high risk for a high reward.
Why shouldn't they? If your deck has a 66% win-rate against a typical field, do you want to have low variance? Low variance will mean you win close to 66% of your matches most of the time - not enough to top eight in a big tournament. It's much better to have high variance - ideally you'd lose every match 1/3 of you events, and clean house the other 2/3. Unless your deck has an 80%+ win-rate, you need variance or you'll never actually place!
That's the reason why obscure decks don't do as well. With only a few entrants playing a specific deck, it's very easy for those player to run average. When a lot of people run a deck, almost invariably some will run average, some will run cold, and some will run hot. That's why well represented decks always seem to have representation in the top eight - even if their win rate is less than 50% (aka, Miracles)! Playing one if those well represented decks doesn't improve your individual chance of placing! The only "advantage" is that if you don't happen to run hot, there is a very good chance somebody else will with a similar deck. Good luck getting them to share the prize money!
Like someone said, if MUD were played to the same numbers that delver or blade variants are played, they would have like a 40% win rate because the hate that does exist for it is just a massive blow out.
If that hate were present now, the win rate would already be lower! (By the way, I hope you cleaned those numbers from wherever you pulled them out of). I'm sorry, but you can't argue against math! Certainly not with your vague and unsupported assessments.
Maybe if MUD were consistently played in higher number, the meta would shift (hate, etc) and MUD would no longer sustain that win-rate. But that shift hasn't happend! In the actual, current, real-world meta (based on recent SCG - not a reflection of local meta), MUD has a 64% win-rate. If you enter a SCG tournament tomorrow, you are better of playing MUD than any deck with blue cards (certain factors not withstanding, such as your relative skill with various decks).
The only thing valid about what you are saying is that IF lots of players do this and MUD runs hot, THEN it will become less well positioned and (possibly) no longer a good choice. But that hasn't happened! Is your whole analysis seems to be based on a model of never changing decks? Obviously that's a terrible strategy!
Right now, you are not hurting yourself by playing MUD. You are hurting yourself if you play a 500 deck which you think is good because it's played so much that one or two pilots inevitably luck out. Good thing we have math for those who will seek its wisdom.
Whatever. Go build and play MUD at an Scg or GP over a 9+ round tourney and lemme know when you don't top 8 because your deck took a steaming poop on you or you got Delver blitzed. I know people who almost exclusively play MUD and other various decks like it and I've got more top 8's than all of them combined simply because over a 9 round tournament the deck just poops on you and you draw one relevant spell and die
know people who almost exclusively play MUD and other various decks like it and I've got more top 8's than all of them combined simply because over a 9 round tournament the deck just poops on you and you draw one relevant spell and die
You'll forgive me if I'm more compelled by mathematics and hard data than by your anecdotal evidence.
I mean if you think MUD is good you aren't wrong. But there's a reason that it's not heavily represented. The deck is fine. Feel free to take it to a nine round event and prove me wrong though. I don't think there was a MUD deck in either of the opens I top 8'd
You can't compare MUD to Delver because the number of people playing it are so different. If there was a tournament that included 100 Delver decks and 1 mud deck, and the MUD deck goes 7-3 out of t8, it's got a 70% win rate. Where as even if the top 8 were all Delvers, it probably only has a 50% win rate due to so many people playing it.
It's not that hard to believe why MUD has such a high win percentage comparative to a deck like Delver.
1) In big Legacy tournaments like SCG Opens etc, a lot of inexperienced players wanting to play a big tournament will borrow expensive pieces for the most popular/easiest to play decks - believing it will give them the biggest edge. More people playing a deck will automatically reduce the win percentage of that popular deck. Even if a Legacy newcomer decided to want to play MUD - it is typically a lot harder to find someone with all the pieces to borrow than it is to get your hands on a playset of Dual Lands/Force of Wills.
2) People that own/choose to play MUD are typically are more experienced with the format. I say to everyone that if you are choosing to not play a Brainstorm/FoW deck - you better have a DEEP understanding of Legacy as a format and know your deck inside and out. Legacy decks that don't run Brainstorm/FoW are extremely punishing to misplays and misconceptions as to what your opponent is playing.
In my personal opinion, MUD is not a good choice for a deck in any larger-sized tournaments. 33% of the deck is devoted to Stax pieces like Chalice/Trinisphere etc, 33% mana accelerators and then 33% fatties. You will encounter wildly inconsistent draws over the course of a long tournament, drawing too much of one type of card and none of others. With no ways to manipulate your deck/tutor/draw cards your hands can sometimess lead absolutely nowhere.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing: Legacy: RUG(B)Lands UWRMiracles
I mean if you think MUD is good you aren't wrong. But there's a reason that it's not heavily represented.
[quote from="Megadeus »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/legacy-type-1-5/602197-i-dont-think-im-playing-enough-blue?comment=15"]The deck is fine. Feel free to take it to a nine round event and prove me wrong though. I don't think there was a MUD deck in either of the opens I top 8'd
I'm not going to prove you wrong with personal experience, and I'm not persuaded by yours. This is anecdotal evidence!
I mean if you think MUD is good you aren't wrong. But there's a reason that it's not heavily represented.
The biggest reason is probably players (like you) who are are not aware of the win-rates or else choose to ignore that data.
It's also a play-style most don't enjoy. Even a pro is concerned with job satisfaction (why else would they [play MTG for a living when they're obviously smart enough for a real profession). I won't accept a promotion for a small raise if it will mean I will enjoy my job a lot less. When I played poker for a living I made choices (game selection and hours) which were intended to make my job and lifestyle more enjoyable rather than worrying about an extra dollar or two an hour. Why would MTG pros be any different?
Also people have different strengths. Somebody who is naturally talented at aggro control would be ill advised to switch to a different style. It's smart to choose a deck which plays into your individual strengths.
Anyway, we can speculate why it's not represented, but its win-rate alone defines its current positioning in the meta.
You can't compare MUD to Delver because the number of people playing it are so different. If there was a tournament that included 100 Delver decks and 1 mud deck, and the MUD deck goes 7-3 out of t8, it's got a 70% win rate. Where as even if the top 8 were all Delvers, it probably only has a 50% win rate due to so many people playing it.
The data given doesn't count mirror matches, so there's no reason why representation should affect the win-rates. You are trying to glorify the deck's successes while dismissing its failures. This is called cheery-picking.
It's not that hard to believe why MUD has such a high win percentage comparative to a deck like Delver.
1) In big Legacy tournaments like SCG Opens etc, a lot of inexperienced players wanting to play a big tournament will borrow expensive pieces for the most popular/easiest to play decks - believing it will give them the biggest edge. More people playing a deck will automatically reduce the win percentage of that popular deck. Even if a Legacy newcomer decided to want to play MUD - it is typically a lot harder to find someone with all the pieces to borrow than it is to get your hands on a playset of Dual Lands/Force of Wills.
2) People that own/choose to play MUD are typically are more experienced with the format. I say to everyone that if you are choosing to not play a Brainstorm/FoW deck - you better have a DEEP understanding of Legacy as a format and know your deck inside and out. Legacy decks that don't run Brainstorm/FoW are extremely punishing to misplays and misconceptions as to what your opponent is playing.
Yes, probably newbs won't play anything that hasn't made a lot of top eights, and most people who run a deck like MUD tend to knowwhat they are doing. On the other hand, most of the top pros stick to the decks they know best.
This speculation is not strong enough to support assertions that a player is "hurting themselves" by playing MUD!
In my personal opinion, MUD is not a good choice for a deck in any larger-sized tournaments. 33% of the deck is devoted to Stax pieces like Chalice/Trinisphere etc, 33% mana accelerators and then 33% fatties. You will encounter wildly inconsistent draws over the course of a long tournament, drawing too much of one type of card and none of others. With no ways to manipulate your deck/tutor/draw cards your hands can sometimess lead absolutely nowhere.
According to actual facts, your hand leads "absolutely nowhere" infrequently enough to lose only 36% of your matches. Your win percentage is all that matters - you don't gain or lose points for losing more dismally or winning more decisively. Losses with this deck feel worse because they are not close, and the pilot feels the match is out of their control. But the hard numbers do not support these feelings.
I mean if you think MUD is good you aren't wrong. But there's a reason that it's not heavily represented.
[quote from="Megadeus »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/legacy-type-1-5/602197-i-dont-think-im-playing-enough-blue?comment=15"]The deck is fine. Feel free to take it to a nine round event and prove me wrong though. I don't think there was a MUD deck in either of the opens I top 8'd
I'm not going to prove you wrong with personal experience, and I'm not persuaded by yours. This is anecdotal evidence!
I mean if you think MUD is good you aren't wrong. But there's a reason that it's not heavily represented.
The biggest reason is probably players (like you) who are are not aware of the win-rates or else choose to ignore that data.
It's also a play-style most don't enjoy. Even a pro is concerned with job satisfaction (why else would they [play MTG for a living when they're obviously smart enough for a real profession). I won't accept a promotion for a small raise if it will mean I will enjoy my job a lot less. When I played poker for a living I made choices (game selection and hours) which were intended to make my job and lifestyle more enjoyable rather than worrying about an extra dollar or two an hour. Why would MTG pros be any different?
Also people have different strengths. Somebody who is naturally talented at aggro control would be ill advised to switch to a different style. It's smart to choose a deck which plays into your individual strengths.
Anyway, we can speculate why it's not represented, but that won't change its stellar win-rate.
You can't compare MUD to Delver because the number of people playing it are so different. If there was a tournament that included 100 Delver decks and 1 mud deck, and the MUD deck goes 7-3 out of t8, it's got a 70% win rate. Where as even if the top 8 were all Delvers, it probably only has a 50% win rate due to so many people playing it.
The data given doesn't count mirror matches, so there's no reason why representation should affect the win-rates. You are trying to glorify the deck's success while dismissing its failures. This is called cheery-picking.
It's not that hard to believe why MUD has such a high win percentage comparative to a deck like Delver.
1) In big Legacy tournaments like SCG Opens etc, a lot of inexperienced players wanting to play a big tournament will borrow expensive pieces for the most popular/easiest to play decks - believing it will give them the biggest edge. More people playing a deck will automatically reduce the win percentage of that popular deck. Even if a Legacy newcomer decided to want to play MUD - it is typically a lot harder to find someone with all the pieces to borrow than it is to get your hands on a playset of Dual Lands/Force of Wills.
2) People that own/choose to play MUD are typically are more experienced with the format. I say to everyone that if you are choosing to not play a Brainstorm/FoW deck - you better have a DEEP understanding of Legacy as a format and know your deck inside and out. Legacy decks that don't run Brainstorm/FoW are extremely punishing to misplays and misconceptions as to what your opponent is playing.
Yes, probably newbs won't play anything that hasn't made a lot of top eights, and most people who run a deck like MUD tend to knowwhat they are doing. On the other hand, most of the top pros stick to the decks they know best.
This speculation is not strong enough to support assertions that a deck showing a 64% win rate is less well positioned than decks with much lower win-rates.
In my personal opinion, MUD is not a good choice for a deck in any larger-sized tournaments. 33% of the deck is devoted to Stax pieces like Chalice/Trinisphere etc, 33% mana accelerators and then 33% fatties. You will encounter wildly inconsistent draws over the course of a long tournament, drawing too much of one type of card and none of others. With no ways to manipulate your deck/tutor/draw cards your hands can sometimess lead absolutely nowhere.
According to actual facts, your hand leads "absolutely nowhere" infrequently enough to lose only 36% of your matches. Your win percentage is all that matters - you don't gain or lose points for losing more dismally or winning more decisively. Losses with this deck feel worse because they are not close, and the pilot feels the match is out of their control. But the hard numbers do not support these feelings.
</blockquote>
Sorry, but how does this relate to the "not playing enough blue" topic?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
The reason the deck doesn't see that much play is not because people don't know the numbers or choose to ignore them. People choose not to play the deck because of its nature, which is that the deck is very opening hand dependant and die roll dependant. A lot of factors that make the deck very powerful are out of your control. People don't like that feeling. Like has been said, less people playing the deck means a higher chance that a deck will have a good win %. If you could take the average win% of only the experienced players playing blade/delver decks and matched them with the MUD numbers, chances are that they would be much closer. I'm not even talking about that head to head match up, I'm talking about the win % against the overall field. Newer players that gravitate towards the delver and blade decks surely help to bring down the win rate for the other decks.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
Quote from votan »
:ER:, you suck as a hero
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
EDH:
G Ezuri, Renegade Leader, Fighting for Rivendell
WU Brago, King Eternal, Long Live the King
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon, Worship the Dragon
I have the option of time play anything that doest need SnT and I am almost always playing Lands (Combo) or Elves. There is nothing wrong with not playing Blue. It's what you have fun doing.
Current decks of choice:
Vintage: Shops.
Legacy: Lands.
Modern: Lantern.
Are you playing to win, or are you playing to have fun?
If you're playing to win, then yeah, not playing blue is hurting you. Blue decks are just better.
If your goal is to have fun, then you should try to stick with something you like playing. Elves and D&T *can* do quite well, when they're positioned well in the metagame. As long as your meta isn't a shooter's row of combo decks, either of those will probably do at least decently well.
From SCG tournaments since January, which were DC, Indy, Houston, LA, B'more, Dallas, and Richmond, records in non-mirror matches and match win percentages excluding draws for all archetypes with at least 20 matches against known decks:
This data certainly does not support what you said.
MUD: 36-20-2, (64%)
Food Chain: 18-11-2, (62%)
R/G Lands: 68-44-8, (61%)
Grixis Tempo: 12-8-3, (60%)
Infect: 57-40-2, (59%)
Team America: 126-87-7, (59%)
bUrg Delver: 21-15, (58%)
Junk: 12-9, (57%)
Lands: 15-12-2, (56%)
UWR Stoneblade: 33-27-5, (55%)
Shardless BUG: 102-82-9, (55%)
Painter: 31-26-2, (54%)
Canadian Thresh: 94-83-5, (53%)
Elves: 91-88-4, (51%)
12-Post: 34-33-5, (51%)
Death & Taxes: 117-118-12, (50%)
Dredge: 58-58-2, (50%)
Grixis Control: 17-17-3, (50%)
UWR Delver: 63-62-5, (50%)
Miracles: 143-141-30, (50%)
UW Stoneblade: 13-13-3, (50%)
Sneak & Show: 90-92-4, (49%)
Storm: 110-114-7, (49%)
Maverick: 45-52-4, (46%)
OmniTell: 38-45, (46%)
Reanimator: 68-79-5, (46%)
Burn: 39-48-1, (45%)
Goblins: 15-18, (45%)
DeathBlade: 44-55-8, (44%)
Jund: 24-31-1, (44%)
U/R Delver: 13-18, (42%)
Merfolk: 21-31-1, (40%)
Esper Stoneblade: 12-19-1, (39%)
Tin Fins: 7-12, (37%)
Nic Fit: 9-22-3, (29%)
Enchantress: 9-24-3, (27%)
High Tide: 7-22, (24%)
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/legacy-type-1-5/661941-list-of-stores-that-support-legacy
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?28892-Compilation-Of-Legacy-Streams
MUD, for example, posts a sweet 64% win ratio. But I've only found one instance of it making top8 from your list. Win% is useless if you can't convert it into actual placings. It's easy to argue that it lacks placings because it was underrepresented, but that raises another question: Why was it underrepresented? Because if a deck like MUD or Enchantress or so starts really making waves in a Meta, sideboard hate shuts them down *Hard*.
But that's a metagame issue. You're an individual player. Feel free to play the fringe decks. Just don't put all your eggs in one basket, or you'll feel like crap when everyone in your area packs Energy Flux and/or Shattering Spree.
I would say it is underrepresented because people are not aware of its strong win-rate. Too may people mindlessly look at the top eights, and as you noted, see a very different picture than is reality. There are no doubt other factors, but this is probably a big one
Your suggestion makes no sense. You are saying that competitive players will forgo a well positioned deck with a strong win-rate today because it might be less well positioned tomorrow? Why not just switch up after your deck makes waves and the meta reacts?
But even if you are (somehow) correct, this does not support your assertion that playing a non-blue deck will hurt your success rate!
Again, putting all your eggs in one basket (aka, not changing decks) will hurt you. Playing (well positioned) blueless decks will not! OP already has Elves and D&T, so I don't know why you think he's going to build MUD and never play anything else.
Still, I don't think MUD is as easy to hate as you seem to think. Energy Flux comes down pretty late - with all the mana-denial MUD runs it will be much later than turn three (Delver decks will probably never resolve this against MUD). Beyond that, MUD has lots of mana and should play through easily enough - especially later when their board is developed. Welder plays around it nicely too. Shattering Spree? How many decks are producing a lot of red mana? Meanwhile, the first copy likely goes through 3-Sphere, Chalice, or Lodestone. This will rarely be better than a two-for-one. These are good cards vs MUD, but they don't exactly shut it down.
Furthermore, playing MUD doesn't make you the elephant in the room! I played at my LGS on Saturday with the following meta:
Elves x2
Sneak Show x2
Dredge
Lands
BUG Control
Imperial Painter
R/W D&T
Patriot Delver
Belcher
Infect
Goblins
Goblins was a unusual sight, and we usually see more tempo decks. Otherwise, nothing out of the ordinary.
And why mention Enchantress? I love the deck, but it is very weak and boasts a 27% win-rate. Why would you lump strong decks in with that pile of cardboard?
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
What Megadeus means is that a lot of people hate being blown out by Daze and Force of Will, which Delver runs 8 of. A lot of people do not want a deck with high risk for a high reward. They don't have a counterspell, you win usually turn 1. Otherwise it is usually a blowout.
U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
EDH:
G Ezuri, Renegade Leader, Fighting for Rivendell
WU Brago, King Eternal, Long Live the King
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon, Worship the Dragon
So how does a deck that loses 50% of it's Delver matches end up with a 64% win-rate? I challenge your unsupported numbers! Please enlighten me.
I don't think you understand what a win-rate means! MUD has lost 36% of it's matches - and that includes all those times it lost to turn one counters! It's as though you think those losses are somehow not accounted for in its win-rate.
I'd be just fascinated to hear your definition of 'consistent'. Apparently a deck which wins 50% of its matches is more consistent than a deck which wins 64% of its matches. Please explain what you think that word means in this context.
That doesn't answer my question!
Why shouldn't they? If your deck has a 66% win-rate against a typical field, do you want to have low variance? Low variance will mean you win close to 66% of your matches most of the time - not enough to top eight in a big tournament. It's much better to have high variance - ideally you'd lose every match 1/3 of you events, and clean house the other 2/3. Unless your deck has an 80%+ win-rate, you need variance or you'll never actually place!
That's the reason why obscure decks don't do as well. With only a few entrants playing a specific deck, it's very easy for those player to run average. When a lot of people run a deck, almost invariably some will run average, some will run cold, and some will run hot. That's why well represented decks always seem to have representation in the top eight - even if their win rate is less than 50% (aka, Miracles)! Playing one if those well represented decks doesn't improve your individual chance of placing! The only "advantage" is that if you don't happen to run hot, there is a very good chance somebody else will with a similar deck. Good luck getting them to share the prize money!
If that hate were present now, the win rate would already be lower! (By the way, I hope you cleaned those numbers from wherever you pulled them out of). I'm sorry, but you can't argue against math! Certainly not with your vague and unsupported assessments.
Maybe if MUD were consistently played in higher number, the meta would shift (hate, etc) and MUD would no longer sustain that win-rate. But that shift hasn't happend! In the actual, current, real-world meta (based on recent SCG - not a reflection of local meta), MUD has a 64% win-rate. If you enter a SCG tournament tomorrow, you are better of playing MUD than any deck with blue cards (certain factors not withstanding, such as your relative skill with various decks).
The only thing valid about what you are saying is that IF lots of players do this and MUD runs hot, THEN it will become less well positioned and (possibly) no longer a good choice. But that hasn't happened! Is your whole analysis seems to be based on a model of never changing decks? Obviously that's a terrible strategy!
Right now, you are not hurting yourself by playing MUD. You are hurting yourself if you play a 500 deck which you think is good because it's played so much that one or two pilots inevitably luck out. Good thing we have math for those who will seek its wisdom.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
1) In big Legacy tournaments like SCG Opens etc, a lot of inexperienced players wanting to play a big tournament will borrow expensive pieces for the most popular/easiest to play decks - believing it will give them the biggest edge. More people playing a deck will automatically reduce the win percentage of that popular deck. Even if a Legacy newcomer decided to want to play MUD - it is typically a lot harder to find someone with all the pieces to borrow than it is to get your hands on a playset of Dual Lands/Force of Wills.
2) People that own/choose to play MUD are typically are more experienced with the format. I say to everyone that if you are choosing to not play a Brainstorm/FoW deck - you better have a DEEP understanding of Legacy as a format and know your deck inside and out. Legacy decks that don't run Brainstorm/FoW are extremely punishing to misplays and misconceptions as to what your opponent is playing.
In my personal opinion, MUD is not a good choice for a deck in any larger-sized tournaments. 33% of the deck is devoted to Stax pieces like Chalice/Trinisphere etc, 33% mana accelerators and then 33% fatties. You will encounter wildly inconsistent draws over the course of a long tournament, drawing too much of one type of card and none of others. With no ways to manipulate your deck/tutor/draw cards your hands can sometimess lead absolutely nowhere.
Legacy:
RUG(B)Lands
UWRMiracles
The grind, the durdle, the control!
I'm not going to prove you wrong with personal experience, and I'm not persuaded by yours. This is anecdotal evidence!
The biggest reason is probably players (like you) who are are not aware of the win-rates or else choose to ignore that data.
It's also a play-style most don't enjoy. Even a pro is concerned with job satisfaction (why else would they [play MTG for a living when they're obviously smart enough for a real profession). I won't accept a promotion for a small raise if it will mean I will enjoy my job a lot less. When I played poker for a living I made choices (game selection and hours) which were intended to make my job and lifestyle more enjoyable rather than worrying about an extra dollar or two an hour. Why would MTG pros be any different?
Also people have different strengths. Somebody who is naturally talented at aggro control would be ill advised to switch to a different style. It's smart to choose a deck which plays into your individual strengths.
Anyway, we can speculate why it's not represented, but its win-rate alone defines its current positioning in the meta.
The data given doesn't count mirror matches, so there's no reason why representation should affect the win-rates. You are trying to glorify the deck's successes while dismissing its failures. This is called cheery-picking.
Yes, probably newbs won't play anything that hasn't made a lot of top eights, and most people who run a deck like MUD tend to knowwhat they are doing. On the other hand, most of the top pros stick to the decks they know best.
This speculation is not strong enough to support assertions that a player is "hurting themselves" by playing MUD!
According to actual facts, your hand leads "absolutely nowhere" infrequently enough to lose only 36% of your matches. Your win percentage is all that matters - you don't gain or lose points for losing more dismally or winning more decisively. Losses with this deck feel worse because they are not close, and the pilot feels the match is out of their control. But the hard numbers do not support these feelings.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
Sorry, but how does this relate to the "not playing enough blue" topic?
U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
EDH:
G Ezuri, Renegade Leader, Fighting for Rivendell
WU Brago, King Eternal, Long Live the King
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon, Worship the Dragon
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules