I suspect that the biggest distorting factor for scheming's low rating on goldfish would be that good players are not playing it, or at least are not playing it very often. That leaves the majority of the times it gets cast occurring by people who are not good players, which is going to tank a cards win % regardless of the actual merits of the card itself. Lens of clarity is the poster child for this effect; there is no way 1 card that doesn't do anything is enough to lose 80% of the games it gets cast, it just has a low win rate because the only people playing lens of clarity have other things wrong with their deck or play. Of course, a general consensus on the part of good players that the card is unplayable is usually a pretty strong sign the card is, in fact, unplayable. I would be interested in seeing a breakdown of cards played bucketed by the limited rating of the player running them and the corresponding effect on win % in each bucket, as that would both be informative in and of itself, and it would also help identify cards that might be good in fringe decks but are having their win % destroyed by bad players just running them in normal decks where they don't belong. If you saw something like "80% of the goblinslides are played by players who are below 1600 in rating, where they have a 32% win rate casting it, but the win rate of the remaining goblinslides is 82%" then you've identified a card that shouldn't get played the vast majority of the time but that can be strong in the correct deck.
Note that I personally don't think Tiagam's Scheming is one of these cards. I think it is usually just bad, and would only want to run it in a deck with very high impact delve cards that is also short on playables and 2 drops, or with a bunch of them combined with empty the pits as a combo deck. Neither of these situations has happened to me yet. But I do think it would be interesting to see the win % breakdown by player rating, it is too bad that data isn't available.
He is ranking for pick order. Which Goldfish is not doing. Please confirm you understand this concept.
You have been treating the data as a rank order, or at least a reliable basis for one. What Goldfish themselves do with it is beside the point, although they do in fact treat their data as a reliable and comprehensive ranking here and here.
Stepping out of the Scheming discussion for a bit, this post is just off base. There's no point in throwing out claims that are just plain incorrect.
From the top of the mtggoldfish page about Khans:
"This data was collected by parsing MTGO KTK release drafts and seeing what cards were played. The usual disclaimer on card Win% for sweepers, overrun effects and other conditional effects. Note the inclusion of Win% on the play is only for the first game of each match."
They state right up front that there are factors that need to be taken into account when interpreting the data.
The second page you linked discusses some 29 or 30 cards, I might have missed one here or there. That's around 12% of the cards in the set when you eliminate the basic lands. Other than referring to the page as a "full analysis" in one place, they make no claim that it's in any way comprehensive or final. There's also no such thing as a pick order that I could find anywhere on the site, nor do they represent the win percentages as a direct indication of pick order.
All of that said, as Phyrre56 and Hardened have pointed out, it looks like this conversation has run its course. I just wanted to make it clear to any casual readers of the thread that mtggoldfish does not promote itself as any kind of pick order.
@masterplum - I disagree. T2 is the best time to scheme, since I have a great idea what lands I need (or don't), and what 6 drop can wait until later. Oh, and my opponent isn't likely pressuring me into other plays.
I still think Never is the best time to scheme. On last week's Limited Resources, Brian David-Marshall commented that he's yet to play a Scheming and Marshall Sutcliffe (the host) agreed. These guys know what they're doing. The fact that someone like BDM...who drafts a ton...who covers Pro level Limited events...who likes to go deep...who likes to search for and build around underrated cards...who likes Scout the Borders!...has never once played Scheming speaks volumes about the card. I mean, this is the guy who was an early adopter of the Spider Spawning deck in Innistrad. He's perfectly willing to play cards that look bad on the surface but have a specific scenario where they are great. And he won't touch Scheming in KTK.
How much evidence has to pile up before the "It's good in the right deck" argument goes away?
I think the word skill-testing is inappropriate for Taigam's Scheming. Skill-testing and bad are two different words. I try not to pepper things and yet to sound right because I don't think it's really skill testing at all. Scheming is really an outlier of a card. At best it's marginal.
Still the most talked about card in KTK I see. It's been a couple weeks since my last draft (paper only player), so no new war stories. The pro opinions seem to hover around the border of playability, some on the never ever side, some on the occasionally side. As annoying as it is, I think the debate is a stalemate because neither side can definitively prove their position. Discussion of the card itself is sputtering out so I'll try and force myself to stay out of the thread after this last response that I feel compelled to make.
@DSF
The argument that Goldfish isn't treating the data as a pick order is frivolous, to the point that it's a bit insulting. If lists like "top cards" and "top uncommons" don't constitute rankings then I don't know what would. Both pull cards' position from the data and treat them as definitive rankings; there's simply no other way that anyone would conclude that Flying Crane Techniqueis the top card or that Trumpet Blastis the top common. The articles don't list the cards from 1-269 because that would be redundant with the list and not interesting enough that people would read them, but they're clearly advising people on which cards they should pick based solely on their pile of game data.
Regarding the disclaimer: lawyers' advertisements have disclaimers telling you not to choose a lawyer based on advertising even though the entire point of the ad is to get people to choose their firm. Casino ads have disclaimers about getting help with a gambling addiction despite making most of their money from addicts. Alcohol and tobacco products have disclaimers they hope no one reads about the potential health consequences of using the products. These disclaimers don't mean that lawyers don't want your business or that casinos, alcohol producers, and tobacco companies are deeply concerned about your mental and physical health, they're concessions that were made to stave off critics and comply with government rules. Goldfish has a disclaimer to help deal with annoying people like me who have taken upper level courses on statistics and experimental design and can both see and explain why their data and any article based off of it is garbage. You don't have to believe me; feel free to pick Armament Corps over Murderous Cut or Trumpet Blast over Jeskai Windscout, it's no skin off my back. However, don't expect other people to give credit to a card ranking that wildly misevaluates cards, both at the top and bottom of its list.
Yea well Mind Sculpt is often among the most talked-about cards in every Core Set it's in, so just because a card is talked about doesn't mean it has much potential.
This is not a great deck (the creatures are bad) but I managed to squeak out a 2-1 2nd place @ LGS. #humblebrag
Bitter Rev was the last card I cut, and I think it's probably better than Sultai Ascendency, which never did much for me at all.
I just don't see how you can squeeze in Scheming here, and this IS the Scheming deck. In fact, cranial archive is actually pretty essential so you don't mill yourself out (came close once). You can't cut a land. You can't cut a creature (already a little light for Sidisi) You can't cut TREASURE CRUISE.
You could cut Ascendency... but as stated above, Bitter Revelation is probably just better.
That's definitely not the Scheming deck. The Scheming deck would be a lot heavier on the Delve than a mere three cards. The whole point of Taigam's Scheming is that it functions as both filtering and acceleration, but when the only things you have to accelerate to are Dead Drop, Cruise, and a Scavenger, there isn't a ton of point: it's only going to be a strong tempo start if you luck into an early Scheming/Scavenger hand and it actually dilutes the effectiveness of Cruise, so that only leaves Dead Drop as an actual reason to include Scheming and this deck already has enough self mill not to want to bother just to enable one card.
A Scheming deck is one that goes *deep* on the Delve plan. Imagine a deck like yours except -Jeskai Windscout, -Jeskai Elder, - Kin-Tree Invocation, -Glacial Stalker, -Cranial Archive, -Thousand Winds, +Murderous Cut, +2x Sultai Scavenger, +Dig Through Time, +Shambling Attendants. I bet you'd be finding room for your Schemings in that deck pretty anxiously, and the deck would be better for it.
But yeah, you're right that Scheming doesn't really fit into any old Sultai shell. You have to try for it, and you won't usually get rewarded for doing so, so there isn't usually a ton of point. I have yet to play one myself.
Note that I personally don't think Tiagam's Scheming is one of these cards. I think it is usually just bad, and would only want to run it in a deck with very high impact delve cards that is also short on playables and 2 drops, or with a bunch of them combined with empty the pits as a combo deck. Neither of these situations has happened to me yet. But I do think it would be interesting to see the win % breakdown by player rating, it is too bad that data isn't available.
Stepping out of the Scheming discussion for a bit, this post is just off base. There's no point in throwing out claims that are just plain incorrect.
From the top of the mtggoldfish page about Khans:
"This data was collected by parsing MTGO KTK release drafts and seeing what cards were played. The usual disclaimer on card Win% for sweepers, overrun effects and other conditional effects. Note the inclusion of Win% on the play is only for the first game of each match."
They state right up front that there are factors that need to be taken into account when interpreting the data.
The second page you linked discusses some 29 or 30 cards, I might have missed one here or there. That's around 12% of the cards in the set when you eliminate the basic lands. Other than referring to the page as a "full analysis" in one place, they make no claim that it's in any way comprehensive or final. There's also no such thing as a pick order that I could find anywhere on the site, nor do they represent the win percentages as a direct indication of pick order.
All of that said, as Phyrre56 and Hardened have pointed out, it looks like this conversation has run its course. I just wanted to make it clear to any casual readers of the thread that mtggoldfish does not promote itself as any kind of pick order.
I never ever want to drop scheming then two because on turn two I don't know what I want at that point 90% of the time.
The circumstances I would want scheming:
I have a bomb in my deck
I have plenty of delve.
I am a midrange deck with a decent early game.
In that case scheming can be really useful. It isn't garbage. It is very circumstantial and skill testing.
How much evidence has to pile up before the "It's good in the right deck" argument goes away?
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
@DSF
The argument that Goldfish isn't treating the data as a pick order is frivolous, to the point that it's a bit insulting. If lists like "top cards" and "top uncommons" don't constitute rankings then I don't know what would. Both pull cards' position from the data and treat them as definitive rankings; there's simply no other way that anyone would conclude that Flying Crane Technique is the top card or that Trumpet Blast is the top common. The articles don't list the cards from 1-269 because that would be redundant with the list and not interesting enough that people would read them, but they're clearly advising people on which cards they should pick based solely on their pile of game data.
Regarding the disclaimer: lawyers' advertisements have disclaimers telling you not to choose a lawyer based on advertising even though the entire point of the ad is to get people to choose their firm. Casino ads have disclaimers about getting help with a gambling addiction despite making most of their money from addicts. Alcohol and tobacco products have disclaimers they hope no one reads about the potential health consequences of using the products. These disclaimers don't mean that lawyers don't want your business or that casinos, alcohol producers, and tobacco companies are deeply concerned about your mental and physical health, they're concessions that were made to stave off critics and comply with government rules. Goldfish has a disclaimer to help deal with annoying people like me who have taken upper level courses on statistics and experimental design and can both see and explain why their data and any article based off of it is garbage. You don't have to believe me; feel free to pick Armament Corps over Murderous Cut or Trumpet Blast over Jeskai Windscout, it's no skin off my back. However, don't expect other people to give credit to a card ranking that wildly misevaluates cards, both at the top and bottom of its list.
Pauper: Burn
Modern: Burn
Legacy: Burn
EDH: Marath, Will of the Wild - Ramp/Combo | Anafenza the Foremost - French | Uril, the Miststalker - Voltron | Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury - Goodstuff
Ghost Council of Orzhov - Tokens | Lazav, Dimir Mastermind - Control | Isamaru, Hound of Konda - Tiny Leaders
Yea well Mind Sculpt is often among the most talked-about cards in every Core Set it's in, so just because a card is talked about doesn't mean it has much potential.
1 Disowned Ancestor
1 Jeskai Elder
1 Jeskai Windscout
1 Kin-Tree Invocation
1 Mystic of the Hidden Way
1 Sagu Archer
1 Glacial Stalker
1 Abomination of Gudul
1 Thousand Winds
1 Sidisi, Brood Tyrant
1 Rakshaha Vizier
1 Rotting Mastadon
1 Sultai Scavenger
//Removals
2 Debilitating Injury
1 Sultai Charm
1 Rite of the Serpent
1 Dead Drop
1 Sultai Ascendancy
1 Cranial Archive
// Whole point of Deck
2 Treasure Cruise
// lands
1 Sandsteppe Citadel
1 Dismal Backwater
1 Jungle Hollow
1 Thornwood Falls
5 Swamp
6 Island
3 Forest
1 Unyielding Krumar
1 Scaldkin
1 Rotting Mastadon
1 Kheru Dreadmaw
1 Briber’s Purse
1 Singing Bell Strike
2 Taigam’s Scheming
1 Cancel
1 Bitter Revelation
This is not a great deck (the creatures are bad) but I managed to squeak out a 2-1 2nd place @ LGS. #humblebrag
Bitter Rev was the last card I cut, and I think it's probably better than Sultai Ascendency, which never did much for me at all.
I just don't see how you can squeeze in Scheming here, and this IS the Scheming deck. In fact, cranial archive is actually pretty essential so you don't mill yourself out (came close once). You can't cut a land. You can't cut a creature (already a little light for Sidisi) You can't cut TREASURE CRUISE.
You could cut Ascendency... but as stated above, Bitter Revelation is probably just better.
A Scheming deck is one that goes *deep* on the Delve plan. Imagine a deck like yours except -Jeskai Windscout, -Jeskai Elder, - Kin-Tree Invocation, -Glacial Stalker, -Cranial Archive, -Thousand Winds, +Murderous Cut, +2x Sultai Scavenger, +Dig Through Time, +Shambling Attendants. I bet you'd be finding room for your Schemings in that deck pretty anxiously, and the deck would be better for it.
But yeah, you're right that Scheming doesn't really fit into any old Sultai shell. You have to try for it, and you won't usually get rewarded for doing so, so there isn't usually a ton of point. I have yet to play one myself.
It's easy enough to ignore if you try. Are you trying? You just have to not read it when it floats to the top of the threads list. Try not clicking.