(i hope it's okay asking these theory hypotheticals. i'm finding it fun to think analytically like this, even if it might not change how i play. strangely, even it helps me feel more "identified with" or immersed in whatever decisions i /do/ make when playing, even if they are strategically suboptimal).
so, Marshall Sutcliffe remarked in a recent Limited Resources video that he always plays 40 cards.
this is a rule that i always hear advanced players say. i never hear advanced players talk of 41 cards being okay.
can someone give me their thoughts and/or point me to some good articles that discuss either side?
to me, strategically, i can't see why it's always right to play forty cards:
- what if you want more than 42.5% (ie 17/40) but less than 45% (ie 18/40) of your deck to be lands? maybe then you'd want 18/41 cards to be lands?
- yes, with 40 cards you are using (say) the best 23 non-land cards in your pool. but what if that 24th card makes your deck more *flexible*, at the cost of lowering the average power level of each card?
(are there even any pros who advocate for 41 card decks??)
------
another semi-related question: why 17-18 lands?
i remember when i learned Magic back in Tempest, it was normal do make literally only one third of your deck lands!
is 17-18 lands the "proper" amount, or is it a meta decision made when everyone else started putting more than 1/3 of their decks to be lands? (that is, if i went back in time when i started learning Magic, and put 42.5% of my decks as lands, would i suddenly crush all my friends, or would most of them crush me except the strange ones who put a little higher than 1/3 but not close to 42.5% ?)
is there a formula that you use that says "17 lands is correct for this deck"? is it possible that there is a format where it is correct to play 15 lands, and that formula would model that?
that is, i do 17 lands only because people tell me to do it, and it seems to work out fine. but i dont' know *why* i do it, or what "works out fine" means, or what exactly it looks like when things don't "work out fine" if i do 15 or 16 or 19 or 20 lands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
----------------------------
Goblins have poor impulse control. Don't click this link!!
some of my favourite flavour text:
Wayward Soul "no home no heart no hope"
—Stronghold graffito
Raging Goblin He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged.
With regards to playing 41 cards: the best card in most limited decks will be much much better than the worst card in that deck. By playing more cards, you reduce the odds of drawing your good cards, since your 41st card will be by definition worse than the first 40. Your deck will basically never be more relevantly flexible with the 41st card, and will most of the time be relevantly worse. Limited is not a complex beast in most formats; draft a better deck with better cards than your opponent, and don't mess up badly, and you'll win more often than not. Flexibility is not really something I care about - 99% of my opponents will be playing a curve of decent dudes, some removal, and a couple of tricks, so good cards tend to be good regardless of matchup.
With regards to 17 lands: yes, there's a bunch of math floating around the internet to support this. I even wrote a bit of it on this and other forums several years ago. It's based around hitting your third land drop as much as possible (avoiding screw) while not hitting your sixth or seventh as much as possible (avoiding flood).
If you only need two lands to function (RGD with signet/bouncelands or triple Mirrodin with Myr and low curves) then the math changes completely and 14 to 15 lands can be fine.
Personally, I think that playing 41 cards is not as big a deal as people seem to think. It's not optimal, sure, but it's just a couple percentage points. I've won drafts with 41 and even 42 cards.
I know the idea that if you only play your best 22/23 cards that you'll draw your best cards more often, but I regularly have decks where I really can't tell which card is the worst. I'll often play a 41st card just for the sake of getting to play with more cards I haven't used, and maybe by the end of the draft I've figured out that something doesn't belong.
This is not exactly the same thing, but some of the top-performing Lands players in Legacy tend to advocate playing 61 cards maindeck.
As far as land count, I think that depends more on the specific deck than the format. There's a lot to consider on that one. How many lands do you need to hit every game, how bad does it hurt if you miss a land drop, how many colors are you, how bad do you need each color, do you have card draw to find lands, etc. Seventeen is the standard, but aggressive decks often want 16 and high-curve controlling decks sometimes go 18 or even 19 if they have looting/filtering effects or mana sinks. Most decks want to hit six-ish lands every game; aggro decks may not want to hit six lands ever, and other decks might want to hit eight or nine.
Admittedly I don't worry a whole lot about the 17.5 mana thing or anything similar.
I used to sometimes play 41 card decks, but in my (non-professional, but decently-skilled) view 40 is correct because it makes it more likely that you will draw your absolute best cards. Regardless of how close some calls are, there's always a card that's not as good as the 22nd/3rd/4th that should be cut in the interest of only including the best cards you've got in the deck.
If I recall correctly, in a 40 card deck, 17 lands runs the lowest risk of drawing flooded (5+ lands) or screwed (-2 lands) hands in your opening seven. The second source I listed here shows that near the bottom of the article. Of course, 17 vs. 18 lands is more context dependent than 40 vs. 41 card deck. As you noted, I don't think you'll ever see pros seriously suggesting that you play a 41-card deck.
I think 16 lands can be correct when you have non-land mana producers. My rule of thumb is for every two non-land mana producers, I can cut a land. As an example, 2 Elvish Mystic in the deck means I can cut one forest from what I would usually go for in that particular deck.
Interestingly, the second source has 5 lands in "yellow" territory, implying that it's so-so. I agree that 3 lands in the opening hand is usually the sweet spot and that 2 is yellow but usually decent. 4 is usually so-so as well, but I would personally but 5 lands in red-line territory. That's usually going to be either a mulligan or a frowny-faced keep for me.
Basically the suggestion is that you cut one land per two ramp spells, but if you have ramp in your deck you start at 18 land not 17. The logic is that if you have ramp spells, you really want to hit your first three land drops or your ramp is probably worse than a basic land.
I have in some situations sideboarded into 40+ decks (against mill). Don't know if it's the correct thing to do, but it felt right. I figured it would buy me at least 1 turn at the cost of lower card quality. Mind you, the opponents were in these cases all-in "aggro"-mill with next to no board interaction.
I believe I have also heard pros mention that sometimes they board into a 41-card deck when playing first in a control mirror (and the risk of getting decked is significant).
It's actually true that 18/41 lands gets you improved averages over either 17/40, if your goal is to mulligan less. The problem lies in the fact that your draws during the game will suffer somewhat. You get about 1% fewer mulligan hands (if you call all 1, 5, and 6 land hands mulligans) but you also on average draw about 1.5% fewer spells, so on average it's a net loss.
It isn't a huge deal. 1/200th of a card every game may make a difference between a win and a loss once in a thousand games. But it is an unequivocal disadvantage, and there's no reason to do it.
The issue of flexibility is a mistake. Your deck isn't more flexible because you maindecked a sideboard card for your 41st card unless you draw your whole deck. Remember that the whole point of a sideboard is to have some cards that *are not usually the best cards*, but can overperform against certain strategies. By definition, they would be subpar in the maindeck. A 41 card deck is exactly no different from a 40 card deck except that it randomly has potentially poor sideboard cards in it that will make your draws worse on average.
The real reason to want "flexibility" is simple lack of ability to evaluate cards well. If you don't know which card is your best 23rd, then you get to hedge your bets and play both. That's possibly okay if your goal is to play with as many cards as you can and get a sense of what's good and what isn't. But thinking that it will improve your odds against anyone is fallacious, because all you're actually doing is tossing away your card evaluation skills in favor of random chance, and hoping the universe will make your decision for you. And unless you're Two-Face, that's probably not a great approach to life.
The only thing I disagree with is this idea that there is always an objectively worse card that you should be cutting rather than playing 41. This idea that you always have a "23rd" card, which is your worst card. I just don't think that's always true. I think at the bottom end of your deck there are usually going to be a bunch of cards that are more or less equivalent in "power" (sometimes more, sometimes less depending on how well the draft went) but that do different things and hit different points on your curve.
And if there isn't an objectively worse card, then cutting a card means giving up something. And then it's kind of a case of whether you think you are going to miss what you give up (whether it's that extra 2-drop creature, or that extra removal spell, or that extra finisher, etc.) I hit this situation not infrequently, most commonly when I'm sideboarding a card that is situationally good for the matchup, and don't see anything that I want to take out. Yes, you can snarkily say if I can't identify the card I should be removing then this just shows I'm not that good a player, but, again, I would dispute that it is so clear cut, and I will assert that there will be games lost by sideboarding out something that it turns out could have won the game.
I think the ultimate math argument expressed above isn't the value of this 41st card over the first 40, but the percentage that you have diminished the chances you will draw your "best" cards. How ever many of those there are. And, again, what's "best" is not always clear, but certainly there will be some cards are going to be clearly better. Your "bomb" cards (assuming you have any).
But I still think the win % difference has got to be minuscule. First, the percentage that you draw the "bomb" card just isn't changing all that much. Ex. (and forgive my maths) the chance to have 1 particular card out of 40 in your opening 7 = .175 (I think). Chance to have it in your opening 7 in a 41 card deck = .171. So you have increased your chance of starting with your bomb by...4 tenths of a %? When you consider that you don't even win all the games where you draw the "bomb", and there could be games where drawing that 41st card leads to a win that a different card would not have, exactly how much difference to your overall win % could this actually be making?
My gut tells me that the emphasis on 40 over 41 is overblown, and it's more of a theory thing than an actual win % thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
40 only ever for me, unless I feel that there is a legit chance of being decked in the game and my 41st card is decent. For some decks I will take out a spell and put in an 18th land on the play in games 2 or 3, or take out an 18th land and put in a spell on the draw, but always keep it at 40 unless the rare situation in which I feel I might lose to being decked.
The only thing I disagree with is this idea that there is always an objectively worse card that you should be cutting rather than playing 41. This idea that you always have a "23rd" card, which is your worst card. I just don't think that's always true. I think at the bottom end of your deck there are usually going to be a bunch of cards that are more or less equivalent in "power" (sometimes more, sometimes less depending on how well the draft went) but that do different things and hit different points on your curve.
And if there isn't an objectively worse card, then cutting a card means giving up something. And then it's kind of a case of whether you think you are going to miss what you give up (whether it's that extra 2-drop creature, or that extra removal spell, or that extra finisher, etc.) I hit this situation not infrequently, most commonly when I'm sideboarding a card that is situationally good for the matchup, and don't see anything that I want to take out. Yes, you can snarkily say if I can't identify the card I should be removing then this just shows I'm not that good a player, but, again, I would dispute that it is so clear cut, and I will assert that there will be games lost by sideboarding out something that it turns out could have won the game.
Couple points:
1) It is overblown. The odds of it making a difference is very small.
2) It is nevertheless unambiguously going to reduce your personal ability to impact the game, by however small a percent it is. If you judge yourself to be a better judge of card quality than a monkey throwing darts at a board, then you should be the one to make the call, rather than leaving it to chance what you draw. The statistics has been done, there is no room for the argument that it might be better.
3) Even if you don't believe there's a legitimate difference between one 23rd card and another, isn't it *more fun* to make the choice yourself? Would you really prefer to occasionally rip the perfect situational card because you had no self-discipline than because you specifically chose for that card to be your 23rd?
4) Of course sometimes you lose because you sided out the wrong thing. But that's the difference between statistics and specifics. Just because it happens sometimes doesn't mean you should be happy to make your deck weaker in hopes of an improbable scenario happening.
Now that we've established that "It is overblown. The odds of it making a difference is very small", but that "It is nevertheless unambiguously going to reduce your personal ability to impact the game, by however small a percent it is", thus establishing that the difference between 40 and 41 cards is more or less lost in the noise, I would like to state how annoying it is for players to act like bringing 41 cards to a game makes you a terrible player, and deserving of ridicule.
Yes, playing 41 cards is empirically worse than playing 40 - but the difference is so very, very minor, that one can hardly call the choice to do so indicative of being a terrible player. I'm not sure how the numbers work out exactly, but let's say that all other things being equal, adding the "next worst" card from your pool to a 40 card deck to give yourself a 41 card deck will lose you 1 game out of 50 that you wouldn't have otherwise lost.
I can think of so many other things that will reduce your chances of winning by probably a larger amount that never elicits the same "you suck because you're playing 41 cards" kind of reaction. Some examples:
- Playing when you're tired
- Playing on tilt
- Playing a card because you misunderstood one of its effects
- Playing in a distracting environment
- Leaving your mobile phone (you might receive an urgent call and have to forfeit the match!)
- Playing when you are not certain you'll have enough time to complete the match
I'll bet that every single one of the above has a greater chance to lose you 1 in 50 games than just playing with 41 cards does.
Would you tell another player that they suck because they engaged in any one of the above? I doubt it. So why do people feel that playing with 41 cards is so indicative of poor play, when it's less likely to negatively affect the outcome than an innumerable number of other factors?
In terms of why to play with 41 cards ... there's no good reason to, if you can perfectly evaluate your pool, but if you can't and find it less mentally anguishing to put the 41st card in than to struggle over which one to cut ... well, maybe saving yourself some mental anguish will leave your mind in a better state to play a mistake-free game? In that case your odds may actually improve by including that 41st card.
Yes, playing 41 cards is empirically worse than playing 40 - but the difference is so very, very minor, that one can hardly call the choice to do so indicative of being a terrible player.
Well, are we defining being terrible as making *high-impact* poor choices, or *obviously* poor choices? In the case of the former, playing 41 cards is nowhere close to making you terrible. In the case of the latter, it certainly does, once you have the facts.
(I am not, for the record, saying I am not terrible. I do a bunch of the things on your list that I usually immediately regret. But I like to think that even I'm not terrible enough to be unable to avoid making a simple incorrect binary decision where the same answer is always correct every time.)
Maybe your 23rd and 24th cards are extremely close in power level, and you can't decide what to cut. But, in Limited, your 24th card is almost certainly objectively worse than your best card, and adding the 24th card reduces the chances of drawing *all* of your other cards, including your best card. It's not about 23rd vs 24th, it's about 1st vs 24th.
Maybe your 23rd and 24th cards are extremely close in power level, and you can't decide what to cut. But, in Limited, your 24th card is almost certainly objectively worse than your best card, and adding the 24th card reduces the chances of drawing *all* of your other cards, including your best card. It's not about 23rd vs 24th, it's about 1st vs 24th.
There are two things going on here: running a 41st card, which hurts your chances to draw all your better cards, but also choosing between your 23rd and 24th card. Your argument (which is the correct one) is that if your 23rd and 24th cards are very close, then it probably doesn't matter which one you play, but that playing both is worse than playing either one. The opposing argument is that it doesn't matter whether you play 40 or 41 cards, but that random chance might make you draw the card you would have cut at exactly the perfect time for it to make all the difference.
So let's be clear here: The difference between 40 and 41 cards making a difference between a win and a loss is somewhere on the order of 1 time in a thousand. The difference between running and not running your 24th best card to deciding a game is on the order of 1 time in a million. Neither is a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but if you're prioritizing one effect over the other, there should be no question.
Couple points:
1) It is overblown. The odds of it making a difference is very small.
This is what I'm saying is getting lost in the shuffle. I can't quantify with numbers exactly how overblown it is, or how small of a difference it makes, but I feel safe in saying it's small. Small enough that - from any reasonable perspective - it just doesn't matter.
The stance you (and, let's face it, most everyone) take is that it doesn't matter how small the difference - how minuscule the overall effect on your winning % is - if there's any difference, it's objectively incorrect to play 41 instead of 40. Period.
And I'm saying, well, no, at some point the difference gets so small that I don't think you can actually say this. And it may even be the negative win % you are imagining (and let's face it, this is pretty much a theory, based on the premise that if you draw your "best" cards more you will win more, so anything that reduces your % chance of drawing your "best" cards - even if only reducing by a very, very tiny % - equals a negative impact on your win %) isn't even as negative as all that. Because the 41st card you are playing presumably you are playing it for a reason - because it does a thing - and there will be occasions when that thing is what makes the difference, even though it wasn't one of your "best" cards.
I mean, deckbuilding itself is an act of compromise. Generally speaking you don't just throw all your objectively most powerful cards in a pile and go. You have to take your curve into consideration. You take the mana costs into consideration. You want a mix of threats and answers. You already deliberately play "weaker" cards over more powerful ones. What I'm saying is more an extension of that fact.
I know I'm not getting anyone to agree with that. And, you know, maybe someone did the study and it's empirically true that it always hurts your win %, even if only by some very tiny amount. But, even if so, I guess I just don't think it's that big a deal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
actually, Axelrod, i'm glad that you're articulating your thoughts, because i think they're similar to the impulses that i have (but have trouble identifying and explaining here) when i say to myself "i'm /supposed/ to put 40 cards, but i really want to put 41 cards instead.".
can i try talking-out-loud about this moment when i choose to only cut down to 41 cards? maybe it goes something like this:
- "gosh, i really don't know what to cut."
- "maybe i should cut card A because it's probably objectively bad. but it's so much fun! and it fun-synergizes with cards ABCD *and* cards XYZ!"
- "maybe instead i'll i should cut this 2-drop that doesn't excite me at all. but man, my curve will be terrible and losing to a bad curve might prevent me from using my fun synergetstic Johnny-Timmy cards.. ."
as i think-out-loud, the impulse is becoming more clear:
if i cut the card i'm nominating for "worst card", i see that i make my deck worse in Way X (eg, less powerful synergy, say). but if i cut the next "worst card", i see that i make my deck worse in Way Y (eg, weak to fliers, or maybe my curve suddenly looks much worse, such as going from four 2-drops to three 2-drops).
so, the feeling is that the benefits of keeping a forty card deck are smaller than the detriments of making my deck worse in Way X or Way Y. i think that's what i meant by "flexible" in my first post (ie the "flexibility" of having nice synergy AND not-weak to fliers AND a nice curve, vs having to give one of these up).
Axelrod articulated a feeling that i couldn't articulate: that it feels weird to treat cards as an orderable list of "these are objectively good cards, and at this end these are cards objectively bad, and so i'll just take the best 23 cards". cards aren't objectivley good or bad; you need to consider the interactions cards have with each other (with curve and synergy).
(the rest of this post concerns not strategic-for-winning experiences, but strategic-for-the-way-i-most-strongly-have-fun with mtg)
herfle said:
In terms of why to play with 41 cards ... there's no good reason to, if you can perfectly evaluate your pool, but if you can't and find it less mentally anguishing to put the 41st card in than to struggle over which one to cut ... well, maybe saving yourself some mental anguish will leave your mind in a better state to play a mistake-free game? In that case your odds may actually improve by including that 41st card.
i like that this was articulated, because i think this is what i do often, and it feels good to see it articulated! i know that i often will find myself feeling this way in combat decisions: "my god, i'm getting overwhlemed with all the decisions. for the sake of being able to enjoy this game, i'll just make SOME decision, and be okay with it". the mental pain of cutting a 41st card (esp if i love that card) can be so painful, that it just makes me happier to keep the 41st card.. .
of course, i do this for the sake of my own enjoyment, though (if i understand correctly) herfle is talking about it being strategically smart to do for your win % (ie by minimizing stress).
Puddle Jumper said:
The real reason to want "flexibility" is simple lack of ability to evaluate cards well. If you don't know which card is your best 23rd, then you get to hedge your bets and play both. That's possibly okay if your goal is to play with as many cards as you can and get a sense of what's good and what isn't. But thinking that it will improve your odds against anyone is fallacious, because all you're actually doing is tossing away your card evaluation skills in favor of random chance, and hoping the universe will make your decision for you. And unless you're Two-Face, that's probably not a great approach to life.
i also liked reading this, because i do see myself both hedging my bets because i'm just not sure how to evaluate things well, and also i now see that i DO find myself saying "well, we'll see what fate has in store for me, and which of these cards i'll draw". i find that i DO like leaving it up to fate. i actually get a kick out of drawing that 41st card and wishing badly that i didn't in a similar way that i love it when Capricious Efreet destroys one of my own permanents. so Puddle Jumper's comment here will now heighten every time i choose this decision to "let fate shuffle me my 41st card and let's see if i regret it or not!".
"I feel safe in saying it's small. Small enough that - from any reasonable perspective - it just doesn't matter."
I disagree with this. It is small, but in my view it does matter, similar to the decision of whether to play 17 or 18 lands in a 40-card deck is an overall small decision (much of the time it does not matter at all) but it matters.
With that said, there are many small decisions in drafting a deck, and many small decisions during play. Almost all of them matter in my view, meaning that any one has a non-negligible chance at being the difference in winning vs losing, although in many cases the "right" move is not nearly as clear as the right move here which in my view is to play 40 cards.
When I face someone playing more than 40 cards I am glad because not only do I get the small advantages already mentioned but it means that my opponent also is likely playing cards which I think are poor or even unplayable.
If your goals in playing limited Magic include happily sacrificing win percentage for the sake of fun, then there really isn't any particular reason why you shouldn't play 41 or even 45 cards. If you think certain cards are fun, then by all means play them.
I am in no way the person who will tell you that you shouldn't try to prioritize what you find fun. That way leads to burnout. That said, playing 41 cards seems more to me like kicking the family dog for fun, exactly once a month, and just waiting for it to break and try to bite you. Maybe you'll get bitten, but probably not, so who cares? Mistreating your deck is as good a way to amuse yourself as any.
Couple points:
1) It is overblown. The odds of it making a difference is very small.
This is what I'm saying is getting lost in the shuffle. I can't quantify with numbers exactly how overblown it is, or how small of a difference it makes, but I feel safe in saying it's small. Small enough that - from any reasonable perspective - it just doesn't matter.
The stance you (and, let's face it, most everyone) take is that it doesn't matter how small the difference - how minuscule the overall effect on your winning % is - if there's any difference, it's objectively incorrect to play 41 instead of 40. Period.
And I'm saying, well, no, at some point the difference gets so small that I don't think you can actually say this. And it may even be the negative win % you are imagining (and let's face it, this is pretty much a theory, based on the premise that if you draw your "best" cards more you will win more, so anything that reduces your % chance of drawing your "best" cards - even if only reducing by a very, very tiny % - equals a negative impact on your win %) isn't even as negative as all that. Because the 41st card you are playing presumably you are playing it for a reason - because it does a thing - and there will be occasions when that thing is what makes the difference, even though it wasn't one of your "best" cards.
I mean, deckbuilding itself is an act of compromise. Generally speaking you don't just throw all your objectively most powerful cards in a pile and go. You have to take your curve into consideration. You take the mana costs into consideration. You want a mix of threats and answers. You already deliberately play "weaker" cards over more powerful ones. What I'm saying is more an extension of that fact.
I know I'm not getting anyone to agree with that. And, you know, maybe someone did the study and it's empirically true that it always hurts your win %, even if only by some very tiny amount. But, even if so, I guess I just don't think it's that big a deal.
I feel like you're kinda missing the point that small does not equal debatable. I don't care if you run 41 cards, but it's never going to be statistically advantageous.
1.0001 is still definitively more than 1, and I'll happily call anyone who disagrees completely insane.
There's a significant logical fallacy in play here. You think the decision you're faced with is:
Cut Card X vs. Cut Card Y
You stare at those cards and you ponder and you consider the rest of your deck and you think about synergies and you think about curve...and finally you realize, the decision is simply too close to call. You do not have the cognitive abilities to discern whether you should cut X or Y so you'll play them both.
You forgot that it was a 3-decision race.
Cut Card X vs. Cut Card Y vs. Cut Nothing
It doesn't matter how statistically close X and Y are. Cut Nothing is objectively wrong because regardless of the identities of X and Y, Cut Nothing reduces your chances of drawing Cards A and B which are unquestionably your most powerful options.
You have to come to an understanding that the ratio of X to Y does not change the value of Cut Nothing. Then you'll realize that you're better off flipping a coin than shuffling up 41.
To extend the analogy to absurdity, your choices could also be expressed as:
Cut Card X vs. Cut Card Y vs. Cut Nothing vs. Burn the store to the ground
No reasonable person would argue that the relative values of Card X vs. Card Y would have any impact on whether it was correct to burn the store to the ground. Yet this is exactly what people do when they decide a tough decision justifies playing 41. They're letting the difficulty of one part of the equation overwhelm a separate decision making process.
please don't think i don't enjoy your analysis about maximizing win % because my kind of fun isn't purely about win %. i enjoy such analysis because
- the discussion itself is enjoyable/stimulating
- sometimes learning about such Spike-y ideas helps me have fun in my non Spike-y ways. sometimes this is because i need to make my deck *somewhat* viable to have fun (thus i wouldnt' run 45 cards), and sometimes it's because it heightens my awareness of my enjoyment of some suboptimal decisions.
making suboptimal decisions might be like abusing the family dog, to you, which is understandable given your main focus is to make optimal play.
i hope you can tolerate me asking for Spike ideas but admitting that i don't use all of those ideas the way Spikes do.
@Phyrre:
i might be misunderstanding what you're saying. if i am, please try to clarify if you have the patience.
i think i AM arguing that I am in fact considering all three options:
- Cut card X
- Cut card Y
- Cut nothing,
and that it might sometimes be correct to cut nothing.
let me bold something i said earlier:
if i cut the card i'm nominating for "worst card", i see that i make my deck worse in Way X (eg, less powerful synergy, say). but if i cut the next "worst card", i see that i make my deck worse in Way Y (eg, weak to fliers, or maybe my curve suddenly looks much worse, such as going from four 2-drops to three 2-drops).
so, the feeling is that the benefits of keeping a forty card deck are smaller than the detriments of making my deck worse in Way X or Way Y. i think that's what i meant by "flexible" in my first post (ie the "flexibility" of having nice synergy AND not-weak to fliers AND a nice curve, vs having to give one of these up).
to put it in a different way, i'm looking at the options as follows:
- Cut card X: Benefit is that i draw my best cards a turn earlier. Drawback: my deck is worse in Way X (eg, my curve isn't as good)
- Cut card Y: Benefit is that i draw my best cards a turn earlier. Drawback: my deck is worse in Way Y (eg, weak to fliers).
- Cut nothing: Benefit is that i keep a good curve AND my deck is not weak to fliers. Drawback is that i might draw my best cards one turn later.
my argument is that the best deal might be to cut nothing? that is, if it's most correct to have a better curve and a way to deal with fliers, at the expense of potentially drawing my best cards a turn later?
While I understand your argument, my argument is that in Limited Magic, the difference between Card 1 and Card 23 is so much bigger than the difference between Card 5 and Card 23 that no interaction effect of an extra spell at the weak end of your pile is ever going to overwhelm the damage you've done by drawing Card 1 less often. It's really difficult to draft a card pool with a flat power level.
On a recent Limited Resources, LSV presented a thought experiment from (I think?) Kai Budde that asked -- if given the option to remove the best 4 cards and the worst 4 cards from your deck, and replace them with 8 commons of your choice, would you do it? The conclusion these pros came to is that in today's Limited formats, you rarely make the switch. Your best 4 cards are THAT important, that even replacing them with the very best commons available won't improve your chances.
While you can craft a hypothetical where the variety of cards in your deck is more valuable than drawing your best cards, that hasn't been the reality of Limited Magic for a very long time (or maybe ever).
hmm, ... thanks for articulating that. you're making me start to wonder.
it's true that very often, i'm thinking "Geez, i REALLY need to draw my removal and/or my bomb right now".
it's starting to convince me that the gain from the one card i cut (better synergy, slightly better curve, etc) may not outweigh just how powerful drawing Cards 1-4 are.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
----------------------------
Goblins have poor impulse control. Don't click this link!!
some of my favourite flavour text:
Wayward Soul "no home no heart no hope"
—Stronghold graffito
Raging Goblin He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged.
So, to slightly shift the discussion, there are the (really uncommon) reasons I've played a deck with more than 40 cards (all post board):
1) You're playing 44 forests Lost in the Woods because your opponent is either better than you or has a better deck, and you were able to see enough of their deck game 1 you don't think they can answer if you hit it. (You only board into this if you're pretty sure your opponent has a good matchup vs. your real deck, because your odds of getting there are slightly under 50%)
2) Your opponent got the nuts aggro mill deck, with 6 Mind Sculpts and 3 Archaeomancer or similar. That is really awful, but can randomly kill you if you stick with 40 cards. If you have additional playables, going to 44-45 cards can mean they have to hit you with 5 sculpts instead of 4, plummeting their odds of being able to win before the fact they're running 9 cards with effectively no board impact lets you kill them with card advantage.
3) You and your opponent both have no card draw or tutor effects, but someone is running a card that can stall the game out forever, like worship or touch of the eternal. Go to 41 so you win when you both run out of cards. The real problem here is that the most common way to enter a draw is to play a control mirror where both sides can kill everything in the opponent's deck, but those are precisely the decks that usually draw cards, so it is rarely a good strategy. Everyone once in a while it comes up though.
I think those are the only times I've ever gone to 41+, at any rate.
Let's examine those best cards. Ugin, the Spirit Dragon beat me the other night in draft match allowing my opponent to take the set 2-1. We were both playing 40 card decks and were well through our decks into late game. Being an 8 drop, consider the math.
Expected value playing 17 lands puts 8 mana lands out at turn 13 (draw 13). Playing 18 lands, put it's barely at turn twelve. That's a 50/50 shot at having enough mana by turn 12 or 13 to play it. The gotcha is you need to live the 13 turns to play him and wipe a the board or start killing off your opponent. With 40 cards, turn 13 put the chance of Ugin showing up in your hand by cards, 13 draws in you're at 48.8% of having Ugin.
All provided you lived the 13 turns or draws to get there.
That means enough "good" 1,2,3 drops and arguably 4 and 5 drops to live to get him out and hopefully a bunch of extra draw card abilities to filter in for the extra land and to get him in your hand and played.
You could arguably cut something lessor. Some dork if you've got a dork and enough dorks to keep the dorks at bay and being dorked to death. That's the operative question, what's the probability you're going to get dorked to death waiting to play your objectively better card.
Or what's the probability change on 40 cards with Ugin versus say 41 cards with Ugin were teh 41st card is land, or Jeskai Sage or Anticipate or 2/2 or 2/3 Dork? What's the probability you live long enough to play him.
There's a significant logical fallacy in play here. You think the decision you're faced with is:
Cut Card X vs. Cut Card Y
You stare at those cards and you ponder and you consider the rest of your deck and you think about synergies and you think about curve...and finally you realize, the decision is simply too close to call. You do not have the cognitive abilities to discern whether you should cut X or Y so you'll play them both.
You forgot that it was a 3-decision race.
Cut Card X vs. Cut Card Y vs. Cut Nothing
It doesn't matter how statistically close X and Y are. Cut Nothing is objectively wrong because regardless of the identities of X and Y, Cut Nothing reduces your chances of drawing Cards A and B which are unquestionably your most powerful options.
You have to come to an understanding that the ratio of X to Y does not change the value of Cut Nothing. Then you'll realize that you're better off flipping a coin than shuffling up 41.
To extend the analogy to absurdity, your choices could also be expressed as:
Cut Card X vs. Cut Card Y vs. Cut Nothing vs. Burn the store to the ground
No reasonable person would argue that the relative values of Card X vs. Card Y would have any impact on whether it was correct to burn the store to the ground. Yet this is exactly what people do when they decide a tough decision justifies playing 41. They're letting the difficulty of one part of the equation overwhelm a separate decision making process.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
so, Marshall Sutcliffe remarked in a recent Limited Resources video that he always plays 40 cards.
this is a rule that i always hear advanced players say. i never hear advanced players talk of 41 cards being okay.
can someone give me their thoughts and/or point me to some good articles that discuss either side?
to me, strategically, i can't see why it's always right to play forty cards:
- what if you want more than 42.5% (ie 17/40) but less than 45% (ie 18/40) of your deck to be lands? maybe then you'd want 18/41 cards to be lands?
- yes, with 40 cards you are using (say) the best 23 non-land cards in your pool. but what if that 24th card makes your deck more *flexible*, at the cost of lowering the average power level of each card?
(are there even any pros who advocate for 41 card decks??)
------
another semi-related question: why 17-18 lands?
i remember when i learned Magic back in Tempest, it was normal do make literally only one third of your deck lands!
is 17-18 lands the "proper" amount, or is it a meta decision made when everyone else started putting more than 1/3 of their decks to be lands? (that is, if i went back in time when i started learning Magic, and put 42.5% of my decks as lands, would i suddenly crush all my friends, or would most of them crush me except the strange ones who put a little higher than 1/3 but not close to 42.5% ?)
is there a formula that you use that says "17 lands is correct for this deck"? is it possible that there is a format where it is correct to play 15 lands, and that formula would model that?
that is, i do 17 lands only because people tell me to do it, and it seems to work out fine. but i dont' know *why* i do it, or what "works out fine" means, or what exactly it looks like when things don't "work out fine" if i do 15 or 16 or 19 or 20 lands.
Goblins have poor impulse control. Don't click this link!!
some of my favourite flavour text:
Wayward Soul
"no home no heart no hope"
—Stronghold graffito
Raging Goblin
He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged.
With regards to 17 lands: yes, there's a bunch of math floating around the internet to support this. I even wrote a bit of it on this and other forums several years ago. It's based around hitting your third land drop as much as possible (avoiding screw) while not hitting your sixth or seventh as much as possible (avoiding flood).
If you only need two lands to function (RGD with signet/bouncelands or triple Mirrodin with Myr and low curves) then the math changes completely and 14 to 15 lands can be fine.
GWU Bant Manifest - The Future Is Here. Or it will be at the end of turn. GWU
I know the idea that if you only play your best 22/23 cards that you'll draw your best cards more often, but I regularly have decks where I really can't tell which card is the worst. I'll often play a 41st card just for the sake of getting to play with more cards I haven't used, and maybe by the end of the draft I've figured out that something doesn't belong.
This is not exactly the same thing, but some of the top-performing Lands players in Legacy tend to advocate playing 61 cards maindeck.
As far as land count, I think that depends more on the specific deck than the format. There's a lot to consider on that one. How many lands do you need to hit every game, how bad does it hurt if you miss a land drop, how many colors are you, how bad do you need each color, do you have card draw to find lands, etc. Seventeen is the standard, but aggressive decks often want 16 and high-curve controlling decks sometimes go 18 or even 19 if they have looting/filtering effects or mana sinks. Most decks want to hit six-ish lands every game; aggro decks may not want to hit six lands ever, and other decks might want to hit eight or nine.
I used to sometimes play 41 card decks, but in my (non-professional, but decently-skilled) view 40 is correct because it makes it more likely that you will draw your absolute best cards. Regardless of how close some calls are, there's always a card that's not as good as the 22nd/3rd/4th that should be cut in the interest of only including the best cards you've got in the deck.
If I recall correctly, in a 40 card deck, 17 lands runs the lowest risk of drawing flooded (5+ lands) or screwed (-2 lands) hands in your opening seven. The second source I listed here shows that near the bottom of the article. Of course, 17 vs. 18 lands is more context dependent than 40 vs. 41 card deck. As you noted, I don't think you'll ever see pros seriously suggesting that you play a 41-card deck.
This thread is also pretty good on the topic: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/limited-sealed-draft/limited-archives/138285-ive-got-free-time-and-excel
This is also good: http://www.mtgoacademy.com/expected-results-a-stable-mana-base/
I think 16 lands can be correct when you have non-land mana producers. My rule of thumb is for every two non-land mana producers, I can cut a land. As an example, 2 Elvish Mystic in the deck means I can cut one forest from what I would usually go for in that particular deck.
Interestingly, the second source has 5 lands in "yellow" territory, implying that it's so-so. I agree that 3 lands in the opening hand is usually the sweet spot and that 2 is yellow but usually decent. 4 is usually so-so as well, but I would personally but 5 lands in red-line territory. That's usually going to be either a mulligan or a frowny-faced keep for me.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/limited-sealed-draft/525625-ramp-spells-in-a-ramp-deck
Basically the suggestion is that you cut one land per two ramp spells, but if you have ramp in your deck you start at 18 land not 17. The logic is that if you have ramp spells, you really want to hit your first three land drops or your ramp is probably worse than a basic land.
I believe I have also heard pros mention that sometimes they board into a 41-card deck when playing first in a control mirror (and the risk of getting decked is significant).
It isn't a huge deal. 1/200th of a card every game may make a difference between a win and a loss once in a thousand games. But it is an unequivocal disadvantage, and there's no reason to do it.
The issue of flexibility is a mistake. Your deck isn't more flexible because you maindecked a sideboard card for your 41st card unless you draw your whole deck. Remember that the whole point of a sideboard is to have some cards that *are not usually the best cards*, but can overperform against certain strategies. By definition, they would be subpar in the maindeck. A 41 card deck is exactly no different from a 40 card deck except that it randomly has potentially poor sideboard cards in it that will make your draws worse on average.
The real reason to want "flexibility" is simple lack of ability to evaluate cards well. If you don't know which card is your best 23rd, then you get to hedge your bets and play both. That's possibly okay if your goal is to play with as many cards as you can and get a sense of what's good and what isn't. But thinking that it will improve your odds against anyone is fallacious, because all you're actually doing is tossing away your card evaluation skills in favor of random chance, and hoping the universe will make your decision for you. And unless you're Two-Face, that's probably not a great approach to life.
And if there isn't an objectively worse card, then cutting a card means giving up something. And then it's kind of a case of whether you think you are going to miss what you give up (whether it's that extra 2-drop creature, or that extra removal spell, or that extra finisher, etc.) I hit this situation not infrequently, most commonly when I'm sideboarding a card that is situationally good for the matchup, and don't see anything that I want to take out. Yes, you can snarkily say if I can't identify the card I should be removing then this just shows I'm not that good a player, but, again, I would dispute that it is so clear cut, and I will assert that there will be games lost by sideboarding out something that it turns out could have won the game.
I think the ultimate math argument expressed above isn't the value of this 41st card over the first 40, but the percentage that you have diminished the chances you will draw your "best" cards. How ever many of those there are. And, again, what's "best" is not always clear, but certainly there will be some cards are going to be clearly better. Your "bomb" cards (assuming you have any).
But I still think the win % difference has got to be minuscule. First, the percentage that you draw the "bomb" card just isn't changing all that much. Ex. (and forgive my maths) the chance to have 1 particular card out of 40 in your opening 7 = .175 (I think). Chance to have it in your opening 7 in a 41 card deck = .171. So you have increased your chance of starting with your bomb by...4 tenths of a %? When you consider that you don't even win all the games where you draw the "bomb", and there could be games where drawing that 41st card leads to a win that a different card would not have, exactly how much difference to your overall win % could this actually be making?
My gut tells me that the emphasis on 40 over 41 is overblown, and it's more of a theory thing than an actual win % thing.
Couple points:
1) It is overblown. The odds of it making a difference is very small.
2) It is nevertheless unambiguously going to reduce your personal ability to impact the game, by however small a percent it is. If you judge yourself to be a better judge of card quality than a monkey throwing darts at a board, then you should be the one to make the call, rather than leaving it to chance what you draw. The statistics has been done, there is no room for the argument that it might be better.
3) Even if you don't believe there's a legitimate difference between one 23rd card and another, isn't it *more fun* to make the choice yourself? Would you really prefer to occasionally rip the perfect situational card because you had no self-discipline than because you specifically chose for that card to be your 23rd?
4) Of course sometimes you lose because you sided out the wrong thing. But that's the difference between statistics and specifics. Just because it happens sometimes doesn't mean you should be happy to make your deck weaker in hopes of an improbable scenario happening.
Yes, playing 41 cards is empirically worse than playing 40 - but the difference is so very, very minor, that one can hardly call the choice to do so indicative of being a terrible player. I'm not sure how the numbers work out exactly, but let's say that all other things being equal, adding the "next worst" card from your pool to a 40 card deck to give yourself a 41 card deck will lose you 1 game out of 50 that you wouldn't have otherwise lost.
I can think of so many other things that will reduce your chances of winning by probably a larger amount that never elicits the same "you suck because you're playing 41 cards" kind of reaction. Some examples:
- Playing when you're tired
- Playing on tilt
- Playing a card because you misunderstood one of its effects
- Playing in a distracting environment
- Leaving your mobile phone (you might receive an urgent call and have to forfeit the match!)
- Playing when you are not certain you'll have enough time to complete the match
I'll bet that every single one of the above has a greater chance to lose you 1 in 50 games than just playing with 41 cards does.
Would you tell another player that they suck because they engaged in any one of the above? I doubt it. So why do people feel that playing with 41 cards is so indicative of poor play, when it's less likely to negatively affect the outcome than an innumerable number of other factors?
In terms of why to play with 41 cards ... there's no good reason to, if you can perfectly evaluate your pool, but if you can't and find it less mentally anguishing to put the 41st card in than to struggle over which one to cut ... well, maybe saving yourself some mental anguish will leave your mind in a better state to play a mistake-free game? In that case your odds may actually improve by including that 41st card.
Well, are we defining being terrible as making *high-impact* poor choices, or *obviously* poor choices? In the case of the former, playing 41 cards is nowhere close to making you terrible. In the case of the latter, it certainly does, once you have the facts.
(I am not, for the record, saying I am not terrible. I do a bunch of the things on your list that I usually immediately regret. But I like to think that even I'm not terrible enough to be unable to avoid making a simple incorrect binary decision where the same answer is always correct every time.)
There are two things going on here: running a 41st card, which hurts your chances to draw all your better cards, but also choosing between your 23rd and 24th card. Your argument (which is the correct one) is that if your 23rd and 24th cards are very close, then it probably doesn't matter which one you play, but that playing both is worse than playing either one. The opposing argument is that it doesn't matter whether you play 40 or 41 cards, but that random chance might make you draw the card you would have cut at exactly the perfect time for it to make all the difference.
So let's be clear here: The difference between 40 and 41 cards making a difference between a win and a loss is somewhere on the order of 1 time in a thousand. The difference between running and not running your 24th best card to deciding a game is on the order of 1 time in a million. Neither is a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but if you're prioritizing one effect over the other, there should be no question.
This is what I'm saying is getting lost in the shuffle. I can't quantify with numbers exactly how overblown it is, or how small of a difference it makes, but I feel safe in saying it's small. Small enough that - from any reasonable perspective - it just doesn't matter.
The stance you (and, let's face it, most everyone) take is that it doesn't matter how small the difference - how minuscule the overall effect on your winning % is - if there's any difference, it's objectively incorrect to play 41 instead of 40. Period.
And I'm saying, well, no, at some point the difference gets so small that I don't think you can actually say this. And it may even be the negative win % you are imagining (and let's face it, this is pretty much a theory, based on the premise that if you draw your "best" cards more you will win more, so anything that reduces your % chance of drawing your "best" cards - even if only reducing by a very, very tiny % - equals a negative impact on your win %) isn't even as negative as all that. Because the 41st card you are playing presumably you are playing it for a reason - because it does a thing - and there will be occasions when that thing is what makes the difference, even though it wasn't one of your "best" cards.
I mean, deckbuilding itself is an act of compromise. Generally speaking you don't just throw all your objectively most powerful cards in a pile and go. You have to take your curve into consideration. You take the mana costs into consideration. You want a mix of threats and answers. You already deliberately play "weaker" cards over more powerful ones. What I'm saying is more an extension of that fact.
I know I'm not getting anyone to agree with that. And, you know, maybe someone did the study and it's empirically true that it always hurts your win %, even if only by some very tiny amount. But, even if so, I guess I just don't think it's that big a deal.
can i try talking-out-loud about this moment when i choose to only cut down to 41 cards? maybe it goes something like this:
- "gosh, i really don't know what to cut."
- "maybe i should cut card A because it's probably objectively bad. but it's so much fun! and it fun-synergizes with cards ABCD *and* cards XYZ!"
- "maybe instead i'll i should cut this 2-drop that doesn't excite me at all. but man, my curve will be terrible and losing to a bad curve might prevent me from using my fun synergetstic Johnny-Timmy cards.. ."
as i think-out-loud, the impulse is becoming more clear:
Axelrod articulated a feeling that i couldn't articulate: that it feels weird to treat cards as an orderable list of "these are objectively good cards, and at this end these are cards objectively bad, and so i'll just take the best 23 cards". cards aren't objectivley good or bad; you need to consider the interactions cards have with each other (with curve and synergy).
(the rest of this post concerns not strategic-for-winning experiences, but strategic-for-the-way-i-most-strongly-have-fun with mtg)
herfle said:
i like that this was articulated, because i think this is what i do often, and it feels good to see it articulated! i know that i often will find myself feeling this way in combat decisions: "my god, i'm getting overwhlemed with all the decisions. for the sake of being able to enjoy this game, i'll just make SOME decision, and be okay with it". the mental pain of cutting a 41st card (esp if i love that card) can be so painful, that it just makes me happier to keep the 41st card.. .
of course, i do this for the sake of my own enjoyment, though (if i understand correctly) herfle is talking about it being strategically smart to do for your win % (ie by minimizing stress).
Puddle Jumper said:
i also liked reading this, because i do see myself both hedging my bets because i'm just not sure how to evaluate things well, and also i now see that i DO find myself saying "well, we'll see what fate has in store for me, and which of these cards i'll draw". i find that i DO like leaving it up to fate. i actually get a kick out of drawing that 41st card and wishing badly that i didn't in a similar way that i love it when Capricious Efreet destroys one of my own permanents. so Puddle Jumper's comment here will now heighten every time i choose this decision to "let fate shuffle me my 41st card and let's see if i regret it or not!".
Goblins have poor impulse control. Don't click this link!!
some of my favourite flavour text:
Wayward Soul
"no home no heart no hope"
—Stronghold graffito
Raging Goblin
He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged.
I disagree with this. It is small, but in my view it does matter, similar to the decision of whether to play 17 or 18 lands in a 40-card deck is an overall small decision (much of the time it does not matter at all) but it matters.
With that said, there are many small decisions in drafting a deck, and many small decisions during play. Almost all of them matter in my view, meaning that any one has a non-negligible chance at being the difference in winning vs losing, although in many cases the "right" move is not nearly as clear as the right move here which in my view is to play 40 cards.
When I face someone playing more than 40 cards I am glad because not only do I get the small advantages already mentioned but it means that my opponent also is likely playing cards which I think are poor or even unplayable.
I am in no way the person who will tell you that you shouldn't try to prioritize what you find fun. That way leads to burnout. That said, playing 41 cards seems more to me like kicking the family dog for fun, exactly once a month, and just waiting for it to break and try to bite you. Maybe you'll get bitten, but probably not, so who cares? Mistreating your deck is as good a way to amuse yourself as any.
I feel like you're kinda missing the point that small does not equal debatable. I don't care if you run 41 cards, but it's never going to be statistically advantageous.
1.0001 is still definitively more than 1, and I'll happily call anyone who disagrees completely insane.
Cut Card X vs. Cut Card Y
You stare at those cards and you ponder and you consider the rest of your deck and you think about synergies and you think about curve...and finally you realize, the decision is simply too close to call. You do not have the cognitive abilities to discern whether you should cut X or Y so you'll play them both.
You forgot that it was a 3-decision race.
Cut Card X vs. Cut Card Y vs. Cut Nothing
It doesn't matter how statistically close X and Y are. Cut Nothing is objectively wrong because regardless of the identities of X and Y, Cut Nothing reduces your chances of drawing Cards A and B which are unquestionably your most powerful options.
You have to come to an understanding that the ratio of X to Y does not change the value of Cut Nothing. Then you'll realize that you're better off flipping a coin than shuffling up 41.
To extend the analogy to absurdity, your choices could also be expressed as:
Cut Card X vs. Cut Card Y vs. Cut Nothing vs. Burn the store to the ground
No reasonable person would argue that the relative values of Card X vs. Card Y would have any impact on whether it was correct to burn the store to the ground. Yet this is exactly what people do when they decide a tough decision justifies playing 41. They're letting the difficulty of one part of the equation overwhelm a separate decision making process.
please don't think i don't enjoy your analysis about maximizing win % because my kind of fun isn't purely about win %. i enjoy such analysis because
- the discussion itself is enjoyable/stimulating
- sometimes learning about such Spike-y ideas helps me have fun in my non Spike-y ways. sometimes this is because i need to make my deck *somewhat* viable to have fun (thus i wouldnt' run 45 cards), and sometimes it's because it heightens my awareness of my enjoyment of some suboptimal decisions.
making suboptimal decisions might be like abusing the family dog, to you, which is understandable given your main focus is to make optimal play.
i hope you can tolerate me asking for Spike ideas but admitting that i don't use all of those ideas the way Spikes do.
@Phyrre:
i might be misunderstanding what you're saying. if i am, please try to clarify if you have the patience.
i think i AM arguing that I am in fact considering all three options:
- Cut card X
- Cut card Y
- Cut nothing,
and that it might sometimes be correct to cut nothing.
let me bold something i said earlier:
to put it in a different way, i'm looking at the options as follows:
- Cut card X: Benefit is that i draw my best cards a turn earlier. Drawback: my deck is worse in Way X (eg, my curve isn't as good)
- Cut card Y: Benefit is that i draw my best cards a turn earlier. Drawback: my deck is worse in Way Y (eg, weak to fliers).
- Cut nothing: Benefit is that i keep a good curve AND my deck is not weak to fliers. Drawback is that i might draw my best cards one turn later.
my argument is that the best deal might be to cut nothing? that is, if it's most correct to have a better curve and a way to deal with fliers, at the expense of potentially drawing my best cards a turn later?
Goblins have poor impulse control. Don't click this link!!
some of my favourite flavour text:
Wayward Soul
"no home no heart no hope"
—Stronghold graffito
Raging Goblin
He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged.
On a recent Limited Resources, LSV presented a thought experiment from (I think?) Kai Budde that asked -- if given the option to remove the best 4 cards and the worst 4 cards from your deck, and replace them with 8 commons of your choice, would you do it? The conclusion these pros came to is that in today's Limited formats, you rarely make the switch. Your best 4 cards are THAT important, that even replacing them with the very best commons available won't improve your chances.
While you can craft a hypothetical where the variety of cards in your deck is more valuable than drawing your best cards, that hasn't been the reality of Limited Magic for a very long time (or maybe ever).
it's true that very often, i'm thinking "Geez, i REALLY need to draw my removal and/or my bomb right now".
it's starting to convince me that the gain from the one card i cut (better synergy, slightly better curve, etc) may not outweigh just how powerful drawing Cards 1-4 are.
Goblins have poor impulse control. Don't click this link!!
some of my favourite flavour text:
Wayward Soul
"no home no heart no hope"
—Stronghold graffito
Raging Goblin
He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged.
1) You're playing 44 forests Lost in the Woods because your opponent is either better than you or has a better deck, and you were able to see enough of their deck game 1 you don't think they can answer if you hit it. (You only board into this if you're pretty sure your opponent has a good matchup vs. your real deck, because your odds of getting there are slightly under 50%)
2) Your opponent got the nuts aggro mill deck, with 6 Mind Sculpts and 3 Archaeomancer or similar. That is really awful, but can randomly kill you if you stick with 40 cards. If you have additional playables, going to 44-45 cards can mean they have to hit you with 5 sculpts instead of 4, plummeting their odds of being able to win before the fact they're running 9 cards with effectively no board impact lets you kill them with card advantage.
3) You and your opponent both have no card draw or tutor effects, but someone is running a card that can stall the game out forever, like worship or touch of the eternal. Go to 41 so you win when you both run out of cards. The real problem here is that the most common way to enter a draw is to play a control mirror where both sides can kill everything in the opponent's deck, but those are precisely the decks that usually draw cards, so it is rarely a good strategy. Everyone once in a while it comes up though.
I think those are the only times I've ever gone to 41+, at any rate.
Expected value playing 17 lands puts 8 mana lands out at turn 13 (draw 13). Playing 18 lands, put it's barely at turn twelve. That's a 50/50 shot at having enough mana by turn 12 or 13 to play it. The gotcha is you need to live the 13 turns to play him and wipe a the board or start killing off your opponent. With 40 cards, turn 13 put the chance of Ugin showing up in your hand by cards, 13 draws in you're at 48.8% of having Ugin.
All provided you lived the 13 turns or draws to get there.
That means enough "good" 1,2,3 drops and arguably 4 and 5 drops to live to get him out and hopefully a bunch of extra draw card abilities to filter in for the extra land and to get him in your hand and played.
You could arguably cut something lessor. Some dork if you've got a dork and enough dorks to keep the dorks at bay and being dorked to death. That's the operative question, what's the probability you're going to get dorked to death waiting to play your objectively better card.
Or what's the probability change on 40 cards with Ugin versus say 41 cards with Ugin were teh 41st card is land, or Jeskai Sage or Anticipate or 2/2 or 2/3 Dork? What's the probability you live long enough to play him.