Maybe i'm not well versed in statistics, but isn't true that given an enough large sample of outcomes the statistical effects will balance out each other leading to a neutral outcome? Isn't true that if i play enough games i will be paired an equal number of times against favorable and unfavorable matchups (given the assumption that i choose a deck that isn't presenting a disportionated amounts of bad MUs) and i will loose the die roll as much as i will win it and i will draw a non-relevant card the same times i will draw the relevant ones? So i think that to make a more fitting example we should consider the effect of skill displayed over a large size of games: in this way the random effects can be ignored and what is left is indeed the skill. Let's suppose an average player and a master of a certain deck both play 1000 matches with the same deck, shouldn't the more skilled player wins more time than the average player (discounting the increase in skill of the average player due to playing the deck)?
That's correct and is exactly what Ken Carson showed in his link on the other page.
I think a lot of the "skill" attributed to consistent T8 appearances has more to do with their deck selection and sideboard structure than their actual gameplay decisions. Not to say that those aren't skillful traits (or the product of working closely with testing teams), but let's be honest, the deck you are playing against is often much more important than the person you are playing against.
Edit: never mind the byes they get, which allow them to more carefully select and tune their deck for a more predictable meta.
Tell that to players like Craig Wescoe who always play the same variant of deck regardless of meta and still manage to top 8.
According to the link above, Wescoe has only 7 T8s out of 94 GPs. This tells me that more often than not, White Weenie decks are pretty bad, but once in a while, they do well and he has the skill to capitalize on when they are doing well (like at the recent Vegas GP). His numbers show that skill alone can't reliably overcome a deck's inherent weaknesses, and further illustrates the impact of deck choice over individual player skill.
First of all, I don't believe this list of GPs is just modern events, so it's not like we can evaluate his performance with a certain deck in a certain format. Furthermore, even getting in the top 16/32 consistently as he does is pretty impressive for a style of play that has never been considered tier 1. If he can play a strategy that is considered weak and get consistent results from his career I find that pretty indicative.
I wouldn't call 7 of 94 "consistent." And if it does include multiple GP types, then that is also likely reflected in the results (like how WW/D&T is more consistently viable in Legacy).
Doesn't really change the point that deck choice is significantly important.
Look at Yuya Watanabe... dude top 8s more han a quarter of the GPs in which he plays! And many other top tier pros have a 15%+ conversion ratio, which is crazy higher than the EV of a tournament with 1600 entrants (which is at .5%). So before you look at the 15% as a negative and proof of luck, realize that someone is performing, over a large sample size, 20-30 times better than than expected value. Statistically, that cannot be luck!
You have to realize how big the advantage of having 3 byes actually is. When a Pro enter the tournement all the people who have lost or drawn a match is basicly out of the top8. That is 7/8=87,5% of the field is allready out, and on top of that the Pro get better tie breakers because of the byes. (A person that has played from round 1 and is 3-0 will have a worse Opponent Match Win % then anyone with 3 byes).
The average attendance on GPs from 2009 to present is 1361 (calculated from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Magic:_The_Gathering_Grand_Prix_events). A regular Joe with 3 byes have a 4.7% to finish in the top8 in an averaged sized GP, so Pros making top8 twice that often isn't actually that impressive; afterall they've put considerable more time into magic then the average player.
If you compare with chess, which is (allmost) a pure game of skill, you'll see that the top players like Carlsen, Kramnik, Soo, Caruana etc finish on top every tournement the enter.
I could play thousands of games against Carlsen (or any other GM) and lose every single one. On the other hand if I would play some games of Magic against a Magic Pro I'll beat him (or her) eventually, maybe in less then 10 games.
...and I've put a lot more time and effort in chess then Magic.
Top8 Norwegain Vintage Nationals 2003
Winner Norwegain Vintage Nationals 2006
Finalist Vintage Open at Arcon 2013
Finalist Modern Open at Arcon 2013
Winner Sweden Vintage Nationals at Eternalkungen Sweden 2013
Top8 Norwegian Legacy Nationals 2014
Winner Vintage Open at Arcon 2014
Top8 Legacy Open at Arcon 2014
Top4 Legacy Open at Arcon 2015
Winner Modern Open at Arcon 2015
Finalist Norwegian Legacy Nationals 2016
Winner Vintage Open at Arcon 2016
Look at Yuya Watanabe... dude top 8s more han a quarter of the GPs in which he plays! And many other top tier pros have a 15%+ conversion ratio, which is crazy higher than the EV of a tournament with 1600 entrants (which is at .5%). So before you look at the 15% as a negative and proof of luck, realize that someone is performing, over a large sample size, 20-30 times better than than expected value. Statistically, that cannot be luck!
You have to realize how big the advantage of having 3 byes actually is. When a Pro enter the tournement all the people who have lost or drawn a match is basicly out of the top8. That is 7/8=87,5% of the field is allready out, and on top of that the Pro get better tie breakers because of the byes. (A person that has played from round 1 and is 3-0 will have a worse Opponent Match Win % then anyone with 3 byes).
The average attendance on GPs from 2009 to present is 1361 (calculated from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Magic:_The_Gathering_Grand_Prix_events). A regular Joe with 3 byes have a 4.7% to finish in the top8 in an averaged sized GP, so Pros making top8 twice that often isn't actually that impressive; afterall they've put considerable more time into magic then the average player.
If you compare with chess, which is (allmost) a pure game of skill, you'll see that the top players like Carlsen, Kramnik, Soo, Caruana etc finish on top every tournement the enter.
I could play thousands of games against Carlsen (or any other GM) and lose every single one. On the other hand if I would play some games of Magic against a Magic Pro I'll beat him (or her) eventually, maybe in less then 10 games.
...and I've put a lot more time and effort in chess then Magic.
I'm not sure you quite understand how the math works. 4.7% is not remotely close to Yuya Watanabe's 25% Top 8 percentage. Yuya is more than 6 times more likely to top 8 a GP than your average Joe with 3 byes.
And, yes, Magic has more variance in it than chess, since chess pieces and the board has not changed for centuries and chess does not allow you to sideboard different pieces. It's not at all relevant to this conversation since no one is arguing that Magic is free from variance or that pros win every game.
What many in this thread have decided to do is claim that luck is a huge important factor and then take a magnifying glass to where it shows up (single draw or game). If you flipped a coin 1000 times, at some point it would land on heads 5 times in a row. An unreasonable person would say 'it is more likely that the next flip will be heads since heads is on a hot streak.'
What is meant by this? Variance is not luck. You will always, over a large enough sample size, encounter all possible variants in card draws, deck matchups, and whatever else you want to consider 'luck.' However, some players overcome when variance goes against them better, and therefore win more games.
Put simply, if you play to your 5% out 1000 out of 1000 times, you will win 50 of them, while the player who plays to that out 100 times will only win 5. Over the long haul, skill shows that it is the determining factor.
What is meant by this? Variance is not luck. You will always, over a large enough sample size, encounter all possible variants in card draws, deck matchups, and whatever else you want to consider 'luck.' However, some players overcome when variance goes against them better, and therefore win more games.
Put simply, if you play to your 5% out 1000 out of 1000 times, you will win 50 of them, while the player who plays to that out 100 times will only win 5. Over the long haul, skill shows that it is the determining factor.
Using your own numbers, that only accounts for a 4.5% outcome difference over 1000 games. That's not insignificant, but it's a fairly small advantage gained by the masterful play. I still firmly believe that deck selection (a product combination of skill, testing, and teams) is vastly more important.
Let's say that Yuuya Watanabe Budget Swan Hunt and I am playing Grixis Shadow. In this scenario, I'm probably going to beat Yuuya the vast majority of the time, for no other reason than he was paired up with a deck that is significantly better. Let's say we play a thousand matches, I win 800 of them and he wins 200 of them. We switch decks and play another thousand matches, I win 150 of them and he wins 850 of them. Our skill attributed for a 5% differential in deck success, whereas the deck choice attributed for 60-70% differential in player success. This is all hypothetical, of course, but this kind of test is the truest way to see the impact of play skill vs external factors. Deck choice and individual deck matchup matters SO MUCH MORE than player skill, unless you are only ever playing decks that are 50/50 (+/-5%), or have actively metagamed/chosen a deck with a positive matchup against a majority of the field and happen to dodge (or get lucky with) the bad matchups.
The real skill that the pros have lie in deck choice, deck construction, sideboard tech, and testing/brainstorming with other high level teammates. Let's be honest, many decks play themselves and many decks have fairly obvious lines of play. The advantage gained in play skill exists, but is fairly small by comparison, especially in any given game.
You have to realize how big the advantage of having 3 byes actually is. When a Pro enter the tournement all the people who have lost or drawn a match is basicly out of the top8. That is 7/8=87,5% of the field is allready out, and on top of that the Pro get better tie breakers because of the byes.
...
I'm not sure you quite understand how the math works. 4.7% is not remotely close to Yuya Watanabe's 25% Top 8 percentage. Yuya is more than 6 times more likely to top 8 a GP than your average Joe with 3 byes.
And, yes, Magic has more variance in it than chess, since chess pieces and the board has not changed for centuries and chess does not allow you to sideboard different pieces. It's not at all relevant to this conversation since no one is arguing that Magic is free from variance or that pros win every game.
What many in this thread have decided to do is claim that luck is a huge important factor and then take a magnifying glass to where it shows up (single draw or game). If you flipped a coin 1000 times, at some point it would land on heads 5 times in a row. An unreasonable person would say 'it is more likely that the next flip will be heads since heads is on a hot streak.'
What is meant by this? Variance is not luck. You will always, over a large enough sample size, encounter all possible variants in card draws, deck matchups, and whatever else you want to consider 'luck.' However, some players overcome when variance goes against them better, and therefore win more games.
Put simply, if you play to your 5% out 1000 out of 1000 times, you will win 50 of them, while the player who plays to that out 100 times will only win 5. Over the long haul, skill shows that it is the determining factor.
I did the same math that you did for calculating probabilty of finishing in the top8; 8 divided by number of competitors for top8. In round 4 of a tournement with 1361 players at there are (approximently) 170 players 3-0 (games that end in draw will make that number smaller, but the depending on the players with byes that number can be higher; so let's assume that the accumulated effect of those factors is so small that it can be ignored). The probability for ending in the top 8 then becomes 8 / 170 = 4.70588% (if we assume that all players at 3-0 have equal chances). Of course the last assumption is not true, some players are better then others so those have a higher chance ending in the top.
Yuuya Watanabes results are impressive, but again he's only one of many Pros. What's the average top8 ratio for all Pros? That ratio should be significantly higher then 4.7%, but as your list is cut around the 5% mark I can't tell. I do notice that there are several players that are considered good but only have a ratio slightly over 5%. Shenhar, Ochoa, J. Wilson, Levy and Kibler are all below 7% ratio; the final two are even in the Hall of Fame.
The example with chess was to illustrate how much influence the players have over the game when playing at their best (which is close to 100% skill). In Magic there are some games you have practically no influence over the outcome; so some games will be all luck/unluck.
I would like to go back to the opening question: How much luck is involved in Magic?
That is allmost impossible to measure. But if I where to do so I would start trying to measure luck/skill by looking at a single game between to identical decks to elimate deckchoice from the equation. The luck/skill measured will be dependent on the deck. Let me illustrate by some examples:
Legacy Belcher Mirror: This is basicly a race. The player starting has a significant adavantage. Some number of the games the player on the draw won't play a single spell because he/she is killed before his/her first turn. Most games will be over in the first couple of turns, and after the initial hands are kept the players has little influence over the outcome.
Legacy Miracles Mirror: These games are notoriously known for being long. The players will be seeing most of their decks
and take many decisions before most of the games has come to a conclusion.
When considering matchups between different decks it gets complicated further. Some matchups decks have a little to no interaction between each other, in other they have lots of interaction. In general I belive more interaction means more deceisions, and hence more influence over the outcome.
Top8 Norwegain Vintage Nationals 2003
Winner Norwegain Vintage Nationals 2006
Finalist Vintage Open at Arcon 2013
Finalist Modern Open at Arcon 2013
Winner Sweden Vintage Nationals at Eternalkungen Sweden 2013
Top8 Norwegian Legacy Nationals 2014
Winner Vintage Open at Arcon 2014
Top8 Legacy Open at Arcon 2014
Top4 Legacy Open at Arcon 2015
Winner Modern Open at Arcon 2015
Finalist Norwegian Legacy Nationals 2016
Winner Vintage Open at Arcon 2016
The ability to make the best decisions with the cards in your hand and on the board is a skill. Your ability to build or to choose a deck that performs consistently in a meta you've predicted is a skill. Your ability to adapt to the obvious variance involved in a game involving blind draws and dice rolls is, itself, a skill. Apart from that, a huge part of Magic is building decks and using the cards in them to reduce random chance as much as possible. There is no question that luck is an important, and actually fun and exciting at times, part of Magic. Working around it and within its limitations is what makes a good player. You'll always have bad beats, and there's no way to eliminate luck entirely, but skill will get the job done more often than not in large samples.
I just wonder now how far we can push this. My brother picked up Magic 3 months ago and enters a Modern GP with Dredge. Through some clerical error he is given three byes and his first match is against Travis Woo who is playing Living End.
Your next month's rent is riding on betting this match correctly. Is your money on my brother or on Travis Woo?
I just wonder now how far we can push this. My brother picked up Magic 3 months ago and enters a Modern GP with Dredge. Through some clerical error he is given three byes and his first match is against Travis Woo who is playing Living End.
Your next month's rent is riding on betting this match correctly. Is your money on my brother or on Travis Woo?
Your brother got lucky with those byes so he must be running hot for the weekend! The Gods are with him! All-in on bro bro!
To me the most interesting question arises when two players are equally good in play sequencing (meaning that they both know what cards to play in what order when they get them). Does the game then not boil down to luck? Actually, no. Then deckbuilding becomes a question.
In my opinion, in high level play, deckbuilding and metagame analysis is the primary skill tester due to every pro having mastered sequencing.
Oh, right, bluffing. Well, I don't know how to bluff other than the base stuff (keeping lands in your hand when you don't need any more on the field). Meaning I understand mechanical bluffs, but not social bluffs, so to speak. How does one know the right way to fake your enemy into a combat trick? Because I don't know how in the proper environments.
Mostly luck.
If 50% of your 60 cards are mana generators then there is a 50% chance you DO NOT get a mana generator when you draw a card.
So drawing mana generator is already pure luck. And playing mana generators is the foundation of the entire game.
No matter how skilled you are if you don't draw and play mana generators you loose. The fact that the outcome of the game
can be ENTIRELY DECIDED BY PURE LUCK makes this a game of luck.
So every game where both players draw enough mana generators is already a game where both players get lucky draws. There is no skill involved in drawing mana generators.
Then of course this game is full of overpowered game winning cards. Which is the reason why looking at who gets into the top8 how often is irrelevant.
You actually have to check every single match and every single card draw to decide if the result of a match was luck or not.
And after you looked at every single draw in a match you have to ask yourself if drawing other cards from the deck would have changed the outcome.
"When I win, there is no luck. When I lose, it was 100% luck."
said by 90% of Magic players...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I think it often comes down to deck building, deck mastery, and knowledge on what the opponent is playing.
Well, sometimes people in our group say "badluck, I'm getting mana screwed" when they are starting to lose. I help them get mana screwed even more by blowing up their land with a stone rain. hehe
Regarding the original question, it is important to asses that it can have two answers, considering magic in isolation or compared to other games. Because if we take some of the data discussed here it might appear that 40$ or 25% isn't that bad, but compared to lots of other games Magic is quite big on Luck, I think it is one of the aspects many players are not that conscious that keeps the adrenaline running and our interest in the game: the big serotonin rush when you topdeck an answer when you draw that missing land, it is all luck.
What is even funnier is how the price of the cards gives us some false sense of security over the possible outcome.
Boring answer, but it's a healthy mix of both. To win, say, a GP you need both. But new/bad players often blame bad luck when they lose instead of looking closely at their own decisions and taking responsibility for everything that they could in fact control, while they feel like they rightfully deserve every win they get and ignore their luck in those instances.
Like it or not, this is part of what makes Magic so successful. You can come in as a new player, get some wins against better players and feel good about it, which makes you come back for more and improve. But anyone who takes this game seriously, needs to make a big efford to identify every mistake they did that was under their control and own those losses to improve, instead of shaking losses off as bad luck. It's harder than it seems, but this is a big part of what separates okayish players from the good ones.
Also, don't complain about bad luck, even when there was nothing you could do. You're being bad company, and you're also tilting yourself. Just be quiet and move on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When I hit my 3000 post mark, I'm gone for good.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
I wouldn't call 7 of 94 "consistent." And if it does include multiple GP types, then that is also likely reflected in the results (like how WW/D&T is more consistently viable in Legacy).
Doesn't really change the point that deck choice is significantly important.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
You have to realize how big the advantage of having 3 byes actually is. When a Pro enter the tournement all the people who have lost or drawn a match is basicly out of the top8. That is 7/8=87,5% of the field is allready out, and on top of that the Pro get better tie breakers because of the byes. (A person that has played from round 1 and is 3-0 will have a worse Opponent Match Win % then anyone with 3 byes).
The average attendance on GPs from 2009 to present is 1361 (calculated from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Magic:_The_Gathering_Grand_Prix_events). A regular Joe with 3 byes have a 4.7% to finish in the top8 in an averaged sized GP, so Pros making top8 twice that often isn't actually that impressive; afterall they've put considerable more time into magic then the average player.
If you compare with chess, which is (allmost) a pure game of skill, you'll see that the top players like Carlsen, Kramnik, Soo, Caruana etc finish on top every tournement the enter.
I could play thousands of games against Carlsen (or any other GM) and lose every single one. On the other hand if I would play some games of Magic against a Magic Pro I'll beat him (or her) eventually, maybe in less then 10 games.
...and I've put a lot more time and effort in chess then Magic.
Winner Norwegain Vintage Nationals 2006
Finalist Vintage Open at Arcon 2013
Finalist Modern Open at Arcon 2013
Winner Sweden Vintage Nationals at Eternalkungen Sweden 2013
Top8 Norwegian Legacy Nationals 2014
Winner Vintage Open at Arcon 2014
Top8 Legacy Open at Arcon 2014
Top4 Legacy Open at Arcon 2015
Winner Modern Open at Arcon 2015
Finalist Norwegian Legacy Nationals 2016
Winner Vintage Open at Arcon 2016
I'm not sure you quite understand how the math works. 4.7% is not remotely close to Yuya Watanabe's 25% Top 8 percentage. Yuya is more than 6 times more likely to top 8 a GP than your average Joe with 3 byes.
And, yes, Magic has more variance in it than chess, since chess pieces and the board has not changed for centuries and chess does not allow you to sideboard different pieces. It's not at all relevant to this conversation since no one is arguing that Magic is free from variance or that pros win every game.
What many in this thread have decided to do is claim that luck is a huge important factor and then take a magnifying glass to where it shows up (single draw or game). If you flipped a coin 1000 times, at some point it would land on heads 5 times in a row. An unreasonable person would say 'it is more likely that the next flip will be heads since heads is on a hot streak.'
What is meant by this? Variance is not luck. You will always, over a large enough sample size, encounter all possible variants in card draws, deck matchups, and whatever else you want to consider 'luck.' However, some players overcome when variance goes against them better, and therefore win more games.
Put simply, if you play to your 5% out 1000 out of 1000 times, you will win 50 of them, while the player who plays to that out 100 times will only win 5. Over the long haul, skill shows that it is the determining factor.
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
Using your own numbers, that only accounts for a 4.5% outcome difference over 1000 games. That's not insignificant, but it's a fairly small advantage gained by the masterful play. I still firmly believe that deck selection (a product combination of skill, testing, and teams) is vastly more important.
Let's say that Yuuya Watanabe Budget Swan Hunt and I am playing Grixis Shadow. In this scenario, I'm probably going to beat Yuuya the vast majority of the time, for no other reason than he was paired up with a deck that is significantly better. Let's say we play a thousand matches, I win 800 of them and he wins 200 of them. We switch decks and play another thousand matches, I win 150 of them and he wins 850 of them. Our skill attributed for a 5% differential in deck success, whereas the deck choice attributed for 60-70% differential in player success. This is all hypothetical, of course, but this kind of test is the truest way to see the impact of play skill vs external factors. Deck choice and individual deck matchup matters SO MUCH MORE than player skill, unless you are only ever playing decks that are 50/50 (+/-5%), or have actively metagamed/chosen a deck with a positive matchup against a majority of the field and happen to dodge (or get lucky with) the bad matchups.
The real skill that the pros have lie in deck choice, deck construction, sideboard tech, and testing/brainstorming with other high level teammates. Let's be honest, many decks play themselves and many decks have fairly obvious lines of play. The advantage gained in play skill exists, but is fairly small by comparison, especially in any given game.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I did the same math that you did for calculating probabilty of finishing in the top8; 8 divided by number of competitors for top8. In round 4 of a tournement with 1361 players at there are (approximently) 170 players 3-0 (games that end in draw will make that number smaller, but the depending on the players with byes that number can be higher; so let's assume that the accumulated effect of those factors is so small that it can be ignored). The probability for ending in the top 8 then becomes 8 / 170 = 4.70588% (if we assume that all players at 3-0 have equal chances). Of course the last assumption is not true, some players are better then others so those have a higher chance ending in the top.
Yuuya Watanabes results are impressive, but again he's only one of many Pros. What's the average top8 ratio for all Pros? That ratio should be significantly higher then 4.7%, but as your list is cut around the 5% mark I can't tell. I do notice that there are several players that are considered good but only have a ratio slightly over 5%. Shenhar, Ochoa, J. Wilson, Levy and Kibler are all below 7% ratio; the final two are even in the Hall of Fame.
The example with chess was to illustrate how much influence the players have over the game when playing at their best (which is close to 100% skill). In Magic there are some games you have practically no influence over the outcome; so some games will be all luck/unluck.
I would like to go back to the opening question: How much luck is involved in Magic?
That is allmost impossible to measure. But if I where to do so I would start trying to measure luck/skill by looking at a single game between to identical decks to elimate deckchoice from the equation. The luck/skill measured will be dependent on the deck. Let me illustrate by some examples:
Legacy Belcher Mirror: This is basicly a race. The player starting has a significant adavantage. Some number of the games the player on the draw won't play a single spell because he/she is killed before his/her first turn. Most games will be over in the first couple of turns, and after the initial hands are kept the players has little influence over the outcome.
Legacy Miracles Mirror: These games are notoriously known for being long. The players will be seeing most of their decks
and take many decisions before most of the games has come to a conclusion.
When considering matchups between different decks it gets complicated further. Some matchups decks have a little to no interaction between each other, in other they have lots of interaction. In general I belive more interaction means more deceisions, and hence more influence over the outcome.
Winner Norwegain Vintage Nationals 2006
Finalist Vintage Open at Arcon 2013
Finalist Modern Open at Arcon 2013
Winner Sweden Vintage Nationals at Eternalkungen Sweden 2013
Top8 Norwegian Legacy Nationals 2014
Winner Vintage Open at Arcon 2014
Top8 Legacy Open at Arcon 2014
Top4 Legacy Open at Arcon 2015
Winner Modern Open at Arcon 2015
Finalist Norwegian Legacy Nationals 2016
Winner Vintage Open at Arcon 2016
CG
Your next month's rent is riding on betting this match correctly. Is your money on my brother or on Travis Woo?
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
In my opinion, in high level play, deckbuilding and metagame analysis is the primary skill tester due to every pro having mastered sequencing.
Oh, right, bluffing. Well, I don't know how to bluff other than the base stuff (keeping lands in your hand when you don't need any more on the field). Meaning I understand mechanical bluffs, but not social bluffs, so to speak. How does one know the right way to fake your enemy into a combat trick? Because I don't know how in the proper environments.
If 50% of your 60 cards are mana generators then there is a 50% chance you DO NOT get a mana generator when you draw a card.
So drawing mana generator is already pure luck. And playing mana generators is the foundation of the entire game.
No matter how skilled you are if you don't draw and play mana generators you loose. The fact that the outcome of the game
can be ENTIRELY DECIDED BY PURE LUCK makes this a game of luck.
So every game where both players draw enough mana generators is already a game where both players get lucky draws. There is no skill involved in drawing mana generators.
Then of course this game is full of overpowered game winning cards. Which is the reason why looking at who gets into the top8 how often is irrelevant.
You actually have to check every single match and every single card draw to decide if the result of a match was luck or not.
And after you looked at every single draw in a match you have to ask yourself if drawing other cards from the deck would have changed the outcome.
said by 90% of Magic players...
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Well, sometimes people in our group say "badluck, I'm getting mana screwed" when they are starting to lose. I help them get mana screwed even more by blowing up their land with a stone rain. hehe
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
What is even funnier is how the price of the cards gives us some false sense of security over the possible outcome.
Like it or not, this is part of what makes Magic so successful. You can come in as a new player, get some wins against better players and feel good about it, which makes you come back for more and improve. But anyone who takes this game seriously, needs to make a big efford to identify every mistake they did that was under their control and own those losses to improve, instead of shaking losses off as bad luck. It's harder than it seems, but this is a big part of what separates okayish players from the good ones.
Also, don't complain about bad luck, even when there was nothing you could do. You're being bad company, and you're also tilting yourself. Just be quiet and move on.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'