Quote from thnkr »So I just went through and started working a bit more on the spreadsheet, after figuring out some more stuff working on my Ux Tron version, and found an error in the function checking for when a Mox Opal is online immediately. After correcting the function, I found that my numbers were a bit off. Here's what I've got right now:
We've won 1125 of 1627 games where Opal wasn't online immediately (69.15%).
We've won 40 of 54 games where Opal was online immediately (74.07%).
This seems to imply that having Opal online immediately, turn one, does correlate with about a 5% increase in win percentages. The previous erroneous function showed it at a decreased correlating effect.
However, Mox Opal still correlated with a drop in win percentage - from a 70.13% (803 of 1145 games) win rate without one in the opener to 68.64% (324/472 games) with one to 59.38% (38/64) with two. So this made me wonder how this could be possible. If having an Opal online increased the win percentage in a deck full of 1-drop artifacts, how could having an Opal in the opener correlate with lower win percentage?
So what I did was make two additional data points.
The first data point I set was to check and compare games where Opal was a dead card at least until turn two (Opal in hand but not online on turn one). This shows a slight drop in win percentage, from 69.82% (879/1259 games) to 67.77% (286/422 games). That's not a heck of a drop, though.
The second data point I set was to check and compare games where Opal isn't online on turn one, but should come online turn two (I didn't check to see if an opponent somehow prevented this with a discard spell, Chalice of the Void, etc.). For this data point, the win rate went up from 69.02% (1132/1640) to 80.49% (33/41). That's quite a jump, so I'm guessing that there weren't many of the 41 game sample size in which an opponent prevented the Opal from being online on turn two. I had it specifically ignore hands which were already counted for in the "Opal online on turn one" data point, so this is specifically only when it was drawn, not online turn one, but able to be turned on on turn two.
So then I wondered, what if we compared the total number of games where Opal was online on either turn one or two? So I set it up to check that, and got 68.85% (1092/1586) when we didn't have an Opal online at all by turn two and an increase to 76.84% (73/95) when we had an Opal online by turn two, as soon as turn one, combined. EDIT: Fixed.
So I recognize that we need to be careful how we interpret the data, but it's very interesting to me. It appears that overall, having an Opal in the opener correlates to a drop in win percentage over a larger sample size. However, in the relatively small sample size in which Opal is turned on in the first two turns, the win rate does increase a decent amount. I suppose that brings us to a good discussion.
First, what's everyone's opinion on the reliability of that small sample size? I don't want to dismiss it entirely, as it does seem to show a trend, but I'm up for hearing everyone's reasoning and opinions on it.
Second, if the small sample size is accurate, we see that there is a generally negative effect of having an Opal in the opening hand, as the instances where we do have it online by turn two is relatively rare (5.6% of games total). But in those 5.6% of games, our win rate increases by 8%.
So, again, I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on this. I understand that typical stock lists seen on MTGGoldfish run four, and prominent recognized players default to four, but I'm looking for independent and rational discussion concerning the evidence, rather than any appeal to authority or bandwagon effect. I'm interested in what each of you, as individuals, think about this development and why.
If anyone sees any more errors in the functions on the spreadsheet, please let me know! I just happened across this one, but having a few other sets of eyes might help.
EDIT: Link to sheet
EDIT 2: I think there's another error in the functions which count up the Turn 1, Turn 2, and Turn 1 or 2 Opal. I'm pretty sure there should be 95 games total (54 turn 1, 41 turn 2), but it's counting it up as 85 instead. Anyone see what might be wrong in the functions? I'm not seeing it (maybe I'm just tired). Fixed it.
Quote from Phreddish »about Worst Fears - it relies upon your opponent having a good deck. Could be clutch, but i'd rather have the Trespass
Quote from Phreddish »I posted a Sultai version of this a couple weeks back. Definitely need more whips. Also Temporal Trespass is pretty clutch too. Overall, fun but a lot of cards that are depending on Living Lore to use.
Quote from pickleishopeless »maybe im crazy, but i dont see any sieges providing evasion. Not only that, but you have absolutely no evasion. I feel you need at least trample.
Quote from HumbleKami »
Playing cards you intend on never casting just seems like a bad plan. With Dead Drop you can at least pay the delve cost with all your graveyard interactions and play it, but having a Fated Return in your opener in this deck pretty much means you've basically mulliganed already, because you've got a useless card in hand. Why not just play Murderous Cut in its spot? Sure, it's 2 less mana, but you've already got Drops, Cruises and Digs, all of which are already bigger than the Return, and all of which are actually playable, and adding Cut gives you more removal as well as an additional OK target for your Lores, which you could then sac to kill something else. I just really, really don't like the idea of running a card you never intend on actually casting and, in fact, even believe you can't cast.