[Inevitable Flamefest] 61 Card Decks

[Zilla]

The timeless argument about 60 vs. 61 card decks is currently overwhelming actual productive discussion in other threads. I welcome you to discuss insanely difficult math and other arbitrary rhetoric on the topic here. If the mod staff sees it being discussed in any other threads, they will delete it outright and point you to this thread. Enjoy.

[Tacosnape]

60 card deck >> 61 card deck.

That was easy.

[Firebrothers]

I dont believe that people need to be fighting about his so much. What a waste of time. If you want to run 61 cards run 61. If you want to run 60 run 60. Hell if you want to run 62 Hell run 62 cards who cares. It is a personal preference and we shouldent be fighting about a topic that is so insignifigant.

[Alfred]

I will always err on the side of 60 card decks being better, because if the trend towards being worse is true in the extreme it must be true in the particular. 60 card decks, unless there is some insane mitigating cicumstances will almost without fail be better than a 61 card deck. 61 card decks are someone failing to make the appropriate cut.

[Togit460]

there are, however, rare circumstances which allow 61 cards in a deck to conceivably better than 60. I'll list a few here so that people will have something to talk about beside mathematical values.

Hypothetically, there may be a need for 61 cards due to 2 different control decks that lock each other from winning or losing except by whoever can still draw, in this particular situation 61 cards is correct, although it'd still be purely metagame thinking. Also, there may come a situation where a deck needs to fit in a silver bullet for another deck, but cannot cut any other cards without losing significant amounts of power within the deck.

Both of these examples are highly unlikely and more than a bit extreme, but for now they seem correct in reasoning. Thoughts?

[Deep6er]

Wow, my vote for Best Thread Title Ever is going to go to this one. On a note of having something almost relevant to the discussion, it's unwise to play a 61 card deck if you're intent on drawing a Four of that you NEED to win. In my case, High Tide. Even though I've been tempted to add a 61 card (usually Twincast), it's not justifiable in Solidarity. However, should the deck be based off of inherent synergies (Threshold), I wouldn't be adamantly against. If the deck as a sum of its parts is greater than each part as a whole, then a 61 card is defensible. That probably wasn't worded as eloquently as it could have been. Look for an edit sooner or later. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is ...Awesome Thread Title? At least I think I am. Stupid other people making me think. Goddamn math. I'm not thinking too clearly because that fucking math shit is stupid hard. In fact, I've probably gone stupid thinking about it. Thanks dickheads.

[Citrus-God]

Twinkie.... I mean, your asian, you should be good at math.

Anyways, if your playing a deck that relies on certain things based on the quanityt of something in your deck such as opening hands, lands, combo pieces, cantrips, or the like.... dont run ever run 61 cards. I wont stop you if you run 61 cards in a deck like Rifter, but if your playing a good deck that needs reliancy and consistentcy and speed like Goblins, stick to 60. Getting those turn 1 Lackeys or Vials are so important.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

While still in development, 61 or even 62 cards lets you get a feel for who's not pulling their weight. 60 is really the only number for a truly finished decklist in my opinion.


Other than, y'know, Battle of Wits.

[Watcher487]

I dont believe that people need to be fighting about his so much. What a waste of time. If you want to run 61 cards run 61. If you want to run 60 run 60. Hell if you want to run 62 Hell run 62 cards who cares. It is a personal preference and we shouldent be fighting about a topic that is so insignifigant.

This right here deserves the QFMFT.

Guys, if anyone has a problem with a deck that is 61 as opposed to 60 then it's very simple if you think the person posting the deck is DEFICIENT, then build the deck the way you want it built and STFU.

[Machinus]

Dave, I'm surprised at you. Usually you come to the table having done your homework. Everyone knows that 61 card decks are better - in fact, the more cards you run, the better your deck is! Larger decks = better mana ratios = more wins.

Basically kids, play as many cards as you have sleeves. They come in packs of 100 for a reason.

[C.P.]

What an amusing title for a thread.

Anyway, the thread was not very productive so far so can someone post math behind why 61 card deck deserves a look? I've seen some of them here and there, but it would be great if someone who really knows their math would sum the whole thing up.

Well, my money is on 60 cards so far. There were times that I really could not cut a thing from my deck so I played 61, but I believe the difference will accumulate as you play more games. However, idea of being able to play 61 cards is tempting, if it can be justified.

[Obfuscate Freely]

Everyone would do well to read 61 Cards - Magic Russian Roulette (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/12478.html) by Pat Chapin. Not only does he do a great job explaining why running more than the minimum number of cards is always theoretically wrong, but he also covers most of the hypothetical "exceptions" people bring up and why they are extremely unlikely to actually be exceptions.


I dont believe that people need to be fighting about his so much. What a waste of time. If you want to run 61 cards run 61. If you want to run 60 run 60. Hell if you want to run 62 Hell run 62 cards who cares. It is a personal preference and we shouldent be fighting about a topic that is so insignifigant.
Optimizing a deck has nothing to do with personal preference, and this forum exists for the purpose of discussing the optimization of decks. If you find that to be a waste of time, don't post.

[Atwa]

Dave, I'm surprised at you. Usually you come to the table having done your homework. Everyone knows that 61 card decks are better - in fact, the more cards you run, the better your deck is! Larger decks = better mana ratios = more wins.

Basically kids, play as many cards as you have sleeves. They come in packs of 100 for a reason.

My sleeves come in packs of 50, but for some reason the Head Judge of the latest event I attended to didn't agree with you.

[merfolk_robot]

60 cards is generally better in practice, but isn't strictly better in theory. For instance, if the cardpool had more functional reprints, then it might make sense to play more cards to get a precise ratio. Yes, this would require a very large number of functional reprints. However, say that there were so many funtional reprints that they were essentially infinite. You would probably play an enormous deck because, playing with larger numbers, more precise ratios are possible. However, not only do enough functional reprints not exist, the amount of testing necessary to determine ratios so precise that million-card decks are necessary is probably approaching the normal human life span, or at least a super-long time.

It is not the case that it is always better in practice- it's possible that a deck will be better with the different ratios offered by other deck sizes, but it would be impossible to playtest so much that the difference in ratios was greater than the margin of error.

[outsideangel]

60 cards is generally better in practice, but isn't strictly better in theory. For instance, if the cardpool had more functional reprints, then it might make sense to play more cards to get a precise ratio. Yes, this would require a very large number of functional reprints. However, say that there were so many funtional reprints that they were essentially infinite. You would probably play an enormous deck because, playing with larger numbers, more precise ratios are possible. However, not only do enough functional reprints not exist, the amount of testing necessary to determine ratios so precise that million-card decks are necessary is probably approaching the normal human life span, or at least a super-long time.

It is not the case that it is always better in practice- it's possible that a deck will be better with the different ratios offered by other deck sizes, but it would be impossible to playtest so much that the difference in ratios was greater than the margin of error.

Someone with much more knowledge of computers than I could probably write a program to do it.

On topic, I agree with Gearhart. (did I spell that right?) In a deck where you have very strong four-ofs that you want to consistently see, like Goblin Lackey or High Tide, you want to run the absolute minimum number of cards to maximize your chances of seeing a copy. In other decks that don't necessarily rely on a particular card but on a more general suite of threats and/or answers I feel like 61 cards can sometimes be alright for balancing the number of lands in the deck.

Usually if I include the 61st card, it's a land card. Sometimes I want just a slightly higher percentage of lands, or there aren't any cards that I feel I can reasonably cut. In other decks, like say, Burn, all of your cards basically do the same thing, so sometimes that 61st card can be just right for getting the perfect percentage of mana sources vs. spells. It may not be something I can necessarily prove with data, but often times 61 just "feels" correct.

[Deep6er]

Gearheart.

No, but whatever. A lot of people spell it wrong so I've almost stopped caring.

@Machinus: LOLZ. Awesome.

[Tao]

Every deck wants to maximize the chance of drawing their 4-offs as soon as possible.

Threshold wants to draw their Mongeese as fast as possible. VG definetely wants Lackey and/or Vial in the opening 7. Solidarity wants High Tide, FS wants Chalice/Tomb, Tendrils Combo and Deadguy want Dark Ritual, Landstill wants Force of Will/Standstill,


n other decks, like say, Burn, all of your cards basically do the same thing, so sometimes that 61st card can be just right for getting the perfect percentage of mana sources vs. spells.

Burn wants to draw as many Bolts (Lava Spike, Chain Lightning) as possible, etc. etc.

So if you add a Goblin Pyromancer (random card in deck X) to your Goblin deck as card 61 and have it in your opening hand with Vial (random strong turn 1 play in deck X) on top of your Library it will cost you the game. Therefore I think anyone who plays 61 cards decks does not understand his deck

[Leftconsin]

I have resigned myself to the belief that 61 cards in a deck will undoubtedly help in such a small number of cases that it does not warrant my consideration for anything except 60 ('cept BoW decks). The only real instance I can think of right now is if your decklist HAD to have 21 land and making something a 3-of would ruin the deck. This case is unrealistic.

[Nightmare]

So if you add a Goblin Pyromancer (random card in deck X) to your Goblin deck as card 61 and have it in your opening hand with Vial (random strong turn 1 play in deck X) on top of your Library it will cost you the game. Therefore I think anyone who plays 61 cards decks does not understand his deckThe question then boils down to this: How often is this situation likely to happen? Is it statistically more likely with (random other card in a 60 card deck) vs that Pyromancer, and if so, how relevant is that difference?

It's all risk vs. reward, unless you're playing bad cards.

[Deep6er]

I disagree with the statement, 'Threshold wants to draw Mongeese as fast as it can'. Threshold's opening hand (a good one) is answer to lackey + 2 land and the rest are cantrips. A very BAD hand is too many creatures. While I don't advocate Threshold running a 61st card, I'm saying it's one of the FEW decks that COULD. Also, I read the article and I disagree with just a couple things. 1 - Patrick Chapin has destroyed his credibility by publishing decklists that have matchups that are vastly different than what they should be. 2 - His theory is flawed because he's basing his math on ZERO card manipulation. Most of the decks in legacy have A LOT of manipulation, whether it be Solidarity's deck, or Threshold's cantrips or even various fetchlands/Matrons/Ringleaders from Goblins. What I'm trying to say is that the successful decks in Legacy all have various card manipulation. His theory stands on the opening hand however, which is why I think that only decks with a large amount of manipulation and lacking the need to START with a given Four of in their opening hand are qualified aplicants to the 61 card theory. In reality though, the 61st card seems rather ineffecient and unnecessary. I was just trying to say that the theory works for THRESHOLD and nobody else (unless they manage to work with Threshold's draw engine) and that while Pat Chapin is probably a great guy, and I feel no anger/hate towards him, I take most of his words/theory with a grain of salt.... or whatever the appropriate saying is.

[Cait_Sith]

It's all risk vs. reward, unless you're playing bad cards.

Then its losing vs losing more.

I prefer keeping as close to baseline as possible. I helped my friend build Yu-Gi-Oh decks and the one I built was the only one that did well consistently. Just apply some basic magic principles (like keep your deck as small as possible) and BAM it works.

[Obfuscate Freely]

It is completely indefensible to run more than 60 cards in a Gro deck.

Part of Gro's power comes from its ability to play only the best spells it has access to, without having to resort to worse analogues to flesh out the list. You run only the best ~12 creatures, the best ~10 counters, and the best ~4(!) removal spells.

You can do this because you have draw spells to hold the deck together, and those spells differ in quality by a smaller margin, but even they are clearly tiered. Brainstorm wins more games than Serum Visions does.

I think that if you have anything in your deck that you would even consider running a 5th copy of, going over 60 cards is a mistake.

[Deep6er]

It is completely indefensible to run more than 60 cards in a Gro deck.

Part of Gro's power comes from its ability to play only the best spells it has access to, without having to resort to worse analogues to flesh out the list. You run only the best ~12 creatures, the best ~10 counters, and the best ~4(!) removal spells.

You can do this because you have draw spells to hold the deck together, and those spells differ in quality by a smaller margin, but even they are clearly tiered. Brainstorm wins more games than Serum Visions does.

I think that if you have anything in your deck that you would even consider running a 5th copy of, going over 60 cards is a mistake.

Actually dickhead, I was just using Threshold as an example. In reality, my argument was for any deck that had a strong, synergistic draw engine and didn't ABSOLUTELY NEED a Four of in their opening hand. Anyway, I wasn't saying so much a fifth copy as a one of that breaks the expected metagame in some manner. Or, perhaps to free up Sideboard space and there's only 2 minutes left. I'm just saying that it ISN'T indefensible. Not that it's good. Dickhead.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I think that if you have anything in your deck that you would even consider running a 5th copy of, going over 60 cards is a mistake.

But the reality is that in most decklists, which cards you want to see how much of is at least partly theoretical. Only in the most tested and polished decks is there always a right call for that 61st card to cut.

When I'm testing a deck, I feel perfectly comfortable playing 61 or 62 cards, but that diminishes as testing and tweaking progress. But if you always start out with 60 cards, sometimes you'll miss a certain interaction that you were originally going to cut; in other words, making the right cuts sometimes requires going over the minimum in the short term, so that you know the right minimum in the long term.

[Bryant Cook]

61 card decks were discussed here (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3816&page=2)

It only bothers people because it is a mistake. To suggest decklists with an obvious mistake in them is silly as generally the first response is drop down to 60 cards and make your deck better. Just because you don't want to cut a card or don't know what card to cut doesn't mean you should in fact not make that cut.

Think of your deck as your dog. That 61st card is a turd that is caught in the dog's fur. It doesn't truly hurt the dog but it certainly makes it less attractive. Be a responsible owner and remove the turd before your dog smears it all over the carpet or worse, eats it out of its fur and then vomits it back up.
SO, in short, decks with more than 60 cards are dogs vomiting up their feces.

Do you want to to be that guy with dogshit on himself?

[AngryTroll]

To try to stem off the flames, I run 60 card UGw Threshold and 60 card RGbSA (among a few other 60 card decks).

I agree with Spatula; during testing, I might run a 61st card to see what isn't pulling its weight.

The ONLY exception I ever make to 60 card decks is RGbSA. Once in a blue moon I will throw in a 61st card. The deck does not NEED to stick a Survival to win, and often I play the card as a midgame bomb (if it didn't show up to be an early game setup process.) In that particular case, the one extra piece of tech can steal games.

HOWEVER, I almost never do this. When I do, it is often out of a feeling of Nostalgia for the kinder, gentler days when I was learning to play and easily argued away one more card into Survival. Nowadays, I look at the list and find what card I don't think I actually need for this metagame (the third Baloth, etc), and out it goes.

[Iranon]

The only situation in which I would consider adding another card is when I have a deck of mostly interchangable cards and I can't get a mana ratio that satisfies me in 60.

The only deck where I found tempted to actually do that was Burn (18 lands in 60 being too few, 19 being too many). The improved mana ratio comes at a cost of greater randomisation. Adding cards for this will not make it noticably better, but can easily make it worse so I would advise against it unless you have hundreds or thousand games with a deck under your belt and are confident that you can't get the relations right otherwise.

And to everyone who posted without resorting to profanity... fuck you.

[Tacosnape]

Usually if I include the 61st card, it's a land card.

No it isn't. If you include the 61st card, they're -all- the 61st card. You can't point at one and say "This is card 61."


I think that if you have anything in your deck that you would even consider running a 5th copy of, going over 60 cards is a mistake.

I think this is probably the most reasonable argument as to why decks should be 60 Cards. I don't have a single deck I wouldn't be running some 5-ofs in if I could (Lackey, Vial, Warchief, STP, Brainstorm, High Tide, Duress, Wasteland, whatever)

[Complete_Jank]

First of all, It has been mentioned a few times in this thread, but during deck construction and testing an extra card or two is nice as it gives you a view into what you might want to see as a possibility, and final testing should be done with 60 cards or whatever the final list will contain, to completely understand the manabase ratio.


Now, I want to make this clear...

MORE THAN 95% OF ALL DECKS SHOULD ONLY HAVE 60 CARDS.
I don't even want to talk about Battle of Wits, as it does not add anything to this topic.


Any combo deck should only have 60 cards, and the top 3 decks, Goblins, Solidarity, & Threshold (I understand that you were just using it as an example David), should only run 60 cards, and here's why...Most decks are designed to see "X" sets of cards or any 1 of card "Y" inorder to win. Thus this means 60 cards is best for the majority of decks.



Now to look at the advantages and disadvantages of running 61 cards over 60.
WARNING: Here comes all the math talk.
I, along with some other people, argue the way to calculate the chance of drawing cards. The arguement stems from the misunderstanding about the difference between calculating percentages and probabilities. (Believe me, they aren't the same, but they are similar) However, it doesn't matter since both ways and their numbers defend my argument on why sometimes 61 cards can be ok. I'll explain.

For the benifit of not getting into an argument over calculations I will use the following formula. If you want to discuss the other ways to calculate it, PM me.

% chance of drawing 1 of X possible cards in opening hand where deck size is Z.
{1 - [(Z-X)/Z]*[(Z-X-1)/(Z-1)]*[(Z-X-2)/(Z-2)]*[(Z-X-3)/(Z-3)]*[(Z-X-4)/(Z-4)]*[(Z-X-5)/(Z-5)]*[(Z-X-6)/(Z-6)]}*100 = % Chance

In a 60 card deck, if you run 4 of one card, you have a 39.95% of seeing it in your hand.
In a 61 card deck, if you run 4 of one card, you have a 39.4% of seeing it in your hand.

Thus a 0.55% change.


Where an advantage of running 61 cards comes in, is in certain decks that have an odd number of slots availble after most all neccisary componets are put put in, and usually they are control type cards. Often some cards you don't want to see too often, and you run 2 or 3 in a deck. This can leave you with a single spot in deck design. Many people don't particularly like running singletons in a deck.

In a 60 card deck, if you run 1 of one card, you have a 11.67% of seeing it in your hand.
In a 61 card deck, if you run 2 of one card, you have a 21.8% of seeing it in your hand.

This will reduce the chance of drawing certain cards, however it will increase the particular chance of getting that card that would have been a 1 of. When you have more than 4 cards in a deck that do similar things, for example: Chainer's Edict & Diabolic Edict, you can bring the chance of drawing them down each by ~0.5% to up your chance of drawing one of your 2 Damnations.

These numbers show just opening hand numbers, and like it has been mentioned, shuffle effects with search and skimming of your deck will increase your chances much more.

[kabal]

Speaking of 61 card decks...3 of the top 8 at this tournament ran 61 cards. Below is second place.

Düsseldorf 06.01.2007 (http://www.morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=503)

- 18 players
2. Christian Wilczek

Maindeck (61):
Spells (39):

4 Lion's Eye Diamond
3 Mox Diamond
4 Brainstorm
3 Careful Study
2 Wonder
3 Anurid Brushhopper
3 Arrogant Wurm
4 Basking Rootwalla
2 Roar of the Wurm
4 Wild Mongrel
4 Life from the Loam
3 Jotun Grunt

Lands (22):

2 Cephalid Coliseum
4 Flooded Strand
1 Forest
1 Island
2 Lonely Sandbar
1 Savannah
3 Tranquil Thicket
3 Tropical Island
1 Tundra
3 Wasteland
1 Windswept Heath


Sideboard (15):

1 Jotun Grunt
3 Mana Maze
3 Pithing Needle
2 Ray of Revelation
3 Swords to Plowshares
2 Tormod's Crypt
1 Wasteland

[Tao]

I disagree with the statement, 'Threshold wants to draw Mongeese as fast as it can'. Threshold's opening hand (a good one) is answer to lackey + 2 land and the rest are cantrips.

k, you are right, turn 1 mongoose sucks, turn 2 mongoose sucks

[Lego]

I'm just going to summarize this thread real quick:

*rub rub rub* uhhhh *rub rub* ughhh *rub rub rub* ohhh *splooge* (and you know it's Dave standing in the way)

[Cait_Sith]

I'm just going to summarize this thread real quick:

*rub rub rub* uhhhh *rub rub* ughhh *rub rub rub* ohhh *splooge* (and you know it's Dave standing in the way)

I disagree. My post was how Yu-Gi-Oh needs to be more like Magic. All it needs now is real cards, real art, real strategy, real debates, and online masturbation. (Oh, and real decks too [along with a real metagame])

[TheDarkshineKnight]

I disagree. My post was how Yu-Gi-Oh needs to be more like Magic. All it needs now is real cards, real art, real strategy, real debates, and online masturbation. (Oh, and real decks too)

Having a metagame that consists of more than one deck would help also.

>_>

[Cait_Sith]

Let me edit that.

[Zilla]

This is my favorite thread ever.

[Cait_Sith]

I am trying to hijack this thread. Since it was started by a Mod hijacking this thread is worth the internet.

[TheRock]

This thread covers about 15% of the math truly involved in this debate, and bringing in the computers, game theory, and other various philosophical mathematics and theories isn't really going to solve that much; it's not that important.

Nobody has mentioned Brainstorm or other HAND OPTIMIZERS. Those small percentages don't mean a whole lot when you can get rid of your useless cards in a hurry --- or make your currently useless cards work for you. Besides, isn't that exactly what Mental Note does in Threshold anyway -- make currently bad cards good?

Nobody should be pressured into making their decks 60 cards by default. If your 61st card happens to be something important, then what's more important - the ~1% chance of not getting your best cards, or the ~2-3% more games lost?

Finally, many aggro decks need a consistent cost ratio of cards so that they can maximize their tempo advantage. Having one mana open on turn three could be a fatal mistake, and this art of design is critical to their survival. It's not like aggro decks have 7 turns to work with.

Some of the other thoughts, such as the precise card ratios, have already been discussed, so there's no point in beating it to death. This said, IMHO, what this topic should really say is "people investigating the wrong math again".

[Tacosnape]

Nobody should be pressured into making their decks 60 cards by default. If your 61st card happens to be something important, then what's more important - the ~1% chance of not getting your best cards, or the ~2-3% more games lost?


Statistics show that 73.814% of statistics regarding percentages, including your "2-3% more games lost" and this one itself and possibly the next one, are made up. Good thing we don't need actual math to debate 83.92% of math-related issues.

[TheRock]

Statistics show that 73.814% of statistics regarding percentages, including your "2-3% more games lost" and this one itself and possibly the next one, are made up. Good thing we don't need actual math to debate 83.92% of math-related issues.

Congratulations! I can't think of a reward to give you for being right with your first fact, but having that fact being applicable to absolutely 0% of my post!

And yes, you do need math to debate math-related issues. At the very, VERY least, you need to be able to count to 60. That's math.

[HdH_Cthulhu]

I think 61 card decks are bad...

BUT

In decks with a toolbox you could bring in one silverbulletmeta card and it wouldnt cost you much. Like Survial...

[Iranon]

Actual numbers are not needed for this discussion, an at least tentative understanding of stochastics is though.

The most important point for 61+ cards to be viable has been covered already: not having any real stars in the deck you would run as more than a 4-of.
That is rarely the case and in fact I can't think of any deck to which this applies.

Even if all your cards are equally useful, getting the ratios right is a weak argument for additional cards because larger decks hurt that in one important manner: Your deck doesn't default to 'average' draws as well.
If you are mana screwed, you are more likely to draw into lands than when you are mana flooded; the same applies with all other important ratios (mana to business, threats to answers, the mana curve etc).
This beneficial effect becomes smaller with increasing deck size.

It could be argued that running 61 cards in a lock deck without card draw could be a win condition in itself that doesn't take a slot. I am not convinced whether that realistically matters when the opponent knows how to adress cheesy meta-tactics in a tournament setting.
And if someone plays a lock deck against me for fun, I will either sell their little sister into slavery or play a combo deck that can literally go off forever until they apologise or fall asleep.

One possible advantage for large decks (not just 61 cards but the largest amount you can play before overall quality suffers) would be a silver bullet approach. If you have many useful library manipulation and a large amount of general purpose spells of comparable power available, large decks allow you to include more hate maindeck without compromising your game plan.
For example, if you could solve the problem of not getting a Survival of the Fittest as reliably, you could combine the best aspects of RGSA and ATS: you topdeck the efficient beaters of RGSA because you play dozens and can still tutor up the mission specialist and silver bulelts of ATS that you run as 1-ofs.

Imbeciles.

[Complete_Jank]

One thing I would like to mention is that it effecting 2-3% of your games is an incorrect statement. It is actually less than 1%.

If we are going to state numbers please state true numbers.


Actually the additionit of one card will have an effect about once out of every 181 games.

If you average 2.5 games/match that would effect one game in a match almost every 72 matches.

Thus every 72 rounds it will have an effect on you, whether or not it means you loose.

If you play every week in a 5 round tourney, you would have to play more than 3 1/2 months to have it effect your overal play.

If you play once a month in a 7 round tourney, you would have to play more than 10 months to have it effect your overal play.


The amount of effect it has is less than the amount Luck has on the game.

These numbers also don't take into account deck manipulation and suffle effects, thus brainstorming and other things could improve these numbers even more.

[rsaunder]

stochasticsYES!

The key is to always play a 61 card deck, and have the 61st card be MISE. It must be the 61st card. Not, like, the 12th or anything janky like that.

[Complete_Jank]

And for those people that say that decking someone will never happen the old way is BS.

I win about once a year because of that. Every so often I play against Life, and I can't stop them before they combo off, so I count my cards, and then count theirs, and then just control the game and deck them if the option is available, but I wouldn't say that is an arguement for running 61 cards, as I have done it with both 60 and 61 count decks. It comes down to fetches.

Also, watching someone try to keep track of his life as you beat him down is funny.

[Zilla]

I think 61 card decks are bad...

BUT

In decks with a toolbox you could bring in one silverbulletmeta card and it wouldnt cost you much. Like Survial...
In a deck like toolkit Survival, your deck is absolutely relaint on drawing a 4-of early, that being Survival. That alone is a solid reason not to run more than 60 cards.

[Complete_Jank]

In a deck like toolkit Survival, your deck is absolutely relaint on drawing a 4-of early, that being Survival. That alone is a solid reason not to run more than 60 cards.

If you run Enlighten Tutors as well, it isn't as dependent on just 4 cards, and we all know many Survival builds can win with out Survival, and don't even bother Muliganing if they don't have it, if their hand is strong.

[264505]

There have beed decks to top 8 with 61 cards. The BG reanimator deck from The Mana Leak Open ran 61 cards. I put it on MWS and was surprised, but like was said earlier, ther wasnt a reasonabe card to cut from the list. Everything was either a toolbox creature, a 4 of or a 2 of.

[Mister Agent]

I never really had a problem between 60 or 61 cards either way would be optimal for me. I have seen plenty of decks play with 61 or even 62 cards. Those 61 or 62 card decks have done really well in tournament events as well.

[HdH_Cthulhu]

It doesent make your deck better or bader...

It is sensless to write down numbers that calculate something, becouse you can it see realy easy: your topdecking is 1/60 or 1/61! not a real different for me because the other random facts that the game has are much higher! like: the deck your opp plays...

But in the end it is quit the same!
This was my last post in this sensless threat!

[TheRock]

One thing I would like to mention is that it effecting 2-3% of your games is an incorrect statement. It is actually less than 1%.

If we are going to state numbers please state true numbers.

Yes, that makes TWO of you who missed the point entirely. In fact, did you read my post at all?

I said that if you would cut a card that was important because you were pressured to make an illogical cut, then you would lose more of your games because you made that cut. It's a rough number, thus the ~ - do you think that the complete number MATTERS?

My win percentage would be like 15% lower if I would cut a High Tide from Spring Tide. But a Sleight of Hand? Not a big deal at all. You want to figure out the number? You go do it, but 2-3% should be about right for all of the decks combined in this format.

This isn't politics. This is a board for people to optimize decks. From the looks of things, it's the players who need optimization. There is a reason that I post the way I do, and if anybody wants that explanation, I'll be glad to give it.

Seriously, let's talk about numbers that matter. Like this:

1cc - 8
2cc - 20
3cc - 15
Lands - 18

But OH NO! Having 61 cards is more of a sin then having a bad curve!

Or this:

Mulligan ratio with 60 cards: 24.3%
Mulligan ratio with 61 cards: 24.5%

Man, I sure hope you cut that 61st card!

Or better yet, this:

My opponent is an ENFP who doesn't make the best decisions all of the time and has a deck I've played against 150 times. He says that his deck has 62 cards in it, and I assume that he is a noob and let my guard down. His sense of awareness is much better than mine, and I fall into his traps because I play the games based on numbers and play no heed to what is currently going on.

This must be illogical! He's running...62 cards! OMFG!


One more:

I'm still running 12 fetchlands. Gotta optimize my manabase; it's statistically better. Forcing my opponent to go through all 20 life instead of 16 doesn't ever matter.


Look, here you go --- why aren't we discussing something that matters? Godzilla is right to make this topic and not have it ruin another good topic. This is truly pointless; go spend your time listening to music or watching hot girls dance instead.

[tivadar]

First off, running ANY kind of library manipulation or card draw (fetchlands, brainstorm, tutors, cantrips) pretty much completely negates the advantage of running 61 cards to begin with. Your opponent is going to be ahead of you in the card race anyways because you are reducing the size of your deck during the game.

Now, let's look at the case where you're NOT running any of this. If I'm NOT running library manipulation I want every percentage point I can get towards seeing the cards I want.

This is my argument for 60 cards. Of course, I suppose you could argue for the first case that you could lock each other down before cantripping/draw/fetching begins, but that seems pretty unlikely. I'm pretty sure in this case you really do want 60 cards. The second case is a much easier argument, as you could get into a "mirror" match where both sides control the other side's board and no one can do anything. So I'll give you that if you run none of those things, 61 cards may be optimal.

Also, the 61 card theory leads to a slippery slope. If everyone playing 60 card decks of the second variety start playing 61 card decks, then it becomes optimal in these matchups to run 62 card decks... Ad infinitum.

Numerous other people are right though, this really doesn't matter a whole lot. 60 is in general favorable to 61, but there are circumstances where this isn't true. Cutting an important card as TheRock pointed out (though most decks have "unimportant" cards), control decks without draw... All these things may significantly worsen your matchups where adding a 61st card won't compare to the damage of not having it.

Finally, if you're going to make the "Silver Bullet" argument, I think there's a direct conversion to the knapsack problem in CS or some such thing. The argument going something like this. It is sometimes better to choose something suboptimal (using 61 cards) so you can pack more optimality into your deck. There's a ton to consider here, however, as each card added into the deck affects the effectiveness of each other card. In other words, Magic is complicated.

[cupajoe]

I LOVE threads like this....I don't care what anyone else says

TheRock is absolutely correct

Assuming the math is correct that others have quoted, it is FAR more important how the cards work together rather than 60 vs. 61.....

I always smile when people slam other deckbuilders for having 61...Yet another example of false superiority.....If through testing it seems like 61 is good, and you can't decide what to cut, then keep it at 61 no matter what the blabbering know-it-alls say....

I know, you'll have a 0.2 percent chance of mulliganing, and a 0.5 percent chance of not getting a 4-of in the opening grip

It's statistically insignificant

It's kind of like saying $1,001 is more than $1,000.....It's far more important what you DO with the $1,000 (my advice is to not buy Magic cards)

[troopatroop]

I LOVE threads like this....I don't care what anyone else says

TheRock is absolutely correct

Assuming the math is correct that others have quoted, it is FAR more important how the cards work together rather than 60 vs. 61.....

I always smile when people slam other deckbuilders for having 61...Yet another example of false superiority.....If through testing it seems like 61 is good, and you can't decide what to cut, then keep it at 61 no matter what the blabbering know-it-alls say....

I know, you'll have a 0.2 percent chance of mulliganing, and a 0.5 percent chance of not getting a 4-of in the opening grip

It's statistically insignificant

It's kind of like saying $1,001 is more than $1,000.....It's far more important what you DO with the $1,000 (my advice is to not buy Magic cards)


If you don't care what other people say, Noone will care what you have to say, which honestly isn't anything useful.

61 cards is retarded. Cut the worse card. If you can't figure it out, get better.

Unless you're Diablos with ATS.

[Mister Agent]

I totally agree with what complete_jank said because I never really notice when I was running 61 cards in a control deck. The blue draw like brainstorms, telling times, impulses and etc made it seem like I was running 60 cards instead of 61. Also deck thinning from the fetchlands also made it seem like it did not matter if I ran 60 or 61 card decks but thats my perception though.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

So you guys would advocate 62 cards?

[Complete_Jank]

Yes, that makes TWO of you who missed the point entirely. In fact, did you read my post at all?
No, I didn't miss your point. I agree with most of what you said, just not that you posted false numbers.

If your 61st card happens to be something important, then what's more important - the ~1% chance of not getting your best cards, or the ~2-3% more games lost?

Statistics show that 73.814% of statistics regarding percentages, including your "2-3% more games lost" and this one itself and possibly the next one, are made up. Good thing we don't need actual math to debate 83.92% of math-related issues.
Your false numbers are misleading, and are actually worse than what would happen if you add one card.


So you guys would advocate 62 cards?
I won't say any number is a no-no, because I use to have a Type 1 deck that was 80 cards with only one of any one card. It was a combo deck that had over 50 different ways to win. The deck was more for fun than competition, but easily won by turn 3, and I played it in Type 1 tourneys. The deck could even win turn one about once out of every 10 games.

Like I said before more than 95% of all decks should be 60 cards. That doesn't mean that the other 5% of decks couldn't be what ever is best. If someone made a 200 card deck that was viable it would be funny. It would only really need to beat Goblins and Threshold. I my self won't test something like that though.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I won't say any number is a no-no, because I use to have a Type 1 deck that was 80 cards with only one of any one card. It was a combo deck that had over 50 different ways to win. The deck was more for fun than competition, but easily won by turn 3, and I played it in Type 1 tourneys. The deck could even win turn one about once out of every 10 games.

There's absolutely no justification for running 80 cards, and increasing your kill conditions is particularly poor motivation. There's always going to be a superior card choice or strategy within such a deck. Running surplus cards over the most optimal combination of 60 just decreases your odds of drawing the strongest combination and increases your odds of mana screw and/or mana flood.


Like I said before more than 95% of all decks should be 60 cards. That doesn't mean that the other 5% of decks couldn't be what ever is best. If someone made a 200 card deck that was viable it would be funny. It would only really need to beat Goblins and Threshold. I my self won't test something like that though.


The difference here is when you say "could" or "couldn't", you literally mean in terms of what a deck is capable of running. What people who are trying to clarify the superiority of 60 cards mean is "could optimally" or "couldn't optimally". Optimally, no matter how small you percieve the detriment of 61 cards to be, it always outweighs the strength of the weakest card in such a deck. Either a deck is proactive and wants a certain strategy and/or card and/or combination, in which case 61 cards is clearly a detriment, or it's reactive and certain cards in the deck are more powerful and/or versatile as answers than others.

[Complete_Jank]

There's absolutely no justification for running 80 cards, and increasing your kill conditions is particularly poor motivation.

What don't you understand about the words "for fun" in the post I made. Obviously yes that particular deck could have been made with 60 cards, but it could not do it within the restraints I was given. Someone asked me to construct a deck with 50 different ways to win. I said it couldn't be done with 60 and be playable, he said what about 80, and I said yes, and made the combo deck.


The difference here is when you say "could" or "couldn't", you literally mean in terms of what a deck is capable of running. What people who are trying to clarify the superiority of 60 cards mean is "could optimally" or "couldn't optimally". Optimally, no matter how small you percieve the detriment of 61 cards to be, it always outweighs the strength of the weakest card in such a deck. Either a deck is proactive and wants a certain strategy and/or card and/or combination, in which case 61 cards is clearly a detriment, or it's reactive and certain cards in the deck are more powerful and/or versatile as answers than others.

I've already explained as have many others why it could or would be an advantage to run more than 60 cards.

Here's a question for you...
If you had the following two decks to pick from to play, which one would you play?

Deck 1: 60 cards
-40 Lightning Bolts
-20 Mountains

Deck 2: 90 cards
-60 Lightning Bolts
-30 Mountains

[Tao]

The discussion is about "playing to win the game". Of course 61 cards does not matter often, maybe in 1 of 50 games.

just like shuffling your opponent's deck (you will play against a stacked deck in 1 of 100 games), playing instants and abilities as late as possible (usually your opponent won't give you information that may change the target), fetching to thin out your library if your life totals are irrlevant (that just matters in 2 of 100 games), playing hydroblast over blue blast in thresh decks to have a better chance to get to threshold (1 of 1000 games where it may matter)

so if you are a fun player you dont have to care about these things since magic is just a game, but if you plan to win games you always want to maximize your chances



Here's a question for you...
If you had the following two decks to pick from to play, which one would you play?
Deck 1: 60 cards
-40 Lightning Bolts
-20 Mountains

Deck 2: 90 cards
-60 Lightning Bolts
-30 Mountains

both would give you a gameloss because of illegal decklist

Therefore I would choose Deck 1 because illegal cards are replaced with basic lands and 56 Mountains, 4 Lightning Bolts is strictly better than 86 Mountains, 4 Lightning Bolts. At least you can beat bad Salvager players with double Bolt.

[frogboy]

playing instants and abilities as late as possible (usually your opponent won't give you information that may change the target), fetching to thin out your library if your life totals are irrlevant (that just matters in 2 of 100 games), playing hydroblast over blue blast in thresh decks to have a better chance to get to threshold (1 of 1000 games where it may matter)

I found this amusing because usually people screw these up more often than that, and tend to do it at the worst times.

I also havn't heard an argument for a 26/35 land/spell configuration in a control deck; someone should work on that.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It's possible for a deck to exist where, due to the precise mana ratios and redundancy in certain elements, 61 cards is the optimal list. However, it is almost absolutely certain that in any given instance, the person assuming this math applies to their deck is wrong and that cutting a card would be a stronger decision. The issue is functionally irrelevant. Even more important is the actual bad decision making this kind of thinking leads do. Yes, the percentages involved are small. But human behavior doesn't consist of doing something once and then never repeating that act. Saying, "Oh, this is such a small factor, I'm just going to go ahead and run 61 cards. I'm so wacky. Teeheehee" is a great way to get into a terrible mindset where you make lots of tiny bad, sub-optimal decisions, and then don't remember to avoid it the next time or fuss about improving your play or design skills, because you've legitimized your sucking. This is why good players will never run 61 cards in a well-developed list.

[cupajoe]

The key word is "optimized"

I could see many situations where you're playing a rogue deck that you haven't played in a tourney before, and rather than try to make that last card cut, you just leave your deck at 61....

It may not at all be obvious what to cut in a rogue deck, even after testing

So what's the better choice?

Cut your deck to 60 so you have a 0.5 percent better chance of getting a 4-of in the opening grip, or a 0.2 percent worse chance of mulliganing?

OR, leave a questionable card as a 2-of instead of cutting down to a singleton, significantly increasing your chance of drawing that particular card during a game?

Yes, if we're talking about Goblins or High Tide, by all means keep it at 60 no matter what

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

What don't you understand about the words "for fun" in the post I made. Obviously yes that particular deck could have been made with 60 cards, but it could not do it within the restraints I was given. Someone asked me to construct a deck with 50 different ways to win. I said it couldn't be done with 60 and be playable, he said what about 80, and I said yes, and made the combo deck.

I guess what I don't understand is what you think an inane anecdote has to do with discussion of strategy.


just like shuffling your opponent's deck (you will play against a stacked deck in 1 of 100 games), playing instants and abilities as late as possible (usually your opponent won't give you information that may change the target), fetching to thin out your library if your life totals are irrlevant (that just matters in 2 of 100 games), playing hydroblast over blue blast in thresh decks to have a better chance to get to threshold (1 of 1000 games where it may matter)

so if you are a fun player you dont have to care about these things since magic is just a game, but if you plan to win games you always want to maximize your chances



Saying, "Oh, this is such a small factor, I'm just going to go ahead and run 61 cards. I'm so wacky. Teeheehee" is a great way to get into a terrible mindset where you make lots of tiny bad, sub-optimal decisions, and then don't remember to avoid it the next time or fuss about improving your play or design skills, because you've legitimized your sucking. This is why good players will never run 61 cards in a well-developed list.

Exactly. Magic, like most things in life, is a nickel-and-dime game. The decision to run 61 cards isn't catastrophic, but it is suboptimal, and knowingly making suboptimal decisions, especially ones where you have plenty of time to think it through(ie, in regards to your decklist) is a terrible habit to get into.

[TheRock]

We're not advocating running more cards; I think that we all understand the point of not running extra cards "just because".

But making sure that you run exactly 60 cards when you should be concerned with other things in testing and matchup play is crazy.

Complete_Jank: The ~2-3% is based on adding a card that the deck could use to a deck, then cutting a random card from that same deck. It wouldn't be impossible to calculate it, but it certainly wouldn't be accurate no matter what since it would be based on opinions. I thought that I edited my second post (consequently adding this to it), but I must have forgot.

I also don't want to sound like an ass. To be honest though, I couldn't think of any other way to simulate the effect.

[MattH]

One example I have of a time when I wanted to run 61 was in Survival decks. I knew I wanted a Gilded Drake, and that not having it would certainly cost me games against reanimator-style decks (or Exalted Angels). But there was literally no card in the deck I wanted to cut - I couldn't cut mana, or Survivals, or Therapies, or any of the utility guys, all of whom served important purposes. So I ran 61.

The number of games I would have lost without Drake (one or two) definitely outweighed the number of games where I lost because I drew Drake instead of the next card down (zero that day, some positive number in theory). So it was the right decision.

That and the "better ratios" argument (which really only applies when decks are EXTREMELY redundant, like 40 lightning bolt 20 mountain) are the only two I've ever found convincing. They are corner cases, and if you're not absolutely sure that 61+ is right, then it's not.

[Complete_Jank]

both would give you a gameloss because of illegal decklist

Therefore I would choose Deck 1 because illegal cards are replaced with basic lands and 56 Mountains, 4 Lightning Bolts is strictly better than 86 Mountains, 4 Lightning Bolts. At least you can beat bad Salvager players with double Bolt.

Don't act stupid, you and everyone else knew what I refering to. It is a Hypothetical situation. Wave the rules of magic for a second.

There is no difference between those decks other than the ammount of cards. One has 60 cards, and the other 90 cards, but no difference in the ratio of the deck's cards. They are the same both 66.7% Bolts and 33.3% Mountains.

Why I used that to try and explain things is it is possible to design a deck with more than 60 cards to be the ratio you want it.

[Drathro]

There is no difference between those decks other than the ammount of cards. One has 60 cards, and the other 90 cards, but no difference in the ratio of the deck's cards. They are the same both 66.7% Bolts and 33.3% Mountains.
There is a difference between these 2 decks. Lets run this through:

Deck A: 20 Mountain, 40 Lightning Bolt
Deck B: 30 Mountain, 60 Lightning Bolt

Lets make a play assumption that you will mulligan if you have less than 2 or more than 3 lands. How often will you not have 2 or 3 lands in your opening 7?

Using a spreadsheet (I used OpenOffice.org Calc) and the HYPGEOMDIST function, we can caclulate this:

Deck A: (1 - ((HYPGEOMDIST(2, 7, 20, 60) + HYPGEOMDIST(3, 7, 20, 60)))) * 100% = 40.7% mulligan rate for Deck A

Deck B: (1 - ((HYPGEOMDIST(2, 7, 30, 90) + HYPGEOMDIST(3, 7, 30, 90)))) * 100% = 40.9% mulligan rate for Deck B

I'd play Deck A over Deck B every time, even though the land:spell ratios are identical.

-------------------------------------------

Relevant to the discussion of 60 vs 61, the odds of drawing exactly one of a 4-of in your first 7 cards for decksizes of 60 and 61:

(HYPGEOMDIST(1, 7, 4, 60)) * 100% = 33.63%
(HYPGEOMDIST(1, 7, 4, 61)) * 100% = 33.27%

And the odds of drawing at least one of a 4-of in your first 7 cards for decksizes of 60 and 61:

(1 - (HYPGEOMDIST(0, 7, 4, 60))) * 100% = 39.95%
(1 - (HYPGEOMDIST(0, 7, 4, 61))) * 100% = 39.40%

Make of that what you will.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

A lot of the math used to talk about the minimal difference between 60 and 61 seems to exclusively focus on your opening hand. But that extra card makes an increasing difference as the game wears on and your deck size is reduced. Can any math wizard calculate the odds of seeing a card 3rd turn after a Brainstorm, for instance, in the respective sized decks?

[Nightmare]

A lot of the math used to talk about the minimal difference between 60 and 61 seems to exclusively focus on your opening hand. But that extra card makes an increasing difference as the game wears on and your deck size is reduced. Can any math wizard calculate the odds of seeing a card 3rd turn after a Brainstorm, for instance, in the respective sized decks?Do you have a shuffling effect?

[Iranon]

Assumptions:

On the play, no mulligan, drawing at least 1 brainstorm by turn 3, playing it after your draw step (since you didn't mention shuffle effects).

Chance of seeing a 4-of with 60 cards: 60.8%
Chance of seeing a 4-of with 61 cards: 60.1%

[herbig]

I just noticed this thread and wow, people are still arguing about this?

61 cards is suboptimal. Even in Battle of Wits decks this is suboptimal, since you should be cutting battle of Wits and bringing your deck down to 60 cards.

Any percentage greater than zero that you will not find your most powerful cards is a reason to run 60.

As Obfuscate Freely suggested, I would read Pat Chapin's article here:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/12478.html

[Complete_Jank]

A lot of the math used to talk about the minimal difference between 60 and 61 seems to exclusively focus on your opening hand. But that extra card makes an increasing difference as the game wears on and your deck size is reduced. Can any math wizard calculate the odds of seeing a card 3rd turn after a Brainstorm, for instance, in the respective sized decks?

Yes it can be calculated, but you need to be exactly specific on your parameters. What exactly are you looking to know? Chance of seeing that card, or not seeing it? Are there fetches both before and after Brainstorm. Are you on the play or draw. How many shuffle effects what turns...

All of it can be calculated, but you need more specifics. Post up what you want to know, and when I get to work, I'll calculate it for you. Think of it like a wish. If not properly phrased, you'll get screwed.

[T is for TOOL]

Hooray for math. If you don't mulligan, go first, and draw a card for your third turn, then cast Brainstorm, your odds of having seen a 4-of in your deck are as follows:

60 card deck: 60.09%
61 card deck: 59.40%

Incidently, if you don't mulligan, go first, do nothing all game, and draw a card for your 51st turn, your odds of having seen a 4-of in your deck are as follows:

60 card deck: 100%
61 card deck: 99.9998%

[Alfred]

Running 61 cards in a deck is like driving a F1 car with "cool looking fins" that actually slow the car down. Hey, it only takes 1 MPH off of the top speed, and hardly hurts the acceleration! That may be true, but it still slows the car down and hurts the acceleration, so why the hell would you do it?

[Complete_Jank]

Running 61 cards in a deck is like driving a F1 car with "cool looking fins" that actually slow the car down. Hey, it only takes 1 MPH off of the top speed, and hardly hurts the acceleration! That may be true, but it still slows the car down and hurts the acceleration, so why the hell would you do it?

Well if we are going to make references to racing, lets go all the way with. (It is one of my specialties)

Cool looking attachments only have effect at super high speads, and will only have an effect over long distances. However, if an attachment is designed properly it will make the car go faster and will actually help over long distances. In either case the driver is also a big factor.

[blitz]

hahaha, this thread is awesome.

I mean, yes, if 60 cards IS the optimal ratio for that deck, than by all means, cut the dang card.

I have a thought here though...

How about doing the math for the probability of a 4 of not showing up vs. a 3,2, or 1 of not showing up in the opening grip? Or similarly, if you have a single card in the deck that ruins the combo if it shows up in hand, what is the difference, statistically, between running 1 of or 2 of that particular card? The statistical difference between not drawing just 1 of 1 and not drawing 2 of 2?

[Cait_Sith]

Odds of a 61 Card deck sucking: 97.539%
Odds of a 60 Card deck sucking: 83.563%
Odds of me telling the truth: 0%

[T is for TOOL]

Since all magic cards are not equal, and some are better than others, and you can only run 4-of in one deck, it is possible (with lots of math) to assign a point value to any given card for any given situation. Thus it is possible, for any given metagame not dependent on your deck size (e.g. the only decks you face are Solidarity, in which case a 100,000+ card deck would be impossible to beat given a standard Solidarity decklist), to average the value of every card in your deck. Based on this average, it is possible to prove that a 60 card deck is optimal for any given metagame in which a victory was not determined by decking you (see the Pat Chapin article linked to by several others in this thread). Hence, I don't see why this topic is such a big deal. The optimal list of any given deck is 60 cards. This is common knowledge. If you cannot decide what to cut because you are not the optimal player, then running 61 cards might be optimal for you, however this does not change the fact that the best theoretical list is 60 cards. The source of conflict seems to stem from the argument that nobody can be an optimal player, therefore 61 card decks are argued as being equivalent to 60 card decks. This is simply not true.

[Complete_Jank]

hahaha, this thread is awesome.

I mean, yes, if 60 cards IS the optimal ratio for that deck, than by all means, cut the dang card.

I have a thought here though...

How about doing the math for the probability of a 4 of not showing up vs. a 3,2, or 1 of not showing up in the opening grip? Or similarly, if you have a single card in the deck that ruins the combo if it shows up in hand, what is the difference, statistically, between running 1 of or 2 of that particular card? The statistical difference between not drawing just 1 of 1 and not drawing 2 of 2?

Subtract the %'s used to state the chance of seeing one of those cards in your hand and subtract it from 100 and you will have your % for not seeing the card.

[Aggro_zombies]

So you guys would advocate 62 cards?
Well, logically speaking, if running 61 cards is a good thing, running 62 would be a better thing, no?

I'm still waiting for this thread to degenerate into a debate over whether or not Battle of Wits is playable in Legacy. And sadly, that debate would still be more constructive than this one.

[Lego]

Subtract the %'s used to state the chance of seeing one of those cards in your hand and subtract it from 100 and you will have your % for not seeing the card.

Yes, but the numbers are inversely proportional. If you grant the Riemann hypothesis, then as the size of the deck approaches infinity, the % chance of seeing card X after Y turns becomes nearly a singularity. It's all an axiom in the end.

[Cait_Sith]

I'm still waiting for this thread to degenerate into a debate over whether or not Battle of Wits is playable in Legacy. And sadly, that debate would still be more constructive than this one.

In short it is. You run a 900 card build of Battle of Wits. When your opponent knocks over your entire pile while trying to cut get angry and reshuffle the entire thing all over again. Repeat until you call a judge over several times because your opponent is obviously stalling by knocking your deck off the table. Enjoy victory.


Yes, but the numbers are inversely proportional. If you grant the Riemann hypothesis, then as the size of the deck approaches infinity, the % chance of seeing card X after Y turns becomes nearly a singularity. It's all an axiom in the end. Your math is absolutely correct in this case.

[Aggro_zombies]

In short it is. You run a 900 card build of Battle of Wits. When your opponent knocks over your entire pile while trying to cut get angry and reshuffle the entire thing all over again. Repeat until you call a judge over several times because your opponent is obviously stalling by knocking your deck off the table. Enjoy victory.
You know, I didn't think of that. Good point. It would be a pain in the ass to register, though.

[Complete_Jank]

Yes, but the numbers are inversely proportional. If you grant the Riemann hypothesis, then as the size of the deck approaches infinity, the % chance of seeing card X after Y turns becomes nearly a singularity. It's all an axiom in the end.

Having a deck that approaches infinately large is not going to happen.


Now, I'll pay someone's entry fee if they want to play a 1000 card deck in the up coming GP. I think it would be funny to have a 1000 card deck in the top 8. All you have to do is print up multiple deck registery sheets and have your deck written on those before you show up. Think of it this way. Soliderity wouldn't be able to beat you.

[outsideangel]

Having a deck that approaches infinately large is not going to happen.


Now, I'll pay someone's entry fee if they want to play a 1000 card deck in the up coming GP. I think it would be funny to have a 1000 card deck in the top 8. All you have to do is print up multiple deck registery sheets and have your deck written on those before you show up. Think of it this way. Soliderity wouldn't be able to beat you.

You should be careful...I might try to take you up on that offer.

Bad decks are ftw.

[Aggro_zombies]

You should be careful...I might try to take you up on that offer.

Bad decks are ftw.
That would be sweet. Make a control / combo deck with Battle of Wits and Enduring Ideal to fetch all of the best enchantments in the game, plus every counterspell printed ever, every Wrath varient ever printed ever, targeted removal out the wazoo, all five Hondens...I mean, there's no way aggro decks could beat you with 200-300 spot removal spells and 100 or so sweepers in your deck. You could play a Wrath for every guy in their deck.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the more awesome this sounds. I'll post a list later.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

If people lend me the cards/petition Andy Heckt to stop being a dick and unban me, I pledge to play the following list at Columbus:



// Deck file for Magic Workstation (http://www.magicworkstation.com)
// NAME: Sealed deck #15300

// Lands
4 [ON] Secluded Steppe
4 [OV] City of Brass
3 [IA] Snow-Covered Plains
1 [CS] Dark Depths
4 [JU] Krosan Verge
4 [TSP] Terramorphic Expanse
4 [RAV] Temple Garden
4 [AT] Brushland
4 [7E] Adarkar Wastes
4 [AP] Yavimaya Coast
135 [5E] Island (1)
149 [9E] Forest (1)
33 [TE] Plains (3)
4 [DIS] Hallowed Fountain
4 [US] Blasted Landscape
3 [RAV] Vitu-Ghazi, the City-Tree
4 [US] Drifting Meadow
4 [US] Remote Isle
4 [US] Slippery Karst
4 [ON] Lonely Sandbar
4 [DIS] Breeding Pool
8 [CS] Snow-Covered Island
4 [ON] Tranquil Thicket
8 [IA] Snow-Covered Forest
4 [ON] Windswept Heath
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
4 [ON] Flooded Strand
4 [ON] Wooded Foothills
4 [R] Tropical Island
4 [B] Tundra
4 [R] Savannah

// Creatures
4 [SC] Eternal Dragon
4 [DIS] Court Hussar
4 [DIS] Patagia Viper
4 [RAV] Loxodon Hierarch
4 [5E] Birds of Paradise
4 [PS] Sunscape Battlemage
4 [MR] Solemn Simulacrum
1 [ON] Gigapede
4 [FD] Eternal Witness
4 [UD] Academy Rector
4 [SH] Wall of Blossoms
4 [OD] Diligent Farmhand
4 [ON] Krosan Tusker
4 [SC] Elvish Aberration
4 [DIS] Simic Sky Swallower
2 [CS] Panglacial Wurm
4 [CHK] Sakura-Tribe Elder
4 [TSB] Mystic Snake
4 [DIS] Coiling Oracle
4 [RAV] Carven Caryatid

// Spells
3 [TSP] Momentary Blink
4 [JU] Mirari's Wake
4 [SC] Decree of Justice
4 [AT] Nevinyrral's Disk
4 [R] Regrowth
4 [OV] Abeyance
4 [SC] Gilded Light
4 [DIS] Supply/Demand
4 [TE] Time Warp
4 [P3] Capture of Jingzhou
4 [R] Swords to Plowshares
4 [DIS] Condemn
4 [IN] Repulse
4 [RAV] Selesnya Signet
4 [DIS] Simic Signet
4 [DIS] Azorius Signet
4 [ON] Renewed Faith
4 [A] Wrath of God
4 [IN] Rout
4 [ON] Akroma's Vengeance
4 [IN] Dismantling Blow
4 [OD] Sungrass Egg
4 [OD] Skycloud Egg
4 [OD] Moment's Peace
4 [RAV] Terrarion
4 [ON] Backslide
1 [NE] Seal of Cleansing
4 [CHK] Honden of Cleansing Fire
4 [CHK] Honden of Life's Web
4 [CHK] Honden of Seeing Winds
4 [MI] Enlightened Tutor
1 [DK] Tormod's Crypt
1 [MR] Rule of Law
1 [7E] Arcane Laboratory
4 [DS] Reap and Sow
4 [9E] Creeping Mold
4 [RAV] Festival of the Guildpact
4 [ON] Akroma's Blessing
4 [MR] Chromatic Sphere
4 [ON] Complicate
4 [US] Rescind
4 [UL] Radiant's Judgment
4 [TSP] Chromatic Star
4 [IA] Urza's Bauble
4 [CHK] Peer Through Depths
4 [IN] Manipulate Fate
4 [HL] Memory Lapse (2)
4 [JU] Mental Note
4 [HL] Merchant Scroll
4 [UL] Miscalculation
4 [MI] Mystical Tutor
4 [TO] Obsessive Search
4 [PT] Omen
4 [VI] Impulse
4 [OD] Predict
4 [CHK] Reach Through Mists
4 [GP] Repeal
4 [RAV] Remand
4 [MI] Sapphire Charm
4 [TSP] Truth or Tale
4 [TE] Whispers of the Muse
4 [TE] Intuition
4 [JU] Quiet Speculation
4 [TO] Deep Analysis
4 [P2] Sleight of Hand
4 [CS] Mishra's Bauble
4 [FD] Serum Visions
4 [5E] Brainstorm
4 [5E] Portent
4 [GP] Quicken
4 [FD] Conjurer's Bauble
4 [ON] Mage's Guile
4 [JU] Grip of Amnesia
4 [OD] Peek
4 [IN] Opt
4 [RAV] Telling Time
4 [TSP] Think Twice
4 [TSP] Ancestral Vision
4 [IA] Clairvoyance
4 [U] Counterspell
4 [AL] Foresight (2)
4 [RAV] Farseek
4 [CHK] Gifts Ungiven
4 [9E] Battle of Wits
4 [CS] Into the North
4 [DIS] Voidslime
4 [DS] Echoing Truth
4 [IN] Fact or Fiction
4 [MR] Thirst for Knowledge
4 [JU] Flash of Insight
4 [FD] Condescend
4 [CHK] Sensei's Divining Top
2 [TE] Capsize
4 [8E] Rampant Growth
4 [TSP] Search for Tomorrow
4 [FD] Wayfarer's Bauble
4 [TSB] Call of the Herd
4 [OD] Deep Reconnaissance
4 [TO] Far Wanderings
4 [ON] Explosive Vegetation
4 [CHK] Kodama's Reach
4 [WL] Gaea's Blessing



Edit: +1 Angus Mackenzie for the lucky 901.


PS: Someone start a thread about which is better, 900 or 901.

[Volt]

Running 61 cards in a deck is like driving a F1 car with "cool looking fins" that actually slow the car down. Hey, it only takes 1 MPH off of the top speed, and hardly hurts the acceleration! That may be true, but it still slows the car down and hurts the acceleration, so why the hell would you do it?

Well, because they look cool!

Sorry if this post is devoid of meaningful content. It seemed to be the thing to do.

[Pinder]

Well, because they look cool!

Sorry if this post is devoid of meaningful content. It seemed to be the thing to do.

I think that I'm going to play 61 card decks now just so I can fold the extra card into a mini-spoiler and drive my deck around the table like a madman.

[Aggro_zombies]

Sorry InfamousBearAssassin, but I've done you one better. Behold, the 1001 card combo/control monstrosity I call "SavageTechAutowinsAgainstSolidarityZomgWtfLolzBbq.dec":

// Deck file for Magic Workstation (http://www.magicworkstation.com)

// Lands
20 [ST] Forest (3)
24 [LND] Plains (5)
25 [MM] Swamp (1)
28 [UNH] Island
22 [U] Mountain (3)
4 [A] Plateau
4 [US] Remote Isle
4 [4E] Mishra's Factory
4 [TSP] Terramorphic Expanse
4 [MM] Dust Bowl
4 [MM] Rishadan Port
4 [DIS] Ghost Quarter
4 [TE] Wasteland
4 [UL] Faerie Conclave
4 [BD] Polluted Mire
4 [AT] Smoldering Crater
4 [US] Blasted Landscape
4 [AT] Drifting Meadow
4 [US] Slippery Karst
4 [ON] Lonely Sandbar
4 [ON] Forgotten Cave
4 [MI] Rocky Tar Pit
4 [ON] Grand Coliseum
4 [WL] Gemstone Mine
4 [CH] City of Brass
4 [MI] Mountain Valley
4 [UL] Treetop Village
4 [MI] Grasslands
4 [MI] Flood Plain
4 [MI] Bad River
4 [UL] Spawning Pool
4 [UL] Ghitu Encampment
4 [UL] Forbidding Watchtower
4 [A] Tundra
4 [GP] Steam Vents
4 [GP] Godless Shrine
4 [GP] Stomping Ground
4 [A] Taiga
4 [B] Badlands
4 [DIS] Hallowed Fountain
4 [A] Bayou
4 [B] Scrubland
4 [R] Volcanic Island
4 [U] Tropical Island
4 [R] Underground Sea
4 [A] Savannah
4 [ON] Secluded Steppe
4 [ON] Wooded Foothills
4 [ON] Tranquil Thicket
4 [ON] Barren Moor
4 [ON] Windswept Heath
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
4 [ON] Flooded Strand
4 [DIS] Breeding Pool
4 [ON] Bloodstained Mire
4 [RAV] Watery Grave
4 [RAV] Sacred Foundry
4 [RAV] Temple Garden
4 [RAV] Overgrown Tomb
4 [DIS] Blood Crypt

// Creatures
4 [UD] Academy Rector
4 [CHK] Sakura-Tribe Elder
4 [6E] Birds of Paradise
4 [FD] Eternal Witness
4 [SH] Wall of Blossoms
4 [LE] Wall of Hope
4 [MR] Steel Wall
4 [PS] Sunscape Familiar
4 [MI] Wall of Roots
4 [ON] Wall of Mulch
4 [IN] Utopia Tree
4 [8E] Vine Trellis
4 [SH] Wall of Souls
4 [US] Fog Bank
4 [AL] Shield Sphere
4 [SH] Wall of Essence
4 [UD] Wall of Glare
4 [AP] Jungle Barrier
4 [FD] Bringer of the Black Dawn
4 [SC] Eternal Dragon
4 [CST] Tinder Wall
4 [P2] Angelic Wall
4 [PY] Mageta The Lion
4 [MR] Arc-Slogger
4 [TSP] Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir

// Spells
4 [AT] Lightning Bolt
4 [DIS] Voidslime
4 [SC] Stifle
4 [IN] Sterling Grove
4 [US] Befoul
4 [PS] Terminate
4 [IA] Incinerate
4 [TSP] Trickbind
4 [REW] Lightning Helix
4 [RAV] Razia's Purification
4 [EX] Cataclysm
4 [ON] Infest
4 [UL] Miscalculation
4 [MM] Misdirection
4 [US] Arcane Laboratory
4 [LG] Nether Void
4 [SC] Long-Term Plans
4 [CHK] Gifts Ungiven
4 [IN] Recoil
4 [RAV] Clutch of the Undercity
4 [IN] Vile Consumption
4 [TSB] Funeral Charm
4 [LG] The Abyss
4 [P2] Cruel Edict
4 [TE] Diabolic Edict
4 [OD] Innocent Blood
4 [MI] Mangara's Tome
4 [TSP] Mystical Teachings
4 [DS] Echoing Decay
4 [R] Regrowth
4 [DS] Echoing Truth
4 [GP] Mortify
4 [REW] Putrefy
4 [AP] Pernicious Deed
4 [AP] Vindicate
4 [B] Terror
4 [FD] Lose Hope
4 [MR] Rule of Law
4 [AP] Gerrard's Verdict
4 [WL] Abeyance
4 [9E] Mind Rot
4 [VI] Coercion
4 [JU] Cabal Therapy
4 [FE] Hymn to Tourach (4)
4 [7E] Duress
4 [SC] Gilded Light
4 [TSP] Prismatic Lens
4 [MR] Chrome Mox
4 [RAV] Muddle the Mixture
4 [IA] Swords to Plowshares
4 [DIS] Demonfire
4 [4E] Fog
4 [IN] Tangle
4 [FD] Wayfarer's Bauble
4 [8E] Planar Portal
1 [IN] Coalition Victory
4 [WL] Disrupt
4 [MI] Dissipate
4 [CS] Rune Snag
4 [US] Shower of Sparks
4 [DIS] Crime/Punishment
4 [AP] Fire/Ice
4 [ST] Grim Tutor
4 [TSP] Krosan Grip
4 [IN] Chromatic Sphere
4 [TO] Insidious Dreams
4 [7E] Pyroclasm
4 [FD] Magma Jet
4 [TSP] Sudden Shock
4 [TSP] Chromatic Star
4 [TSP] Sudden Death
4 [US] Path of Peace
4 [8E] Naturalize
4 [B] Disenchant
4 [TSP] Demonic Collusion
4 [DIS] Infernal Tutor
4 [TSP] Paradox Haze
4 [FD] Engineered Explosives
4 [TSP] Momentary Blink
4 [TSP] Lotus Bloom
4 [SOK] Pithing Needle
4 [FD] Crucible of Worlds
4 [JU] Lava Dart
4 [LG] Chain Lightning
4 [TSP] Ancestral Vision
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [OD] Battle of Wits
4 [MM] Brainstorm
4 [IN] Spreading Plague
4 [7E] Counterspell
4 [LG] Force Spike
4 [ARE] Mana Leak
4 [AL] Force of Will
4 [TSP] Cancel
4 [IN] Undermine
4 [IN] Absorb
4 [GP] Runeboggle
4 [TE] Dismiss
4 [8E] Wrath of God
4 [PS] Orim's Chant
4 [MR] Isochron Scepter
4 [OD] Standstill
4 [CHK] Honden of Seeing Winds
4 [CHK] Honden of Night's Reach
4 [CS] Sunscour
4 [WL] Pendrell Mists
4 [TO] Mutilate
4 [TE] Winds of Rath
4 [MR] Solar Tide
4 [PY] Rhystic Tutor
4 [IN] Rout
4 [OD] Kirtar's Wrath
4 [SC] Decree of Pain
4 [UL] Planar Collapse
4 [TE] Propaganda
4 [CHK] Ghostly Prison
4 [TSP] Careful Consideration
4 [TSB] Whispers of the Muse
4 [CHK] Reach Through Mists
4 [RAV] Compulsive Research
4 [MR] Thirst for Knowledge
4 [5E] Portent
4 [AP] Phyrexian Arena
4 [CHK] Sensei's Divining Top
4 [OD] Predict
4 [IN] Fact or Fiction
4 [FD] Serum Visions
4 [VI] Impulse
4 [RAV] Life from the Loam
4 [CHK] Honden of Life's Web
3 [IN] Worldly Counsel
4 [CHK] Honden of Infinite Rage
4 [CHK] Honden of Cleansing Fire
2 [9E] Form of the Dragon
4 [SOK] Enduring Ideal
4 [MI] Enlightened Tutor
4 [FD] Night's Whisper
4 [OD] Diabolic Tutor
4 [RAV] Brainspoil
4 [SC] Parallel Thoughts
4 [TE] Intuition
4 [FNM] Accumulated Knowledge

The goal is to stall the ground with your walls and countermagic (plus removal) until you can set up a win: either Arc-Slogger your opponent to death, or play Battle of Wits, or drop all five Hondens and a Paradox Haze, or get a creatures of each color into play and drop Coalition Victory, or get a Form of the Dragon out with Enduring Ideal, or call a judge when your opponent accidentally knocks over your enormous pile of a deck because they really just did it to stall for time, duh. The deck has a number of other combos in it: the Scpeter+Chant+Teferi hard lock, the manlands+Standstill lock of Landstill, and the Life from the Loam card advantage engine (I should probably squeeze Seismic Assault in there, hmmm...). I mean, you auto-win against Solidarity, since they'll have to get a storm of over 300 to mill this whole pile. Lose much? With all your sweepers you can easily trounce Goblins (although adding Damnation and Engineered Plague would be nice) and other aggro. Thresh can't beat your land destruction suite and all your countermagic. Even Thunder Bluff would be hard-pressed to win against this - minotaur advantage is meaningless next to the crushing weight of Answers.dec. This is obviously the best 1001 card deck in the format right now.

[Complete_Jank]

How much is the entry fee at the GP going to be?

I might cover two entries.


I think the name of the deck should be "The Real Meta Game"

If you play a 1001 card deck, you could just carry it in two of those 800 count boxes, because the sleeves would take up the extra room.


Also, I doubt that you would ever be deck checked, as it would take 2 rounds to check it, and I don't think that the judges want to hold up the entire tourney.

[Aggro_zombies]

How much is the entry fee at the GP going to be?

I might cover two entries.


I think the name of the deck should be "The Real Meta Game"

If you play a 1001 card deck, you could just carry it in two of those 800 count boxes, because the sleeves would take up the extra room.


Also, I doubt that you would ever be deck checked, as it would take 2 rounds to check it, and I don't think that the judges want to hold up the entire tourney.
Yeah, but with a deck that big, why do you need a sideboard? Just maindeck answers to everything in the format. It'll up your card count.

[Ch33bs]

Two words for a SB with a deck that big. Wish & board you decide what order.

[Kronicler]

ZOMG!!! That deck is amazing. But do you have any idea how much it would cost?!?!?!??!? Holy mother of god.......

BTW you autolose to really fast combo that doesn't mill your deck, aka TES, IGGy, or Salvagers...... shit you even lose to aluren!!!! :-P

Kronicler

[Aggro_zombies]

ZOMG!!! That deck is amazing. But do you have any idea how much it would cost?!?!?!??!? Holy mother of god.......

BTW you autolose to really fast combo that doesn't mill your deck, aka TES, IGGy, or Salvagers...... shit you even lose to aluren!!!! :-P

Kronicler
No I don't. Did you see how many counters I run? I can counter every spell in their deck with counters to spare.

[Kronicler]

Fine, we will test it tomorrow! $10 says TES beats it atleast 9/10 games. :-D

Kronicler

[Bryant Cook]

-4 Dismiss
+4 Moments Peace

it improves the goblin match-up. :-p

[Aggro_zombies]

Fine, we will test it tomorrow! $10 says TES beats it atleast 9/10 games. :-D

Kronicler
...except I don't have half the deck and I'm not making all those proxies. Besides, I'm not the kind of guy who relieves little kids of their money.

[Cait_Sith]

You play Pox, is there a difference?

[Aggro_zombies]

You play Pox, is there a difference?
Pox is a considerably smaller deck.

[Cait_Sith]

I meant is there a difference between playing Pox and robbing children. I don't see one.

[Aggro_zombies]

I meant is there a difference between playing Pox and robbing children. I don't see one.
Iono, I've never robbed children before. Once I do, though, I'll get back to you on that one.

[Kronicler]

Besides, I'm not the kind of guy who relieves little kids of their money.

Neither do I.... atleast not very often :tongue: .

rofl @ pox being like robbing little children.

Kronicler

[Atwa]

Iono, I've never robbed children before. Once I do, though, I'll get back to you on that one.

Sigged.

[Slay]

This is far more productive than the first two pages of this thread.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The mostly finalized list I'll run is here (http://www.essentialmagic.com/Decks/View.asp?ID=524315).


Which only leaves the petitions to Wizards and the 1,400$ in donations of cash/cards still to be done.

[Zilla]

The mostly finalized list I'll run is here (http://www.essentialmagic.com/Decks/View.asp?ID=524315).
You are officially out of your fucking mind. Wordly Tutor is an auto-include in that list.

[blitz]

Sorry InfamousBearAssassin, but I've done you one better. Behold, the 1001 card combo/control monstrosity I call "SavageTechAutowinsAgainstSolidarityZomgWtfLolzBbq.dec":


I'm playing this on mws as soon as I can get it to not crash mws in the process of loading it...

By the way, this topic is now officially made of win and god.

SOOOOO tech vs. solidarity.

PS - I've been stifling laughter (heh, tempo) for about 20 minutes now after having read this thread, thanks to it being the middle of the night with family asleep. I <3 the source.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Worldly Tutor doesn't grab things that are usually worth trading card advantage for, unlike Mystical and Enlightened.

My list, unlike Aggro_Zombies', has the distinct advantage of not completely sucking. Try the goldfish on the Deck Analysis. It's actually surprisingly tier 3'ish. Beats playing Stompy and Trix, anyway.

[blitz]

I totally can't get single person to play me on MWS ;_;

It takes like, 5 minutes to even load the deck... so people leave thinking I lagged out.

Oh yeah, and this deck reminds of some of the silly decks me and my friend came up with for t2 kamirav9th. We just filled the decks with life gaining shoal effects and autochon wurm type creatures =P On the first test, we played a burn player, who after about 16 turns, said "I surrender"

good times.

[Plank]

It would take probably 10 minutes for you to find the cards you wanted with Gifts Ungiven or Intuition. I don't know if that's considered technical stalling in the magic rules book.

[T is for TOOL]

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~turpynmr/thread necro.jpg

What is this thread still doing around?
Locked.
-TOOL