All B/R update speculation.

[Crimhead]

Any early turn play that can negate cantrips, will be met with at least one counterspell.

You'd think CotV would never hit the table turn-1, but that is not my experience.

And why should it absolutely need to be a turn-1 play? What's wrong with baiting the counter turn-1 and dropping the hoser turn-2? I know from playing Enchantress and Lands vs blue decks that you can overwhelm them with "must counter" spells.

[Lemnear]

From what I hear, grinder pros are lucky to clear 35-40k a year, with no benefits and massive travel expenses

• Nobody is going to chose that life if it means playing a deck they don't enjoy.
• Pros also need to balance costs vs profit. eg, if a pro thinks playing Lands will give them a (slightly) higher EV than sticking with Grixis, that extra EV might not be worth the cost of any staples they don't own and can't borrow.
• Also, pros might recognise that sticking with a deck they know inside-out and that suits their strengths is better than a objectively better positioned deck.
• Being skilled at playing Legacy =/= brilliant meta insight. I understand Finkle did not design his famous deck.

The notion that pros have an infallible assessment of the meta and change decks on a dime sounds like a fairy tale to me.

Fair points. I went a bit to far and now row, row, row my boat back

[kombatkiwi]

Are people on here really saying decks like Hollow One and Bogles are healthy while complaining about TNN and YP? The quality of this forum continues to go deeper into the gutter.

QFT times a million

The notion that pros have an infallible assessment of the meta and change decks on a dime sounds like a fairy tale to me.

Go look at the top 8 profiles of GP Seattle:

What deck are you playing and why?

Lands - it looked good [Sam Black]
Four-Color Leovold - it has good cards and Jarvis Yu built it for me! [Steve Rubin]
Sultai Leovold. I think the deck has a chance against everything. Feels like the old Jund Modern with Deathrite Shaman. [Jeremy Dezani]

i.e. 'I thought it was a good deck for the tournament' and/or 'someone lent me the cards'

Then you look at the non-pro answers:
Duerte: 'Grixis Delver because I got the deck 6 months ago and grinded with it a bunch'
Keith: 'I always play Thalia'

Nobody is going to chose that life if it means playing a deck they don't enjoy.

Being competitive at something at the highest level generally means the most enjoyment they get comes from winning. People like Wafo-Tapa that consistently act on their preference towards a certain type of deck across multiple formats are probably the exception rather than the rule.

Pros also need to balance costs vs profit. eg, if a pro thinks playing Lands will give them a (slightly) higher EV than sticking with Grixis, that extra EV might not be worth the cost of any staples they don't own and can't borrow.

Once at that level in the community I would say most pros have enough connections that they can basically access any cards that they want

Also, pros might recognise that sticking with a deck they know inside-out and that suits their strengths is better than a objectively better positioned deck.

True, but if most pros also recognise that they are not playing the best positioned deck then A) they are highly motivated to switch (more driven by winning than the average player) and B) it is relatively easy for them to switch (not only in terms of obtaining the cards, but they are good at the game in general so it doesn't take much for them to play any deck at a high level).

[Crimhead]

Being competitive at something at the highest level generally means the most enjoyment they get comes from winning.

I earned my living grinding poker for a few years round the turn of the millennium, and I have a different perspective on lifestyle competitive gaming at the professional level. Pro gamers want to win, but they also want to outplay their opponents and capitalise on their skills. So a lot of pros will be turned off my decks that seem to "lose to themselves", even if they have an equally high chance of winning.

Basically, pros want more than money - most could earn a lot more in a profession. Pros want the satisfaction of earning their wins. They are humans, with complicated needs. Poker pros don't generally like to buy short and play a mathematically formulaic push/fold strategy - even if it is profitable. Legacy pros similarly want a high level of agency so they can feel more satisfied by winning.

If you are interested in gamer psychology, I recommend:

Inside the Poker Mind: Essays on Hold 'em and General Poker Concepts by David Skanksy & Jon Feeney, PhD

The Psychology of Poker by Alan N Schoonmaker

i.e. 'I thought it was a good deck for the tournament' and/or 'someone lent me the cards'

Yet they played totally different decks? If they all thought they were playing "the objectively best deck for the format", most of them were wrong! They sure as hell can't all be right!

More likely there is a range of decks pros consider tournament worthy or very close in positioning. Then they pick 1 of those for personal reasons.

[kombatkiwi]

I earned my living grinding poker for a few years round the turn of the millennium, and I have a different perspective on lifestyle competitive gaming at the professional level. Pro gamers want to win, but they also want to outplay their opponents and capitalise on their skills. So a lot of pros will be turned off my decks that seem to "lose to themselves", even if they have an equally high chance of winning.

The 'equally high chance of winning' is a huge caveat that I didn't specify or assume
Obviously if someone is trying to make a living doing something they will choose a lower-variance route if the EV is the same.
I thought your original statement ("Nobody is going to chose that life if it means playing a deck they don't enjoy") meant that pro players would willingly sacrifice EV to play a deck that they find more 'fun', which I disagree with

Basically, pros want more than money - most could earn a lot more in a profession. Pros want the satisfaction of earning their wins. They are humans, with complicated needs. Poker pros don't generally like to buy short and play a mathematically formulaic push/fold strategy - even if it is profitable. Legacy pros similarly want a high level of agency so they can feel more satisfied by winning.

This may or may not be true for 'pros' but this statement would be equally valid if you substitute 'pros' with 'human beings'. At that point why are you even making the distinction between pro and non-pro if everybody suffers from this same leak?
I hardly know anything about poker but that analogy seems retarded.
"X Pros don't generally like to [do Y thing] even if it is profitable" citation needed

If they all thought they were playing "the objectively best deck for the format", most of them were wrong! They sure as hell can't all be right!

Correct

More likely there is a range of decks pros consider tournament worthy or very close in positioning.

Correct

Then they pick 1 of those for personal reasons.

Almost certainly wrong. They will pick the deck based on whatever they think gives them the greatest chance of winning the tournament. If by personal reasons you include things like "I think X deck is the best deck but I have no idea how to play it and therefore I have a better chance of winning by playing this weaker deck instead" then you aren't wrong, but it seems misleading to call this a 'personal reason'.

I think our arguments might be slightly disconnected because I am taking 'pro' to be synonymous with 'perfectly rational competitive agent' (and I think that for top-level competitive ANYTHING this assumption should be close to true as long as the playerbase is large enough), whereas you seem to have a more relaxed definition e.g. 'a person who likes games and is reasonably good at them' or something along those lines

[DarthVicious]

Almost certainly wrong. They will pick the deck based on whatever they think gives them the greatest chance of winning the tournament. If by personal reasons you include things like "I think X deck is the best deck but I have no idea how to play it and therefore I have a better chance of winning by playing this weaker deck instead" then you aren't wrong, but it seems misleading to call this a 'personal reason'.

I think our arguments might be slightly disconnected because I am taking 'pro' to be synonymous with 'perfectly rational competitive agent' (and I think that for top-level competitive ANYTHING this assumption should be close to true as long as the playerbase is large enough), whereas you seem to have a more relaxed definition e.g. 'a person who likes games and is reasonably good at them' or something along those lines

Assume one player has access to both Miracles and Sneak & Show, and that both are just as likely to win the tournament.

"Miracles will be a boring grind all day, I'll go to time a few times, and barely have any fun, let alone have time for a lunch."
"Sneak & Show will get some easy wins against the unprepared, rounds will be over fast and I'll have a blast."

Those sound like perfectly rational 'personal reasons' to me.

[kombatkiwi]

Assume one player has access to both Miracles and Sneak & Show, and that both are just as likely to win the tournament.

"Miracles will be a boring grind all day, I'll go to time a few times, and barely have any fun, let alone have time for a lunch."
"Sneak & Show will get some easy wins against the unprepared, rounds will be over fast and I'll have a blast."

Those sound like perfectly rational 'personal reasons' to me.

Why is everybody trying to sneak in this "assuming the winrate is the same" bit
The point is that a competitive player will search for an edge (real or not), whether it's 5% or 1% or whatever

Theres no way even casual players would think that they have the same chance winning a tournament with SnS as Miracles

[Zulabnar]

You'd think CotV would never hit the table turn-1, but that is not my experience.

And why should it absolutely need to be a turn-1 play? What's wrong with baiting the counter turn-1 and dropping the hoser turn-2? I know from playing Enchantress and Lands vs blue decks that you can overwhelm them with "must counter" spells.

The problem is pretty simple.
what would you do with COTV number 2\3\4 ? Nothing. SO You have 3 dead cards in your deck, just to counter a 2 cards (ponder + brainstorm).

The fact that i have to find a solution to ponder+brainstorm describes by itself the powerlevel of those cards.

Why turn 1 and not 2? Because assuming that on turn 1 on the draw COTV is easily countered by Daze, Force, Spell Pierce etc. on turn 2 You have access to at least 7 starting cards +3 brainstorm\ponder cards, + 1 draw card at least you can find a counter in 11\60 cards when you have 8 counters. SO You will probably counter it easily, while if is it possible to cast on turn 1 is harder.

Consider that i also coul lost my COTV by an easy to play Abrupt decay on turn 2, or disenchant....


I really don't understand why blue lover mage, pretend that other decks\strategy lovers people have to find solution and fill their deck with junkies, while they have not to do it.

[Crimhead]

The problem is pretty simple.
what would you do with COTV number 2\3\4 ? Nothing. SO You have 3 dead cards in your deck, just to counter a 2 cards (ponder + brainstorm).

So how come 3x CotV counts as 3 cards, but 4x Ponder + 4x Brainstorm are only 2 cards? Really?
And how are those cards dead? Ignoring that CotV can be removed and require replaying, I have had 3 Chalices on board set at 3 different numbers before. Storm player scooped!

The fact that i have to find a solution to ponder+brainstorm describes by itself the powerlevel of those cards.

I seriously doubt CotV would see any play whatsoever if they only countered those 2 spells.
Fact is Legacy is full of 1-drops. From DRS, to Bolt, to Plow, to Delver, etc. Heck, Chalice doesn't even always bet set at '1'.

Why turn 1 and not 2? Because assuming that on turn 1 on the draw COTV is easily countered by Daze, Force, Spell Pierce etc. on turn 2 You have access to at least 7 starting cards +3 brainstorm\ponder cards, + 1 draw card at least you can find a counter in 11\60 cards when you have 8 counters. SO You will probably counter it easily, while if is it possible to cast on turn 1 is harder.

Assuming you have no threatening plays that bait the counters before hand, sure.

I used to resolve CotV against SDT Miracles past turn one almost every match. I'd bait them out with Exploration, Vortex, or whatever. If they managed to get Counter-Top online, I would bait them with a Loam. As I said, you can overwhelm a blue deck with more "must-counter" spells than they have counters.

I really don't understand why blue lover mage, pretend that other decks\strategy lovers people have to find solution and fill their deck with junkies, while they have not to do it.

I don't think I understand this sentence at all.

But for the records, I am not a "blue lover mage", whatever that means. I'd say I am only one of those three things! I play Lands.

[Zulabnar]

So how come 3x CotV counts as 3 cards, but 4x Ponder + 4x Brainstorm are only 2 cards? Really?

Because normally you chose to don't play cc1 card with cotv, not cc1 \cc2 cc3 and cc4.

How many time you draw Brainstorm and say "OH SHIT a FUCKING BRAINSTORM?" never.

I seriously doubt CotV would see any play whatsoever if they only countered those 2 spells.
Fact is Legacy is full of 1-drops. From DRS, to Bolt, to Plow, to Delver, etc. Heck, Chalice doesn't even always bet set at '1'.

Infact it is symmetrical, this is the reason it is not so strong. i burn my 1cc drop also.

I don't think I understand this sentence at all.

I mean: Why blue mage thinks that they could have overpowered cards, while other color has to find solution for specific cards (i.e. Brainstorm and cantrip) fullfilling their decks with garbage cards. If You play aggro You have to fullfill your deck with shitty card because overpowered cards like brainstorm permit to access to all purpose card (terminus? Snap? Will of the council?).


Also consider that card selection permited by Brainstorm will drive the format forever in a stagnant situation, where half of the top 8 are the same shell deck with 8-12 card changing.

[Crimhead]

"X Pros don't generally like to [do Y thing] even if it is profitable" citation needed

I guess you've never known anybody (or been the person) to turn down a supervisor position or a night shift despite the fact that it pays a little better? Once a person is earning a reasonable living, they have other motives besides money (aka, profitability).

Would you trade a job you love for a job you dislike for a measly 1-5% increase? I wouldn't.

I thought your original statement ("Nobody is going to chose that life if it means playing a deck they don't enjoy") meant that pro players would willingly sacrifice EV to play a deck that they find more 'fun', which I disagree with

That would make them the only professionals in the world who give zero consideration to job satisfaction when making career decisions.

"I think X deck is the best deck but I have no idea how to play it and therefore I have a better chance of winning by playing this weaker deck instead" then you aren't wrong, but it seems misleading to call this a 'personal reason'.

Totally not intending to mislead anybody.
I considered this a personal reason because it is a property of the person not the deck.

But would you not agree there is a high correlation between the play-styles a (good) player enjoys and the play-styles they are skilled with?

I think our arguments might be slightly disconnected because I am taking 'pro' to be synonymous with 'perfectly rational competitive agent' (and I think that for top-level competitive ANYTHING this assumption should be close to true as long as the playerbase is large enough), whereas you seem to have a more relaxed definition e.g. 'a person who likes games and is reasonably good at them' or something along those lines

By pro player I mean a player who derives a significant portion of their income from playing. They chose that lifestyle so they can do what they love doing.

[DarthVicious]

Why is everybody trying to sneak in this "assuming the winrate is the same" bit
The point is that a competitive player will search for an edge (real or not), whether it's 5% or 1% or whatever

Theres no way even casual players would think that they have the same chance winning a tournament with SnS as Miracles

First, I was simply attempting to provide an example for personal preferences in deck selection, regardless of who the player is. The assumption that both are just as likely to win was presented as a given for this specific example, it is not representative of anything factual. Attacking this argument just makes you look dumb, especially after quoting me.

Second, regardless of how robotic you seem to think a professional's decisions are, they're people too. They want to have fun, and there's as many ways to have fun as there are people that play this game. Including those that only have fun when winning, or those that just want to troll their opponent, or those that want an interesting challenge.

I guess you've never known anybody (or been the person) to turn down a supervisor position or a night shift despite the fact that it pays a little better? Once a person is earning a reasonable living, they have other motives besides money (aka, profitability).

Would you trade a job you love for a job you dislike for a measly 1-5% increase? I wouldn't.

Exactly. Noone is going to care if (in my example) Miracles has a measly '5% edge' in a handful of matchups over S&S. One tournament is not likely to reveal an edge that small, even a GP. That small of an 'edge' takes years to show itself in practical tournament results. Not to mention that those percentages change dramatically as the metagame changes with new releases, B&R changes, etc.

[non-inflammable]

You'd think CotV would never hit the table turn-1, but that is not my experience.
And why should it absolutely need to be a turn-1 play? What's wrong with baiting the counter turn-1 and dropping the hoser turn-2? I know from playing Enchantress and Lands vs blue decks that you can overwhelm them with "must counter" spells.

My post which you quoted above, was in reference to a need of new 2CMC cards that hurt the cantrip cartel; like chains of mephistopheles and spirit of the labyrinth.
If you had a "new" 2CMC card that hurt cantrips like spirit or chains, it would almost always be a turn 2 play.
You probably wouldn't play chains and chalice in the same deck, just sayin'...

You keep a hand that has this "new" 2CMC card that hurts cantrips and you go for it on turn 2.
Your turn 1 could be anything from a deathrite to a mirri's guile but optimally should be a thoughtseize or inquistion/duress.

Your opponent's turn 1 and possibly turn 2 are ponders/brainstorms and they sculpt their hand and then easily counter (free counters, yeah!) your "new" 2CMC turn 2 play.
You just got timewalked and your opponent says thank you for that free turn, but hey, you still have your turn 1 play, right?

That's why I posted a Leyline that does nothing by itself but it hurts cantrips but also has a deckbuilding cost that will take up slots in your 75.

I've only ever gotten chains into play once (against miracles) and I try often; sorry in advance for the italian version...

[Crimhead]

Because normally you chose to don't play cc1 card with cotv, not cc1 \cc2 cc3 and cc4.

How many time you draw Brainstorm and say "OH SHIT a FUCKING BRAINSTORM?" never.

That's not what I am saying.

If Chalice 2-4 are 3 dead cards, then they negate 8 cards in BS & Ponder - not 2 cards.

Accurate numbers please.

Also:

• Chalice negates other cards too.
• You are saying CotV 2-4 are bricks, but have also noted CotV dies to AD. Not really redundant in that case.

I mean: Why blue mage thinks that they could have overpowered cards, while other color has to find solution for specific cards (i.e. Brainstorm and cantrip) fullfilling their decks with garbage cards.

I don't even know where to start.
All I said was that turn-1 plays that hose BS go encountered all the time. I don't think you necessarily need to hose cantrips to beat cantrip decks either. Depends what you are playing.

If You play aggro You have to fullfill your deck with shitty card because overpowered cards like brainstorm permit to access to all purpose card (terminus? Snap? Will of the council?).

You don't play aggro in Legacy.

Also consider that card selection permited by Brainstorm will drive the format forever in a stagnant situation, where half of the top 8 are the same shell deck with 8-12 card changing.

I'm seeing about 1/3 of top-8s being Grixis Delver + Team America + Czech + BUG + Blade. Also I seriously doubt these decks share a common core of the same 48-52 cards!

Accurate numbers please.

[Claymore]

I'm seeing about 1/3 of top-8s being Grixis Delver + Team America + Czech + BUG + Blade. Also I seriously doubt these decks share a common core of the same 48-52 cards!

Apologies for the dog shit formatting, but...http://mtgtop8.com/topcards?f=LE&meta=39

Card Name Decks Avg

Brainstorm 57.7 % 4.0
Ponder 54.2 % 3.8
Force of Will 51.9 % 3.9
Polluted Delta 49.9 % 3.2
Wasteland 44.6 % 3.7
Volcanic Island 42.1 % 2.2
Deathrite Shaman 40.1 % 3.9
Tropical Island 39.2 % 1.4
Underground Sea 38.9 % 2.5
Misty Rainforest 38.1 % 2.4
Scalding Tarn 34.4 % 2.8
Bayou 31.4 % 1.6
Lightning Bolt 30.1 % 3.3
Flooded Strand 28.7 % 3.1
Verdant Catacombs 28.3 % 2.8
Gitaxian Probe 28.1 % 3.7
Daze 25.8 % 3.9
True-Name Nemesis 22.1 % 2.2
Delver of Secrets 21.7 % 4.0
Spell Pierce 21.7 % 1.8

Couldn't you just sleeve that up and play it as is?

Reformatting to separate lands and creatures:

The Legacy shell (35 cards)
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Force of Will
4 Deathrite Shaman
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Daze
2 True-Name Nemesis
4 Delver of Secrets
2 Spell Pierce
3 Lightning Bolt

Lands (25 cards):
3 Flooded Strand
3 Verdant Catacombs
3 Polluted Delta
4 Wasteland
2 Volcanic Island
1 Tropical Island
3 Underground Sea
2 Misty Rainforest
3 Scalding Tarn
2 Bayou

Cut 6 lands to go to 19, put in whatever unique flavor makes you special (such as Preordain), have 15 singletons as your sideboard. Deck to Beat.

I was going to compare the top few decks that made up the highest % of the metagame on there, but seeing that "most played cards" list being an actual Delver deck seemed easier.

[Zulabnar]

Apologies for the dog shit formatting, but...http://mtgtop8.com/topcards?f=LE&meta=39

Card Name Decks Avg

Brainstorm 57.7 % 4.0
Ponder 54.2 % 3.8
Force of Will 51.9 % 3.9
Polluted Delta 49.9 % 3.2
Wasteland 44.6 % 3.7
Volcanic Island 42.1 % 2.2
Deathrite Shaman 40.1 % 3.9
Tropical Island 39.2 % 1.4
Underground Sea 38.9 % 2.5
Misty Rainforest 38.1 % 2.4
Scalding Tarn 34.4 % 2.8
Bayou 31.4 % 1.6
Lightning Bolt 30.1 % 3.3
Flooded Strand 28.7 % 3.1
Verdant Catacombs 28.3 % 2.8
Gitaxian Probe 28.1 % 3.7
Daze 25.8 % 3.9
True-Name Nemesis 22.1 % 2.2
Delver of Secrets 21.7 % 4.0
Spell Pierce 21.7 % 1.8

Couldn't you just sleeve that up and play it as is?

Reformatting to separate lands and creatures:

The Legacy shell (35 cards)
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Force of Will
4 Deathrite Shaman
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Daze
2 True-Name Nemesis
4 Delver of Secrets
2 Spell Pierce
3 Lightning Bolt

Lands (25 cards):
3 Flooded Strand
3 Verdant Catacombs
3 Polluted Delta
4 Wasteland
2 Volcanic Island
1 Tropical Island
3 Underground Sea
2 Misty Rainforest
3 Scalding Tarn
2 Bayou

Cut 6 lands to go to 19, put in whatever unique flavor makes you special (such as Preordain), have 15 singletons as your sideboard. Deck to Beat.

I was going to compare the top few decks that made up the highest % of the metagame on there, but seeing that "most played cards" list being an actual Delver deck seemed easier.

That is the stagnant situation i talk about. (Since Years). Those are things already seen in Vintage (i play mtg since 1999).

[Crimhead]

I was going to compare the top few decks that made up the highest % of the metagame on there, but seeing that "most played cards" list being an actual Delver deck seemed easier.

Not sure what your point. Given that Delver Tempo is:

1. Is the most prominent archetype.
2. Is a pile of good-stuff cards.

It is no surprise that a list of the most played cards will resemble a Delver shell.

Good-stuff cards will always see more play than narrow cards, so when the top performing deck uses these cards, they are going to be everywhere. If the top performing deck were playing fewer all-purpose versatile cards (say Storm, D&T, Miracles, or whatever), its cards would not see as much play in other decks.

[Whitefaces]

How many time you draw Brainstorm and say "OH SHIT a FUCKING BRAINSTORM?" never.

Plenty of times, when the opponent has played a Chalice of the Void.

[Mr. Safety]

Apologies for the dog shit formatting, but...http://mtgtop8.com/topcards?f=LE&meta=39

Card Name Decks Avg

Brainstorm 57.7 % 4.0
Ponder 54.2 % 3.8
Force of Will 51.9 % 3.9
Polluted Delta 49.9 % 3.2
Wasteland 44.6 % 3.7
Volcanic Island 42.1 % 2.2
Deathrite Shaman 40.1 % 3.9
Tropical Island 39.2 % 1.4
Underground Sea 38.9 % 2.5
Misty Rainforest 38.1 % 2.4
Scalding Tarn 34.4 % 2.8
Bayou 31.4 % 1.6
Lightning Bolt 30.1 % 3.3
Flooded Strand 28.7 % 3.1
Verdant Catacombs 28.3 % 2.8
Gitaxian Probe 28.1 % 3.7
Daze 25.8 % 3.9
True-Name Nemesis 22.1 % 2.2
Delver of Secrets 21.7 % 4.0
Spell Pierce 21.7 % 1.8

Couldn't you just sleeve that up and play it as is?

Reformatting to separate lands and creatures:

The Legacy shell (35 cards)
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Force of Will
4 Deathrite Shaman
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Daze
2 True-Name Nemesis
4 Delver of Secrets
2 Spell Pierce
3 Lightning Bolt

Lands (25 cards):
3 Flooded Strand
3 Verdant Catacombs
3 Polluted Delta
4 Wasteland
2 Volcanic Island
1 Tropical Island
3 Underground Sea
2 Misty Rainforest
3 Scalding Tarn
2 Bayou

Cut 6 lands to go to 19, put in whatever unique flavor makes you special (such as Preordain), have 15 singletons as your sideboard. Deck to Beat.

I was going to compare the top few decks that made up the highest % of the metagame on there, but seeing that "most played cards" list being an actual Delver deck seemed easier.

This is a tautology. "If you take all the most played cards and put them into a list, then made a deck out of those cards, it would resemble the most played deck." The list is generated from the most played decks and the cards that populate those decks.

[Nielsie]

This is a tautology. "If you take all the most played cards and put them into a list, then made a deck out of those cards, it would resemble the most played deck." The list is generated from the most played decks and the cards that populate those decks.

If that would be true, than why doesn't it give me a nice legacy starter deck if I filter on `All decks of 2012`?
Why doesn't it give me a nice starter deck for modern?