It was an interesting read, but I would've preferred you to develop your ideas a little more. It felt like just as we were getting to the core of things, the subject changed.
Feels like 2 concepts jammed in one article.
Regarding Nash Equilibrium, the correlation between that and the picking of a Legacy deck is a bit... weak. Since you admit that the decision of choosing a Legacy deck is complicated and has many factors, N.E. is only one influence out of many anyway. I wouldn't put that much weight.
As to the bluffing part, another more straight-forward article is the famous "who's the Beatdown" article: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/f..._Beatdown.html. In my opinion, that article and the 2nd part of this article is about the same.
I'm always interested in seeing game theory and other mathematics applied to magic (especially hypergeometric distributions), but I didn't take anything away from this other than some things can be looked at as Nash equilibrium, which kind of just comes across as pedantic.
For the metagame analysis I think it completely weakens the argument to take into account that player skill is most important for what deck to choose, as it doesn't really give you the equilibrium conditions. If a player can't play BUG delver for the life of them, it isn't really a choice that will affect the metagame decision.
Just saying that bluffing cards or when to play something in a Miracles matchup can be looked at as a Nash equilibrium isn't wrong, but it also isn't helpful. I think magic players already understand they need to weight when to play cards, and without any helpful conclusion about this (which wouldn't be helpful as soon as it is widely known, similarly due to game theory), it's more of an academic "look how big math concepts are similar to magic."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote