What Decks are 50-50 against the 'Field'?

[Raystar]

This

A very elitist assumption....

[Lemnear]

A very elitist assumption....

I agree. Assuming you are a supreme player just because you play the deck with the best anti-combo/creature MB is a joke.

[kombatkiwi]

I'm not a fan of the "I'm such a savant for playing Control/Gifts/Doomsday/etc" statements but assuming that the data posted in the BR thread is correct then he's kind of right

only a 51% win percentage for Miracles overall

SCG Legacy Results for Major Archetypes (DC - Providence)
January to now

MUD: 38-22-2, (63%)
RG Lands: 69-44-8, (61%)
Food Chain: 18-12-2, (60%)
BUG Delver: 138-97-10, (59%)
Infect: 60-44-2, (58%)
BURG Delver: 21-16, (57%)
UWR Stoneblade: 41-31-6, (57%)
Junk: 14-11, (56%)
Lands: 15-12-2, (56%)
Shardless BUG: 106-84-9, (56%)
Painter: 31-26-2, (54%)
RUG Delver: 99-86-7, (54%)
Grixis Delver: 12-11-3, (52%)
Miracles: 158-153-33, (51%)
DeadguyAle: 11-11-2, (50%)
Dredge: 58-59-2, (50%)
Elves: 95-95-4, (50%)
Grixis Control: 23-23-5, (50%)
Patriot: 64-65-5, (50%)
Storm: 114-116-7, (50%)
Twelvepost: 37-37-5, (50%)
Goblins: 19-20, (49%)
Sneak and Show: 94-97-5, (49%)
Death and Taxes: 123-131-14, (48%)
Maverick: 52-56-5, (48%)
Omnitell: 43-48-3, (47%)
Reanimator: 69-80-5, (46%)
Burn: 43-52-1, (45%)
Jund: 27-33-1, (45%)
Deathblade: 44-55-8, (44%)
UW Stoneblade: 14-18-3, (44%)
U/R Delver: 13-18, (42%)
Merfolk: 21-31-1, (40%)
Esper Stoneblade: 12-19-1, (39%)
Tin Fins: 7-12, (37%)
Nic Fit: 9-22-3, (29%)
Enchantress: 10-27-3, (27%)
High Tide: 7-22, (24%)

Edit
I meant to imply that skill is clearly important if it's overall 50% against the field but undoubtedly a DTB.
The statement that all Miracles wins are due to the miracle pilot being a better MTG player than their opponent is obviously hyperbole.

[Raystar]

I'm not a fan of the "I'm such a savant for playing Control/Gifts/Doomsday/etc" statements but assuming that the data posted in the BR thread is correct then he's kind of right

only a 51% win percentage for Miracles overall



Edit
I meant to imply that skill is clearly important if it's overall 50% against the field but undoubtedly a DTB.
The statement that all Miracles wins are due to the miracle pilot being a better MTG player than their opponent is obviously hyperbole.

I believe there are other effects being discounted:

• Miracles is probably the strongest deck in the meta: more people assemble it and bring it to tournament, this means that the percentage of "non dedicated" players is probably a bit higher than with other decks, possibly leading to a lower win percentage.
• Saturation: when the field gets saturated by an archetype you start seeing many mirror matches. The net result is that the winning percentage will probably level to an even state.

The points above are, of course, totally based on my biased view of the state of competitive Legacy. I don't possess data to back it apart from tournament reports where people are starting to play against Miracles more than 50% of the time.

[Quasim0ff]

Those results are pretty interested - I mean, three stoneblade variants with sub-44%, as well as Omnitell with below 50%.


*Worth noting is also, regarding Miracles: Miracles is a deck with folds to very few decks, but have a shot at beating pretty much every thing else. That's something good players will play, which also makes for it becoming the best deck. Simply due to the level of overall play from the (best) pilots.

[apple713]

I believe there are other effects being discounted:

• Miracles is probably the strongest deck in the meta: more people assemble it and bring it to tournament, this means that the percentage of "non dedicated" players is probably a bit higher than with other decks, possibly leading to a lower win percentage.
• Saturation: when the field gets saturated by an archetype you start seeing many mirror matches. The net result is that the winning percentage will probably level to an even state.

The points above are, of course, totally based on my biased view of the state of competitive Legacy. I don't possess data to back it apart from tournament reports where people are starting to play against Miracles more than 50% of the time.

just looking at the food chain numbers its easy to see that when a small number of dedicated players plays a deck it performs better. there is no way that food chain is 60% vs the meta. its solid but those numbers have factors like you have mentioned that have been left out and need to be taken into account.

In short, i do believe skill accounts for a lot of a decks potential. The number for miracles is probably representative of an average player playing the deck.

[Gunseng]

BG/x decks like Shardless BUG or Jund are good against Miracles. The combination of Tarmogoyf, card advantage from Ancestral or P.Fire+Liliana and Abrupt Decay for Counterbalance is great. The caveat is that you need to pray Miracles doesn't assemble a board of basic lands and topdeck Entreat the Angels for sad times.

And by good you mean "have a more or less equal matchup"? I play a lot of BUG Delver and I don't see myself favoured in any way against Miracles. You have to chip away their life points with a single threat at a time and hope that they don't topdeck a win condition which you can't counter. This is not fun, especially because they are a lot better in the late game than you are.

On topic: In my opinion Miracles is by far the strongest deck in the meta. It is either favoured or equal to all tier 1 decks and only at a disadvantage against random tier 2 decks which are played far less often. If it were more fun to play, I would pick it up in a heartbeat. I even consider it oppressive in the current meta.

[Quasim0ff]

And by good you mean "have a more or less equal matchup"? I play a lot of BUG and I don't see myself favoured in any way against Miracles. You have to chip away their life points with a single threat at a time and hope that they don't topdeck a win condition which you can't counter. This is not fun, especially because they are a lot better in the late game than you are.

On topic: In my opinion Miracles is by far the strongest deck in the meta. It is either favoured or equal to all tier 1 decks and only at a disadvantage against random tier 2 decks which are played far less often. If it were more fun to play, I would pick it up in a heartbeat. I even consider it oppressive in the current meta.

What BUG decks do you play? Delver?

[Gunseng]

Yep, BUG Delver. Are there any other ones? :)

[Quasim0ff]

Yep, BUG Delver. Are there any other ones? :)

Shardless :)?
That deck has a very good matchup with miracles. Do you play Hymn or Stifle BUG?

[Gunseng]

My list is (almost) identical to Bob Huang's. It is a Hymn Build and I have always played Hymn in the past. I have not played against too many miracles with this list, so this version may be better than my other lists in the past. Still, I wonder how you define a "very good" match up versus Miracles? 60% in BUG Delver's favor? Personally, I would not agree with this assessment.

[FoolofaTook]

A very elitist assumption....

It's the truth though. Miracles is a monster in the hands of a very good player. There are some people I sit down opposite when they are playing Miracles and I know I'll beat them with whatever I happen to be playing on the day. It's a pile very unforgiving of unforced errors and it makes people think two and three turns ahead all the time. It makes them balance the use of fetches more than any other pile. It puts people under more time pressure than any other pile.

You're right that Miracles is played by more unqualified players than any other list in the meta right now. That's because it has a fairly high bar to meet before you are really qualified to play it.

[Quasim0ff]

My list is (almost) identical to Bob Huang's. It is a Hymn Build and I have always played Hymn in the past. I have not played against too many miracles with this list, so this version may be better than my other lists in the past. Still, I wonder how you define a "very good" match up versus Miracles? 60% in BUG Delver's favor? Personally, I would not agree with this assessment.

No, Shardless BUG is favored towards the Shardless deck. That deck has so many angles of attack, as well as better CA than miracles. It can play a very strong control-setup, with planeswalkers, 2 for ones (or 1 for 4s with shardless > AV etc).

BUG Delver is pretty close to 50/50. That depends, highly, on playerskill as well as who goes first.

[Raystar]

It's the truth though. Miracles is a monster in the hands of a very good player. There are some people I sit down opposite when they are playing Miracles and I know I'll beat them with whatever I happen to be playing on the day. It's a pile very unforgiving of unforced errors and it makes people think two and three turns ahead all the time. It makes them balance the use of fetches more than any other pile. It puts people under more time pressure than any other pile.

You're right that Miracles is played by more unqualified players than any other list in the meta right now. That's because it has a fairly high bar to meet before you are really qualified to play it.

That' a different point of view than the one I commented upon, I agree to this. What was said was

"...miracles. People who play miracles win because they are better players than their opponents (generally speaking). The deck has pretty even matchups but shines in the hands of a good player..."

The above implies that Miracles appears as a better deck because people that play it are better players. This I don't agree: Miracles is a better deck, full stop. It is such a better deck that the community is starting to wonder if it is warping the meta around itself.

Of course it is a difficult deck to play and good players get the best out of it but the same applies to ANT, TES, Canadian, BUG, Shardless BUG and I don't hear the same statements about them.

[Quasim0ff]

That' a different point of view than the one I commented upon, I agree to this. What was said was

"...miracles. People who play miracles win because they are better players than their opponents (generally speaking). The deck has pretty even matchups but shines in the hands of a good player..."

The above implies that Miracles appears as a better deck because people that play it are better players. This I don't agree: Miracles is a better deck, full stop. It is such a better deck that the community is starting to wonder if it is warping the meta around itself.

Of course it is a difficult deck to play and good players get the best out of it but the same applies to ANT, TES, Canadian, BUG, Shardless BUG and I don't hear the same statements about them.

I do agree with the argumentation that, Miracles isn't* way less forgiving than any other legacy deck. There are very few decks (besides something like Sneak and Show) where you can just try to jam it, and then go off again and again, in case you don't get there.

However, it is MORE unforgiving, in my estimation, compared to something like Delver/Shardless, and likely on the same page as Storm, where you can really fuck it up for you, in case you miss something. I think the legends version is much less forgiving, compared to the ponder version, due to the amount of cards - thus ressources - you have available.

[plowshares]

I really like that every thread on here has become "Is Miracles oppressive". I do think that Miracles is one of the most unforgiving decks out there. I regularly playtest with several accomplished miracles (and legacy in general) players, and it can be a real struggle to have a respectable win percentage when I'm playing Canadian, which I believe has a 50-50 shot against the deck. However, at SCG opens and the like, it is very easy for me to beat worse Miracles players; they manage their resources poorly and I am able to capitalize on that. Miracles might be a more powerful weapon than something like Delver, Shardless, or DnT, but it is much more difficult to wield.

[Quasim0ff]

I really like that every thread on here has become "Is Miracles oppressive". I do think that Miracles is one of the most unforgiving decks out there. I regularly playtest with several accomplished miracles (and legacy in general) players, and it can be a real struggle to have a respectable win percentage when I'm playing Canadian, which I believe has a 50-50 shot against the deck. However, at SCG opens and the like, it is very easy for me to beat worse Miracles players; they manage their resources poorly and I am able to capitalize on that. Miracles might be a more powerful weapon than something like Delver, Shardless, or DnT, but it is much more difficult to wield.

Agree, it gets pretty boring, when every new thread ends with "how to smash the miracles foe?"

[FoolofaTook]

That' a different point of view than the one I commented upon, I agree to this. What was said was

"...miracles. People who play miracles win because they are better players than their opponents (generally speaking). The deck has pretty even matchups but shines in the hands of a good player..."

The above implies that Miracles appears as a better deck because people that play it are better players. This I don't agree: Miracles is a better deck, full stop. It is such a better deck that the community is starting to wonder if it is warping the meta around itself.

Of course it is a difficult deck to play and good players get the best out of it but the same applies to ANT, TES, Canadian, BUG, Shardless BUG and I don't hear the same statements about them.

Miracles is different than most of the lists above in that it really doesn't have bad matchups in the commonly played lists. The closest are the card advantage lists in the BGx realm and even against them Miracles can win playing hellbent for several turns. Top plus cantrips is just very strong at finding what you need when you need it.

Each of the lists you listed has a commonly played list or two that is basically a 30/70 matchup where it's not likely to win the match going in. Miracles doesn't have that in the commonly played lists at the moment.

[spirit of the wretch]

Miracles doesn't have that in the commonly played lists at the moment.

The OmniShow MU does seem pretty hard from my (admittedly limited) testing.

[LOLWut]

I believe there are other effects being discounted:
[...]

• Saturation: when the field gets saturated by an archetype you start seeing many mirror matches. The net result is that the winning percentage will probably level to an even state.

[...]

here are the records in non-mirror matches and match win percentages excluding draws for all archetypes with at least 20 matches against known decks