[Inevitable Flamefest] 61 Card Decks

[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

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

- 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.