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...
“Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
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.
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.
YES!Originally Posted by Iranon
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.
I'm here to kick ass and play card games.
BZK
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
“Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
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.
WHAT? No, just no.
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.
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.
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.
So you guys would advocate 62 cards?
Early one morning while making the round,
I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
I went right home and I went to bed,
I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.
No, I didn't miss your point. I agree with most of what you said, just not that you posted false numbers.
Your false numbers are misleading, and are actually worse than what would happen if you add one card.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Early one morning while making the round,
I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
I went right home and I went to bed,
I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.
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'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
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
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
