[Inevitable Flamefest] 61 Card Decks

[Zilla]

The timeless argument about 60 vs. 61 card decks is currently overwhelming actual productive discussion in other threads. I welcome you to discuss insanely difficult math and other arbitrary rhetoric on the topic here. If the mod staff sees it being discussed in any other threads, they will delete it outright and point you to this thread. Enjoy.

[Tacosnape]

60 card deck >> 61 card deck.

That was easy.

[Firebrothers]

I dont believe that people need to be fighting about his so much. What a waste of time. If you want to run 61 cards run 61. If you want to run 60 run 60. Hell if you want to run 62 Hell run 62 cards who cares. It is a personal preference and we shouldent be fighting about a topic that is so insignifigant.

[Alfred]

I will always err on the side of 60 card decks being better, because if the trend towards being worse is true in the extreme it must be true in the particular. 60 card decks, unless there is some insane mitigating cicumstances will almost without fail be better than a 61 card deck. 61 card decks are someone failing to make the appropriate cut.

[Togit460]

there are, however, rare circumstances which allow 61 cards in a deck to conceivably better than 60. I'll list a few here so that people will have something to talk about beside mathematical values.

Hypothetically, there may be a need for 61 cards due to 2 different control decks that lock each other from winning or losing except by whoever can still draw, in this particular situation 61 cards is correct, although it'd still be purely metagame thinking. Also, there may come a situation where a deck needs to fit in a silver bullet for another deck, but cannot cut any other cards without losing significant amounts of power within the deck.

Both of these examples are highly unlikely and more than a bit extreme, but for now they seem correct in reasoning. Thoughts?

[Deep6er]

Wow, my vote for Best Thread Title Ever is going to go to this one. On a note of having something almost relevant to the discussion, it's unwise to play a 61 card deck if you're intent on drawing a Four of that you NEED to win. In my case, High Tide. Even though I've been tempted to add a 61 card (usually Twincast), it's not justifiable in Solidarity. However, should the deck be based off of inherent synergies (Threshold), I wouldn't be adamantly against. If the deck as a sum of its parts is greater than each part as a whole, then a 61 card is defensible. That probably wasn't worded as eloquently as it could have been. Look for an edit sooner or later. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is ...Awesome Thread Title? At least I think I am. Stupid other people making me think. Goddamn math. I'm not thinking too clearly because that fucking math shit is stupid hard. In fact, I've probably gone stupid thinking about it. Thanks dickheads.

[Citrus-God]

Twinkie.... I mean, your asian, you should be good at math.

Anyways, if your playing a deck that relies on certain things based on the quanityt of something in your deck such as opening hands, lands, combo pieces, cantrips, or the like.... dont run ever run 61 cards. I wont stop you if you run 61 cards in a deck like Rifter, but if your playing a good deck that needs reliancy and consistentcy and speed like Goblins, stick to 60. Getting those turn 1 Lackeys or Vials are so important.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

While still in development, 61 or even 62 cards lets you get a feel for who's not pulling their weight. 60 is really the only number for a truly finished decklist in my opinion.


Other than, y'know, Battle of Wits.

[Watcher487]

I dont believe that people need to be fighting about his so much. What a waste of time. If you want to run 61 cards run 61. If you want to run 60 run 60. Hell if you want to run 62 Hell run 62 cards who cares. It is a personal preference and we shouldent be fighting about a topic that is so insignifigant.

This right here deserves the QFMFT.

Guys, if anyone has a problem with a deck that is 61 as opposed to 60 then it's very simple if you think the person posting the deck is DEFICIENT, then build the deck the way you want it built and STFU.

[Machinus]

Dave, I'm surprised at you. Usually you come to the table having done your homework. Everyone knows that 61 card decks are better - in fact, the more cards you run, the better your deck is! Larger decks = better mana ratios = more wins.

Basically kids, play as many cards as you have sleeves. They come in packs of 100 for a reason.

[C.P.]

What an amusing title for a thread.

Anyway, the thread was not very productive so far so can someone post math behind why 61 card deck deserves a look? I've seen some of them here and there, but it would be great if someone who really knows their math would sum the whole thing up.

Well, my money is on 60 cards so far. There were times that I really could not cut a thing from my deck so I played 61, but I believe the difference will accumulate as you play more games. However, idea of being able to play 61 cards is tempting, if it can be justified.

[Obfuscate Freely]

Everyone would do well to read 61 Cards - Magic Russian Roulette by Pat Chapin. Not only does he do a great job explaining why running more than the minimum number of cards is always theoretically wrong, but he also covers most of the hypothetical "exceptions" people bring up and why they are extremely unlikely to actually be exceptions.

I dont believe that people need to be fighting about his so much. What a waste of time. If you want to run 61 cards run 61. If you want to run 60 run 60. Hell if you want to run 62 Hell run 62 cards who cares. It is a personal preference and we shouldent be fighting about a topic that is so insignifigant.

Optimizing a deck has nothing to do with personal preference, and this forum exists for the purpose of discussing the optimization of decks. If you find that to be a waste of time, don't post.

[Atwa]

Dave, I'm surprised at you. Usually you come to the table having done your homework. Everyone knows that 61 card decks are better - in fact, the more cards you run, the better your deck is! Larger decks = better mana ratios = more wins.

Basically kids, play as many cards as you have sleeves. They come in packs of 100 for a reason.

My sleeves come in packs of 50, but for some reason the Head Judge of the latest event I attended to didn't agree with you.

[merfolk_robot]

60 cards is generally better in practice, but isn't strictly better in theory. For instance, if the cardpool had more functional reprints, then it might make sense to play more cards to get a precise ratio. Yes, this would require a very large number of functional reprints. However, say that there were so many funtional reprints that they were essentially infinite. You would probably play an enormous deck because, playing with larger numbers, more precise ratios are possible. However, not only do enough functional reprints not exist, the amount of testing necessary to determine ratios so precise that million-card decks are necessary is probably approaching the normal human life span, or at least a super-long time.

It is not the case that it is always better in practice- it's possible that a deck will be better with the different ratios offered by other deck sizes, but it would be impossible to playtest so much that the difference in ratios was greater than the margin of error.

[outsideangel]

60 cards is generally better in practice, but isn't strictly better in theory. For instance, if the cardpool had more functional reprints, then it might make sense to play more cards to get a precise ratio. Yes, this would require a very large number of functional reprints. However, say that there were so many funtional reprints that they were essentially infinite. You would probably play an enormous deck because, playing with larger numbers, more precise ratios are possible. However, not only do enough functional reprints not exist, the amount of testing necessary to determine ratios so precise that million-card decks are necessary is probably approaching the normal human life span, or at least a super-long time.

It is not the case that it is always better in practice- it's possible that a deck will be better with the different ratios offered by other deck sizes, but it would be impossible to playtest so much that the difference in ratios was greater than the margin of error.

Someone with much more knowledge of computers than I could probably write a program to do it.

On topic, I agree with Gearhart. (did I spell that right?) In a deck where you have very strong four-ofs that you want to consistently see, like Goblin Lackey or High Tide, you want to run the absolute minimum number of cards to maximize your chances of seeing a copy. In other decks that don't necessarily rely on a particular card but on a more general suite of threats and/or answers I feel like 61 cards can sometimes be alright for balancing the number of lands in the deck.

Usually if I include the 61st card, it's a land card. Sometimes I want just a slightly higher percentage of lands, or there aren't any cards that I feel I can reasonably cut. In other decks, like say, Burn, all of your cards basically do the same thing, so sometimes that 61st card can be just right for getting the perfect percentage of mana sources vs. spells. It may not be something I can necessarily prove with data, but often times 61 just "feels" correct.

[Deep6er]

Gearheart.

No, but whatever. A lot of people spell it wrong so I've almost stopped caring.

@Machinus: LOLZ. Awesome.

[Tao]

Every deck wants to maximize the chance of drawing their 4-offs as soon as possible.

Threshold wants to draw their Mongeese as fast as possible. VG definetely wants Lackey and/or Vial in the opening 7. Solidarity wants High Tide, FS wants Chalice/Tomb, Tendrils Combo and Deadguy want Dark Ritual, Landstill wants Force of Will/Standstill,

n other decks, like say, Burn, all of your cards basically do the same thing, so sometimes that 61st card can be just right for getting the perfect percentage of mana sources vs. spells.

Burn wants to draw as many Bolts (Lava Spike, Chain Lightning) as possible, etc. etc.

So if you add a Goblin Pyromancer (random card in deck X) to your Goblin deck as card 61 and have it in your opening hand with Vial (random strong turn 1 play in deck X) on top of your Library it will cost you the game. Therefore I think anyone who plays 61 cards decks does not understand his deck

[Leftconsin]

I have resigned myself to the belief that 61 cards in a deck will undoubtedly help in such a small number of cases that it does not warrant my consideration for anything except 60 ('cept BoW decks). The only real instance I can think of right now is if your decklist HAD to have 21 land and making something a 3-of would ruin the deck. This case is unrealistic.

[Nightmare]

So if you add a Goblin Pyromancer (random card in deck X) to your Goblin deck as card 61 and have it in your opening hand with Vial (random strong turn 1 play in deck X) on top of your Library it will cost you the game. Therefore I think anyone who plays 61 cards decks does not understand his deck

The question then boils down to this: How often is this situation likely to happen? Is it statistically more likely with (random other card in a 60 card deck) vs that Pyromancer, and if so, how relevant is that difference?

It's all risk vs. reward, unless you're playing bad cards.

[Deep6er]

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. A very BAD hand is too many creatures. While I don't advocate Threshold running a 61st card, I'm saying it's one of the FEW decks that COULD. Also, I read the article and I disagree with just a couple things. 1 - Patrick Chapin has destroyed his credibility by publishing decklists that have matchups that are vastly different than what they should be. 2 - His theory is flawed because he's basing his math on ZERO card manipulation. Most of the decks in legacy have A LOT of manipulation, whether it be Solidarity's deck, or Threshold's cantrips or even various fetchlands/Matrons/Ringleaders from Goblins. What I'm trying to say is that the successful decks in Legacy all have various card manipulation. His theory stands on the opening hand however, which is why I think that only decks with a large amount of manipulation and lacking the need to START with a given Four of in their opening hand are qualified aplicants to the 61 card theory. In reality though, the 61st card seems rather ineffecient and unnecessary. I was just trying to say that the theory works for THRESHOLD and nobody else (unless they manage to work with Threshold's draw engine) and that while Pat Chapin is probably a great guy, and I feel no anger/hate towards him, I take most of his words/theory with a grain of salt.... or whatever the appropriate saying is.