Does the Decks to Beat forum mean what people think it means?

[SuckerPunch]

A deck being on the DtB forum simply means that it had a number of top 8s in the recent past at large tournaments. It usually means that a deck is popular, that it sees a lot of play and is a matchup you should expect to face, and be prepared for.

Yet a lot of people here treat that to mean that the DtB forum encompasses the most competitive decks in the format, that it contains the cream of the crop decks in the format, the decks that stand a tier above the others. I am sure atleast some sourcers probably consider Threshold to be a more compeitive deck than any of the decks on the Established Decks forum.

Those two things are not interchangable.

Take Threshold for example. It top 8s at numerous tournaments and thus has never left the DtB forum.

But the real question is, does threshold top 8 as often as it deserves considering how much play it gets.

It seems like there is a crapload of Threshold lists at every single major tournament. One or two of them usually end up in the top 8. But considering how much of the field is made up of Threshold lists, even if every match was decided with a coin flip, a thresh list would have probably made the top 8.

A deck like Fairie Stompy on the other hand, barely sees any play. Maybe one or two lists show up at any given tourney. And yet, it manages to top 8 at quite a few of them. Calculated purely as a percentage in relation to how much play they see, I think a higher percentage of F. Stompy lists top 8 than Threshold. I think that probably holds true for a number of decks in the Established Decks forum.

If that is the case, wouldn't that mean that Fairie Stompy is a superior deck to Threshold (in terms of competitiveness, not in terms of popularity).

I might be wrong with my numbers. I readily admit that I didn't do the math. That's not the point though.

The point is that a deck making it on to the DtB forum, has more to do with how popular a deck is, than how competitive it is.

Still not buying my point.

Well, lets say in theory, that for the next 6 big tournaments, 50% of the players play Rebels. Would you be surprised if rebels claws it's way into the top 8 at a couple of these tournaments and winds up in the DtB forum?

A lot of people here would take rebels being on the DtB forum, to mean that it is one of the most competitive decks in the format. Even more people would run it, and it would top 8 in even greater frequency.

In reality, all that rebels making the DtB forum means is that Rebels is a very popular deck and that it is a matchup you should expect to face, and be prepared for.

That's not how most people would view it though.

[Nihil Credo]

If you check the Top 8 thread, you'll find several tournaments that include a full metagame breakdown. Comparing those to the respective Top Eights would be the best way to verify your theory.

[Jak]

I think it is simple. When you go to a tourney these are the decks you should expect to see and beat. Hence the name, Decks to Beat.

If a deck is being played a ton, it should be good so I do consider the decks in the DtB forum to be better. Not that they could beat every deck in established but they put up more and better results.

[URABAHN]

Does the Decks to Beat forum mean what people think it means?

I think I can safely speak for everyone on The Source when I say,

"Yes. Yes it does."

[DeathwingZERO]

The DtB forum provides people who are primarily going to be from (and playing in) established locations of Sourcers (mostly East Coast, sections of Europe) as what's the current trend of top performing decks.

The DtB forum isn't an end all one. Metagames differ greatly, and for the most part, it's not going to be common place. Rogue deckbuilders and players will start porting things from other formats, creating new tech, etc...and that will cause shifts.

Also, as pointed out, there's typically a metagame breakdown of most the Top 8 Historical's posts. You'd be surprised that statistically speaking, Thresh isn't putting up the kind of play numbers you'd like to think it is. It's not like it's 15-25% of the field all the time.

With that in mind, the DtB forum just gives people a list of decks that have good game against each other, or general decks seen in the format. They aren't set in stone, but changing also means that whatever decks deserve to be there (or decks that don't that still are), will have to perform differently and meet the criteria.

[Isamaru]

The theory makes sense, and I think there are actually a few articles about it. Obviously, if 50% of the people at a tournament play Deck X, Deck X has a good statistical chance of making Top 8, even if it is bad. (Even if 99% of people take Deck X, and Deck X is 60Island.dec, then it would still make Top 8 just by math.)

So this doesn't have anything to do with your question: "Decks to Beat" holds its meaning throughout. It makes sense. It's just what you'll have to beat, whether it's good or not; it's what's being played, statistically.

[Obfuscate Freely]

I am sure atleast some sourcers probably consider Threshold to be a more compeitive deck than any of the decks on the Established Decks forum.
A lot of people (myself included) hold Threshold to be the best deck in the format. Yes, that would mean that it is more competitive than other decks.

But the real question is, does threshold top 8 as often as it deserves considering how much play it gets.

It seems like there is a crapload of Threshold lists at every single major tournament. One or two of them usually end up in the top 8. But considering how much of the field is made up of Threshold lists, even if every match was decided with a coin flip, a thresh list would have probably made the top 8.

A deck like Fairie Stompy on the other hand, barely sees any play. Maybe one or two lists show up at any given tourney. And yet, it manages to top 8 at quite a few of them. Calculated purely as a percentage in relation to how much play they see, I think a higher percentage of F. Stompy lists top 8 than Threshold. I think that probably holds true for a number of decks in the Established Decks forum.

If that is the case, wouldn't that mean that Fairie Stompy is a superior deck to Threshold (in terms of competitiveness, not in terms of popularity).
You are correct that any useful measure of a deck's relative success has to take into account how often it is played. The simplest way to do this, as you describe, is to compare a deck's representation in tournaments to that deck's representation in the elimination rounds of those tournaments. This ratio can then be compared to that of other decks, and you can get a good idea of which decks really are performing the best.

About a year ago, Mad Zur did some number crunching of exactly this sort. It was in response to some claims made about control decks (mostly Landstill) that were very similar to your claim about Faerie Stompy. Obviously, the data is dated, but it does offer some food for thought.

First, he tallied up the numbers for control decks. (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138080&postcount=79)

So in regards to Landstill:
-In 2006, it was 2.13% of the field in those eight tournaments, 1.56% of the T8s in those tournaments, and 2.78% of the T8s overall.
-In 2007, it was 8.91% of the field in those three tournaments, 4.17% of the T8s in those tournaments, and 6.25% of the T8s overall.
-Over the full eleven tournaments, it was 3.98% of the field and 2.27% of T8s.
-Over all tournaments within that time, it was 3.85% of T8s.
-Over all tournaments, it has been 6.58% of T8s.
You can also lump all of the control decks together. Over the eleven tournaments with available field breakdowns, control decks made up an average of 13.16% of the field, and an average of 12.50% of the decks in the elimination rounds (Top 8s).

Next, Zur performed the same analysis for the accepted best three decks at the time, Goblins, Threshold, and Solidarity. (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138250&postcount=100)

For example, we can see the following about Goblins:

-In 2006, was 14.97% of the field in those eight tournaments, 20.31% of the T8s in those tournaments, and 19.44% of the T8s overall.
-In 2007, it was 14.97%% of the field in those three tournaments, 16.67% of the T8s in those tournaments, and 18.75%% of the T8s overall.
-Over the full eleven tournaments, it was 16.00% of the field and 19.32% of T8s.
-Over all tournaments within that time, it was 19.23% of T8s.
-Over all tournaments, it has been 19.08% of T8s.
We can similary summarize Threshold's numbers:

-In 2006, Threshold was 11.45% of the field in eight sample tournaments (all of the ones with available field breakdowns), 14.06% of the T8s in those tournaments, and 13.89% of the T8s overall.
-In 2007, Threshold was 9.63% of the field in three tournaments, 16.67% of the T8s in those tournaments, and 12.50% of the T8s overall.
-Over the full eleven tournaments, Threshold was 10.95% of the field and 14.77% of T8s.
-Over all tournaments within that time, Threshold was 13.46% of T8s, but this includes data from tournaments without field breakdowns.

These numbers clearly show that Threshold and Goblins (as well as Solidarity) performed statistically better than Landstill, and control decks on the whole, throughout 2006 and the first half of 2007. Each of the Big Three made up a greater percentage of T8s than it did of the field, while the control decks did the opposite.

I think this analysis does a good job of describing just how significant the advantages of playing the best decks really are. Consider the ratios of T8s to field representation:

Landstill - 0.57
all control decks - 0.95
Goblins - 1.27
Threshold - 1.35

These are huge differences!


Anyway, as I said before, this data is dated, and it hardly proves anything anymore. Today, Solidarity is long gone from the DTBF, and Landstill is back in. However, I think it is worth considering that this data did nothing to challenge the contents of the DTBF at the time. As imperfect as the DTB selection process was and is, it had still correctly highlighted Goblins, Threshold, and Solidarity as widely played, consistently successful decks.

If nothing else, Mad Zur's work can serve as an example of this kind of analysis being carried out and presented, in case anyone would like to do it today.