[Discussion] Is 60 cards an absolute necessity in all decks?

[FoolofaTook]

I'm curious what people think about the following questions relating to deck size and composition. I'm not going to respond at any point in the thread because I'm more interested in hearing what people have to think about the issue than any other consideration.

1. Is 60 cards an absolute restriction on competitive decks or is there possibly a subset of decks that might be stronger via added flexibility vs higher predictability at 61?

2. Does an appropriately high land base for the deck, say 27 or 28 lands, make any difference in the calculation above?

3. Does a very high draw rate which produces fast card advantage as part of it's effect make any difference in the calculation above?

The questions arise from the very tough choices that people often make when they are trying to pare a deck down to 60 cards exactly or to fit an additional solution or capability into a 60 card deck that is very tightly wound already.

The last question is: does anybody know what the actual difference in predictability is between having a 60 card deck and a 61 card deck?

[raharu]

Personally I've been wondering this as well because I was trying to draft a starting point for wtfreshold and was having an epicly hard time making everything fit, and I'm still not happy with what it looks like. Also, it seems like some decks, like Tarmotog, for instance, don't really have enough slots for what all they want to do.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

We've actually wasted quite a lot of words exploring this issue, but I think it comes down to three points;

1) If you're dealing with a list that's still untempered, it's probably better in a lot of cases to run 61 or even, perhaps, 62 cards than to cut the wrong cards.

2) In a list that's finalized, or near enough there that the above shouldn't be an issue, there are probably obtuse mathematical reasons why it's better to run 61 cards (although 62 seems unlikely).

3) Stephen Hawking and Tony Stark are probably the only people on the planet I would believe if they said they ran 61 cards for the above reason. The level of math skills we'd be talking about is insane. It's functionally better to just run 60 cards because you didn't graduate MIT at 16.

[m03]

I've seen some recent high-placing vintage lists that ran 61 and 62 cards. The problem here is that we don't have the tutoring and drawing power that vintage does, and neither do we have the well defined list of cards that every decks should run, so it's probably best to just suck it up and cut your list down to 60.

[DeathwingZERO]

Just play Battle of Wits. Never have to worry about those spare 1 or 2 cards ever again.

[Lego]

Just play Battle of Wits. Never have to worry about those spare 1 or 2 cards ever again.

But what's the right number? 240? 242? The agony!

[Captain_Morgan]

If you can tutor and thin your deck a lot, I used to go as high as 65. But I've always had a thing for "win more" cards.

[Tilde]

Given that some cards are better than others, you're always going to have a card that's the worst card in your deck. If you have 61 cards, and you drop the worst card, that improves the card quality of your deck overall.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

But what's the right number? 240? 242? The agony!

220-230 should be plenty. You should be running a shit-ton of tutoring.

I once made a 1001 card decklist, although I never built it. The plan was to get lots of game wins through having opponents accidentally knock the fucker over and reveal my deck. Also, Thought Lash.

[xsockmonkeyx]

New rule: you can play a 16 card sideboard, however you are required to shuffle up 1 in the main, giving you a 61 card library. Would you do it? Is there any advantage to having 76 cards to choose from games 2, and 3, if your draw %'s are down across the board due to a 61 card library? The answer is probably 'no'.

[raharu]

All the mathematical points are valid, but there are some decks that can't do everything they want to in a 60 card list, whereas 63-ish cards would make the deck work right. My question is "would the deck being able to squeeze in x number of cards for an important function (MD spot removal, discard, etc.) be worth the reduced predictability of the deck?"

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It's better to just cut down a 4-of or a 3-of or to not fit in the extra cards at all. The only good reason to run more cards is if you're absolutely not sure which cards to cut.

[Belgareth]

The maths isn't mind blowingly hard (Or I'm secretly Tony Stark), but yes 61 cards is very very slightly better.
It also varies depending on number of fetchlands/cantrips involved but it's such a small difference that most people would mess up their deck with an unneeded card 90% of the time.

[Nihil Credo]

My question is "would the deck being able to squeeze in x number of cards for an important function (MD spot removal, discard, etc.) be worth the reduced predictability of the deck?"
Provide the list. As phrased, that's wayyy too broad a question.



Anyway, these are articles everyone interested in the subject will probably want to read:


61 Cards, Magic Russian Roulette (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/12478.html)
Innovations - Michigan States Report (Yeah, 66 Cards... What of it?) (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14933.html)
Deep Analysis - The Real Deal on 61+ (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14949.html)

Don't forget to check out the forum threads, either (especially for the third article which has a few objective mistakes that get spotted).

[Sanguine Voyeur]

Here (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4928) is a 100+ discussion on the topic.

[raharu]

Provide the list. As phrased, that's wayyy too broad a question.

Hand Crafting: 7
4 Brainstorm
3 Sensei's Divining Top

Threats: 12
2 Nantuko Monastery
4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Stoic Angel

Disruption: 12
4 Thoughtseize
4 Counterbalance
4 Force of Will

Creature Control: 7
4 Swords to Plowshares
3 Pernicious Deed

Recursion: 3
1 Volrath's Stronghold
2 Crucible of Worlds

Lands: 19
4 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
4 Tropical Island
3 Underground Sea
2 Tundra
2 Island

Yes, that's 60, but it wants Ponder. Everything else is basically mandatory, and cutting the 4-ofs down is a bad plan, and cutting the 3-ofs down is a bad plan, and you can't cut down the 2-ofs because then you may as well not even bother to run them, right? So what now?

[Sanguine Voyeur]

Try a 3/3 split of Ponders and Brainstorms then whittle away the weakest cards.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Why does that list want Ponder? To make it easier to find it's best cards? Do I have to spell out the irony? Might as well bump it to 70 so you can fit in Sylvan Library and Serum Visions.

I'd cut the cute but unnecessary Crucible/Wasteland combo, for one thing, before I thought about going over 60. You're just going to have a harder and harder time setting that up over 60 anyway.

[raharu]

Why does that list want Ponder?
Consistancy + threshold. Fishing out the CB lock, Crucible, Deeds. Threshold is an important concern because 1/10th of the cards in the deck are dead without it. Mongoose is worthless without it and Monastery is a 'Needle'd Wasteland without it.

:confused: Wasteland was a trop. Fix'd.

TarmoTog seems like a better example of this. While there are various lists, most of them have differing issues that X number of non-core slots cover, but some lists don't have pinpoint removal, others don't have supertight manabases, etc. Not that the lists are impaired or bad, per say, but there are places that a few extra cards in the MD would seem to help.

[Citrus-God]

Hand Crafting: 7
4 Brainstorm
3 Sensei's Divining Top

Threats: 12
2 Nantuko Monastery
4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Stoic Angel

Disruption: 12
4 Thoughtseize
4 Counterbalance
4 Force of Will

Creature Control: 7
4 Swords to Plowshares
3 Pernicious Deed

Recursion: 3
1 Volrath's Stronghold
2 Crucible of Worlds

Lands: 19
4 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
4 Tropical Island
3 Underground Sea
2 Tundra
2 Island

Yes, that's 60, but it wants Ponder. Everything else is basically mandatory, and cutting the 4-ofs down is a bad plan, and cutting the 3-ofs down is a bad plan, and you can't cut down the 2-ofs because then you may as well not even bother to run them, right? So what now?

So you cut 2 Monasteries and 2 Crucibles for 4 Ponders. There, cut two 2-ofs for a playset.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Or cut the Deeds that blow up your own Goyfs, Mongeese and Counterbalance.

For example, here's how that list wants to look:

Library Manipulation:
9 Brainstorm
3 Sensei's Divining Top

Creatures:
9 Tarmogoyf
1 Mystic Enforcer

Control:
6 Thoughtseize
6 Swords to Plowshares
6 Force of Will
3 Counterbalance

+17 land

Now, there are legality issues why you can't run that deck. But you want to run as close to that deck as possible. Every card you add reduces the percentage of your deck that's Tarmogoyf, Counter/Top, or Thoughtseize/StP. In an ideal world, you could just run your five very best cards. But you have to fit in cards that are below those in power level. But you can control, to some extent, how many of those suboptimal cards you run. So do so.

[SilverGreen]

What in the hell is an Stoic Angel??

[Skeggi]

What in the hell is an Stoic Angel??

New card from Shards of Alara:

Stoic Angel 1UWG
Creature - Angel
Flying, vigilance
Players can't untap more than one creature during their untap steps.
#199/249 3/4

[Forbiddian]

It's not an absolute requirement to run 60 cards. It really comes down to preference. The mathematics overwhelmingly point toward a 60-card deck being better than a 61-card deck, but it really comes down to personal opinion.

The difference between 60 and 61 is quite small. In fact, it's 1. Let's break it down, first pros of cutting that last card (down to 60) and then the pro of running 61 cards.


- In the theoretical ranking of each card being ranked from best to worst, by NOT cutting the 61st card (the worst, on average), you're decreasing the quality of your deck.

- You decrease the probability of drawing a given card that "earned" its place in the deck. If you run 61, you'll draw the staples less often.

- You decrease the consistency of the deck. Follow me on this one because a lot of 61ers (e.g. the idiot who wrote the SCGs article about a 70-card deck) didn't think this far. Say you run 30 land and 30 spells. If you draw a hand with no land, you have 23 spells and 30 land remaining, meaning that the next draw has a 56.6038% chance of being a land. If you had run 31 lands and 31 spells (the next even number, just two additional cards), your chance of drawing a land drops to 24/55 or 56.3636%. Seems like a small difference, but this adds up over time, every draw. In fact, with a 30/30 deck, you have a 0.527% chance of drawing that improbable zero land hand. With a 31/31 deck, you have a 0.593% chance of drawing that zero land hand.

It's a fraction of a percent, but it's a 12.5% increase in 0-land hands!

You keep the SAME ratio to start, but that ratio changes as you draw cards. When you draw non-lands, you decrease the number of non-lands in your library while leaving the same number of lands. This increases the probability that you draw a land on the next turn (slightly). It adds up over the thousands of draws you'll see in a tournament, though.

Playing a larger deck reduces the impact of this phenomenon. Playing an infinitely large theoretical deck with half lands (where the ratio does NOT change no matter how many cards you draw), the probability of a no-land hand shoots up to 0.7813% or about 50% more no-land hands than good ole' 60. This (as I call it) “assisted regression to the mean” prevents against not only 0-1 land hands (and 5+ land hands), but it’s also the reason why everyone runs those damn fetchlands that take 30 seconds and a hitpoint to dig out a freakin’ mountain when they’re playing monored. It’s because they DON’T want to see another land, so it’s worth the 1 life just to increase their ratio of business to land. It’s worth 1 life every time (and 60 bucks upfront for the playsets) to monored goblins, it’s probably worth cutting that last card to you.

This is the BIG reason why 60 is better than 61. Not just the lower chance of getting your 4-ofs (although it’s flashy to talk about Wraths of God(s?) winning or losing games for you), it’s the mulligans. It’s the mana floods. It’s the mana screws. They’re the *main* reason why your kickass deck always beats goblins in testing (when you mulligan for free or w/e and you don’t count mana flood or screw games) but always gets knocked out by a few untimely land draws in the tournaments. Going to 60 does a lot to help your ratios on EVERY card draw get you back to your intended ratio of 0.76 lands to business and lets you get back to your business of kicking ass (at a 1.3 ratio, BAM!).

Now, pros of running 61 or more (keep in mind this is a much more concrete reason than math could provide):


+ Here’s the reason I do it: It REALLY messes with some people’s brains. In poker, there are a lot of players who try to put other players “on tilt” (or make them pissed off so they make mistakes… a lot of mistakes, enough to make the effort worth it). Basically it’s doing that on the most subtle of levels. You can spot the players who will be pissed off at you for stubbornly playing 61 cards. They wear old tennis shoes, worn out shorts, and socks pulled all the way up. There are things above the waist to look for as well: mostly ugliness. You can picture them now, with about 7 dollars worth of clothes and a binder full of Power Nine. They’re your main competition: they actually know what they’re doing in this children’s card game. They’ll know that 60 cards is much better than 61.

Pile shuffle it out, make sure they see that you have 61, especially in matchups that require a lot of player interaction and decisions instead of just like solitaire combo.

Stall the round out: You could pretend you slipped an extra card in somewhere (if you won game one and have a deck that can stall it out for example). Everyone will count your sideboard as soon as you present your deck to them, and then they’ll probably count to 61 and request a deck check, especially if they’re down a game and need the sleezy win. If the judge checks it make sure to deck check the kid right after. BAM. 15 minutes gone. Sometimes judges won’t do it on demand, but a lot of judges are bored and will comply with a spot deck check regardless of floor rules.

Play it stupid: Ask why everyone always plays 60 cards… repeatedly until he explains it to you. Pretend to be new and stuff (and dumb). You won’t believe the kind of mistakes people make when they think you’re stupid. If they think you’re Kai Budde, they’ll be extra careful, but if the people think you’re an idiot (or better a noob), they might cut you some breaks or even make some mistakes (like ignoring your defensive options). The 61-card choice is something tangible that good players will clue in on as proof that you’re actually dumb/a noob.

Piss them off completely: If you ever broke up with your lovely sweetheart when you were pissed off, imagine what a dumb kid would do at a card game? He might say something inappropriate and get a DQ. He might attack without thinking or ignore your defensive options before trying to combo off.

Obnoxiously flaunt your 61 card deck. Whenever he draws a card, say that he’s one step closer to decking (but he has to believe that you’re serious, otherwise he’ll just think it’s a joke). Make overt religious comments because most smart people are atheist and will get pissed off if you try to convert them. If you think he’s Christian, make up some dumb religion like Judaism that will confuse him and make him defensive. Pray before each card draw that you draw your 61st card. Ignore his explanations that numbering the cards is ridiculous. Claim that you have faith that 61 cards is better than 60 cards, and you believe that god rewards faith. If you happen to topdeck, pretend it was the 61st card that won the game and tell him that it’s a sign from god that he should convert.


It might seem silly to play 61 cards just to bolster your ability to act like an idiot and an asshole, but you only need to get a win every few hundred games for it to pay off.

Or you could just… not worry so much about 1 card matter and just play the game for fun? In case you’re one of those people who goes to church on Sundays and plays with 61 cards… the pro about 61 cards was designed to be taken seriously.




...By you. SHADENFROYDFTW

[Skeggi]

You sir, are brilliant. Best logic about 61-card decks ever! Very inspiring :wink:

[Brehn]

win

[Citrus-God]

It might seem silly to play 61 cards just to bolster your ability to act like an idiot and an asshole, but you only need to get a win every few hundred games for it to pay off.

Dude... this is internet logic.... awesome....

[thefreakaccident]

1st of all: WIN!

2nd of all: Who are you, and how come I have never seen you on here before?!

3rd of all: I think I will do just that just to piss off some of the people at the next tournament I attend :wink:

[Citrus-God]

1st of all: WIN!

2nd of all: Who are you, and how come I have never seen you on here before?!

3rd of all: I think I will do just that just to piss off some of the people at the next tournament I attend :wink:

And I think that post just promoted him to Adept status? Seriously, I don't think I've seen that highlight him before that post.

[Atwa]

Haha,

that guy only has 1 post made yet. Remember when P_R changed the postcounts in that stupid thead about adepts and post-counts?

This is just the mods having a little fun. I liked it though :)

[Anusien]

Stall the round out: You could pretend you slipped an extra card in somewhere (if you won game one and have a deck that can stall it out for example). Everyone will count your sideboard as soon as you present your deck to them, and then they’ll probably count to 61 and request a deck check, especially if they’re down a game and need the sleezy win. If the judge checks it make sure to deck check the kid right after. BAM. 15 minutes gone. Sometimes judges won’t do it on demand, but a lot of judges are bored and will comply with a spot deck check regardless of floor rules.

Play it stupid: Ask why everyone always plays 60 cards… repeatedly until he explains it to you. Pretend to be new and stuff (and dumb). You won’t believe the kind of mistakes people make when they think you’re stupid. If they think you’re Kai Budde, they’ll be extra careful, but if the people think you’re an idiot (or better a noob), they might cut you some breaks or even make some mistakes (like ignoring your defensive options). The 61-card choice is something tangible that good players will clue in on as proof that you’re actually dumb/a noob.

Piss them off completely: If you ever broke up with your lovely sweetheart when you were pissed off, imagine what a dumb kid would do at a card game? He might say something inappropriate and get a DQ. He might attack without thinking or ignore your defensive options before trying to combo off.

Obnoxiously flaunt your 61 card deck. Whenever he draws a card, say that he’s one step closer to decking (but he has to believe that you’re serious, otherwise he’ll just think it’s a joke). Make overt religious comments because most smart people are atheist and will get pissed off if you try to convert them. If you think he’s Christian, make up some dumb religion like Judaism that will confuse him and make him defensive. Pray before each card draw that you draw your 61st card. Ignore his explanations that numbering the cards is ridiculous. Claim that you have faith that 61 cards is better than 60 cards, and you believe that god rewards faith. If you happen to topdeck, pretend it was the 61st card that won the game and tell him that it’s a sign from god that he should convert.
Despite the disclaimer, you would be advised not to take any of this seriously. This is a recipe for severe Penalties for Cheating or Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

[Forbiddian]

1st of all: WIN!

2nd of all: Who are you, and how come I have never seen you on here before?!

3rd of all: I think I will do just that just to piss off some of the people at the next tournament I attend :wink:

Lol, thanks for the props guys.

I used to play a lot of Legacy (back when legacy was the restricted list, banned), and I used to go here back when The Source was at another URL. It was like ikonboard.cgi-something. I guess the move killed my post count.

[raharu]

My farovite Adept ever* :]

*IBA =\= Adept. He's a Bear Assassin of Infamy :laugh:

[Iranon]

Psychology aside... there are two separate cases - one for 61 cards, the other one for morbidly overweight decks.

The first might be true to ge the ratios right. For example, I felt that 18/60 in my build of Burn is too little land but 19/60 is too much, and Burn is very dependent on small things like drawing exactly the right amount of each.
Eventually, I decided this was better fixed by 18/60 and one more free spell (singleton Cave-In replacing one Flamebreak) than 19/61, which imo illustrates the point well:
There might be problems that can be fixed by running 61 cards, but there is usually a better solution.

***

Then there's the case for huge toolbox decks. If you have a ton of tutors and situationally useless silver bullets, there is a theoretical case for inflating your deck size.
This means you'll draw mostly bread-and-butter cards while still having a wide selection of tutor targets available.

It's hard to come up with a realistic example though: Power levels of individual cards vary too much, ratios of land/spells or threats/answer will fluctuate more with larger deck size (undesirable), and if your list is tight it's hardly a sacrifice to compromise your sideboard instead (i.e. use wishes and run your toolbox in your board).

Some Survival variant might be optimal at 65+ cards, but I'm fairly sure any I could build is worse than one trimmed down to 60.

[Skeggi]

Some Survival variant might be optimal at 65+ cards, but I'm fairly sure any I could build is worse than one trimmed down to 60.

That's really stretching it imo. 61, ok...62, getting out there already. 63? Starting to get crazy, rly! 64; OMFG are you INSANE!? 65?loldatkantbegud. I mean: 5 extra cards: 3 can be toolbox and 2 are likely to be lands; this is really taking the consistency of your deck downhill.

[Ebinsugewa]

Despite the disclaimer, you would be advised not to take any of this seriously. This is a recipe for severe Penalties for Cheating or Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

Stop ruining everything good in the world.

[matelml]

You sir, are brilliant. Best logic about 61-card decks ever! Very inspiring :wink:

Indeed, this is THE best reason I have heard for a 61 card deck yet. It might even convert me to a 61 card player.:smile: