[Premium Article] U/W Dreadstill by LSV

[BKclassic]

So yeah, LSV wrote an article on Blue White Dreadstill.


http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/17106_Luck_Skill_Victory_BlueWhite_Dreadstill_in_Legacy.html


w00t!

Whining about Premium DOES NOT BELONG in this thread. This will be your only warning---frogboy

[Bardo]

Someone who has premium: please post the list. Grazie.

(Lists aren't premium content.)

[BKclassic]

Artifacts
1 Crucible Of Worlds
1 Engineered Explosives
3 Sensei's Divining Top

Artifact Creatures
2 Phyrexian Dreadnought

Creatures
3 Trinket Mage

Enchantments
3 Counterbalance
4 Standstill

Instants
4 Brainstorm
3 Daze
4 Force Of Will
3 Spell Snare
4 Stifle
4 Swords To Plowshares

Basic Lands
5 Island
1 Plains

Lands
4 Flooded Strand
4 Mishra's Factory
2 Polluted Delta
3 Tundra
3 Wasteland

No SB given.

(Cool. Many thanks. :) - Bardo)

He doesn't really say that much that isn't obvious, mostly he just compares and contrasts it to Next Level Blue.

[SilverGreen]

A great and pleasant article, with very broken tips, and very well written. I enjoyed it a lot.

[bowvamp]

Why the singleton crucible? It isn't search able via trinket mage is it? I'm not an avid dreadstill/other'still player, but that choice bugs me. I know that the wasteland semi-lock is fun, but you can't just randomly run crucible! IMHO, it would be better used as something that IS fetchable by trinket mage. like relic of progenitus or pithing needle.

[BKclassic]

Why the singleton crucible? It isn't search able via trinket mage is it? I'm not an avid dreadstill/other'still player, but that choice bugs me. I know that the wasteland semi-lock is fun, but you can't just randomly run crucible! IMHO, it would be better used as something that IS fetchable by trinket mage. like relic of progenitus or pithing needle.

1 Crucible is about right. Its pretty much dead in the early game and in some match ups its useless. It wouldn't hurt to run 1 more in the SB though.

[from Cairo]

Why the singleton crucible? It isn't search able via trinket mage is it? I'm not an avid dreadstill/other'still player, but that choice bugs me. I know that the wasteland semi-lock is fun, but you can't just randomly run crucible! IMHO, it would be better used as something that IS fetchable by trinket mage. like relic of progenitus or pithing needle.

I'm not sure this directly applies to Dreadstill, but...

My reasoning for running singleton Crucible in Landstill is that it's a card that's power level is pretty situational, it's never going to be awful at worst it will thin the deck of land a bit, and ensure you don't miss future land drops, while that's always good it's not always what one needs to get ahead in a match. Often times the early game is tied up with trying to answer the opponents initial threats and the resources aren't really available to play/protect Crucible. Occasionally it can be good early game, providing a Mishra's to fog an attacker every turn or versus Stax or something. But generally it's best once the opponent's initial threats have been answered in the mid game, it's often a safer time to commit to and protect Crucible. The positive effects being it gives you access to recurrable shuffle effects, and allows you to recycle Wastelands and Manlands, and ensures you continue to expand your resources.

It's not useful in multiples, so even in cases where one would want the card early its not likely that U/x control could afford to devote more than 2 slots, when it's a dead draw after the 1st. One would also never want to see two in their opening hand, so naturally by running one this becomes an impossibility.

Landstill decks should gain power/inevitability the further into the late game it goes, so as a one of it's not all that unlikely that you hit it eventually in the late game with Standstills, Brainstorms, Tops and shuffling, the extensive library manipulation. At that point in the game with control elements in place Crucible can serve as another win condition, again either through re-utilizing man lands or by pushing its controller way ahead in terms of resources/mana with Waste or even just making every land drop the remainder of the game allowing them access to more plays and again, with more shuffle effects at one's disposal the power level of Counter/Top lock increases and Brainstorm's power level increases (especially when one has no need to play land from hand).

My conclusion it's a good mid-late game card, that's inherently bad in multiples. I think it makes sense as a 1-2 of.

[Anusien]

Mike Flores claims that LSV has this habit of playing 2/2 of some similar set of card with the reasoning that he only ever draws the one he needs in the right matchup. So the singleton Crucible could be "I've drawn it everytime it was relevant so why run more?"

[DireLemming]

Why the singleton crucible? It isn't search able via trinket mage is it? I'm not an avid dreadstill/other'still player, but that choice bugs me. I know that the wasteland semi-lock is fun, but you can't just randomly run crucible! IMHO, it would be better used as something that IS fetchable by trinket mage. like relic of progenitus or pithing needle.
With the amount of dig/draw he is running it is pretty searchable. He is probably subscribing to the same analysis Sullivan outlined in one of his articles:

I marked a single card in the deck with a piece of paper and over the course of forty trials (including mulliganing and play/draw) got to that marked card on average before turn 6. I wasn't using the counterspells. I was just searching with a Goldfish as an opponent. In the real world, it certainly would have been slower because I'd have to take the time to stop my opponent from winning. But, what it does show is the incredible selection ability of modern Blue.
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/6444.html

[SilverGreen]

Mike Flores claims that LSV has this habit of playing 2/2 of some similar set of card with the reasoning that he only ever draws the one he needs in the right matchup. So the singleton Crucible could be "I've drawn it everytime it was relevant so why run more?"We all need to agree that LSV's draw skill is something nearly unbelieveble...

[Zach Tartell]

A great and pleasant article, with very broken tips, and very well written. I enjoyed it a lot.

Care to share these tips? Is that allowed?I'm not trying to whine about premium not being visible to everybody, but at what point does the number of "he says we should do this" '*s become stealing? *I know that it isn't necessary to use an apostrophe to show plurality, but in this case (what with the multiple quotation marks and not real place to place a plurality indicator. I'm watching you a-holes. Dearest non-native-English-speaking-Europeans: I promse I won't even bitch much if you just put down your country of origion. I even let the tr3sh thing slide - turns out Mayk even said it like that, and I can accept it. Also, he said pronounced chalice like "callus." Again, I'll let it slide, 'cause you make delicious ethnic food and speak languages that I either wish I spoke or wish I spoke better.

[jazzykat]

We all need to agree that LSV's draw skill is something nearly unbelieveble...

You know, if it consistently happens it may be more than cosmic alignment :P

[juventus]

We all need to agree that LSV's draw skill is something nearly unbelieveble...

There is no such thing as a lucky or unlucky magic player.

[SilverGreen]

You know, if it consistently happens it may be more than cosmic alignment :PDon't get me wrong, I also think LSV is one of the greatest players in the world nowadays, I know he plays and deckbuilds with amazing consistency, he knows as few how to manage his resources, and such things... But man, he also topdecks as a beast. But in his case in particular, it just contributes to make him an even better and more complete player.

[idraleo]

Grazie.



???

(Means "thank you" in Italian. - Bardo)

[SpikeyMikey]

There is no such thing as a lucky or unlucky magic player.

Thank you for repeating the dumbest cliche in Magic. Any study of probability whatsoever would leave you with a vivid understanding that there are "lucky" and "unlucky" players as well as "lucky" and "unlucky" streaks. Given an infinite test group over an infinite amount of time, you would find there're players that drew EXACTLY the right thing EVERY time, as well as players who drew EXACTLY the wrong thing EVERY time, and an enormous multitude of players who had lucky or unlucky streaks. A player whose luck was exactly 50/50 between good and bad draws, even over an extended set, would be as rare as one who was always lucky or always unlucky.

Luck is part of the game, same as it's part of any game of chance. Denying it doesn't make it untrue.

[DireLemming]

Thank you for repeating the dumbest cliche in Magic. Any study of probability whatsoever would leave you with a vivid understanding that there are "lucky" and "unlucky" players as well as "lucky" and "unlucky" streaks. Given an infinite test group over an infinite amount of time, you would find there're players that drew EXACTLY the right thing EVERY time, as well as players who drew EXACTLY the wrong thing EVERY time, and an enormous multitude of players who had lucky or unlucky streaks. A player whose luck was exactly 50/50 between good and bad draws, even over an extended set, would be as rare as one who was always lucky or always unlucky.

Luck is part of the game, same as it's part of any game of chance. Denying it doesn't make it untrue.
While that's true, the statement "this player is" lucky" is still false. A lucky streak does not affect the a prior probability. At most you can say "this player was lucky". ;)

[Kuma]

Thank you for repeating the dumbest cliche in Magic. Any study of probability whatsoever would leave you with a vivid understanding that there are "lucky" and "unlucky" players as well as "lucky" and "unlucky" streaks. Given an infinite test group over an infinite amount of time, you would find there're players that drew EXACTLY the right thing EVERY time, as well as players who drew EXACTLY the wrong thing EVERY time, and an enormous multitude of players who had lucky or unlucky streaks.

If by "lucky" and "unlucky" you mean players that "mised" more or less than would be expected through probability, you're right. This does not mean that these players have some sort of skill or deficiency in drawing cards. No matter how many awesome hands or topdecks a person has had in the past, the odds of them getting the next one are exactly the same as everyone else. Unless they're cheaters.

There are not "lucky" and "unlucky" players. There are only players who have been "lucky" and "unlucky".

In short, correlation does not prove causation.


A player whose luck was exactly 50/50 between good and bad draws, even over an extended set, would be as rare as one who was always lucky or always unlucky.

Over an infinite set, yes, but this isn't saying much. If the odds were 50/50 of a good or bad draw, most players would draw close to 50/50 good and bad hands over an extended set. Very few players would draw over 90/10 or under 10/90.

The odds of getting any specific combination of draws is the same as any other in your 50/50 good/bad situation, but that doesn't mean there aren't useful patterns in the data.


Luck is part of the game, same as it's part of any game of chance. Denying it doesn't make it untrue.

Nobody is denying that there is an element of chance in Magic. What people are taking issue with is the belief that some players get better draws and are likely to get better draws in the future because of something they have/do/posess.

[frogboy]

A player whose luck was exactly 50/50 between good and bad draws, even over an extended set, would be as rare as one who was always lucky or always unlucky.

Um, no. Flip a coin ten times. Repeat that set five times. None of your sets have a distribution of ten heads or ten tails; rather, they are all 5/5, 6/4, or 7/3. (barring outlier events.) This is why bell curves are, you know, bell shaped.

[Apex]

Any study of probability whatsoever would leave you with a vivid understanding that there are "lucky" and "unlucky" players as well as "lucky" and "unlucky" streaks.

Heh, you know what? During my entire undergrad of statistics, I've never defined "lucky" and "unlucky" (and I don't think I have any textbook that does it either). So I think you need to brush up on some probability first before you make those broad statements.

Events, outcomes, and expected values are defined, but never luck. There is no such thing as "luck" in statistics. A subset of the sample space with some probability associated with it? Sure, but luck? Sorry, no go there.

But then again, I guess I am arguing semantics (or scientific jargon, really). But it irks me particularly when players without concrete grasps of probability theory tries to incorporate it into Magic.

And that 50/50 statement was just really bad. Like seriously. I think my prof would choke me if I said that.

Now for the article: I like it alot, but I tend to like LSV's article more than some of the others (cough, GerryT, cough). I'm glad premium is finally being worth it. Between all these new legacy articles and the limited articles, it's been great. I also liked the UW list. Though how differently does it play from something like U/g or U/r or even U/b Dreadstill? Same game plan, or are there some key differences that we should watch out for, if someone could enlighten me on it?

[mercenarybdu]

excellent plan, yet it would be nice to know what he would SB if he were to put one together...

[DrHealex]

Meh, I find this decklist to be pretty lazy. I mean the ONLY white card he has in it is Swords. Maybe I am just too used to playing against a (better) U/b/w Dreadstill.

I mean, he runs !5! islands in which you would only ever need 2 blue sources. So definatly put in 2-3 underground seas and a volrath stronghold. Foo Sho!

[juventus]

Thank you for repeating the dumbest cliche in Magic. Any study of probability whatsoever would leave you with a vivid understanding that there are "lucky" and "unlucky" players as well as "lucky" and "unlucky" streaks. Given an infinite test group over an infinite amount of time, you would find there're players that drew EXACTLY the right thing EVERY time, as well as players who drew EXACTLY the wrong thing EVERY time, and an enormous multitude of players who had lucky or unlucky streaks. A player whose luck was exactly 50/50 between good and bad draws, even over an extended set, would be as rare as one who was always lucky or always unlucky.

Luck is part of the game, same as it's part of any game of chance. Denying it doesn't make it untrue.

Oh, how lucky, I'm studying probability because I'm a math major.

Just think of all the ways to get "lucky" or "unlucky" in magic:

1. mulligans (every game you have the chance to get "lucky" or "unlucky")
2. topdecking the right cards (essentially every turn you have the chance to get "lucky" or "unlucky")
3. playing favorable matchups (every round)
4. your opponent's mulligans
5. your opponent's draws

imagine how many instances over the course of a magic tournament you have to get lucky or unlucky. Then imagine how many times over the course of a magic carreer. If you have any understanding of probability, you would understand that over that much time every player will get "lucky" and "unlucky" just as much as anyone else.