Economics and 15:1-ing Jak

[Jak]

0:18:08 [Giles] Giles plays Gempalm Incinerator from Hand
0:18:14 [Jak] Jak puts Rhox War Monk to Graveyard from Play
0:18:18 [Giles] Giles puts Gempalm Incinerator to Graveyard from Play
0:18:19 [Giles] Giles draws a card
0:18:23 [Giles] Giles plays Pyrokinesis from Hand
0:18:28 [Giles] Giles puts Gempalm Incinerator to RFG from Hand
0:18:35 [Jak] <Jak> omg
0:18:39 [Jak] <Jak> thinking
0:18:41 [Jak] Jak taps Noble Hierarch
0:18:44 [Jak] Jak puts Squee, Goblin Nabob to Graveyard from Hand
0:18:46 [Jak] Jak is looking its Library...
0:18:57 [Jak] Jak puts Tarmogoyf into play from Library
0:19:00 [Jak] Jak puts Tarmogoyf to Hand from Play
0:19:02 [Jak] Jak taps Noble Hierarch
0:19:04 [Jak] Jak puts Spellstutter Sprite to Graveyard from Hand
0:19:12 [Jak] Jak puts Tarmogoyf into play from Library
0:19:13 [Jak] Jak shuffles library
0:19:13 [Jak] Jak stops looking its Library...
0:19:15 [Jak] Jak puts Tarmogoyf to Hand from Play
0:19:25 [Jak] <Jak> thinking
0:19:45 [Jak] Jak puts Noble Hierarch to Graveyard from Play
0:19:45 [Jak] Jak puts Noble Hierarch to Graveyard from Play
0:19:45 [Jak] Jak puts Noble Hierarch to Graveyard from Play
0:19:45 [Jak] Jak puts Noble Hierarch to Graveyard from Play
0:19:49 [Giles] Giles puts Pyrokinesis to Graveyard from Play
0:19:53 [Giles] Giles taps Mountain
0:19:53 [Giles] Giles taps Mountain
0:19:53 [Giles] Giles taps Rishadan Port
0:19:55 [Giles] Giles plays Goblin Matron from Hand
0:19:58 [Giles] <Giles> Ok?
0:20:04 [Jak] <Jak> ok
0:20:08 [Giles] Giles is looking its Library...
0:20:10 [Giles] Giles puts Goblin Ringleader into play from Library
0:20:11 [Giles] Giles shuffles library
0:20:12 [Giles] Giles stops looking its Library...
0:20:14 [Giles] Giles taps AEther Vial
0:20:19 [Jak] <Jak> ok
0:20:22 [Giles] Giles puts Goblin Lackey into play from Library
0:20:23 [Giles] Giles puts Goblin Warchief into play from Library
0:20:25 [Giles] Giles puts Pyrokinesis into play from Library
0:20:27 [Giles] Giles puts Goblin Ringleader into play from Library
0:20:33 [Giles] Giles puts a Pyrokinesis on bottom of Library from Play
0:20:36 [Giles] Giles puts Goblin Lackey to Hand from Play
0:20:36 [Giles] Giles puts Goblin Warchief to Hand from Play
0:20:36 [Giles] Giles puts Goblin Ringleader to Hand from Play
0:20:37 [Giles] It is now the Combat Phase, Beginning Of Combat Step
0:20:38 [Giles] It is now the Combat Phase, Declare Attackers Step
0:20:40 [Jak] Giles taps Goblin Ringleader
0:20:41 [Giles] Giles taps Goblin Ringleader
0:20:43 [Jak] Giles taps Goblin Matron
0:20:43 [Giles] Giles taps Goblin Matron
0:20:44 [Jak] Giles taps Goblin Matron
0:20:44 [Giles] Giles taps Goblin Matron
0:20:45 [Jak] Giles taps Goblin
0:20:45 [Giles] Giles taps Goblin
0:20:46 [Jak] Jak's life total is now 3 (-7)
0:20:47 [Jak] Giles taps Goblin
0:20:47 [Giles] Giles taps Goblin
0:20:50 [Jak] Jak's life total is now 4 (+1)
0:20:54 [Jak] <Jak> ok
0:20:54 [Jak] Giles taps Goblin
0:20:54 [Giles] Giles taps Goblin
0:20:58 [Jak] Jak's life total is now 3 (-1)
0:21:02 [Giles] <Giles> Thinking
0:21:05 [Giles] <Giles> End turn
0:21:06 [Jak] It is now turn 16 (Jak)
0:21:06 [Jak] It is now the Beginning Phase, Untap Step
0:21:08 [Jak] Jak untaps his/her permanents
0:21:08 [Jak] It is now the Beginning Phase, Upkeep Step
0:21:12 [Jak] Jak puts Squee, Goblin Nabob into play from Graveyard
0:21:16 [Jak] Jak puts Squee, Goblin Nabob to Hand from Play
0:21:17 [Jak] It is now the Beginning Phase, Draw Step
0:21:17 [Jak] Jak draws a card
0:21:17 [Jak] It is now the Precombat Main Phase
0:21:24 [Jak] Jak plays Tarmogoyf from Hand
0:21:51 [Giles] <Giles> 3/4
0:21:55 [Jak] <Jak> thinking
0:22:00 [Jak] Jak taps Forest
0:22:01 [Jak] Jak taps Taiga
0:22:14 [Jak] Jak plays Brainstorm from Hand
0:22:15 [Jak] Jak taps Tropical Island
0:22:18 [Jak] Jak draws a card
0:22:18 [Giles] <Giles> k
0:22:18 [Jak] Jak draws a card
0:22:19 [Jak] Jak draws a card
0:22:29 [Jak] Jak puts a card on top of Library from Hand
0:22:32 [Jak] Jak puts a card on top of Library from Hand
0:22:36 [Jak] Jak draws a card
0:22:37 [Jak] Jak draws a card
0:22:39 [Jak] Jak puts a card on top of Library from Hand
0:22:41 [Jak] Jak puts a card on top of Library from Hand
0:22:43 [Jak] Jak puts Brainstorm to Graveyard from Play
0:22:47 [Jak] Jak plays Windswept Heath from Hand
0:22:54 [Jak] <Jak> gg
0:23:00 [Giles] Giles puts Mogg Fanatic into play from Library
0:23:02 [Jak] <Jak> pyrokinesis is gay
0:23:24 [Giles] <Giles> 4 for 1
0:23:27 [Jak] Jak is looking its Library...
0:23:29 [Jak] Jak shuffles library
0:23:29 [Jak] Jak stops looking its Library...
0:23:32 [Jak] <Jak> 4 for 2
0:23:36 [Jak] Jak is looking its Library...
0:23:43 [Giles] <Giles> no 1
0:23:46 [Jak] Jak shuffles library
0:23:46 [Jak] Jak stops looking its Library...
0:23:58 [Jak] <Jak> you removed a card from game
0:24:10 [Jak] Jak plays Tarmogoyf from Hand
0:24:24 [Giles] <Giles> No it is one
0:24:50 [Jak] <Jak> you are still using 2 cards to get rid of 4
0:24:54 [Giles] <Giles> Trust me. Since the card I pitched was something that was going to the graveyard any ways
0:24:58 [Giles] <Giles> Kinda like FOW
0:25:04 [Jak] <Jak> ?
0:25:08 [Giles] <Giles> It is still a 1:1 ratio
0:25:17 [Jak] <Jak> what did you pitch?
0:25:23 [Jak] Jak plays Squee, Goblin Nabob from Hand
0:25:25 [Giles] Giles puts Gempalm Incinerator into play from RFG
0:25:29 [Giles] Giles puts Pyrokinesis into play from Graveyard
0:25:56 [Giles] <Giles> It is a 4;1
0:26:00 [Jak] <Jak> how?
0:26:12 [Jak] <Jak> did you cycle it?
0:26:45 [Giles] <Giles> 4 for 1's are good i hear
0:26:57 [Jak] <Jak> how? did you cycle it?
0:27:12 [Giles] <Giles> No I was going to cycle it anyways
0:27:20 [Giles] <Giles> But pitching was way better
0:27:30 [Jak] <Jak> so you still used 2 cards!
0:27:35 [Giles] <Giles> No
0:27:37 [Giles] <Giles> Just 1
0:27:50 [Jak] <Jak> lmao wtf?
0:27:54 [Giles] <Giles> Both of them are a half of a card
0:28:07 [Jak] <Jak> no
0:28:18 [Giles] <Giles> Yep
0:28:22 [Giles] <Giles> Deal with it
0:28:27 [Jak] <Jak> im posting this
0:28:31 [Jak] <Jak> on the source
0:28:44 [Jak] <Jak> to as kwhat others think
0:28:44 [Giles] <Giles> it created a 4:1 card advangate
0:28:49 [Giles] <Giles> Maybe a 5:2
0:28:57 [Giles] <Giles> Since you used a brainstom
0:29:11 [Giles] <Giles> But it was so fucking huge that it was a true 4:1
0:29:15 [Jak] <Jak> no
0:29:27 [Jak] <Jak> if you had paid the reg mana cost it would have been
0:29:33 [Jak] <Jak> but you pitched a card
0:29:38 [Giles] <Giles> No that would have been a 4:3
0:29:43 [Jak] <Jak> you used two cards in hand to get rid of 4 cards
0:29:48 [Giles] <Giles> Since I used up mana that was going for goblins
0:29:57 [Giles] <Giles> 6 mana is a lot
0:30:11 [Jak] <Jak> you arent making sense
0:30:22 [Giles] <Giles> There are oppertunity costs that you are not looking into
0:30:40 [Giles] <Giles> See you are looking at a math way
0:30:42 [Jak] <Jak> you are complicating this
0:30:51 [Giles] <Giles> I am doing it from a Economics way
0:31:05 [Jak] <Jak> but we arent talking about mana spent
0:31:06 [Giles] <Giles> Also since that cost you like 9 life
0:31:12 [Jak] <Jak> we are talking bout cards spent
0:31:15 [Giles] <Giles> It was more like a 15:1
0:31:20 [Jak] <Jak> omfg
0:31:23 [Giles] <Giles> It was a fucking blow out for you
0:31:37 [Jak] <Jak> im posting this lmao
0:31:44 [Jak] <Jak> are you drunk?
0:31:46 [Giles] <Giles> There are oppertunity cost here
0:31:59 [Jak] <Jak> we are talking strictly about cards spent
0:32:02 [Jak] <Jak> you spent 2
0:32:06 [Jak] <Jak> to take away 4
0:32:06 [Giles] <Giles> No we are noy
0:32:30 [Giles] <Giles> Since that would be looking it all the wrong sence
0:32:45 [Jak] <Jak> how should we look at it?
0:32:50 [Giles] <Giles> You have to look at the oppertuinty costs
0:33:01 [Jak] <Jak> and those are?
0:33:18 [Giles] <Giles> You lost 4 0/1, four mana, you using gensis and like the game
0:33:40 [Giles] <Giles> I just spent a Pyro
0:33:49 [Giles] <Giles> And a card that I was going to cycle anyways.
0:34:00 [Jak] <Jak> but that card would have done something
0:34:05 [Jak] <Jak> and draw nyou a card
0:34:08 [Giles] <Giles> You lost way more than a 2:1 ratio
0:34:19 [Giles] <Giles> But that card is moot
0:34:19 [Jak] <Jak> i know
0:34:43 [Jak] <Jak> there are different circumstances where a 2 for 1 would not be so brutal
0:34:45 [Giles] <Giles> I can not tell you what was on the top it is a land if I do not kow
0:34:46 [Jak] <Jak> here it was
0:34:55 [Giles] <Giles> I is not a 2:1
0:35:00 [Giles] <Giles> I is more like a 15:1
0:35:27 [Jak] <Jak> when someone says 2 for 1 or 3 for 1 they usually mean cards
0:35:37 [Giles] <Giles> Well they are doing it wrong
0:35:51 [Giles] <Giles> You lost way more oppertuinity than I did
0:35:58 [Jak] <Jak> but your way makes no sense to put it in numbers
0:35:58 [Giles] <Giles> at a 15:1 ratio
0:36:22 [Jak] <Jak> like how do you arrive at 15?
0:36:45 [Giles] <Giles> You lost 15 times more oppertuinity than I did
0:36:53 [Giles] <Giles> I might have gain some
0:37:00 [Giles] <Giles> So we should do some other stuff
0:37:01 [Jak] <Jak> how do you arrive at 15?
0:37:02 [Giles] <Giles> Lik
0:37:17 [Giles] <Giles> -25:+2
0:37:21 [Giles] <Giles> Or something
0:37:36 [Jak] <Jak> should i post this to see what others think?
0:37:42 [Jak] <Jak> cause i dont get it
0:37:47 [Giles] <Giles> Since you lost way fucking more than I did
0:38:13 [Giles] <Giles> just title it Economics and 15:1ing Jak.
0:38:19 [Jak] <Jak> kk


So it is kind of long but I guess you can kind of see what we were discussing. Basically he said he 4 for 1'd by using 2 cards to hit my four... So I believe it is a 4 for 2. We then get into an argument on 15 for 1's and crap. Does anyone have thoughts on this?

[Giles]

Jak. lost a shit ton with the Pyrokinesis. Here is a small list: 2 blockers, 4 mana, the Survival Engine, The Genesis Engine, a shit fucking metric ton of life and a bunch of tears.

What my point is that you can not just look at a straight card to card ratio. You have to take an economics approach to it.

When you play a Force of Will it is not just 1:2ing your self. Most likey you are creating a positive opportunity cost for yourself by denying your opponet one card.

[Pinder]

He used 2 cards, and you lost 4.

4:2.

Seriously.

[Giles]

He used 2 cards, and you lost 4.

4:2.

Seriously.

Let's say I paid full price for the card. I would have lost the ability to cycle, play goblins, and I might have not have gotten a 4:1 by your (Cards you spent)/(Cards I Spent) ratio. At that game state I think I would have been at less than 1:1 ratio here.


Look at this example:
If Player A activates a Wasteland on Player B's Tundra on turn 1, and Player B used a Fetchland for that Tundra.
Now we must ask what is the ratio here?
Well effectively the ratio is way higher than a 1:1 here. Since Player B lost his fetch, one life, and his tundra. Also, we do not know what is in Player B's hand as well. Getting the Tundra destroyed might have set back Player B for a couple of turns.

Now what would the ratio be if Player B played Stifle?
What would be the ratio if Player A Forced the Stifle?
What would be the ratio if Player B Dazed the Force of Will?

You have to consider the opportunity costs.

[Nihil Credo]

"X:Y"-type statements conventionally refer to pure card counts, where a Sorrow's Path and a Tarmogoyf are both worth 1.

Describing a Pyrokinesis blowout in more sophisticated terms is certainly welcome and useful, but it should be done separately from the 'classical' CA accounting and it probably shouldn't feature hard numbers like 15:1.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You have to take an economics approach to it.

The danger in saying something like this is always that you might run into someone who actually knows what it means. Which, in this case, is not anything.

If I trade a Lightning Bolt for a Merfolk of the Pearl Trident when my opponent is at 1 life, I have traded 1 card for 1 card. If i go on to lose, it was still a 1 for 1 trade. That doesn't mean it was the best or even a good trade. Gold rims might not be the best use of $200, but that doesn't mean the $200 you just wasted on them is really only $40.

[Maveric78f]

In industry, we call the CA count a KPI for Key Performance Indicator. It is, among other KPIs, a way to rate the ROI (Return-of-Investment) of a product. From what I see Giles, you just confuse one of the KPIs with the ROI.

Burn does only negative CA (or positive CD for card disadvantage), but it can be an efficient deck. The CA KPI is probably bad to rate the ROI of such a deck. The life count (or the average life loss per card) is definitely better.

To my understanding (I'm not an economist), the economics is the process that aims at optimising the ROI, given ressources. It never involves the KPIs, because the KPIs are part of the evaluation process, while the economics is part of the strategy policy.

So, in your exemple, Pyrokinesis surely did better than simple a +2CA. It gave you the tempo necessary for lethal damage. And, the card Tapokinesis (don't search the gatherer), that instead of killing the Noble Hierarches would tap them and prevent their untap for 1 turn would have had probably the same effect (ROI) on the game, while not providing the +2CA.

[Maveric78f]

"X:Y"-type statements conventionally refer to pure card counts, where a Sorrow's Path and a Tarmogoyf are both worth 1.
Life from the Loam (and Crucible to a lesser extent) changed a bit that, and often when we talk about CA, we consider only non land cards. We even talk about CA provided by fetchlands sometimes (see that subpar study that intended to prove that fetching was useless for CA, which was of course both true and wrong, all depends on the KPIs/ROI-function of your deck, which is very difficult to define).

But I get your point ^^.

[4eak]

@ Giles


What my point is that you can not just look at a straight card to card ratio. You have to take an economics approach to it.

Point taken.

As said, raw CA X:Y arguments fail to accurately describe reality, which is obviously a lot more complicated.

I appreciate how you titled the approach; it is meaningful. I certainly don't know the answer to the problem, but I do know which branches of knowledge would be used to solve it. Anyone who has studied economics, philosophy and game theory would tell you these disciplines aren't developed enough to fully answer the questions to which you are pointing.

Some may troll/accuse you of entering a 'primordial soup of meaningless gibberish', but that is their loss. You have a good point, even if you didn't say it clearly the first time or provide a solution to the problem (the latter, obviously, cannot be expected from you). So, go on, keep asking "why?" -- more people should.






peace,
4eak

[Maveric78f]

CA is a game descriptor, you can't change its measure just to make it fit what you would call the optimal game descriptor (as in Poker, the odds of winning the hand). It reflects a strong misunderstanding in the core mechanism.

I think that everybody knew than when an opponent Merfolk of the Pearl Trident attacks you and you're at 1 life, you don't care about making CA.

[ThatGuyThere]

blah blah technical sounding stuff

...by which I mean to say, I think you're quite right.

Simply put, "Card Economy", in a format as deep and wide as Legacy, is not a simple measure of ratios. Some of the recognized "MVPs" of the format even lose under that system of measurement (Dark Ritual, Force of Will, Smokestack), while others render it meaningless in practical terms (Life from the Loam, Genesis, Survival of the Fittest, even lowly Squee).

This is a format where losing card advantage for tempo or board advantage - at the right time - wins games. Trying to make sure you're always winning in card advantage game could actually *lose* you games. (Similarly, always looking for the tempo / board advantage loses games, too.)

That said, trying to assign numbers to the "tempo" part is really hard.

And knowing when to lose card advantage for board / tempo advantage - and when not to - is the mark of a good play, and a good player.

So it's accurate it say it wasn't a strict 4:2, because it also gave you the tempo & board position. But it's also accurate to say the pure *card advantage* involved was a 4:2 - as long as you know that's not the only (or even a very useful) metric.

[Citrus-God]

...by which I mean to say, I think you're quite right.

Simply put, "Card Economy", in a format as deep and wide as Legacy, is not a simple measure of ratios. Some of the recognized "MVPs" of the format even lose under that system of measurement (Dark Ritual, Force of Will, Smokestack), while others render it meaningless in practical terms (Life from the Loam, Genesis, Survival of the Fittest, even lowly Squee).

This is a format where losing card advantage for tempo or board advantage - at the right time - wins games. Trying to make sure you're always winning in card advantage game could actually *lose* you games. (Similarly, always looking for the tempo / board advantage loses games, too.)

That said, trying to assign numbers to the "tempo" part is really hard.

And knowing when to lose card advantage for board / tempo advantage - and when not to - is the mark of a good play, and a good player.

So it's accurate it say it wasn't a strict 4:2, because it also gave you the tempo & board position. But it's also accurate to say the pure *card advantage* involved was a 4:2 - as long as you know that's not the only (or even a very useful) metric.


Like in chess, many good players sacrifice their Queens to make brutal attacks on the center of the board as well as the opposing King. I've seen that happen before.

Edit. Sacrificing card advantage for board advantage or to win is also the consensus for Aggro, Aggro Control and Combo.

[ThatGuyThere]

Like in chess, many good players sacrifice their Queens to make brutal attacks on the center of the board as well as the opposing King. I've seen that happen before.

Brilliant example. Yes, thank you.

[omgkitties]

Jak. lost a shit ton with the Pyrokinesis. Here is a small list: 2 blockers, 4 mana, the Survival Engine, The Genesis Engine, a shit fucking metric ton of life and a bunch of tears.

What my point is that you can not just look at a straight card to card ratio. You have to take an economics approach to it.

When you play a Force of Will it is not just 1:2ing your self. Most likey you are creating a positive opportunity cost for yourself by denying your opponet one card.

I don't think you understand what an opportunity cost is, cause you aren't using it right. I also can't tell if you are trolling, so there's that, too.

[Giles]

The problem is the following: There is no good way on quantifying this.
Granted that we have a couple of gauges to measure it, however, they do not give the entire story.

Take a look at the resent KFC free chicken fiasco. KFC might have budgeted for one million people to use the coupon. However, when Oprah promoted it all hell broke loose because of it.

What does this have to with Magic?
When playing a Control vs Aggro match up, the Aggro player has budgeted for some of there creatures to be countered or go farming. However, if the Control player got an unfair hand (like 4 swords and a white source) the Aggro player might be budgeted for the first and second ones. Yet when the third and fourth ones come down, the aggro player's hand and game state would be running thin.

So when I played Pyrokinesis on Jak's playset of Noble Hierarchs, was it really a 2:1 ratio? I really do not think so. Since that cut off a lot of options: card advantage, and engines that he had running; if I did not played the Pyrokinesis Jak would have been in a very good position. Jak had a leg up in the mid-part of that game, but that Pyrokinesis made all of his hard work moot.

EDIT: So where did I get a 15:1 ratio? It was more of a feeling, I honestly do not know if it is the right ratio. Yet 15:1 seems right ratio amount for the impact on the game state.

[Jak]

Card advantage doesn't always print a good picture on how good a play actually was. If CA = Win then we wouldn't be running Force. However, it is something we can calculate. You can't reliably put numbers to how good of a play was tempo wise or how much it set your opponent back. But you can do that with CA so when most Magic players see 3:1 or 2:1 they think of CA.

It was a very good 4:2 since it did win Giles the game, but it is still a 4:2. Other 4:2s probably wouldn't be that great. Solely judging how good a play was on CA isn't correct and this is where Giles is right.

Edit- 2000!!! OMG OMG OMG! too much time spent on Magic forum!

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

EDIT: So where did I get a 15:1 ratio? It was more of a feeling, I honestly do not know if it is the right ratio. Yet 15:1 seems right ratio amount for the impact on the game state.

I don't think you can put it in terms of a ratio.

I think what you're talking about could be more accurately thought of as how many outs a given play gives the opponent. If an opponent who was previously in a winning board state was reduced to a situation with no or few outs on their draw, perhaps that could be quantified, but I don't think it's going to be a ratio. More likely a percentage.

[Malchar]

Fortunately, Magic is an extremely complicated game, and these questions are extremely difficult to answer. If someone is able to come up with an objective way to measure all of tempo, card advantage, board position, and other resources together then the game might become broken. Suffice it to say that Pyroclasm always looks amazing when the opponent has a lot of creatures, and it's easy to see that it was the correct play due to the fact that the player went on to win very soon thereafter.

[Giles]

I don't think you can put it in terms of a ratio.
I agree on that.

I am curious if it could be based on the following:

Biting of Nails.
Pumping of Leg
Sweat
Flickering of Cards
Hands in Hair
Talking
Posture


Thoughts?

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I'm confused. Are you talking about tells?

[Giles]

I'm confused. Are you talking about tells?
No. I might be going down the wrong track, but maybe the only way quantifying it.
It is hard to say what is the actually value on the game really is by only looking on the game is being played. From my experience I can just look at the game next to me and see what the people are doing, and that tells me what situation their game state is. Therefore I am just thinking that if you look at the person, more reliable gauge than just saying something was a two for one.
I am curious if someone has done some studies on chess or poker players and how they act at the table.

Although it might be just as simple as:
(What did the other person lose)-(What did I lose)=Advantage.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

@ Giles



Point taken.

As said, raw CA X:Y arguments fail to accurately describe reality, which is obviously a lot more complicated.

I appreciate how you titled the approach; it is meaningful. I certainly don't know the answer to the problem, but I do know which branches of knowledge would be used to solve it. Anyone who has studied economics, philosophy and game theory would tell you these disciplines aren't developed enough to fully answer the questions to which you are pointing.

Some may troll/accuse you of entering a 'primordial soup of meaningless gibberish', but that is their loss. You have a good point, even if you didn't say it clearly the first time or provide a solution to the problem (the latter, obviously, cannot be expected from you). So, go on, keep asking "why?" -- more people should.






peace,
4eak

This is a primordial soup of meaningless gibberish.

Economics is called the dismal science for a reason. It's a constant attempt to discern the future from the entrails of birds and a lucky guess. The discipline of economics strives to provide clarity in an extremely unclear field. The approach being advocated is to muddy a very clear barometer in Magic strategy. It is thus the opposite of what you may call an "economic approach".

Card advantage or disadvantage is not an all-encompassing measurement, nor is it meant to be. The term has a very clear meaning that is useful for what it is. Making it useless by trying to turn it into all things is flamingly retarded.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

No. I might be going down the wrong track, but maybe the only way quantifying it.
It is hard to say what is the actually value on the game really is by only looking on the game is being played. From my experience I can just look at the game next to me and see what the people are doing, and that tells me what situation their game state is. Therefore I am just thinking that if you look at the person, more reliable gauge than just saying something was a two for one.
I am curious if someone has done some studies on chess or poker players and how they act at the table.

Although it might be just as simple as:
(What did the other person lose)-(What did I lose)=Advantage.


That would never be accurate because it depends on the person.

I guess the question you're really asking could be thought of as comparing each person's distance from their critical turn. If a play, such as Pyrokinesising your opponent's team, increases their distance from their critical turn by 3-4 turns, and at the same time, you have creatures on the board and are thus able to swing more effectively without having to worry about their blockers or having to leave behind blockers of your own, and thus, decrease your distance from your critical turn by 1 or 2 turns, then it seems like there's probably a way to turn that into more concrete terms, but doing so wouldn't be able to take into account the possibility of outs from the opponent or things like card advantage. It would also require knowledge of both players' hands.

[keys]

This is the lamest thread ever.:frown:

[TrialByFire]

This is the lamest thread ever.:frown:

X Eleventy billion.

You killed 4 things. You spent two cards. 4 for 2. What you're talking about is a whole other thing. Card Advantage is very clearly defined.

/thread

[4eak]

Card advantage is clearly defined. As you attempt to show how that measurement is relevant, you'll see it becomes unclear. The relationships behind the CA barometer and winning the game are fairly complex, that is the point.


@ TheInfamousBearAssassin


Economics is called the dismal science for a reason.

This is a criticism of economics, but not a largely accepted label. I will agree that the best criticisms of most economic views are those which point out how people oversimplify very complex problems.

You know, like those who don't wish to "muddy the water", even when their own systems fail to be any better at explaining what is happening or predicting the future.


The discipline of economics strives to provide clarity in an extremely unclear field. The approach being advocated is to muddy a very clear barometer in Magic strategy.

Your essential argument:

a) Proper economics strives to clarify unclear fields.
b) Giles' approach is not striving to clarify an unclear field.
c) Giles' approach is not proper economics.

We disagree on (b), although I don't really care for your definition of economics either.

Be charitable to Giles' argument (as any logic teacher would expect you to be), and you'll see he is striving to clarify the field of Magic. You think Giles' argument is muddying the CA barometer. Why do you think he's chosen to do that? Obviously the barometer isn't valuable enough, and we need a better one to clarify this unclear field.

We all know 'card advantage is not an all-encompassing measurement'. However, card advantage is meant to be a part of a unifying theory behind the game (not all by its lonesome), otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about it. Since the current barometers do not effectively clarify (they are poor economic measurements by themselves), it seems perfectly reasonable, even good economics (under your definition), to be dissatisfied with the CA barometer.

Giles' may have tried to change the meaning of CA (which seems odd at first glance). He didn't try to muddy the water for no good reason though; he is pointing us to damn good questions:

How is measuring card advantage related to other barometers?
What is the (as Maverick put it) optimal game descriptor, and how does CA relate to it?

If the CA barometer is part of that optimal game descriptor (and it probably is a large part), then it seems reasonable to think that to some extent of value CA adds to the that all-encompassing equation can be converted and equivalently described in value by the missing parts.

When you are charitable, Giles' attempt to re-interpret CA is a very reasonable proposition.







peace,
4eak

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

4eak, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. What's more, I'm 100% positive that you don't either.

I didn't give a description of economics, I merely observe that it's concerned with trying to analyze a complex system. To a lesser extent, Magic is the same.

What Giles is trying to do is to tie every single aspect of the game down into card advantage.

This is retarded because it doesn't clarify a single goddamn thing, it just makes the term "card advantage" a lot more confusing and meaningless.

A is A. A is not not A. Card advantage is the advantage of the number of cards. Cost is what you pay for a good or service. There may be a question of who's making wiser purchases, but it doesn't relate to the barometer in question.

Q.E.D., this idea is stupid. This isn't a matter of opinion; if you disagree, you're wrong.

[4eak]

@ TheInfamousBearAssassin


4eak, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. What's more, I'm 100% positive that you don't either.

Lol. Quit trolling.


What Giles is trying to do is to tie every single aspect of the game down into card advantage.


Close. As I said, he's trying to make a unified theory, or as Maverick put it, an optimal game descriptor. Nobody said he did it correctly, but he certainly could be on the right track.

The point is that if Card advantage is a part of that unified theory, then it is possible that we could describe the value of other barometers through card advantage.

Here is a severely oversimplified example of the principle:

[CA] + [X] = [OGD]

If CA + X makeup that optimal game descriptor, then we could, to some extent, describe X in terms of CA or CA in terms of X. The game-winning value of resources are likely to be convertible. A certain amount of CA might be equivalent to the value of some other measurement. In this way, Giles' is reasonably re-interpreting the value of CA.

If you ever played an MMO, think about this in terms of trading mitigation for avoidance, or attack power/hit chance/crit chance, etc. In fact, even offensive stats can be converted into defensive ones, and vice versa.

Obviously, some all-encompassing, unified system would be much more complex. That doesn't mean the approach is incorrect.


This is retarded because it doesn't clarify a single goddamn thing, it just makes the term "card advantage" a lot more confusing and meaningless.


It was a method of relating CA to OGD. I didn't say it was the best way, but it is certainly better than burying your head in the sand.


This isn't a matter of opinion; if you disagree, you're wrong.

Awesome proof. You've convinced me; good job. You still aren't providing evidence that the approach is incorrect.






peace,
4eak

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Lol. Quit trolling.

Quit being retarded.


Close. As I said, he's trying to make a unified theory, or as Maverick put it, an optimal game descriptor. Nobody said he did it correctly, but he certainly could be on the right track.

No, he couldn't, because the right track would inherently involve attaching a new concept to a new name, not taking a well understood concept and impregnating it with some unholy spawn.

There's nothing wrong with trying to find a unified field theory, but if you call it the second law of thermodynamics you're just being a dick.


The point is that if Card advantage is a part of that unified theory, then it is possible that we could describe the value of other barometers through card advantage.

Death is part of evolution. Kinetic energy is part of the Big Bang theory. That doesn't mean that we describe kinetic energy as the process by which the Universe exploded into existence.


Here is a severely oversimplified example of the principle:

Irrelevant. You're trying to address whether or not Giles theory A is true or not true; everyone else is pointing out that Giles theory A is not the same thing as the theory of Card Advantage B. A is not B. Therefore A being true or not true has no bearing on the question of, "Is A B?"

[4eak]

@ TheInfamousBearAssassin


Quit being retarded.

Are you going to continue with absurd arguments bordering on ad hominem?


No, he couldn't, because the right track would inherently involve attaching a new concept to a new name, not taking a well understood concept and impregnating it with some unholy spawn.

We don't necessarily need a new term. Terminology often gains meaning as the field of knowledge expands. A new term might not be a bad idea, but I think it would miss the point of the convertibility of the values in a unified theory.

CA does increase in meaning when the measure is made relevant to the larger equation. Again, I'm going to use a simple equation because I'm only demonstrating the principle.

[CA] + [X] = [OGD]

We know what CA is measuring prima facie. As it relates to winning the game though, it honestly might take on additional meaning. If you hold OGD constant, then you can scale X up while you scale CA down and vice versa. Inherent to CA's definition is its relation to X and OGD.

CA's first meaning is not lost. CA merely gains additional meaning in this context, as we can better understand how it relates to the rest of the game.

Anyone can count cards. Not everyone can explain why you are winning because of it.


Death is part of evolution. Kinetic energy is part of the Big Bang theory. That doesn't mean that we describe kinetic energy as the process by which the Universe exploded into existence.

None of these explain why it isn't possible to view other barometers through the lens of Card advantage. I didn't say all systems, I only said it is quite possible. It is a reasonable approach, even if we don't know if it will result in the end solution (which neither of us possess).


You're trying to address whether or not Giles theory A is true or not true

No. I didn't address whether or not his theory was true. I've argued about an approach to a problem, not a conclusive solution or well-made theory. I tried to take his argument as charitably as I could, and I've tried to extract a principle which seemed pretty reasonable.






peace,
4eak

[Maveric78f]

What is the (as Maverick put it) optimal game descriptor, and how does CA relate to it?

As I said, he's trying to make a unified theory, or as Maverick put it, an optimal game descriptor. Nobody said he did it correctly, but he certainly could be on the right track.
Start understanding what I said. Stop quoting me.

CA is a partial game descriptor. Board position is a partial game descriptor. Life count is a partial game descriptor. Card quality is a partial game descriptor...

There is no perfect 1-dimensional game descriptor at magic. Indeed, a magic game is a complex system. The perfect n-dimensional game decriptor (PnGD) is the one that describes the state of the game (cards in libraries, cards RFG, cards in graveyards, cards in hand, cards in play, counters tokens, tapped or untapped cards, known information, etc...). We know the existence of a complex function that is a predictor of the winner of the game or the match given PnGD. However, in practice this function cannot be computed. Giles can tackle the problem of approximating it on the basis of the partial game descriptors, but changing their definition is completely nonsense.

Plus, I'd like to precise that a 4:2 CA is not the same as a 2:1 CA. I would even say that a 3:1 CA is closer. Maybe it's not the case here but in France, we rather talk about a differential CA (+2 in the pyrokinesis case).

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

[B]@ TheInfamousBearAssassinAre you going to continue with absurd arguments bordering on ad hominem?

That wasn't an argument; that was the ad hominem. It prefaced my argument. If you want to use big words, learn what they mean first.


We don't necessarily need a new term. Terminology often gains meaning as the field of knowledge expands. A new term might not be a bad idea, but I think it would miss the point of the convertibility of the values in a unified theory.

The convertibility of the values? What in the flying fuck are you talking about?

Language requires clarity in order for people to communicate ideas effectively. Clarity is not achieved by making up new definitions on the drop of a hat that no one else but you understands.


CA does increase in meaning when the measure is made relevant to the larger equation. Again, I'm going to use a simple equation because I'm only demonstrating the principle.

[CA] + [X] = [OGD]

We know what CA is measuring prima facie. As it relates to winning the game though, it honestly might take on additional meaning. If you hold OGD constant, then you can scale X up while you scale CA down and vice versa. Inherent to CA's definition is its relation to X and OGD.

This isn't a definition that anyone but you and Giles just now has used or advocated. It's an idea that's separate in every way, shape and form from the actual concept of Card Advantage Theory as held by everyone else who plays the game.

Explain to me what you're trying to accomplish here, besides rhetorical masturbation.


CA's first meaning is not lost. CA merely gains additional meaning in this context, as we can better understand how it relates to the rest of the game.

I don't know whether the weather shall improve this evening.


Anyone can count cards. Not everyone can explain why you are winning because of it.

And "ostrich" is not a very good word for describing the process of baking a pie, but it's perfectly adequate for describing a large flightless bird.

Trying to make one word mean all things is, well, marklar.

[majikal]

TL;DR

I just 15:1'd this thread.

actually, I did---frogboy