Merits of running a 61st card?

[lordofthepit]

I've always been a proponent of running 60 cards in the maindeck, since I like to streamline my deck as much as possible. I've heard various arguments for the occasional 61st card, but never found them persuasive enough for my particular decks.

However, given the amount of tutoring available in Legacy nowadays (Stoneforge Mystic, Green Sun's Zenith, Knight of the Reliquary, etc.), I'm leaning towards relaxing on such a hardline stand. This differs from the tutoring ability of a Infernal Tutor or a fetchland, which generally grabs a very redundant card (or occasionally, a singleton win condition in the case of Infernal Tutor).

There are real merits to running a Maze of Ith or Bojuka Bog maindeck, which in the abstract, might be your weakest (61st) card, but in certain matchups becomes one of your best cards. Likewise for a Sword of Light and Shadow or a Scavenging Ooze. In cases where your choice for the 61st card to cut comes down to several "toolbox" targets that can single-handedly win any given game, can you reasonably justify keeping them all in?

I realize this is not a new phenomenon in Legacy, as anyone who played the old (pre-Vengevine) Survival decks would testify. However, it's one that I wanted to revisit again.

[John Cox]

You could abstract this further to a deck like U/R Delver where you have no toolbox but by increasing an effect (say fireblast) to a 3 of or 4 of you can reliably draw it most games.
What it comes down to is whether the 61'st card and 61 card deck ratios are better than the ratios you have with a 60 card deck.

[Skeggi]

The biggest merrit of a 61 card deck is when you're 1-0 and short on time, you pileshuffle your deck after sideboarding, count it to 61, think for a while, shrug and present it to your opponent. He may call a judge who may deckcheck you and may undercompensate the timeloss. On the other hand, in my experience they always overcompensate the timeloss of a deckcheck so you're even further away from gaining an advantage.

Bit more serious: I'm not a fan of Bojuka Bog as a sideboard card, having it in the main makes it even more awkward. But I understand your point, I believe everyone has had this problem with deckconstruction. When you put in a tutor, like Enlightened Tutor, Green Sun's Zenith, Stoneforge Mystic, Trinket Mage and yes, let's also consider Knight of the Reliquary to be a tutor, you're always tinkering with your tutorpackage. Some packages are easy: SFM only enables 2 or 3 slots so they're easily filled. But the other tutors have the caveat that you want to run every card you consider to be good in it. But generally, when constructing a tutorpackage, you need to consider the meta. Tutorpackages are almost always entirely constucted to face a certain meta. If you exceed the 60 cards because of an extravagant tutorpackage, you may want to reconsider your meta and ask yourself if you really need that extra card, or would it be fine to have it in your sideboard.

[alderon666]

I used to do it when I wanted to play a maindeck fattie in my dredge deck. But I couldn't justify removing a dredger, or a draw spell or a land for it. So I just added it as the 61st card. I created the possibility of drawing a dead card, but as I didn't lose a good card for it, so it is like only losing a fraction of a card for a great advantage. Dredging is somewhat like tutoring, unlike a normal deck that only sees 20 or so cards (random guess), dredge can see a lot more cards in a game, therefore making the 1-of more relevant.

[Skeggi]

Running 61 cards in Dredge is probably wrong.

But then again, running 61 cards in any deck is very likely to be wrong. But then again, I can understand the allure of it. Better to run 61 cards than to run 60 cards with a card cut that shouldn't have been cut. But to me, running 61 is in most cases a sign of weakness in meta analysis and/or deck design.

Does anyone have any numbers of how many 61 card decks ended up in the top8 of a major tournament?

[Koby]

Running 61 cards in Dredge is probably wrong.

But then again, running 61 cards in any deck is very likely to be wrong. But then again, I can understand the allure of it. Better to run 61 cards than to run 60 cards with a card cut that shouldn't have been cut. But to me, running 61 is in most cases a sign of weakness in meta analysis and/or deck design.

Does anyone have any numbers of how many 61 card decks ended up in the top8 of a major tournament?

<1% in 2011. Probably less than 10 altogether for that year too.

I don't agree that adding a 61st card to a toolbox deck is a good thing. It does screw up the mana ratios. However, in the particular example, I would consider adding a land as the 61st - either to add an additional utility land or to increase the mana ratio slightly.

I remember the older thread regarding this topic has this as the conclusion: there will always be a card you could cut to make your deck the best 60 for the tournament.

[alderon666]

I'm inclined to agree with that in lower powered formats. In sealed or draft, the 41st card is probably worse than a lot of your other cards. Adding another bad card just lessens the chance of drawing your bombs.

Now in Legacy, the 61st is probably as powerful as everything else. So the powerlevel of your deck remains the same. There's also something to say about having answers to stuff. If your deck instantly loses to a resolved Counterbalance, there's some value of having a MD answer to enchantments.

Obvious 2 cents is obvious.

[ColeM]

<1% in 2011. Probably less than 10 altogether for that year too.

I don't agree that adding a 61st card to a toolbox deck is a good thing. It does screw up the mana ratios. However, in the particular example, I would consider adding a land as the 61st - either to add an additional utility land or to increase the mana ratio slightly.


That's assuming that the "mana ratios" were optimal at 60 cards or should actually be higher.

In reality, it's probably not feasible to calculate a truly optimal deck list. One may be able to provide a convincing argument for a 60 card pile in an abstract model that does not account for opposing decks, but the argument won't be for the real world. You need to account for, at least, the probable opposing decks (whatever "probable" means). A statistical model would get even more complicated once you start to add in cards that "tutor," draw, or filter. Then there is the human aspect of the game, which is even more impossible to account for.

Moral of the story: Run whatever makes you feel better.

[Sloshthedark]

<1% in 2011. Probably less than 10 altogether for that year too.

I don't agree that adding a 61st card to a toolbox deck is a good thing. It does screw up the mana ratios. However, in the particular example, I would consider adding a land as the 61st - either to add an additional utility land or to increase the mana ratio slightly.

I remember the older thread regarding this topic has this as the conclusion: there will always be a card you could cut to make your deck the best 60 for the tournament.

61 screws your ratios the same as sub-optimal card choice which you can tell only after the tournament, maybe several and still the list is personal preference not perfect...

it just lowers some ratios/improves some and also could be key to victory in some matches+improves your SB... 61st could be your Maze of Ith in your Maverick... it depends if you feel this is benefit>loss...

[Kuma]

For those of you discussing using the 61st card to get the perfect mana ratio, I've found it doesn't help. I calculated the probability of getting between 3 and 6 lands (avoiding screw or flood) by turn 4 at 18-30 lands out of 60-61 cards, and found that 25/60 maximized your chances of getting between 3 and 6 lands. 26/61 was the best ratio for a 61 card deck and it was lower than 25/60.

Granted, this analysis is incomplete, but it suggests that your mana ratios are better at 60 cards. Also the idea that drawing four lands by turn four is fine 614 times out of 1000, but 632 out of 1000 is too much is absurd. That's essentially what the "perfect mana ratio" argument boils down to.

The argument for 60 card decks is simple.

1: Some cards in your deck are better than others.

2: The fewer cards in your deck, the more likely you are to draw any given card, all other things equal.

3: There is an overall weakest card slot in any deck.

3a: Therefore, in a 61-card deck there is a weakest card slot.

4: You do not have to run that 61st card.

5: Removing that 61st card will cause you to draw the other more powerful 60 cards more often.

QED: You should run 60 card decks.

The 61st card can be the lesser of two evils if you don't have time to carefully consider what to cut, but that's a situation you should try to avoid.

[Julian23]

The argument for 60 card decks is simple.

1: Some cards in your deck are better than others.


I question that assumption. Therefore, I don't agree with your conclusion. This would mean that if there was no 4-card-limit, the best deck in the format would be playing only one non-land spell ("the best card").

In general, I question every approach, that tries to calculate the best deck in Magic. There's too much metagaming going on. However, if everyone would be playing the same deck again and again, we could settle on a "best list".

A 61 will most certainly increase your EV% overall, in case you run enough tutors. I'd rather raise the question about the merits of a 62nd/63rd...etc. card. While it's rather obvious that the impact the 61 card has on naturally drawing (as opposed to tutoring) into what you want in a specific situation, is almost negligible, I wonder at which point, the overall increasing EV of certain decks by adding additional cards will be outweighed by the overall decrease in naturally drawing into the card you want to draw most in a specific situation.

[ColeM]

The argument for 60 card decks is simple.

1: Some cards in your deck are better than others.

2: The fewer cards in your deck, the more likely you are to draw any given card, all other things equal.

3: There is an overall weakest card slot in any deck.

3a: Therefore, in a 61-card deck there is a weakest card slot.

4: You do not have to run that 61st card.

5: Removing that 61st card will cause you to draw the other more powerful 60 cards more often.

QED: You should run 60 card decks.

The 61st card can be the lesser of two evils if you don't have time to carefully consider what to cut, but that's a situation you should try to avoid.

The argument is fallacious.

1: How are you quantifying the quality of each card in your deck? I suspect any method we attempt to use will be quite dubious. We are basically left to approximate the worth of each individual card. Unfortunately, the worth can change not only from matchup to matchup, but also with a change in game state – making many approximated card worths in just 1 matchup quite difficult.
2: True.
3: Probably true but proving it could be difficult.
3a: see above
4: True
5: You run into the issue of determining the value of cards.

I continue to stand by the suggestion I proposed earlier.

[dorsch]

I have a problem with this line of your argument:

3: There is an overall weakest card slot in any deck.
Lets create a hypothetical decklist where the overall weakest card is a Playset of Accumulated Knowledge. But the weakest card isn't AK number 4 you are about to cut, it's AK number 1, which is impossible to cut.

Or you have a deck in which you determine Force of will is almost the worst card, but another blue card scores a little bit worse. You remove that blue card and because of that the force of will becomes worse than the removed card even was.

I don't think it is _always_ theoretically possible to rank all the cards in a deck from best to worst. But it should be most of the time and everyone who runs 61 cards is just too lazy or too tumb to figure out how to smooth out his decklist.

[sdematt]

I think the 61st (well, I know the 61st) will change the probability of drawing any particular card naturally, and as the game goes on, it adds up. But, when you have the ability to tutor, you're not leaving it up to random chance.

I'm running 61 in decks that do in fact have a tutor package, either GSZ or Enlightened Tutor or Aggro Loam, and I've won many local tournaments with them. I can't argue against math and say that my probability is decreased, but I'd rather have a 1/61 chance of drawing a certain card (or, more likely, tutoring for it) then have a 0% chance of getting it either way.

If I were running a deck of 4 of's, and I wanted it to be as consistent as possible, I wouldn't go to 61. If I were wanting more flexibility, 61 could be argued. A guy placed 3rd recently in Italy in a larger tournament running 62 cards. I'm sure I could find many other tutor based decks with 61 that have Top 8'd.

Again, I think it's really more of a: do you need to have access to this card in the maindeck, and are you willing to lose the slight consistency edge for it?


-Matt

[Julian23]

But it should be most of the time and everyone who runs 61 cards is just too lazy or too tumb to figure out how to smooth out his decklist.

That's exactly the assumption that actually unmasks your intentions, when arguing against a 61st card. On the same level of polemic one could argue, that you are just to dumb or lazy to figure out what a 61st card can do in certain decks. - See? This kind of arguing doesn't accomplish a lot.

[edgarps22]

It could also be a meta call, say for instance your deck just folds to dredge game 1, a fairly widespread problem, throwing in one Bojuka Bog, especially if you are running Knight, is not necessarily a bad idea. The statistical change in %'s is actually very small. I do not personally run 61 cards, but I would not shy away from it if the benefits were great enough. If that one card means suddenly your worst match up suddenly isn't unwinnable, and it is not extremely detrimental to your good matches, then why not. Just means you have to test more.

Also the % of players who played and were successful with non 60 card decks is fairly irrelevant because most people live by the mantra of 60 cards. Just because someone is not doing it, does not mean it is not successful, just means it is not popular.

Also old thread on this subject ... http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?15820-61-or-more-cards-in-toolbox-decks&highlight=61+cards
And here is the Starting 7 charts, it contains the 61 card deck data ... http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?21385-Starting-7-Chart

[ColeM]

Also old thread on this subject ... http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?15820-61-or-more-cards-in-toolbox-decks&highlight=61+cards
And here is the Starting 7 charts, it contains the 61 card deck data ... http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?21385-Starting-7-Chart

I just kind of skimmed that first thread to get a feel for what was going on. As far as I can tell, most of the mathematical arguments proposed there have little meaning in the real world where you're not just goldfishing. I also didn't see anything terribly impressive concerning the effects of cantrips and tutors - there is also way too much emphasis on starting hands and not enough analysis of what happens over the course of a real game when filtering, shuffling, and tutoring are involved on both sides of the table. I also didn't see any attempts to gauge the value of individual cards - I suspect you'd probably just have to play test and make note of optimal (or seemingly optimal) lines of play and then try to approximate value...but approaching this will scientific rigor seems like a nightmare when you're trying to optimize a deck to compete against an entire metagame.

In the end I think you just have to go whatever seems right according to whatever limited analysis you're able to conduct.

Edit: After further examination of that thread, I'm inclined to agree with most points Illissius made.

[Kuma]

I question that assumption. Therefore, I don't agree with your conclusion. This would mean that if there was no 4-card-limit, the best deck in the format would be playing only one non-land spell ("the best card").

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying, "If Tarmogoyf is the best card in your deck then running nothing but Tarmogoyfs and lands would be ideal if the rules allowed it." Tarmogoyf #4 may be the worst slot in your deck, but Tarmogoyf #3 may be one of the best. Brainstorms are better than Ponders in the RUG lists that run them, etc.

I'm saying that some cards within a deck are better than other cards in the context of that deck. You've never found yourself sideboarding out a certain card more than others, or most of the time when you draw a certain card wishing it was something else in your deck?


A 61 will most certainly increase your EV% overall, in case you run enough tutors. I'd rather raise the question about the merits of a 62nd/63rd...etc. card. While it's rather obvious that the impact the 61 card has on naturally drawing (as opposed to tutoring) into what you want in a specific situation, is almost negligible, I wonder at which point, the overall increasing EV of certain decks by adding additional cards will be outweighed by the overall decrease in naturally drawing into the card you want to draw most in a specific situation.

As do I. We can speculate about whether a toolbox deck is better at 60 or 61 cards, and we'll never mathematically prove it one way or the other. Since we can't prove either case, I choose to focus on what we can prove: that some cards are better than others (we can't mathematically prove it, but Expendable Troops is better than Squire in any meaningful way, Stoneforge Mystic is better than Spellstutter Sprite in UW Stoneblade), smaller deck sizes produce less variance, and smaller deck sizes allow you to draw the (best) cards in them most frequently.


1: How are you quantifying the quality of each card in your deck? I suspect any method we attempt to use will be quite dubious. We are basically left to approximate the worth of each individual card. Unfortunately, the worth can change not only from matchup to matchup, but also with a change in game state – making many approximated card worths in just 1 matchup quite difficult.

I calculate worth based on experience playing with the deck. Yes, it's not a rigorous mathematical calculation. That doesn't mean it's worthless and we shouldn't try to evaluate card quality, especially when there are known mathematical advantages to doing so. Yes, the worth can change from matchup to matchup. This is why you take metagame into account when you make the decision. You might cut Bojuka Bog because there hasn't been any Dredge and end up losing to Dredge twice. So what? You did the best you could with the knowledge you had. You shouldn't run the Bojuka Bog as a 61st card because you might run into Dredge like that other guy suggested. Yes, cards change value within a game state. This is why you look at overall value when deciding what cards to run.

Everyone who has ever tried to build a tournament-caliber deck has done these things. Why they can't do it to go from 61 to 60 is beyond me.


Lets create a hypothetical decklist where the overall weakest card is a Playset of Accumulated Knowledge. But the weakest card isn't AK number 4 you are about to cut, it's AK number 1, which is impossible to cut.

In this case, obviously you either cut the whole playset, or you cut something else. I'm pretty sure you could find some three cards that make the deck better than Accumulated Knowledges 1-4, because Accumulated Knowledge is terrible.

Who the hell runs Accumulated Knowledge in Legacy?


Or you have a deck in which you determine Force of will is almost the worst card, but another blue card scores a little bit worse. You remove that blue card and because of that the force of will becomes worse than the removed card even was.

First of all, creating a hard line for the minimum blue count to support Force of Will is incredibly arbitrary. Removing one blue card will affect Force of Will by ~3% or less. And even if your situation is true, you've still gained in variance and in greater chance of drawing the best cards in your deck. That to me is easily worth the couple percent on Force of Will.


I don't think it is _always_ theoretically possible to rank all the cards in a deck from best to worst.

You don't have to. You just need to have a good idea of what your worst card is and realize that some cards in your deck are better (on average) than others.


I'm running 61 in decks that do in fact have a tutor package, either GSZ or Enlightened Tutor or Aggro Loam, and I've won many local tournaments with them. I can't argue against math and say that my probability is decreased, but I'd rather have a 1/61 chance of drawing a certain card (or, more likely, tutoring for it) then have a 0% chance of getting it either way.

It's not just a 1/61 chance of drawing a narrow card. It's also the decreased odds of drawing everything else in your deck including land and the tutors in the first place. Hurting the odds of hitting GSZ and Enlightened Tutor in a deck heavily built around it seems like a bad move. If you really need that toolbox slot so much, cut something else.


A guy placed 3rd recently in Italy in a larger tournament running 62 cards. I'm sure I could find many other tutor based decks with 61 that have Top 8'd.

I'm not saying a 61/62/63/etc. card deck can't do well. I'm saying that there is hard math suggesting it is sub-par, whereas the arguments for it are based on subjective evaluation.

[Gui]

I've done a simulation sometime ago that intended on calculate the highest chance of getting exactly a given number lands by the n-th turn, going from 13 until 26 lands in the deck, and just to check, I added a 61st card. Not every case, but in some of the cases the 61 cards deck produced a higher chance of getting it.

Now this isn't enough proof that the 61st card is ok, because if your deck got a better card, say Dark Confidant in a bob.dec, then you should be aiming for the best chance of getting it. But if getting your manabase as sharp as it gets is more important, then you could run the 61st card.

Also, when considering how good a card is in general, this is such a subjetive call, because the same Dark Confidant that is MVP in so many games would just be a stupid card against Burn or Zoo. Diversity is also a gift in the sense that having cards that are not always MVP could be found in games where they are. There are really few cards that are never dead in legacy (Brainstorm, Force of Will), and even these can have corner cases in which they are not useful (i.e. FoW against manaless dredge)

If you lose power from not hitting the best card as much as possible, you can gain power from diversity.

IMO, but this is personal of course, 61 cards is acceptable.

[ColeM]

I calculate worth based on experience playing with the deck. Yes, it's not a rigorous mathematical calculation. That doesn't mean it's worthless and we shouldn't try to evaluate card quality, especially when there are known mathematical advantages to doing so. Yes, the worth can change from matchup to matchup. This is why you take metagame into account when you make the decision. You might cut Bojuka Bog because there hasn't been any Dredge and end up losing to Dredge twice. So what? You did the best you could with the knowledge you had. You shouldn't run the Bojuka Bog as a 61st card because you might run into Dredge like that other guy suggested. Yes, cards change value within a game state. This is why you look at overall value when deciding what cards to run.

I'm not saying a 61/62/63/etc. card deck can't do well. I'm saying that there is hard math suggesting it is sub-par, whereas the arguments for it are based on subjective evaluation.

Your calculation of worth is valid and I think it’s probably the most realistic method.

My point concerning the change of worth was not that you shouldn’t attempt to determine overall worth of a specific card in a defined metagame, but rather this determination can be extremely difficult and we must be aware of this.

In your hypothetical example you appear to reach the conclusion that running Bojuka Bog would have been better than not running it, which is an assessment I agree with. However, I must ask why one should not run that Bog as the 61st card?

If a card should be cut from a 61 card list then the metagame-weighed value of the cut card must be lower than the added metagame-weighed value of decreasing overall variance (note: I suspect these values are greatly influenced by both the strategy of the deck as well as the card selection). At some point in this optimization procedure you have to perform a subjective evaluation – so I question the suggestive strength of the proposed “hard math” in determining whether 61-63 card decks are sub-optimal designs.

For whatever it is worth, I almost always stick to the minimum allowed number of cards. I think most (perhaps all) of my decks are better at 60 cards, but I remain willing to consider the possibility that additional cards could improve the deck’s performance.

[Kuma]

I've done a simulation sometime ago that intended on calculate the highest chance of getting exactly a given number lands by the n-th turn, going from 13 until 26 lands in the deck, and just to check, I added a 61st card. Not every case, but in some of the cases the 61 cards deck produced a higher chance of getting it.

That's good analysis. I took it a step further and calculated the odds of getting between 3 and 6 lands by turn four (not too many, not too few), and the highest % was at 60 cards. The other thing to keep in mind is how much a "perfect" mana ratio is worth. Any difference from adding a 61st card will have a small effect on your mana ratios, but it will decrease your chances of drawing everything else in your deck. I don't think that's worth it. Like I said earlier, in order to argue the "perfect mana ratio" theory, you have to make/defend silly statements like getting four lands by turn four is fine 614 times out of 1000, but 632 out of 1000 is too much.


Now this isn't enough proof that the 61st card is ok, because if your deck got a better card, say Dark Confidant in a bob.dec, then you should be aiming for the best chance of getting it.

I think most if not all Legacy decks are in this category. Every deck running Brainstorm should be 60 cards to increase their chances of seeing Brainstorm and therefore seeing even more cards still. Decks running Dark Confidant are probably the same way. Drawing Dark Confidant lets you draw even more cards, increasing the penalty for that 61st card.

It's possible that a deck like Burn or Cat Sligh, where all the cards are much closer in power level than most other Legacy decks, could benefit from the improved mana ratio, but there's still the problem of increased variance.


My point concerning the change of worth was not that you shouldn’t attempt to determine overall worth of a specific card in a defined metagame, but rather this determination can be extremely difficult and we must be aware of this.

Oh, certainly it can be difficult. I'd rather try to do the difficult thing that is mathematically correct and fail (cutting the 61st card), than do something I know is mathematically wrong (running the 61st card) because the alternative is difficult.


In your hypothetical example you appear to reach the conclusion that running Bojuka Bog would have been better than not running it, which is an assessment I agree with. However, I must ask why one should not run that Bog as the 61st card?

In hindsight, sure, we'd have been better off with the Bojuka Bog. You can't make decisions like that in hindsight.

You shouldn't run the Bojuka Bog as the 61st card because it will hurt you in the majority of matches where it is a weak card, and in the matchups it is strong in you're hurting your chances of getting it by having a 61st card. I'd go to 60 cards and run the Bojuka Bog in my sideboard if I felt like I'd need it in a couple of matchups. Or, if having the Bojuka Bog in the main was important enough, I'd cut some other weak card to go to 60.


At some point in this optimization procedure you have to perform a subjective evaluation – so I question the suggestive strength of the proposed “hard math” in determining whether 61-63 card decks are sub-optimal designs.

Of course. There will always be subjective evaluation in deck construction. That said, whenever possible I try to use math to eliminate subjectivity. I know there are mathematical penalties for running a 61st card. They may be outweighed by the benefits of the 61st card, but I can't know that. Since I can't know that, I always err on the side of what I know to be true and run 60 cards.

A 61 card deck may be better than any subset of 60 cards. My question is how do you know?

[ColeM]

Kuma, I'm actually really glad of how you responded in that last post. You took me in a direction I was not expecting.

I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, but I'll try my best to express what I'm thinking at the moment. I think this has come down to an issue of how conservative our approaches are.

I believe (maybe I'm wrong) you argue that because we can't know the exact composition of a future metagame, the value of adding cards beyond the minimum of sixty is not worth considering. The value becomes too difficult to determine and so we should just take the cautious approach of sticking to the deck design with lower variance.

I'm more open to designing a deck with beyond 60 cards because I feel more comfortable making a bold metagame prediction. The decision to go beyond 60 would probably be linked to the confidence in the prediction - something I think I was always aware of on some level, but now you have me thinking about this more clearly.

[nedleeds]

Just play 4 x Brainstorm. That's like playing 52 cards.

[rufus]

I've done a simulation sometime ago that intended on calculate the highest chance of getting exactly a given number lands by the n-th turn, going from 13 until 26 lands in the deck, and just to check, I added a 61st card. Not every case, but in some of the cases the 61 cards deck produced a higher chance of getting it.

I'm curious to know how sophisticated that simulation was -- was it just a cards drawn/cards in deck/lands in deck calculation, or did it get fancier with accounting stuff like Brainstorm?

If you have L lands in a D card deck, then the chance to get exactly N lands in M cards is going to be: (L choose N)((D-L) choose (M-N)) / (D choose M) that's simple enough to fit in a spreadsheet cell.

Considering that decks can 'slim' with cards like Gitaxian Probe,Manamorphose or Street Wraith, it seems like one could calculate down to 52 card decks - or less . It seems like Vintage would be less likely to care about the life loss, but that Legacy combo decks should really be able to take advantage of those cards as well.

Something to keep in mind is that the extra card from drawing first is going to make a bigger difference than that 61st card in the probabilities, so players who care about the 61st card would also do well to side lands in or out if they know who's going first.

[LegacyStudent]

Running 61 cards is like leaving some of the bubbles blank on a multiple-choice standardized test when you are penalized 1/4 of a point for a wrong answer. You are avoiding potentially losing points to wrong answers, but also are ensuring that your test will never have a perfect score. This is psychologically unsatisfying for most players (and many students). They'd rather take the 60 card approach and fill out an answer for every question. Wrong answers can always come back to bite them but they will submit their test knowing that they potentially have a perfect score.


I'm more open to designing a deck with beyond 60 cards because I feel more comfortable making a bold metagame prediction. The decision to go beyond 60 would probably be linked to the confidence in the prediction.

If you were confident in your ability to predict the metagame, it would make more sense to run 60 cards because you could both maximize your odds of drawing your best cards as well as run the 'correct' set of tutor targets for the meta.

Increasing metagame knowledge is similar to narrowing down the choices on the unanswered test questions. The more options you can eliminate (i.e. the more accurate your metagame prediction), the more worthwhile it is to make a decision and fill in that bubble!

[Kuma]

Kuma, I'm actually really glad of how you responded in that last post. You took me in a direction I was not expecting.

Glad to help. :smile:


I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, but I'll try my best to express what I'm thinking at the moment. I think this has come down to an issue of how conservative our approaches are.

Possibly. My 60-card only approach is pretty conservative. My statistics background is a huge influence on how I design decks.


I believe (maybe I'm wrong) you argue that because we can't know the exact composition of a future metagame, the value of adding cards beyond the minimum of sixty is not worth considering. The value becomes too difficult to determine and so we should just take the cautious approach of sticking to the deck design with lower variance.

You're pretty close. I'm arguing that since we don't have a good method to evaluate whether or not a deck is better at 60 or 61 cards, we should stick to what we know, lower variance, etc.


I'm more open to designing a deck with beyond 60 cards because I feel more comfortable making a bold metagame prediction. The decision to go beyond 60 would probably be linked to the confidence in the prediction - something I think I was always aware of on some level, but now you have me thinking about this more clearly.

Whether or not to go beyond 60 cards doesn't have anything to do with the metagame. If I'm going to add cards to better combat the metagame, I'm going to cut something to keep my deck at 60. I've outlined the reasons in a previous post. Adding a 61st card with metagame implications may be better than running your original 60, but I think that running 60 cards with your metagame slot(s) is better still.

[ColeM]

Whether or not to go beyond 60 cards doesn't have anything to do with the metagame. If I'm going to add cards to better combat the metagame, I'm going to cut something to keep my deck at 60. I've outlined the reasons in a previous post. Adding a 61st card with metagame implications may be better than running your original 60, but I think that running 60 cards with your metagame slot(s) is better still.

I disagree with your assessment that this decision has no basis upon the decks that you will or could face. However, this disagreement stems from my willingness to build a deck using a procedure that does not assume I must stop at 60 cards. I suspect that if we continue to argue this point we will simply be led back to where we already are: you think that we should just stick with what we know for certain and I don’t think we should operate under that constraint.



Running 61 cards is like leaving some of the bubbles blank on a multiple-choice standardized test when you are penalized 1/4 of a point for a wrong answer. You are avoiding potentially losing points to wrong answers, but also are ensuring that your test will never have a perfect score. This is psychologically unsatisfying for most players (and many students). They'd rather take the 60 card approach and fill out an answer for every question. Wrong answers can always come back to bite them but they will submit their test knowing that they potentially have a perfect score
...
If you were confident in your ability to predict the metagame, it would make more sense to run 60 cards because you could both maximize your odds of drawing your best cards as well as run the 'correct' set of tutor targets for the meta.


I don’t think I care for this analogy. I don’t understand what “perfect score” is being likened to.

I do like that you’ve (essentially) pointed out the presence of our psychological heuristics that concern statistics. Anyone who studies statistics and/or psychology quickly realize how pervasive our cognitive biases are and how different our concept of nature is from the true nature of reality (or what appears to be the true nature).

I personally think I’ve already expressed well enough the problem with determining the value of cards and assuming that you should just maximize the odds of drawing whatever cards you determine to be the best.

[SpikeyMikey]

For those of you discussing using the 61st card to get the perfect mana ratio, I've found it doesn't help. I calculated the probability of getting between 3 and 6 lands (avoiding screw or flood) by turn 4 at 18-30 lands out of 60-61 cards, and found that 25/60 maximized your chances of getting between 3 and 6 lands. 26/61 was the best ratio for a 61 card deck and it was lower than 25/60.

Granted, this analysis is incomplete, but it suggests that your mana ratios are better at 60 cards. Also the idea that drawing four lands by turn four is fine 614 times out of 1000, but 632 out of 1000 is too much is absurd. That's essentially what the "perfect mana ratio" argument boils down to.

The argument for 60 card decks is simple.

1: Some cards in your deck are better than others.

2: The fewer cards in your deck, the more likely you are to draw any given card, all other things equal.

3: There is an overall weakest card slot in any deck.

3a: Therefore, in a 61-card deck there is a weakest card slot.

4: You do not have to run that 61st card.

5: Removing that 61st card will cause you to draw the other more powerful 60 cards more often.

QED: You should run 60 card decks.

The 61st card can be the lesser of two evils if you don't have time to carefully consider what to cut, but that's a situation you should try to avoid.

And as I pointed out in the last thread on this subject, this argument fails reductio ad absurdum. Even if you could run a 15 card deck, you wouldn't want to, for reasons beyond the potential for decking. There are certain redundancies and ratios that simply wouldn't work. Imagine trying to pare your Dredge deck down to 15 cards. Running less cards is not always more ideal.

Additionally, card values are not static. You could come up with an average value of a card within a deck over a number of games for a given field, but even then, the values change based on the rest of the decklist. So even if Green Sun's Zenith, for exampe, was the strongest card in your deck, you wouldn't run 12 of them. As the ratio of GSZ to other stuff grows and as you lose tutor targets to cut for more GSZ's, your deck gets worse. Since card values are relative to deck construction, the idea of a "weakest" card is questionable. Sword of the Meek is probably the weakest card in a U/W Thopters listing but cutting it weakens the entire deck overall. Calculating which card is the weakest just isn't feasible.

Finally, saying 3-6 lands by turn 4 is a rather arbitrary yardstick. What makes that the most important thing in deck construction? How is having ideal mana more important than drawing or not drawing a bomb or having or not having a tutor target? Hell, most decks in Legacy don't ever want to see 6 mana. And how many lands you're comfortable with seeing changes drastically based on the ratio of wastes/duals/fetches/basics.

The bottom line is, theoretically, there are times when 61 cards is correct. Theoretically, there are times when 60 cards is correct. In practice, it's nearly impossible to determine which is the case in a given scenario. People will tend to take you less seriously if you're running 61, but otherwise, the difference in almost all cases is fairly negligible.

[Gui]

That's good analysis. I took it a step further and calculated the odds of getting between 3 and 6 lands by turn four (not too many, not too few), and the highest % was at 60 cards. The other thing to keep in mind is how much a "perfect" mana ratio is worth. Any difference from adding a 61st card will have a small effect on your mana ratios, but it will decrease your chances of drawing everything else in your deck. I don't think that's worth it. Like I said earlier, in order to argue the "perfect mana ratio" theory, you have to make/defend silly statements like getting four lands by turn four is fine 614 times out of 1000, but 632 out of 1000 is too much.

I've done this same simulation for a lot of other circumstances, as for the best number to get 3 lands by turn 3, the best chance of getting 4 by turn 4, the best chance of getting 2 by turn 2, and the best mana/spell ratio, considering and not considering mulligans, considering and not wastelands, in several ways. I didn't really saved the data, for it was a bunch of text I wouldn't use, since I was toying with these after I found a number I was looking for a deck of mine, which was better at 60 cards / 19 lands.

But there are cases in which 61 cards got a better mana/spell ratio. I'd have to rethink all the specific cases, and I honestly couldn't care less about them, so I won't, and it's up to you to believe me or not. But in these cases, these numbers would mean something really low, like getting 1 more spell than you would in 100 games.

While this would be a really low benefit, arguably not worth the effort of calculating all these, it's the same kind of small advatage we get when we run 60 cards instead of 61, really small better chance of getting these "best cards", which is already a subjective matter.

So I tend to agree with SpikeyMikey

The bottom line is, theoretically, there are times when 61 cards is correct. Theoretically, there are times when 60 cards is correct. In practice, it's nearly impossible to determine which is the case in a given scenario. People will tend to take you less seriously if you're running 61, but otherwise, the difference in almost all cases is fairly negligible.

[Michael Keller]

People will tend to take you less seriously if you're running 61, but otherwise, the difference in almost all cases is fairly negligible.

I think with the increasing number of theorists who speak about running more than sixty cards in a deck all over the internet and basically it being commonplace chatter among players these days, a person is probably not going to relegate you as being "inferior" competition because of an obvious decision you made to run one more card.

The difference here is that running sixty-one cards is intentional as opposed to being a passive decision where someone would just want to sandwich everything that is "good" in their deck together without even thinking about the variables involved in making such a decision. But the player who gave lots of thought and testing in running sixty-one cards will, in some cases, have a better product than their opponent.

But yes I agree, the difference is negligible if the deck is well-oiled and thoroughly tested.

[LegacyStudent]

I don’t think I care for this analogy. I don’t understand what “perfect score” is being likened to.
In this sense, 'perfect score' refers to the feeling that you've built the optimal decklist. I've never met someone that ran more than 60 cards because they felt it was 'optimal'. It has always been because they wanted the option of being able to tutor up the 61st card just in case a certain deck appeared in the metagame.

Consider a scenario of perfect metagame information, where you attended a tournament and knew, in advance, the exact decklists that you would play against every round, regardless of your record. You are now able to build your deck and base it off of the lists that you know you will face. Are you still going to run more than 60 cards? If so, why? My point is that, even with perfect information, it is ultimately unknown whether or not it's mathematically beneficial to run an additional card, and because of that, you can't justify to other people that it is correct to run the 61st (or greater) card. However, running the absolute minimum deck size of 60 cards allows you the maximum reduction of deck variance, which IS verified mathematically, regardless of whether or not it is actually optimal. Because of this, players are inclined to cut decklists to 60 cards because if they are ever questioned they can always say, 'well I always want card X in my hand, and the fewer cards in the deck, the greater the chance I will draw card X on any given turn'.

In order to justify running more than 60 cards, you have to prove that the benefits of the extra card outweigh the increase in variance your deck will inevitably incur... and there's no way to do this mathematically because there's too many variables to consider. The best that proponents of more than 60 cards decks have is... 'I was concerned about a matchup and if I had played against a certain deck, the 61st would have just wrecked them.'

[Lemnear]

In other words: The 61st card is nothing to Advance your own gameplan but always meta-hate ... do i get this right?

[Skeggi]

In other words: The 61st card is nothing to Advance your own gameplan but always meta-hate ... do i get this right?
No. I think the general observation is that people tend to do this alot - but it's the wrong reason to run 61 cards instead of 60.

Cardcount in a deck is a fluid thing. While you can actually count up to 60 or 61 actual cards, but things like cantrips and fetchlands make the calculation much more complex.

What about you have a deck with a certain manacurve, you calculate a certain % of lands is required for this curve. So what do you do when you add things up and you end up with 61 card deck, but with the perfect curve and the perfect ammount of lands? This seems almost impossible to calculate - but theoretically it could be possible 61 cards is better than 60 in cases like this.

[Koby]

One example of the 61st card being a land was old school UW Landstill with Eternal Dragon and 24 land. The curve wanted 4 mana on turn four every game.

[SpikeyMikey]

One example of the 61st card being a land was old school UW Landstill with Eternal Dragon and 24 land. The curve wanted 4 mana on turn four every game.

There are a number of times where 61 is more optimal than a 60 card list for this very reason. Even if running 61 isn't perfectly optimal in a given situation, running 61 cards and 22 lands may be better than 60 and 21 lands, depending on the deck. In such a case, the 61 card player has a slightly better deck than the 60 card player. Perhaps, given extensive testing and tweaking, a better 60 card deck could be created, but let's be honest; playtesting is never going to give you good accuracy. You're talking about something with an incredibly amount of variables ranging from actual draws to how far off optimal play you run each game. And even if these things were more static than they are, you'd still want thousands of iterations of simulation in order to say anything with any sort of certainty.

The reason people tend to be more loose with a 61st card in tutor heavy decks is because there is a tension between decreased variance and increased selection. With no tutoring or filter, increased selection is minimal and therefore decreased variance is better. But, to delve into the land of theoreticals, if your draws consisted of nothing but mana and tutors, there would be no reason whatsoever not to run 1 of every tutorable card available; thus you'd have the correct solution to any given problem at your fingertips. In reality, you're not going to draw only tutors, so you have to weigh the value of increased selection against decreased variance in draws. Going all the way to minimal variance is bad; a deck that ran only 1 unique card would be terrible. On the other hand, playing a 60 card highlander deck is obviously not ideal either. The optimal balance lies somewhere in between and shifts based on available dig. Saying that since it's impossible to pinpoint that optimum point means that shooting for minimum variance is best is a copout.

[Skeggi]

I think SpikeyMikey just won the thread.

[Kuma]

And as I pointed out in the last thread on this subject, this argument fails reductio ad absurdum.

I don't like invoking the strawman fallacy, because usually when someone argues against statements I didn't make it's because they genuinely misunderstood what I said. However, I showed you how my argument isn't invalidated by reductio ad absurdum in the last thread, and here you are pretending it didn't happen while twisting what I said.


Even if you could run a 15 card deck, you wouldn't want to, for reasons beyond the potential for decking. There are certain redundancies and ratios that simply wouldn't work. Imagine trying to pare your Dredge deck down to 15 cards. Running less cards is not always more ideal.

Aside from the fact that you're dead wrong about 15 card decks, my argument is not, nor has it ever been that you should always run the minimum deck size no matter what it is. You might like it if I argued otherwise, but I haven't even used the word "minimum" in any post on the subject.

My position is that you should run 60 cards as opposed to 61.
My position is not that you should always run the minimum deck size regardless of what that is.

So no, I don't fail reductio ad absurdum.


Additionally, card values are not static. You could come up with an average value of a card within a deck over a number of games for a given field, but even then, the values change based on the rest of the decklist. So even if Green Sun's Zenith, for exampe, was the strongest card in your deck, you wouldn't run 12 of them.

This is never what I meant by strongest card. I elaborated on this in both threads.


Let me clarify once again. When I say strongest card or weakest card, I'm talking about an individual slot such as "the fourth Tarmogoyf" or "the third Ponder." I'm not talking about all the copies of a card, although it's entirely possible that the four weakest cards in a 64 card deck could be copies one through four of card X.


You misunderstand me. I'm not saying, "If Tarmogoyf is the best card in your deck then running nothing but Tarmogoyfs and lands would be ideal if the rules allowed it." Tarmogoyf #4 may be the worst slot in your deck, but Tarmogoyf #3 may be one of the best. Brainstorms are better than Ponders in the RUG lists that run them, etc.

You've somehow turned this into "If Green Sun's Zeniths 1-4 are the most powerful cards in the deck you should run even more if allowed."


Calculating which card is the weakest just isn't feasible.

Mathematically proving which card is the weakest isn't feasible. It's not hard to have a pretty good idea which card is worst from playing a deck. I'd rather try to make a tough call and potentially mess up (cutting the 61st card) than do something for which there are known mathematical penalties (running the 61st card) because the alternative "is hard".


Finally, saying 3-6 lands by turn 4 is a rather arbitrary yardstick.

No, saying 2, 34, or 57 lands by turn four is arbitrary. Three to six is a reasonable range of lands to see by turn four in order to play a good game of Magic (especially for Landstill, the deck I had in mind when I calculated the probabilities.) We don't always want six mana, but having drawn six lands by turn four doesn't usually inhibit your ability to play a good game of Magic.


What makes that the most important thing in deck construction? How is having ideal mana more important than drawing or not drawing a bomb or having or not having a tutor target?

Instead of rebutting you, I'm going to ask that you quote the post where I said any of that.

Hint: it's not this (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?23031-Merits-of-running-a-61st-card&p=615017&viewfull=1#post615017) post, which you quoted, that says "perfect mana ratio" arguments are absurd, and that the analysis is incomplete.


The bottom line is, based on speculation, here-say, anecdotal evidence, and theorycrafting, there are times when 61 cards is correct.

Based on what we can know, rooted in mathematics 60 cards is the better option.

Fixed that for you.

[Wisdomseyes1]

I am pro-61 cards. Why? Because the number of the types of decks you can deal with with 76 cards is slightly better than the number of cards you can deal with using 75 cards.

So many of these posts are "mathmatically, your less likely to draw what you want/need". Okay really, that chance is cut by how much again? If your running 4 of something, and you need something (turn 3 at earliest that you will "need" something... though I guess in legacy there are some wicked crazy combos... so lets just say you "need" it turn 1 though the argument from where I stand was for dredge which in turn is later game) you have gone through 7 cards of your deck. The chances of 1 of those cards being the card you need is 1 turn in is about 11.7% in a 60 card deck and about 11.5% in a 61 card deck. (I am only using opening hand because I am lazy and your chances only get better especially after playing cards)

So yes, for giving up an option of dealing with an entire deck genera, you gained an entire .2% ability to draw something.

Honestly, im not impressed. Yes, your deck should be designed to deal with any number of threats, but that is slightly easier with 61 cards in it. its just abysmally smaller of a chance you will draw that particular card. But of course the logic is sound to say that if you cut that card out the chances of your drawing it is 0, right?

EDIT: Oh and for the "How many top players had 61 card decks" comments, look at it this way. Almost none of the people playing took 61 card decks because people play like each other. "He is a good player therefore I will copy what he does and get good because of it"

Saying that the people of the top 8 had 60 card decks and therefore 60 cards decks are better is like saying that the united states has a hard on for war because it has the biggest military budget. OF COURSE it does... we have a massive economy. We could say the same thing about china and the number of soldiers their military has.

If 60 card decks are so vastly superior to other numbers, why did the tens of thousands of other people who brought 60 card decks not come close to the top 8?

There is a positive to having 60 cards, no one denies it... but it is not here-say or assumption that makes more options and ability to deal with more types of decks a bad decision. Its like extending your sideboard by 1 card at the expense of less that .5% of a chance to draw something. Yes, there is a negative to cutting out a card that can potentially help you against a match up.

Dont assume that the people playing 61 card are to lazy to figure out what they dont need. its not that they dont want to try and find out, its that its hard to decide what isnt winning them the game because every time they draw a card, it helps them greatly.

Now if your deck is made so perfectly that it has a good card for every situation against every deck type, then good for you. But adding that 1 card that can cover a weakness in your deck (say your weak to dredge so you use the land I can never spell) even though you already had graveyard abuse control to a minor extent. Is that increasing or decreasing your chances of dealing with dredge?.

That's all I have to say.

[dschalter]

I am pro-61 cards. Why? Because the number of the types of decks you can deal with with 76 cards is slightly better than the number of cards you can deal with using 75 cards.

So many of these posts are "mathmatically, your less likely to draw what you want/need". Okay really, that chance is cut by how much again? If your running 4 of something, and you need something (turn 3 at earliest that you will "need" something... though I guess in legacy there are some wicked crazy combos... so lets just say you "need" it turn 1 though the argument from where I stand was for dredge which in turn is later game) you have gone through 7 cards of your deck. The chances of 1 of those cards being the card you need is 1 turn in is about 11.7% in a 60 card deck and about 11.5% in a 61 card deck. (I am only using opening hand because I am lazy and your chances only get better especially after playing cards)

So yes, for giving up an option of dealing with an entire deck genera, you gained an entire .2% ability to draw something.

Honestly, im not impressed. Yes, your deck should be designed to deal with any number of threats, but that is slightly easier with 61 cards in it. its just abysmally smaller of a chance you will draw that particular card. But of course the logic is sound to say that if you cut that card out the chances of your drawing it is 0, right?

EDIT: Oh and for the "How many top players had 61 card decks" comments, look at it this way. Almost none of the people playing took 61 card decks because people play like each other. "He is a good player therefore I will copy what he does and get good because of it"

Saying that the people of the top 8 had 60 card decks and therefore 60 cards decks are better is like saying that the united states has a hard on for war because it has the biggest military budget. OF COURSE it does... we have a massive economy. We could say the same thing about china and the number of soldiers their military has.

If 60 card decks are so vastly superior to other numbers, why did the tens of thousands of other people who brought 60 card decks not come close to the top 8?

There is a positive to having 60 cards, no one denies it... but it is not here-say or assumption that makes more options and ability to deal with more types of decks a bad decision. Its like extending your sideboard by 1 card at the expense of less that .5% of a chance to draw something. Yes, there is a negative to cutting out a card that can potentially help you against a match up.

Dont assume that the people playing 61 card are to lazy to figure out what they dont need. its not that they dont want to try and find out, its that its hard to decide what isnt winning them the game because every time they draw a card, it helps them greatly.

Now if your deck is made so perfectly that it has a good card for every situation against every deck type, then good for you. But adding that 1 card that can cover a weakness in your deck (say your weak to dredge so you use the land I can never spell) even though you already had graveyard abuse control to a minor extent. Is that increasing or decreasing your chances of dealing with dredge?.

That's all I have to say.

I think this is half of a decent argument. If you are playing a control deck, you need to answer your opponent's threats. However, good control decks also tend to have universal answers (read: counterspells) that can answer any threat and by including a card that answers a certain deck you may be reducing your chance of drawing a universal answer (or, if your 61st card is another universal answer you are reducing your chances of drawing better answers.

The concept of more answers is meaningless for aggro and combo decks however, because those decks don't need answers, they need threats to carry out their plans.

[Neuad]

I play 61 cards in decks with lots of draw.

I played 61 in U/W/x Landstill, where cutting to get down to 60 was impossible, I had Fact or Fiction, Standstill, Brainstorm, and cunning wish to make it not that big of a deal.

I played 61 in Goblins, where between Matron, Ringleader, and Kiki-Jiki copying them it was never an issue.

In the other 2 decks I put a lot of time into, Storm and G/W, I didn't have as much card draw, or just never wanted the 61st card in the main.

[death]

Just play 4 x Brainstorm. That's like playing 52 cards.

Gitaxian Probe is that card not Brainstorm because Probe replaces itself and does not cost any mana, not even :u:. So no tempo is lost.

tl;dr
The merit of a 61st card is that you can bring in additional hate cards games 2-3 without taking out much of your threats/filter/generic answer cards.

[Kuma]

There are a number of times where 61 is more optimal than a 60 card list for this very reason.

Let me see if I understand you. You lambast me for supposedly arguing that having ideal mana is more important than drawing or not drawing a bomb or having or not having a tutor target. You then turn around and say some 61 card decks are better than 60 cards because of ideal mana ratios.

Do I have that correct?


Even if running 61 isn't perfectly optimal in a given situation, running 61 cards and 22 lands may be better than 60 and 21 lands, depending on the deck. In such a case, the 61 card player has a slightly better deck than the 60 card player.

This is true, but I'm not arguing that no 61 card deck is better than any 60 card deck. There are numerous, obvious, counterexamples to that claim.

Would you try to stick to the arguments that are actually being made?


Perhaps, given extensive testing and tweaking, a better 60 card deck could be created, but let's be honest; playtesting is never going to give you good accuracy. You're talking about something with an incredibly amount of variables ranging from actual draws to how far off optimal play you run each game. And even if these things were more static than they are, you'd still want thousands of iterations of simulation in order to say anything with any sort of certainty.

Mathematics are inadequate, play-testing will never give you good accuracy, there are too many variables, need thousands of simulations...

Why even try to make a deck the best it can be? You'll never know if you're right because the game is too complex. You're better off just running whatever 60 or 61 card deck, as you prefer, consisting of whatever cards tickle your fancy. Anyone who suggest your decisions are suboptimal doesn't understand what a unique snowflake you are. Besides, they can't prove that your deck choices are sub-optimal, which means that obviously you are correct in all your decisions.

It sounds like you're suggesting that "we can't know" = "it doesn't matter" How then should we make decisions about what cards to run and what size our deck should be? You've dismissed everything I can think of as a criteria as inadequate.


But, to delve into the land of theoreticals, if your draws consisted of nothing but mana and tutors, there would be no reason whatsoever not to run 1 of every tutorable card available; thus you'd have the correct solution to any given problem at your fingertips.

Except that running one of every tutorable card available would mean you couldn't draw only mana and tutors by definition.


In reality, you're not going to draw only tutors, so you have to weigh the value of increased selection against decreased variance in draws. Going all the way to minimal variance is bad; a deck that ran only 1 unique card would be terrible.

That's not what I mean by variance. All other things equal, consistency is a desirable quality of a deck. Consistency means drawing a similar subset of a certain group of cards by a certain turn as often as possible. The more cards you run, the more possible hands/draws your deck can generate.

For example, a Bant deck might want a hand similar to Fetchland, Fetchland, Noble Hierarch, Stoneforge Mystic, Spell Pierce, Force of Will against a random/blind opponent as often as possible. Adding a 61st card that is none of these things reduces the chances of drawing a hand similar to this. That 61st card is therefore hurting your consistency.

Maybe I should have used the word "consistency" instead of "variance"


The optimal balance lies somewhere in between and shifts based on available dig.

How do you know? You can't prove that. Magic is too complex for you to make blanket statements like that


Saying that since it's impossible to pinpoint that optimum point means that shooting for minimum variance is best is a copout

If you admit that the question is unanswerable, how is doing the best you can based on the available data a cop-out?

Please enlighten me on how to build great decks while ignoring math and science. Teach me your ways!

And yes, that was sarcasm.


I am pro-61 cards. Why? Because the number of the types of decks you can deal with with 76 cards is slightly better than the number of cards you can deal with using 75 cards.

Are you pro-62 card decks? What about 63 card decks? How about 78?

Do you believe that running 62, 63, or 78 cards allows you to handle more decks than 61 cards? If so, isn't 78 the optimal deck size? If not, why not?


garbage about percent chances of drawing cards

I'm going to make up some numbers for the sake of illustrating my point.

Lets suppose we have a 60-card toolbox deck that looks something like this:

5 tutor targets
55 other cards

Those in the 61st card camp are saying in some cases that this is inadequate for handling enough different decks. They propose a 61-card deck that looks something like this:

6 tutor targets
55 other cards

My point is, assuming that the 61st carders are right about needing more tutor targets, why not run this deck instead?:

6 tutor targets
54 other cards

You get the benefits of an expanded tutor package while avoiding the penalties of running 61 cards. You're also more likely to draw your tutor and the desired tutor target in every case. If that's important enough to justify a 61st card, why isn't a 60-card deck that increases the chances of those things happening even better?

Also, who cares how small the percent difference is between 60 and 61? Why give your opponent any percentage points that you don't have to?


EDIT: Oh and for the "How many top players had 61 card decks" comments, look at it this way. Almost none of the people playing took 61 card decks because people play like each other. "He is a good player therefore I will copy what he does and get good because of it"

When virtually every high-level Magic player/pro believes something it's because:

A: It's probably true
or
B: People who have repeatedly shown the ability to innovate can't think for themselves.

I await your answer.


Saying that the people of the top 8 had 60 card decks and therefore 60 cards decks are better is like saying that the united states has a hard on for war because it has the biggest military budget. OF COURSE it does... we have a massive economy. We could say the same thing about china and the number of soldiers their military has.

Huh?


If 60 card decks are so vastly superior to other numbers, why did the tens of thousands of other people who brought 60 card decks not come close to the top 8?

Because only eight people can be in the top eight. If you can't understand math that basic, what the fuck are you doing playing Magic let alone posting about it?


There is a positive to having 60 cards, no one denies it... but it is not here-say or assumption that makes more options and ability to deal with more types of decks a bad decision.

I'm not against building decks with greater flexibility. All other things equal, flexibility is desirable. I point to my above example about adding extra tutor targets as to why such a strategy is worse at 61 cards.


Dont assume that the people playing 61 card are to lazy to figure out what they dont need.

I would never assume such a thing. They could also be cowards, unscientific, or have dysarithmia to name a few.


its not that they dont want to try and find out, its that its hard to decide what isnt winning them the game because every time they draw a card, it helps them greatly.

Refusing to do something because it's hard is the definition of lazy.


That's all I have to say.

Good. Your first post wasn't very impressive. I'd hate to think more are coming.

Wait a minute... first post. Someone is trolling me. Well played, whoever you are.


Gitaxian Probe is that card not Brainstorm because Probe replaces itself and does not cost any mana, not even :u:. So no tempo is lost.

Do you start all your decks with four Gitaxian Probe?

[Wisdomseyes1]

I think this is half of a decent argument. If you are playing a control deck, you need to answer your opponent's threats. However, good control decks also tend to have universal answers (read: counterspells) that can answer any threat and by including a card that answers a certain deck you may be reducing your chance of drawing a universal answer (or, if your 61st card is another universal answer you are reducing your chances of drawing better answers.

Yea, probably true. Though sometimes universal control isnt always something you can get due to mana per spell. Maybe that's just me, my FNM meta tends to be a lot of ramp while I am usually playing in standards and modern (modern being the only valid format for this argument... 61 cards in standard would be silly because the opponents aren't all the varied... everyone runs solar flare or delver burn)

WoG could also be considered universal control in a sense... but in say the case of dredge you counterspell their card with dredge... did you really benefit yourself all that much? Or did you help the opponent.


Good. Your first post wasn't very impressive. I'd hate to think more are coming.

Wait a minute... first post. Someone is trolling me. Well played, whoever you are.

I disagree with you and give very valid reasons… and I am a troll for it? Interesting. Oh, and pretend I bothered to go back and add the words :for now” just to satisfy you.


Refusing to do something because it's hard is the definition of lazy.

Is playing a match a day with 3 different people for 2 months and still not being able to see a benefit to taking out a card “laziness”?


I'm not against building decks with greater flexibility. All other things equal, flexibility is desirable. I point to my above example about adding extra tutor targets as to why such a strategy is worse at 61 cards.
In your above example, the extra card IS a tutor, which IS counterproductive. The point of having a 61st card isn’t for an additional tutor slot… that 61st card is to say you don’t like particular decks because your “universal control” is sub-par against certain deck genres.


Because only eight people can be in the top eight. If you can't understand math that basic, what the fuck are you doing playing Magic let alone posting about it?

Troll.


When virtually every high-level Magic player/pro believes something it's because:

A: It's probably true
or
B: People who have repeatedly shown the ability to innovate can't think for themselves.

I await your answer.

A makes sense… B is gibberish what the heck are you saying?

And A can be explained by the kid at my LGS who is playing illusions and running 4 mana leaks. Why? Because he looked it up online and it told him blue decks always run mana leak in standard.

And that can be consistently proven true with most decks. You think solar flare is made up by every person you see in standard playing it? No, of course not. they saw it online and copy paste. It’s quite simple. Happens in magic, 40k, hell even dungeons and dragons says “put all your points in to 1 thing and specialize”. If it is a game… and people have access to the internet… peoples decks start looking very, very similar.
Weird how people seem to have the same decks if it gets posted on daily MTG or gets a high rating on a random form… must be a total coincidence that people seem to think for themselves and develop the most productive strategies.

Curious as to how many of the entries in the national tournament where copy pastes of the ones that won.

[Kuma]

Is playing a match a day with 3 different people for 2 months and still not being able to see a benefit to taking out a card “laziness”?

No, it's stupidity. If you've played a deck for that long and can't identify any single card slot that isn't pulling its weight as well as the others, your card evaluation skills are sorely lacking. Also the number of games of Magic you play has nothing to do with your ability to comprehend mathematics.


In your above example, the extra card IS a tutor, which IS counterproductive.

What? It's a tutor only if you cut a tutor which you obviously wouldn't do. Total strawman.


The point of having a 61st card isn’t for an additional tutor slot… that 61st card is to say you don’t like particular decks because your “universal control” is sub-par against certain deck genres.

And you can't "say you don't like particular decks" sufficiently with a 60 card deck?


A makes sense… B is gibberish what the heck are you saying?

Thanks for admitting that your post was gibberish. That's the first step to self-improvement.

On the off-chance you actually don't understand my point, you argued that the reason people play 60-card decks is because they're netdecking, not because it's optimal. I pointed out that virtually all successful Magic pros, people who can obviously think for themselves and create successful decks, always run 60 cards.


And A can be explained by the kid at my LGS who is playing illusions and running 4 mana leaks. Why? Because he looked it up online and it told him blue decks always run mana leak in standard.

And that can be consistently proven true with most decks. You think solar flare is made up by every person you see in standard playing it? No, of course not. they saw it online and copy paste. It’s quite simple. Happens in magic, 40k, hell even dungeons and dragons says “put all your points in to 1 thing and specialize”. If it is a game… and people have access to the internet… peoples decks start looking very, very similar.
Weird how people seem to have the same decks if it gets posted on daily MTG or gets a high rating on a random form… must be a total coincidence that people seem to think for themselves and develop the most productive strategies.

Curious as to how many of the entries in the national tournament where copy pastes of the ones that won.

I'm not denying that many people netdeck. I just think it's absurd to suggest that's the reason why so many people believe 60-card decks are optimal.

Also, answer my question. Are you pro-62 card decks? What about 63 card decks? How about 78?

Do you believe that running 62, 63, or 78 cards allows you to handle more decks than 61 cards? If so, isn't 78 the optimal deck size? If not, why not?

[Skeggi]

I played 61 in U/W/x Landstill, where cutting to get down to 60 was impossible, I had Fact or Fiction, Standstill, Brainstorm, and cunning wish to make it not that big of a deal.
I think running 61 cards could be right in control decks, like UWx Landstill, perhaps even Esper Blade. But only if you need it for mana balance purposes.

I played 61 in Goblins, where between Matron, Ringleader, and Kiki-Jiki copying them it was never an issue.
I think running 61 cards in Goblins is wrong because you want to keep your turn 1 Lackey or Vial at the highest possible chance.

[rufus]

I don't think making things personal is going to lead to constructive discussion.


I think running 61 cards could be right in control decks, like UWx Landstill, perhaps even Esper Blade. But only if you need it for mana balance purposes.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'mana balance'?

Kuma:
Fewer cards doesn't a priori mean a better deck. On the draw, 4 mountains and 7 bolts is better than 3 mountains and 7 bolts or 4 mountains and 6 bolts.

[Skeggi]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'mana balance'?
Each deck has a certain mana curve - with that curve comes an optimal number of lands the deck should run. So what if you have 38 spells and 23 lands is the optimal number of mana sources to accompany those? You could opt to cut the weakest spell, but perhaps that breaks the deck. Perhaps you cut a (cmc4, a lone Jace perhaps) spell that makes 21 lands the optimal number of mana sources - what then? If 38/23 is the best split, 61 is probably the correct number of cards in your deck.

[rufus]

Each deck has a certain mana curve - with that curve comes an optimal number of lands the deck should run. So what if you have 38 spells and 23 lands is the optimal number of mana sources to accompany those?...

You write that 23/38 might be 'optimal'. When you write optimal, do you mean "able to cast spells x,y,z" as quickly as possible, or 'most likely to be able to cast one of a,b,c by turn 3" or something similar?

[Kuma]

Kuma:
Fewer cards doesn't a priori mean a better deck. On the draw, 4 mountains and 7 bolts is better than 3 mountains and 7 bolts or 4 mountains and 6 bolts.

That may be true and that's all fine and dandy, but decks cannot be 11 cards. Decks also can't run seven Lightning Bolts. They can only run four. "Decks" like these are not relevant to the 60 vs. 61 argument. The only deck you posted capable of winning a game of Magic on the draw without help from your opponent is the four Mountains seven 'bolts. Obviously you wouldn't run so few cards that you can't win the game. That's not the case at 60 vs. 61.

It's a huge stretch to say that because four Mountains seven 'bolts is better than three Mountains seven 'bolts that 61 cards can be better than 60.

How many times do I have to post that my argument isn't that you should always run the smallest legal deck size no matter what it is before people stop posting absurd examples?


Each deck has a certain mana curve - with that curve comes an optimal number of lands the deck should run. So what if you have 38 spells and 23 lands is the optimal number of mana sources to accompany those? You could opt to cut the weakest spell, but perhaps that breaks the deck. Perhaps you cut a (cmc4, a lone Jace perhaps) spell that makes 21 lands the optimal number of mana sources - what then? If 38/23 is the best split, 61 is probably the correct number of cards in your deck.

"Perfect mana ratio" arguments for 61 cards are absurd. The difference is incredibly small, but even if it's "better" you now have the possibility of drawing that weak(er) 61st card instead of the bomb underneath it.

Arguing perfect mana ratios is like saying that drawing four lands by turn four is okay 614 times out of 1000, but if it creeps up to 632 times out of 1000 that's too much. Absolutely ridiculous.

[sdematt]

I think 61 is fine, especially in a tutor-based deck. I'm running 61 in Rock due to having both Green Sun's Zenith and Knight as tutors. Having the Dryad Arbor in the deck as my 61st card has been great. I've run the deck through hundreds (probably thousands, but not in this identical iteration) of matches with different archetypes and I wouldn't have it any other way. Could I remove another card and get it to 60? Probably, but I've run the deck with 60 and with 61, and I've had better success with 61.

Again, we know math doesn't lie, and neither does reality if you have enough games. I've had the card that won me the game one card down: with 60, I would have had that game. But, that happened all of once or twice, and even then, without the 61st card (at that time, the 3rd Top), I wouldn't have seen that far anyway.

Again, personal preference. If there's a card you need for a matchup, or want more of something, go for it. But do it with the understanding the the odds for drawing every card in your deck will be slightly less. That's all.

-Matt

[Kuma]

I've run the deck through hundreds (probably thousands, but not in this identical iteration)... I've run the deck with 60 and with 61, and I've had better success with 61.

You can't expect me to accept your memory as viable evidence.

[sdematt]

Then what is viable evidence? Had I not had X-card in the deck to fetch, I would have lost. What else are you looking for?

I'm not going to tell you that I know exactly how many times certain things happened, but I know that if I didn't have Bog/Karakas/Arbor or whatever as my 61st, I would not have won games. I'm not going to argue with the math that in total the chance of drawing any particular card decreases with increasing deck size.

And, like someone (was it you?) was saying, when does 614/1000 becomes fantastic, whereas 632/1000 become the nut-low?

-Matt

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Is this actually an argument that is happening where people are actually saying that 61 cards can be the ideal size, or am I hallucinating vividly.

[TeenieBopper]

Is this actually an argument that is happening where people are actually saying that 61 cards can be the ideal size, or am I hallucinating vividly.

Both Gabe Walls and LSV have argued for running 61 cards, but those were for a very specific purpose (mana ratio) and in very specific decks (Astral Slide and Esper control, respectively).

That being said, running 61 cards is nearly always wrong. And by nearly always wrong, I mean there are probably less than 5 examples in all of magic history where you could make a legit argument for it, and none of the examples in this thread qualify.

[Kuma]

Then what is viable evidence?

Hard data, a hypothesis test with that data, a mathematical result, a sound logical argument (I don't think this is necessarily possible, but I'd accept one as evidence should it be presented.)

What is not evidence is human memory, which is prone to selection bias and more.


I'm not going to tell you that I know exactly how many times certain things happened, but I know that if I didn't have Bog/Karakas/Arbor or whatever as my 61st, I would not have won games.

The question you need to ask is how many more games would you have won with the increased chance of drawing that card from playing 60 cards?


And, like someone (was it you?) was saying, when does 614/1000 becomes fantastic, whereas 632/1000 become the nut-low?

Yes, in reference to people who think they need to run 61 cards to have a "perfect" mana ratio.


Is this actually an argument that is happening where people are actually saying that 61 cards can be the ideal size, or am I hallucinating vividly.

You're hallucinating vividly. This is an ass-whuppin.

[Wisdomseyes1]

Kuma, i am done responding to you... mostly because now after seeing every single post in this thread by you, you have not presented 1 point of argument, you have just called everyone dumb... which by the way is trolling and doesnt support your argument at all.

I cant leave this uncheaked though.


The question you need to ask is how many more games would you have won with the increased chance of drawing that card from playing 60 cards?

I dont think your IQ is high enough to understand the concept of a 61st card. Your chances, of drawing Bog/Karakas/Arbor or whatever is 0 if you dont put it in.

Responding to people whose IQ is greater than their shoe size, and know the rules of rational debate (not 4Chan debate)

[Neuad]

Misspost :(

[Roman Candle]

Kuma, i am done responding to you... mostly because now after seeing every single post in this thread by you, you have not presented 1 point of argument, you have just called everyone dumb... which by the way is trolling and doesnt support your argument at all.

I cant leave this uncheaked though.



I dont think your IQ is high enough to understand the concept of a 61st card. Your chances, of drawing Bog/Karakas/Arbor or whatever is 0 if you dont put it in.

Responding to people whose IQ is greater than their shoe size, and know the rules of rational debate (not 4Chan debate)

Sure, your chances of drawing those cards is zero if they aren't in the deck... but if those cards are that important to the Meta, are they really the 61st card? Or is it another card in your deck?

The 61st card is not literally the last card you put in.. its the weakest of your cards.

[SpikeyMikey]

I don't like invoking the strawman fallacy, because usually when someone argues against statements I didn't make it's because they genuinely misunderstood what I said. However, I showed you how my argument isn't invalidated by reductio ad absurdum in the last thread, and here you are pretending it didn't happen while twisting what I said.

In fairness, I don't remember the enter breakdown of the last thread. I'll go reread it after this so that I've got a stronger grasp on this discussion.



Aside from the fact that you're dead wrong about 15 card decks, my argument is not, nor has it ever been that you should always run the minimum deck size no matter what it is. You might like it if I argued otherwise, but I haven't even used the word "minimum" in any post on the subject.
My position is that you should run 60 cards as opposed to 61.
My position is not that you should always run the minimum deck size regardless of what that is.

So no, I don't fail reductio ad absurdum.

Point 2 of your argument on page 1: The fewer cards in your deck, the more likely you are to draw any given card, all other things equal.

Then point 3 was: There is an overall weakest card slot in any deck.

and the corollary 3a: Therefore, in a 61-card deck there is a weakest card slot.



Forgive me if I misunderstand that when I assume that your argument boils down to "less unique cards (and less cards in general), the more often you are going to draw good cards. I feel that's a fairly solid inference from the points that you made in the post I quoted. If that holds true at 61 and 60, why does it not hold true at 60 and 59 or 59 and 58 or anywhere else along the chain?

Now I'm sure that we both agree that card values are not static and that the weakest card in a deck can fluctuate based on the situation. Swords to Plowshares is very weak against storm (postboard games with Xantid Swarm aside), probably the weakest card in the deck. Against Goblins, it's one of your strongest cards. However, the implication in your entire argument that there is a "weakest card" in a deck is that there is a card that is weakest when you take the various potential matchups and their likelihoods in toto. Again, there's no reason given that this doesn't hold true from 60 to 59, etc.


Mathematically proving which card is the weakest isn't feasible. It's not hard to have a pretty good idea which card is worst from playing a deck. I'd rather try to make a tough call and potentially mess up (cutting the 61st card) than do something for which there are known mathematical penalties (running the 61st card) because the alternative "is hard".

Mathematically proving that 60 cards is superior to 61 in a given situation isn't feasible either. That's why you don't see anyone in the "61 is ok sometimes" camp giving proofs. There are too many variables that go into it. Saying that it decreases variance and that decreased variance is a positive thing is true. However, it's also true to say that increasing selection is a positive thing is also true. Mathematically proving where the balance lies, given potential matchups, etc. isn't feasible either. So why say that decreased variance is more positive than increased selection? You have no proof of either, other than possibly anecdotal evidence.




No, saying 2, 34, or 57 lands by turn four is arbitrary. Three to six is a reasonable range of lands to see by turn four in order to play a good game of Magic (especially for Landstill, the deck I had in mind when I calculated the probabilities.) We don't always want six mana, but having drawn six lands by turn four doesn't usually inhibit your ability to play a good game of Magic.

That may hold true for Landstill. But Landstill isn't a viable deck in Legacy. That wouldn't hold true for say, Affinity or RUG Delver, where 2-3 lands is all you really want for the entire game. Of course, neither of us has any sort of statistical analysis to back up what the ideal number of lands is. I bolded that section because you're throwing conjecture into your argument and continuing to treat the argument as proof. But you cannot take as totally true a statement that logically follows from a potentially false premise. The best you can say is that you believe it to be true, but that's not the same thing.

I would argue that right now, tempo decks are far stronger than any other category of deck. And Legacy has been a format where the spells are so powerful that drawing extra lands is generally a kiss of death. You're more likely to lose to flood than screw in this format because of the low curves and the need to be able to match opponents 1-for-1. In control decks of yore where 24-26 land counts were the norm, you had cards like Fact or Fiction, Stroke of Genius, Wrath of God, etc. to generate card advantage that negated the disadvantage of drawing dead lands late game. Or rather, the lands often weren't dead because they allowed you to cast these powerful but expensive spells. In an era where card advantage is found more often in card selection than in raw draw, extra lands can be costly. If I've drawn 6 lands by turn 4, that means I've seen 4-5 spells (depending on P/D), probably not enough to be able to create even card parity with my opponent (unless those spells are things like Squadron Hawk or Stoneforge Mystic) let alone card advantage.


Instead of rebutting you, I'm going to ask that you quote the post where I said any of that (in reference to my quote of "What makes that the most important thing in deck construction? How is having ideal mana more important than drawing or not drawing a bomb or having or not having a tutor target?")

You say that the best ratio for 3-6 lands by turn 4 comes from 60 cards, not 61 and then treat that as if it's a bulletproof mathematical proof that 60 cards is the ideal. My point is simply that there are other factors in the equation, more factors than we can reasonably handle. It goes back to the "what makes decreased variance superior to increased selection?" Often, when we cut down to 60, we run fewer copies of a card than we would want to. That's why it's a cut. I can't think of a time when I've built a deck and gone, "man, how am I going to fill out this 60?" Usually, I'm trying to cut 65-70 cards down to 60. So there are things that you're running less of than you want to. Often, we compensate for this by adding dig spells like Brainstorm or Sensei's Divining Top to help filter for them. Sometimes, we go even more extreme and run something like Enlightened Tutor or even occasionally Living Wish in order to increase our access to cards that we're otherwise just not running enough of. But sometimes, dig or tutors don't make sense.

And sometimes, we're cutting necessary lands in order to make sure we have enough of something. I need to fit 7 removal spells into a deck in order to be able to see 1 consistently enough on turn 1. And that's a judgement call, I can't say, mathematically, that 7 is the correct number. But anecdotally, I've found it more correct than 6. So anyway, I cut a land to make room for that 7th removal spell. But that decreases my chance of drawing proper mana. So now, which is more ideal? Proper mana? Proper number of removal spells? Running a 61st card in order to split the opportunity cost between the two? Again, it's a judgement call. You're not solving that one with equations.

Don't get me wrong. I do a lot of modeling with new decks. Statistics factor heavily into my construction and refining processes. I think it's an essential part of being a good deck builder. I use the hypgeomdist function in excel constantly to look at how a deck will draw in the early game. I know, from talking to him about it, that Caleb Durward uses Workstation's "Deep Analysis" function in a similar manner. It's simply more accurate than just fishing out hands because you can't fish enough hands to be statistically significant given the number of possible hands in a 60 card deck. But even then, I'm making judgement calls. Is 60% enough for me to see a given category of card in my opening hand? 63%? There are too many variables to accurately say. But again, statistical analysis is merely a tool that can be used. I'm not going to throw an idea out the window merely because one type of analysis of one tiny aspect of the whole game shows that it's slightly suboptimal. If I have reason to believe that there is a strong reason that I'm incapable of modeling for running a given configuration, I will run that configuration, because there is an absence of proof in either direction, so I'm going with what seems more believable to me.

[death]

Do you start all your decks with four Gitaxian Probe?

No, I start with 3 since I always play a tight 60.


[Deck] Zenith-Rebirth Order (ZeRo) — Flashless Hulk Combo (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?21478-Deck-Zenith-Rebirth-Order-(ZeRo)-%97-Flashless-Hulk-Combo&p=569011&viewfull=1#post569011)

[Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils) (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?11184-DTB-ANT-(Ad-Nauseam-Tendrils)&p=594171&viewfull=1#post594171)

[Deck] Ux Stiflenought - the Aftermath (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?22595-Ux-Stiflenought-the-Aftermath&p=601474&viewfull=1#post601474)

[Skeggi]

You write that 23/38 might be 'optimal'. When you write optimal, do you mean "able to cast spells x,y,z" as quickly as possible, or 'most likely to be able to cast one of a,b,c by turn 3" or something similar?
The ability to cast key spells consistent on the turn that they're required.


"Perfect mana ratio" arguments for 61 cards are absurd."Absurd" sounds a bit strong. It's not absurd. I can show you absurd, just come to Amsterdam and I'll show you the true meaning of the word.


The difference is incredibly small, but even if it's "better" you now have the possibility of drawing that weak(er) 61st card instead of the bomb underneath it.Let me make this more tangible with an illustration: for instance, you already have your "bomb" in your hand. Let's say this "bomb" is a Jace and you don't have 4 mana, or you don't have that double blue. What good is your "bomb" if you don't have the mana to cast it?


Arguing perfect mana ratios is like saying that drawing four lands by turn four is okay 614 times out of 1000, but if it creeps up to 632 times out of 1000 that's too much. Absolutely ridiculous.Well, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. If we're not strifing for the perfect decks on this forum, then what the hell is this forum about? It's not "absolutely ridiculous". Come to Amsterdam, I'll show you "absolutely ridiculous".


Both Gabe Walls and LSV have argued for running 61 cards, but those were for a very specific purpose (mana ratio) and in very specific decks (Astral Slide and Esper control, respectively).
So Gave Walls (who the hell is that?) and LSV say the same thing I've been saying. Interesting. It can't be "absurd" or "absolutely ridiculous" if LSV considers it worthy of thought. Kuma, have I invited you to Amsterdam yet?


That being said, running 61 cards is nearly always wrong. And by nearly always wrong, I mean there are probably less than 5 examples in all of magic history where you could make a legit argument for it, and none of the examples in this thread qualify.Well, yeah, but hypothetically it could be better to run 61 cards over 60. And the amount of it being better is insignificant, as Kuma is trying to point out. Or at least, I think that's part of what he says.

[SpikeyMikey]

"Absurd" sounds a bit strong. It's not absurd. I can show you absurd, just come to Amsterdam and I'll show you the true meaning of the word.

I can't help but think of Eurotrip when I read this. Welcome to Club Wundersex!!!

[Nelis]

I can't help but think of Eurotrip when I read this. Welcome to Club Wuondersex!!!

Fixed. I hate it when people mix up Dutch and German. Not that wondersex is a proper dutch word but at least this way it's spelled correctly if it was.

[Wisdomseyes1]

Sure, your chances of drawing those cards is zero if they aren't in the deck... but if those cards are that important to the Meta, are they really the 61st card? Or is it another card in your deck?

The 61st card is not literally the last card you put in.. its the weakest of your cards.

I understand that completely and if you look at the post i am responding to you will see that.

Let's remember that their is an original post and an original topic. This is about the merits of ADDING this card to your current deck which this current deck would have 60 cards and a 15 card sideboard.

Which is my point... you have a 15 card sideboard. that cuts down on the number of options to deal with your meta in a 60 card deck. The small chance, to me, is abysmal enough to be ignored in place of drawing a card that could win the game. Now would you put in a card that would be totally useless like acid rain against any deck without blue? Of course not! If the card is usable but better against certain deck genres than i see no reason not to put it in.

if we talk about bog... exiling an opponents graveyard almost never hurts. it comes into play tapped... may or may not hurt. going by the ORIGINAL TOPIC adding bog as a 61st card because the sideboard is full, doesnt hurt much but can.

what is the weakest card in your deck? Well not the 61st card if you are wanting to put it in. The weakest card in your deck must be something else. It hurts your drawing chances to little to matter to me and most of the other people arguing for it.

Your opinion if that extra option is worth very little in comparison to the increased chance of drawing a plethora of cards that wont help you, thats up to you.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Theoretically it is possible for the mana ratio to work out so perfectly at 61 cards that it's the correct number to run. Theoretically I could jump off the Burj Dubai and live. Neither of these events seems very likely and I would not trust someone who insists they've got it figured out.

The only good reason to run 61 cards is if you are about to enter a tournament and are not sure what the correct card to cut is. Then the damage of running the 61st card might be less than accidentally cutting the wrong card via hasty decision making. But given time to mull the decision over, you should always go down to 60.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I understand that completely and if you look at the post i am responding to you will see that.

Let's remember that their is an original post and an original topic. This is about the merits of ADDING this card to your current deck which this current deck would have 60 cards and a 15 card sideboard.

Which is my point... you have a 15 card sideboard. that cuts down on the number of options to deal with your meta in a 60 card deck. The small chance, to me, is abysmal enough to be ignored in place of drawing a card that could win the game. Now would you put in a card that would be totally useless like acid rain against any deck without blue? Of course not! If the card is usable but better against certain deck genres than i see no reason not to put it in.

if we talk about bog... exiling an opponents graveyard almost never hurts. it comes into play tapped... may or may not hurt. going by the ORIGINAL TOPIC adding bog as a 61st card because the sideboard is full, doesnt hurt much but can.

what is the weakest card in your deck? Well not the 61st card if you are wanting to put it in. The weakest card in your deck must be something else. It hurts your drawing chances to little to matter to me and most of the other people arguing for it.

Your opinion if that extra option is worth very little in comparison to the increased chance of drawing a plethora of cards that wont help you, thats up to you.

It is probably better to run a 61 card Knight of the Reliquary deck with 1x Maze of Ith than a 60 card list without, all other things being held equal.

However, it is far preferable to add the Maze and then cut something else.

[Koby]

It is probably better to run a 61 card Knight of the Reliquary deck with 1x Maze of Ith than a 60 card list without, all other things being held equal.

However, it is far preferable to add the Maze and then cut something else.

In my experience, it's better to not run it at all. Drawing Maze of Ith against Burn or Combo makes your hand that much worse. Dryad Arbor is bad enough to draw; adding another non-mana land doesn't help.

[Skeggi]

Ruckus, that's a meta call. If your meta contains alot of SFM and therefor equips, Maze is pretty good. Swords to Plowshares is also underwhelming against burn or storm, but still is considered a 4-of in alot of decks.

[Koby]

Ruckus, that's a meta call. If your meta contains alot of SFM and therefor equips, Maze is pretty good. Swords to Plowshares is also underwhelming against burn or storm, but still is considered a 4-of in alot of decks.

Valid point. Neither is that great in a meta comprising of a ton of those decks. At least the StP has incidental marginal use against Burn and sometimes Storm.

[nedleeds]

Gitaxian Probe is that card not Brainstorm because Probe replaces itself and does not cost any mana, not even :u:. So no tempo is lost.


I know people like to throw the word tempo around like it means something ... but it's only tempo if you planned on doing something and your game state was supposed to advance. Brainstorm replaces itself, can be played as an instant, and allows you to thin your deck to a virtual < 60 cards. Rather than run a 61st card, if you had access to Island and some fetchlands, and didn't need to win on turn one, I'd trim a 4 of to a 3 of, or a 3 of to a 2 of and run 4 x Brainstorm.

[majikal]

Swords to Plowshares is also underwhelming against burn or storm, but still is considered a 4-of in alot of decks.
Disagree. Targeting your own guy with StP is pretty saucy against burn.

[sdematt]

Agreed. Swords NEVER comes out against Burn/Storm, especially if you're running Knight/Goyf (big guys).

-Matt

[Skeggi]

The fact that it does something doesn't mean it's not underwhelming. There are better ways to gain life if that's what you're after. Obviously drawing your 1 -of Maze of Ith is strictly worse than drawing 1 Swords to Plowshares, but since Swords to Plowshares is a 4-of, you're likely to draw multiples and in the case of lifegaining purposes it tends to get awkward. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not. I often side out 1 or 2 Swords to Plowshares against Storm or Burn, depending on what my sideboard has to offer; ofcourse I'd also side out the Maze of Ith.

But even Maze of Ith has a purpose against Burn and Storm: it can let your Knight of the Reliquary attack and still use the activation. In case of Storm this is very handy because you want to apply pressure while wasting his Underground Seas. Yes, Maze of Ith is still underwhelming, but it's not void of use (presuming you only run Maze of Ith if you also run Knight of the Reliquary).

[nedleeds]

As long as we are off topic and talking about burn ....

Let me preface this by saying I play some bad cards. That being said some of my favorites when facing burn at the store (most of whom refuse to run Anarchy) are

- Worship
- Leyline of Sanctity (nice all around board card for combo / discard / intuition / burn)
- Absolute Law (if you have SFM and equips I think this is the ideal sideboard card)
- If you are hyper aggro I love Honorable Passage, I've played it in Boros style W/r aggro and it's quite the sack crush