Is this game determined by skill?

[thefreakaccident]

At the moment, I doubt this very much. I have been testing Uwr delver against the mirror, and although I am undoubtedly superior to my opponent in experience and deck-building skills, and although I run less land than my opponent, my cantrips only ever wield me land and more cantrips. Meanwhile, my opponent continues to topdeck gas and kill me. The opening turns of the games went fine, I wasn't keeping poor hands or making poor decisions, but it was the later turns, determined by our draws, that decided the games.

The luck factor stands before the skills of the players, and determines the winner of the match, assuming no misplays by the players, and assuming fair matchups. But even in the regard to someone playing against a 'good matchup', didn't they simply get lucky again to face that good match-up instead of something they are not polarized to defeat?

I keep coming back to this game for some reason, but my luck is so horrible that I am beginning to see it for what it really is: A farce.

Hopefully I can keep myself from coming back to this game, as it give me ulcers to lose to lesser players simply because of my poor luck.

I'm going back to chess.

[Esper3k]

You should rethink your life and the horrible things you've done to deserve that kind of karma. :eek:

[kusumoto]

I think that there's a non luck based reason that there are so many familiar names in tournament top eights.

[Kich867]

The game is skill determined insofar as you're losing to tactics or sequences and not cards. Misplays are often very subtle and unnoticeable without being entirely scrutinized from the beginning and end of a match. The only real way, outside of the obvious ones, is to essentially note every card you played and how, and every decision, reevaluate it later and decide if there were misplays. A really interesting comment was made during a game analysis by Joe Lossett over his game against Lauren Nolen in which he stated that Lauren had actually lost the game on turn 4 when he misplayed a brainstorm--but the game went on for another 45 minutes or so.

The actual gravity of that decision, on turn 4, impacted the entire game dramatically but without looking at the entirety of the game at once it'd be impossible to notice. Cantrips in particular lead to many game losses just by simply misplaying them. People play Brainstorm so bad it's insane, they look at it like it's this value card and -not- the best card ever printed for Legacy.

UWR Delver runs many cantrips, I would heavily evaluate how you're operating them and how you're using your already given shuffle effects.

** And by "cards" I mean, when your opponent goes turn 1 Show and Tell into Griselbrand with protection. There was no sequence of plays that lead to this conclusion, there was no position that was jockeyed into, there was no real thought put into the play, it's simply the only thing the deck does. Similarly if you get Turn 1 Blood Moon'd and you run 2 basics not in hand. You didn't actually misplay, sometimes there's things you can't avoid and just don't have the answer to--be it a card to stop that card or a line of play that deals with it. That's when the game is luck based.

[apple713]

I think that there's a non luck based reason that there are so many familiar names in tournament top eights.

Cheating is 1 way (Bertoncini)

But yes Luck has a lot to do with it.

My most recent luck failure. Playing edh with other 3 people and my deck is hermit druid. I have an amazing hand with 3 lands 2 reanimate spells and a eldamiri's call to tutor my hermit druid. This means that there are only 3-4 cards that can stop me, path to exile, swords to plowshares, red sun's zenith...things that remove him from game. Not only does 1 of my 3 opponents get a path to exile on turn 2, BUT for the next 8 turns I literally draw 8 lands. This includes me fetching for lands and pulling more out of the deck. Needless to say i lose the match and am the first one eliminated but getting 11 of the 34 lands in my deck after seeing 15 cards is probably less likely than winning the lottery.

the 3 edh pods i played in before the above mentioned I won on turn 3 so my lands were not clumped together.


This is a clear case of bad luck as I'm sure many other players experience. Skill comes into play when both players draw well. In legacy luck should be less of a factor because decks gain consistency but things can still happen.

[UnderwaterGuy]

I think that there's a non luck based reason that there are so many familiar names in tournament top eights.

byes/number of tournaments entered/wotc rewards such as free travel :wink:


Cheating is 1 way (Bertoncini)

But yes Luck has a lot to do with it.

My most recent luck failure. Playing edh with other 3 people and my deck is hermit druid. I have an amazing hand with 3 lands 2 reanimate spells and a eldamiri's call to tutor my hermit druid. This means that there are only 3-4 cards that can stop me, path to exile, swords to plowshares, red sun's zenith...things that remove him from game. Not only does 1 of my 3 opponents get a path to exile on turn 2, BUT for the next 8 turns I literally draw 8 lands. This includes me fetching for lands and pulling more out of the deck. Needless to say i lose the match and am the first one eliminated but getting 11 of the 34 lands in my deck after seeing 15 cards is probably less likely than winning the lottery.

the 3 edh pods i played in before the above mentioned I won on turn 3 so my lands were not clumped together.


This is a clear case of bad luck as I'm sure many other players experience. Skill comes into play when both players draw well. In legacy luck should be less of a factor because decks gain consistency but things can still happen.

how can you complain about luck when you are playing hermit druid combo in edh? You would have won the game if they didn't respond. It's like a Belcher player being upset that they lost to turn 1 force of will.

[Julian23]

getting 11 of the 34 lands in my deck after seeing 15 cards is probably less likely than winning the lottery.

It's not as unlikely as you want it to sound. Just deal with it. If you can't, you won't be able to eventually become a better player.

Variance hits everyone. If someone complains about him being "unlucky", what he's actually saying is that he's not playing enough.

[Megadeus]

Cheating is 1 way (Bertoncini)

But yes Luck has a lot to do with it.

My most recent luck failure. Playing edh with other 3 people and my deck is hermit druid. I have an amazing hand with 3 lands 2 reanimate spells and a eldamiri's call to tutor my hermit druid. This means that there are only 3-4 cards that can stop me, path to exile, swords to plowshares, red sun's zenith...things that remove him from game. Not only does 1 of my 3 opponents get a path to exile on turn 2, BUT for the next 8 turns I literally draw 8 lands. This includes me fetching for lands and pulling more out of the deck. Needless to say i lose the match and am the first one eliminated but getting 11 of the 34 lands in my deck after seeing 15 cards is probably less likely than winning the lottery.

the 3 edh pods i played in before the above mentioned I won on turn 3 so my lands were not clumped together.


This is a clear case of bad luck as I'm sure many other players experience. Skill comes into play when both players draw well. In legacy luck should be less of a factor because decks gain consistency but things can still happen.

No that is called Karma for playing Hermit Druid Combo :tongue:

[cuthbertthecat]

I don't know what to tell you, except for:

A: You're probably not playing as perfectly you think you are.
B: Wasteland and Delver of Secrets are high variance cards in nature, so mirror matches between decks featuring both of them tend to be swingy.
C: Typically, having an extra land in Delver mirrors is actually very good.

[Megadeus]

It's not as unlikely as you want it to sound. Just deal with it. If you can't, you won't be able to eventually become a better player.

Variance hits everyone. If someone complains about him being "unlucky", what he's actually saying is that he's not playing enough.

Sorry for the double post, but this. Variance is part of the game. It is obviously a skill based game, and if you don't see it then that is why you aren't winning. I am generally willing to admit when I was outplayed, or made a poor decision. I mean sure there are times when you lose to a top deck or something, but generally, it doesnt happen like that.

[apple713]

Sorry for the double post, but this. Variance is part of the game. It is obviously a skill based game, and if you don't see it then that is why you aren't winning. I am generally willing to admit when I was outplayed, or made a poor decision. I mean sure there are times when you lose to a top deck or something, but generally, it doesnt happen like that.

Dont get me wrong, I still agree that this is a skill "based" game , but Luck does play a very large part in a supposed skill "based" game. It's the same reason my wife and I can play the same 75 cards and and her win 25% of the games instead of a much smaller portion. My 15 years of playing vs her 1-2 years. If it was skill based i should win more, which I do. But I think her luck gives her an artificially high win % (25%) as opposed to what her skill merits ( maybe 15%).

luck could be substituted for "variance" in my above example

[Megadeus]

Of course it is sometimes determined by variance. It happens. If you hated variance, you wouldnt play the game in the first place.

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

Variance stings a lot harder in Magic (especially Legacy) because of the low number of events that a typical player can participate in (over a given timespan). Most players simply don't have the time nor resources to play in enough tournies such that they can "smooth out" the effects of the variance and feel like their skills pull through. When combined with the high costs associated with playing the game, it's no wonder there are some sour folks in the tourney scene.

[TsumiBand]

Ugh I know about this.

There is this one dude that invariably -- in-fucking-variably, every goddamn motherfucking time that it ever mattered -- whenever we would be in the Top 8s together, it would just always be the case that I would lose to this guy because my deck fed me land 5+ turns in a row.

Every.
Fucking.
Time.

Its like 2005 and I'm playing like 17 land in Goblins and 16 in Affinity and shit, mainly because this always would happen to me -- and yet it never mattered. It's proof positive that there is a God of all, because I know he fucking hates the shit out of me, because he picks this one shitty fucking Magic player and decrees, "Stick ! Thou shalt always lose to this player, through no fault of your own; for verily, though thou rarely play more lands than number two-and-twenty, if thy turns in-game reach higher than four, thou shalt draw no artifacts, nor creatures, nor enchantments, nor equipment, nor instants, nor planeswalkers, nor sorceries. Because fuck you."

It doesn't help that we use words like "permission" and "allow" when we talk about the way games of all sorts unfold. It just confuses the narrative and places more blame than maybe should be placed on the losers. "Michigan *allowed* 5 interceptions and 4 turnovers in their last game against Texas Tech" -- the fuck you mean, *allowed*? The other guy got the damn ball; he was just there, and he grabbed it. Nobody *allowed* anything, just there was a guy there. It's the same in Magic; I didn't *allow* my opponent to do fuck-anything, I had a shit-grip of lands in my hand and he kept playing spells. What was I gonna do, piss on his River Boas and kick him in the brain? "I REFUSE TO PERMIT THAT RIVER BOA FROM ATTACKING. DO YOU HEAR ME?"

[HammafistRoob]

Good riddance.

[Raystar]

Actually I see Magic as the "fight against variance". Every card we put in a deck, every decision we take in a game, every second we spend in putting together a strategy for a deck are devoted to minimising variance.

In other words: yes there is variance, but that is what the game is about, making sure that variance is minimised by the way you build your deck and the way you play.

Statistically, you have a chance to succeed in beating variance every time you play and you can maximise this chance with skills and planning. This is what the game is about, this is why Brainstorm is the best card of Legacy and why everybody loves to have a Sensei's Divining Top on the board together with a fetchland.

I'd suggest you start annotating your plays and your deck building decisions and always countercheck those against the games you feel are dominated by variance to verify that nothing in your decision tree could have changed the outcome.

[lordofthepit]

Yes, the game is still determined to a large extent by skill.

Given what you've just told me, I think there are four possibilities:
1) You have been getting extraordinarily unlucky.
2) You are overestimating your own abilities.
3) You are underestimating your opponents' abilities.
4) You are exaggerating the frequency of your bad beats (perhaps not intentionally, but due to a cognitive bias that leads you to selectively remember the bad beats).

Very possibly it's a combination of several of these factors.

[ScatmanX]

The luck factor stands before the skills of the players, and determines the winner of the match, assuming no misplays by the players
Stopped reading here.
I'd assume making no mistakes makes you the most skillful player of all.

[Julian23]

Assuming you made no mistakes is in itself probably the biggest mistake you can make. This isn't just some wishy-washy blabla talk but the only way to really improve. The better the player, the more I see people question their own plays.

[clavio]

Dont get me wrong, I still agree that this is a skill "based" game , but Luck does play a very large part in a supposed skill "based" game. It's the same reason my wife and I can play the same 75 cards and and her win 25% of the games instead of a much smaller portion. My 15 years of playing vs her 1-2 years. If it was skill based i should win more, which I do. But I think her luck gives her an artificially high win % (25%) as opposed to what her skill merits ( maybe 15%).

luck could be substituted for "variance" in my above example

Luckily if you play two out of three in a matchup where you are winning 75% of the games, you are winning the match 85% of the time. Approximately the chance AA beats a random hand.

[Echelon]

Meh, this game takes a mix of luck and skill. The decks we use are often designed to try and factor out luck (or rather variance) as much as possible, yet every now and again your deck can just refuse to work with you all together. Having said that, running a top tier deck does not just get you there. You'll need both skill and some degree of familiarity with the deck in order to pilot it properly. Part of this is knowing when to take a mulligan or keep your opening 7. When running my own deck (elves), I'll know what to do in most given situations with a certain board state or opening 7, but let me pilot a RUG deck and I haven't the foggiest when to cantrip or to even take a mulligan.

What takes even more skill is understanding what you're opponent is trying to accomplish. Knowing what cards he's likely to play, which of your cards are marked with a big target for him and so on.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

"I REFUSE TO PERMIT THAT RIVER BOA FROM ATTACKING. DO YOU HEAR ME?"

Yesterday I decided I will collect Korean Visions River Boa.
Nice story, btw. i got similar. Nine lands in a row. Guess who won that match...

[Kayradis]

Officially, the DCI statement is that the most skilled player should win the game.

But to be realistic, there is skills and luck.
In the long run, it's all maths.

[bjholmes3]

In all honesty, every time I have ever lost a match (not game, mind you) with my build of ANT, I have reasonably felt that it was my fault, the product of misplay and mistake, rather than simple bad luck. Every single time. There is much more skill involved in this game than you would be inclined to believe, especially when it comes to a format like Legacy. Vintage even more so.

[nedleeds]

It has to be a skill game otherwise, it's gambling and the days of sanctioned magic outside of Vegas and indian reservations is over.

[TsumiBand]

Actually, I have a much better story about variance, but it's short and not as frustrating because it worked out for me.

A few years back I won game 3 of a Goblins vs 45 Land matchup because the 45lands player… wait for it… didn't draw any land. I guess he had a hand replete with aggro-hate; he just needed something to pitch to a Mox Diamond and he was all over it. He just never actually drew a land, and so I goldfished a Goblin win.

Yeah, so variance. It's a thing.

Whoever pointed to cognitive distortions though… is totally right. We get patterns of thought such as the Gambler's Fallacy from our useless assignment of terms like "good/bad luck" to a scenario.

The short version of the Gambler's Fallacy being that any given game with a random output has a "memory" of previous events that necessitates a change in the outcome of the current game. So like… you have a deck of 52 cards, and you randomize it between draws, and then you flip the top card over. Do this 100 times; your odds of revealing the Ace of Spades are the same every time, but we still watch the outcome of this and say "eventually, the Ace of Spades will appear." As long as we are randomizing the deck between reveals then there's absolutely nothing that says it *must eventually be* the Ace of Spades. The truth is, before each reveal, the odds that it will be the Ace of Spades is always precisely the same; the outcome of the previous games has nothing to do with the outcome of the current game.

Magic has differences like… sideboards and tutor effects and card drawing and that, so to an extent some of this is mitigated, but by and large we're all just drawing random cards and not always in the right order, either.

[mishima_kazuya]

If you are going to sit around and complain about bad luck, how do you expect to improve yourself as a player?

While you are whining about how lucky your opponent was or how unlucky you were, there is another player that is actively replaying the entire match in his/her head to find mistakes in their gameplay.
And between those two players, who do you think wins more matches in the long run?

[Goaswerfraiejen]

The single biggest factor determining who wins in this game is money.

[Arsenal]

The single biggest factor determining who wins in this game is money.

Win once or win consistently over a long period of time? Because if I only need to win once, I can play with a $30 Relentless Rats deck and beat my $3k Esperblade opponent because he drew no lands.

[Justin]

If you are going to sit around and complain about bad luck, how do you expect to improve yourself as a player?

While you are whining about how lucky your opponent was or how unlucky you were, there is another player that is actively replaying the entire match in his/her head to find mistakes in their gameplay.
And between those two players, who do you think wins more matches in the long run?

Bad players don't realize they are making mistakes. They blame all their losses on bad luck.
Good players realize their mistakes after they make them. They try to learn from them and improve.
The best players minimize their mistakes. They will often catch themselves before they make them, but they are still far from perfect.

[Asthereal]

Silly question, this is. Is this game decided by skill?
Short answer: no, no and yes.

Long answer:

1. Of course luck plays a part in the outcome of a certain game. If you draw seven lands, mulligan into no lands, and then mulligan into something scetchy, you're just done with. But luck and bad luck will always even out in the long run. That's what random things do. If you play 2000 games, you will get a more or less equal amount of luck and bad luck, distributed over those 2000 games.

2. So is playing skill in the long run the only decider on who goes top-8 most of the time and who usually battles in the lower ranks? No. There's also the thing most of us are here for on this forum: deck selection and deck building. You can be the most skilled player in the world, but if you enter a competition with a badly tuned deck, or a well tuned deck that has a bad matchup against 80% of the environment, chances are very slim that you will accomplish anything. Of course skilled players know what's good against what, so that'll help them to make good decisions about the decks they play, but I've seen many very skilled players end up going "0-3 drop" because they played TES in a meta full of countermagic, and I've also seen many skilled players obnoxiously playing something terrible, just because they wanted to try it out.

3. With a good deck, and not too much bad luck in your draws and the matchups you encounter (meeting that one Dredge player in a 100-people tourney when you decided not to pack grave hate is also bad luck), skill will help you get to the top. Playing your cantrips optimally, understanding the concept of tempo better than your opponent, making better mulligan decisions, calculating combat options well, finding that one very unlikely win in an awkward situation with your compluicated combo deck. All that stuff will give you an edge against the oposition. And don't forget: the win can be in very subtle things. Misplaying a cantrip can cause your opponnent to have one more Goyf than you, and that's enough for a win.

And to the poster of this topic: this is coming from a chess player (club member and regular player for 20 years now). I love both games. Chess because I never lose to bad luck, and Magic because of the million options and the fact that I like the fantasy aspect of it. Magic has an element of luck, and sometimes it can be really frustrating, but we should just play more, to make sure we get the chance to even out our bad luck with the inevitable good fortune that will show up at some point.

[Asthereal]

And guys, stop complaining about the money. That's NOT the biggest decider on winning in Magic. I have $12000 worth of good Magic cards (all duals, fetch, Goyfs, FoWs, you name it) and I still score 50% at most events. Why? Because I'm just not a very good player.

[PirateKing]

From the mouth of the Creator himself

http://www.channelfireball.com/videos/magic-tv-extra-dr-richard-garfield-on-luck-versus-skill-magic-cruise-2012/

[phonics]

1) No one plays perfectly
2) If you don't want variance, play chess
Variance is something that everyone deals with, just because you can your face smashed because of land flood doesn't mean its only you, chances are that the guy that smashed your face in will proceed to get his face smashed in by someone else, if it hadn't happened earlier.

[menace13]

Sure luck has something to do with drawing randomly from a shuffled deck of cards in every card game. This game is really just UNO with better pictures

[lordofthepit]

From the mouth of the Creator himself

http://www.channelfireball.com/videos/magic-tv-extra-dr-richard-garfield-on-luck-versus-skill-magic-cruise-2012/

I suggest you guys watch this if you haven't done so already.

Essentially, what Garfield says as a game designer is that it's important to introduce some small element of luck so that players can blame their losses on luck.

[BeardTron]

Repeating what some other folks have said, there's both luck and skill in Magic.
Over the course of a long tournament, I think most players need a couple of "lucky" draws in crucial situations to keep their record going.

But, I don't think Huey Jensen in the last year is THAT lucky. Or Owen's run lately is just luck. There's a reason these guys are consistently placing in the Top 8/Top 16. If the game were more luck than skill, then their finishes would likely be more spread out. I'm sure these players experience variance and bad luck during a tournament just like everyone else, but they maximize their results by making incredible decisions throughout the game, which is very skillful in my opinion.

OP has a pretty good point about mirror matches though (Just watch the Sneak and Show mirrors between Huey, B Nelson and BBD at an open recently)...Possible that luck plays more of a factor in these games, but that doesn't negate the fact the player still has to make good decisions and play well.

[Worldslayer]

Yay for feeding trolls?

Since we're here though: luck is a huge part. Skill is also, but only insofar as it's what's required to capitalize on luck/not point good fortune away. Assuming a modicum of the other in each respect, I'd win more and rather be the luckiest player in the world than the best if all im shooting for is wins. I mean why is this a question anymore? One of the best players to have hit the game's column is titled Luck, Skill, Victory.

Just as a side note for the hyper scientific realistic types with the "same names in the top eight" argument, you're assuming luck is somehow normalized/equal across players when if anything there may be evidence to the contrary. Most of them are obviously good, and I don't exactly disagree with the sentiment as much as I think that particular argument is awful. Find a better one so I can agree more.

[davelin]

Just as a side note for the hyper scientific realistic types with the "same names in the top eight" argument, you're assuming luck is somehow normalized/equal across players when if anything there may be evidence to the contrary.

Can you expand/explain this part more?

[Star|Scream]

Can you expand/explain this part more?

I think he's stating that it's entirely possible that consistently good players may actually just be very very lucky.

Think about gambling. Out of millions and millions of people who play games of chance, statistically there are going to be some that always win or always have winning sessions. No matter what they play, they will always come out ahead. They may consider themselves extremely lucky, but that's just the way the variance falls.

Perhaps people who are really really good at Magic, poker, and other games with luck-based gameplay are just ahead of the curve?

Otoh I guess that would mean some players are always going to experience bad beats, no matter how well they play. Maybe the OP?

[somethingdotdotdot]

Can you expand/explain this part more?

I think he's implying that the people who top 8 do some sort of sleight of hand to increase their luck. http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/#doublenickel This is a pretty good explanation actually

[Rood]

Games mostly skill. But Obv some luck required too. If you have both = win target game.

[Teluin]

Chance isn't just the cards you draw, which you can have SOME say in (especially if you play islands). It's also in the match-ups you have throughout a tournament.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Win once or win consistently over a long period of time? Because if I only need to win once, I can play with a $30 Relentless Rats deck and beat my $3k Esperblade opponent because he drew no lands.



Consistently, of course. That's the only scope relevant to the OP's question.



And guys, stop complaining about the money. That's NOT the biggest decider on winning in Magic. I have $12000 worth of good Magic cards (all duals, fetch, Goyfs, FoWs, you name it) and I still score 50% at most events. Why? Because I'm just not a very good player.


Not a complaint, just a fact. You simply can't compete properly if your deck isn't up to par.

[lordofthepit]

The single biggest factor determining who wins in this game is money.

Only if your budget is super tight.

You will be unable to compete with a deck under $100, and you'll have to get really lucky to play in favorable metagames where decks under $500 are consistently top tier. But past that threshold, money is essentially not a factor.*

* Caveat: Someone who has access to more cards can adjust their decks to better compete when the metagame shifts. In theory, you could cash out your cards and swap them out for new cards, so that doesn't really count though, since it's a liquidity issue.

[Mewens]

Most-recent bad beats story:

I'm helping a buddy out w/ his deck by playing a local gauntlet vs. a few variations on his current build.

So, I'm rocking stock Shardless vs. his Lands build and open with a keepable hand that features a pair of lands, a Hymn, a Shardless Agent, Brainstorm, some randos.

First draw is Hymn -– pretty much the worst card in the deck vs. Lands. Well, frown-town, but whatevs, that's what Brainstorm is for. I end up shuffling away both Hymns w/ the storm and a fetchland, then cast my Shardless Agent -- into a a Hymn. /eyeroll.

The game's going slowly -- I don't recall the details, but I'm keeping pace with his shenanigans with a DRS and trying to grind him out of his locks before they become locks -- and over the next few turns I end up drawing some number of Hymns. After casting them -- open mana, no other hand, may as well blank that last dredge, right? -- I check the grave and realize I've got all four Hymns in the 'yard.

I'd drawn 6 Hymns in a matchup where it's basically a Wintermoon Mesa.

But the best was yet to come. I'm on the "DRS him into next year" plan, which is necessarily slow as molasses, but I figure I can ride it out because, you know -- Lands. Anyway, he ends up ripping a Punishing Fire, but I'm OK; I mean, sure, I've been topdecking lands for 3 or 4 turns, but my luck with the Hymns suggests that I've got illegally high numbers of spells in the deck -- I'm expecting any number of my 8ish 'goyfs or 12 DRS or whatever to turn up any moment. Instead, I rip ... land. Land. Land. A total of 7 in a row. Then an Ancestral Visions -- hey, you said you wanted spells, you didn't say you wanted to cast them -- then an 8th land.

When Marit Lage finally showed up, she apologized for getting here so late ("Traffic was horrible," she said in an apologetic tone, "and my hair just wasn't cooperating") then one-shotted me. We all agreed it was the best possible outcome, given the circumstances.

...
As to the larger question: Of course this game isn't determined by luck. This ain't dice; players get better as they play more, and you can see that process. Players don't improve at games of chance; it's simply not possible. Besides, while I'm not a great player by any stretch of the imagination, I can usually pinpoint at least one important mistake per game. Sometimes they're obvious (Derp, can't believe I took that counter-bait and let you have an Exploration), but often they're the results of not looking ahead (I should have just gunned that Entreat the Angels for 1 instead of trying to get X=2 as insurance vs. a Marit Lage token). I'm a naturally cautious player, and most of my game-losing decisions come from not being aggressive enough -- that's a failure to evaluate the game properly, and that's an error of skill, not an accident of luck.

[Dzra]

I think luck and variance probably shows itself most in pairings rather than in actual gameplay. Like someone was saying earlier, I believe a lot of the game itself is a battle verses variance and that there are various ways to combat that, including deck construction, cantrips, mulligans, and just general tight play. There is not a whole lot you can do to change the variance of getting paired up against a 40-60 vs a 60-40 matchup.

As far as the game itself, I think that luck usually only loses you the game once you've already misplayed. For example, you topdeck nothing but land for five turns and die to their True-Name Nemesis with a Plow in hand. Maybe you shouldn't have fired off that Force of Will so quickly to stop their t2 SFM? Perhaps you shoot a Plow at their t1 Delver and you get Dazed. That's fine, you untap and Bolt it. Five turns later, you find yourself on mono lands and Spell Pierces with no removal for their third creature. Is it only bad luck that you've failed to draw your removal when you needed it? It's tough to say for hypotheticals, but usually even when you've been extremely unlucky, you can trace the loss back to a point when you were not correctly playing to your outs and playing around theirs.

[rockout]

Sounds like you are a terrible player that thinks he should be able to out play his opponent but obvious is unable to do so.

[Humphrey]

Learn how to cheat unnoticed

[Einherjer]

Learn how to cheat unnoticed

Coming from a member of the Ban-Brainstorm-Party....

Why am I not surprised?

Greetings

[Humphrey]

Coming from a member of the Ban-Brainstorm-Party....

Why am I not surprised?

Greetings

because brainstorm mechanics supports cheating?

[Ozymandias]

What Fortune Can Effect In Human Affairs, And How To Withstand Her

IT is not unknown to me how many men have had, and still have, the opinion that the affairs of the world are in such wise governed by fortune and by God that men with their wisdom cannot direct them and that no one can even help them; and because of this they would have us believe that it is not necessary to labour much in affairs, but to let chance govern them. This opinion has been more credited in our times because of the great changes in affairs which have been seen, and may still be seen, every day, beyond all human conjecture. Sometimes pondering over this, I am in some degree inclined to their opinion. Nevertheless, not to extinguish our free will, I hold it to be true that Fortune is the arbiter of one-half of our actions, but that she still leaves us to direct the other half, or perhaps a little less.

I compare her to one of those raging rivers, which when in flood overflows the plains, sweeping away trees and buildings, bearing away the soil from place to place; everything flies before it, all yield to its violence, without being able in any way to withstand it; and yet, though its nature be such, it does not follow therefore that men, when the weather becomes fair, shall not make provision, both with defences and barriers, in such a manner that, rising again, the waters may pass away by canal, and their force be neither so unrestrained nor so dangerous. So it happens with fortune, who shows her power where valour has not prepared to resist her, and thither she turns her forces where she knows that barriers and defences have not been raised to constrain her.

And if you will consider Italy, which is the seat of these changes, and which has given to them their impulse, you will see it to be an open country without barriers and without any defence. For if it had been defended by proper valour, as are Germany, Spain, and France, either this invasion would not have made the great changes it has made or it would not have come at all. And this I consider enough to say concerning resistance to fortune in general.

But confining myself more to the particular, I say that a prince may be seen happy to-day and ruined to-morrow without having shown any change of disposition or character. This, I believe, arises firstly from causes that have already been discussed at length, namely, that the prince who relies entirely upon fortune is lost when it changes. I believe also that he will be successful who directs his actions according to the spirit of the times, and that he whose actions do not accord with the times will not be successful. Because men are seen, in affairs that lead to the end which every man has before him, namely, glory and riches, to get there by various methods; one with caution, another with haste; one by force, another by skill; one by patience, another by its opposite; and each one succeeds in reaching the goal by a different method. One can also see of two cautious men the one attain his end, the other fail; and similarly, two men by different observances are equally successful, the one being cautious, the other impetuous; all this arises from nothing else than whether or not they conform in their methods to the spirit of the times. This follows from what I have said, that two men working differently bring about the same effect, and of two working similarly, one attains his object and the other does not.

Changes in estate also issue from this, for if, to one who governs himself with caution and patience, times and affairs converge in such a way that his administration is successful, his fortune is made; but if times and affairs change, he is ruined if he does not change his course of action. But a man is not often found sufficiently circumspect to know how to accommodate himself to the change, both because he cannot deviate from what nature inclines him to, and also because, having always prospered by acting in one way, he cannot be persuaded that it is well to leave it; and, therefore, the cautious man, when it is time to turn adventurous, does not know how to do it, hence he is ruined; but had he changed his conduct with the times fortune would not have changed.

Pope Julius II went to work impetuously in all his affairs, and found the times and circumstances conform so well to that line of action that he always met with success. Consider his first enterprise against Bologna, Messer Giovanni Bentivogli being still alive. The Venetians were not agreeable to it, nor was the King of Spain, and he had the enterprise still under discussion with the King of France; nevertheless he personally entered upon the expedition with his accustomed boldness and energy, a move which made Spain and the Venetians stand irresolute and passive, the latter from fear, the former from desire to recover all the kingdom of Naples; on the other hand, he drew after him the King of France, because that king, having observed the movement, and desiring to make the Pope his friend so as to humble the Venetians, found it impossible to refuse him soldiers without manifestly offending him. Therefore Julius with his impetuous action accomplished what no other pontiff with simple human wisdom could have done; for if he had waited in Rome until he could get away, with his plans arranged and everything fixed, as any other pontiff would have done, he would never have succeeded. Because the King of France would have made a thousand excuses, and the others would have raised a thousand fears.

I will leave his other actions alone, as they were all alike, and they all succeeded, for the shortness of his life did not let him experience the contrary; but if circumstances had arisen which required him to go cautiously, his ruin would have followed, because he would never have deviated from those ways to which nature inclined him.

I conclude therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind steadfast in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.

[Mewens]

"If we must choose between them, it is far safer to be quoted than loved."

[Lord Seth]

In any given game of Magic, the player who has the better combined luck and skill in that game will win.

[monovfox]

In reference to my most recent tournament report:

This game is determined by luck.

[mini1337s]

In reference to my most recent tournament report:

This game is determined by luck.
Oh great, thanks for clearing that up for the whole Magic community.

[lordofthepit]

I believe Jacob Wilson has played in five SCG Legacy Opens (someone correct me), making top 8 in four of them and winning three of them.

Does anyone seriously think that skill isn't an important factor in this game?

[Echelon]

I believe Jacob Wilson has played in five SCG Legacy Opens (someone correct me), making top 8 in four of them and winning three of them.

Does anyone seriously think that skill isn't an important factor in this game?

Well, seeing this topic, some obviously do. But that just makes them wrong, lol.

[klaus]

I'm going back to chess.

Add me on chess.com
jaschar

:-)

[Jitse]

You need luck and skills to win a tournament. A player that has been really unlucky during the day can't win a 100+ man tournament but a bad player is also unable to, even if he's quite lucky. Good players often have an 67 or so win % in big tournaments this is clearly a lot higher then 50% which means skill plays a big factor in the game (they play enough tournaments to not be lucky almost all the time) but at the same time they belogn to the top 10% players and don't have a 90% win rate which means luck also plays a big factor in the game. This game is very much determined by skill and by luck and reacting right to the amount of luck you have. Saying skill does not determe this game at all is stupid since magic pro's won't exsist then, saying luck has nothing to do at all is also stupid since you could say at the beginning of the tournament who's going to win then. I think both of these things are as improtant as each other so if you lose a game against a less skilled player that means his advantage in luck is bigger then your advantage in skill.

[twndomn]

This is the exact same argument when people discuss WSOP. As matter of fact, there're some well-known players floating between Poker and MtG.

Regardless which game, here's the bottom line: good players use skill to put themselves in a position where luck can get a chance to do its thing.

In poker, you can get an overwhelming probability favor on the flop, but run into bad beat on the river. In Magic, you can strip your opponent's hands away, and he could top-deck into Shardless Agent into Ancestral Vision to bring himself back into the game. However, you need to have the sufficient knowledge to understand which hand to keep and just be able to bring yourself to mid-game. If you die on turn 1 or turn 2, then your luck doesn't even get the opportunity, pure difference in skill (hand-keeping) just bum-rush you way too early.

[Lord Seth]

You need luck and skills to win a tournament. A player that has been really unlucky during the day can't win a 100+ man tournament but a bad player is also unable to, even if he's quite lucky. Good players often have an 67 or so win % in big tournaments this is clearly a lot higher then 50% which means skill plays a big factor in the game (they play enough tournaments to not be lucky almost all the time) but at the same time they belogn to the top 10% players and don't have a 90% win rate which means luck also plays a big factor in the game. This game is very much determined by skill and by luck and reacting right to the amount of luck you have. Saying skill does not determe this game at all is stupid since magic pro's won't exsist then, saying luck has nothing to do at all is also stupid since you could say at the beginning of the tournament who's going to win then. I think both of these things are as improtant as each other so if you lose a game against a less skilled player that means his advantage in luck is bigger then your advantage in skill.
But even in something like Chess or Go, games that are prided on being completely skill-based, you can't say who's going to win at the start of a tournament. The simple fact is that just because a player is better doesn't mean they will win. Chess players, like everyone else, are capable of making mistakes that are not befitting of their skill level. No one, in every single game, plays at their highest level of skill. Let's remember that no less than a reigning world champion missed a mate in one.

Now, it is certainly true that in Chess, the winner is the person who, in that particular game, outplayed their opponent. But, again, being the more skilled player doesn't mean you will outplay your opponent in that game.

A better argument for the obvious case of luck in Magic is the fact that factors outside of either players' control can affect the game. For example, what you draw is not something either player has complete control over; even cards like Sensei's Divining Top only give you an increased amount of control. Getting to choose which of three random cards you draw is greater control than just drawing a random card, but it's still something you don't have complete control over. And that's how you know there's luck involved.

As a comparison, consider Chess. Every factor of the game, except for perhaps who goes first, is completely under the control of the players. Now, like Magic, there are elements of the game that a player has no control over; unlike Magic, they are not elements neither player has control over. Specifically, while you can't control what your opponent does, they have complete control over it. To win a game of Chess, your opponent has to make a mistake--this is something you can't control. It isn't possible to force someone into a mistake. All you can do is avoid making a mistake yourself and, if they do make a mistake, take full advantage of it. But, again, whether they make a mistake or not is still under the control of one of the players: Them. Once a game starts, there is no factor within the game that is not controlled by the players. In Magic, there are such factors.

The tl;dr thing is that the reason we know luck is in Magic isn't because we can't be certain who wins a tournament. It's because there are factors that can affect the game's outcome but are not fully controlled by the players.

[Plague Sliver]

To use a poker analogy - is this just going to devolve into a bad beats thread?

You play Magic. Hopefully you enjoy playing Magic. There is luck. There is skill. End of story.

Some of these threads are becoming Salvation-like in their grandeur and observations.

[Nihil Credo]

"The random factor in this game is too big" can be a perfectly legitimate argument to make.

However, absolutely nothing destroys your credibility in that regard like opening your post with "I'm consistently losing! Clearly it's because of excessive randomness combined with poor luck!". It's utterly childish.

Actual evidence in favour of excessive randomness would take the form of skill insensitivity, ie you get similar performances whether you're playing against a newbie or against a master.

[Lemnear]

If you want to rely more on your own skill than lucky, I would switch to an archtype which doesn't Auto-fold to slightly better draws of your opponent, lacking the ability to dig itself out of unfavorable positions

[twndomn]

Everyone here knows that Richard Garfield is a Professor in mathematics and earned his Ph.D. in combinatorial mathematics, correct?

[Koby]

I have been testing Uwr delver against the mirror, and although I am undoubtedly superior to my opponent in experience and deck-building skills, and although I run less land than my opponent, my cantrips only ever wield me land and more cantrips.

How can this possibly be a mirror if you're playing a different 75 than your opponent? The results will tend towards the better deck, which it seems to indicate as the one you are not playing.

[Lord Seth]

Everyone here knows that Richard Garfield is a Professor in mathematics and earned his Ph.D. in combinatorial mathematics, correct?
I'm not sure how that relates at all to the topic.

[ShiftyKapree]

I agree with luck being a part of magic, but think about this did you really top deck the card you needed at the moment you needed it or was it skill that led you to get the card? The game is skill, yes sometimes you will get bad mulligans but it happens. And if you think you're playing perfect and still losing well you need to reevaluate yourself. Take time to think about the game you just had and look back at situations where you made a choice and think about how another one would have played out. I believe there is more skill than luck involved, limited will make you believe this more than anything if you play it other than legacy.

[twndomn]

I'm not sure how that relates at all to the topic.

luck => probability => combinatorics in action => the inventor of the game who understands the importance of applying the mathematical aspect into the game

In other words, the game is designed this way.

[Dzra]

think about this did you really top deck the card you needed at the moment you needed it or was it skill that led you to get the card?


Regardless which game, here's the bottom line: good players use skill to put themselves in a position where luck can get a chance to do its thing.

I think these are both really great statements. Topdecking a Terminus, REBing your Stifle, and proceeding to stabilize may seem like just luck, but it was skill that put me in the position to stabilize if I drew something like Terminus. Likewise, killing me one turn before I draw my Terminus may feel like bad beats, but it was skill that put you in the position to win that one turn sooner.

[death]

Not really surprised coming from a guy whose way of thinking is a bit skewed. Meddling Mage IS a sideboard card, if it's ever played at all.


Meddling mage is NOT a sideboard card, it is a mainboard card that carries equipmet, as postboard he will get bounced/REB'd every time. You either know what the decks in your meta/format are, or you play thoughtseize/duress/inquizition in your disruption suite to always know what to name.

Take it eazy!

Good riddance.

[Megadeus]

The game is definitely skillkbased. For example, last night, I was testing my BUG Pod deck vs fish. Nedleeds was hovering over my shoulder watching the game. I was casting GSZ to find an eternal witness, then as I was getting it he was discussing with me what I should actually get based on the current board state and what I should expect to be in my opponent hand. His assumption was force of will when I severely was hinging on resolving a deed. He argues that I should get scavenging ooze so I can gain life while getting mana. Saving my eternal witness for my other green sun after my deed got forced the first time. My opponent indeed had the force so I ended up using a second GSZ to find witness to get deed and blow it. Eventually I ended up losing the game after a few more turns anyway, but in the end his line of play gave me a much better chance of stabilizing than my original play which would have had a much less likely chance of winning. Yes sometimes people get supremely lucky and win despite playing poorly. But a lot of the time the good players continue to win for a reason.

[lordofthepit]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/d4a104fa000721ed876156cfa8b40719/tumblr_mzowxskXkL1s9rpajo1_500.gif

(Credit to http://cardboard-crack.com/post/74026530132/the-genie)

[Michael Keller]

At the moment, I doubt this very much. I have been testing Uwr delver against the mirror, and although I am undoubtedly superior to my opponent in experience and deck-building skills, and although I run less land than my opponent, my cantrips only ever wield me land and more cantrips. Meanwhile, my opponent continues to topdeck gas and kill me. The opening turns of the games went fine, I wasn't keeping poor hands or making poor decisions, but it was the later turns, determined by our draws, that decided the games.

The luck factor stands before the skills of the players, and determines the winner of the match, assuming no misplays by the players, and assuming fair matchups. But even in the regard to someone playing against a 'good matchup', didn't they simply get lucky again to face that good match-up instead of something they are not polarized to defeat?

I keep coming back to this game for some reason, but my luck is so horrible that I am beginning to see it for what it really is: A farce.

Hopefully I can keep myself from coming back to this game, as it give me ulcers to lose to lesser players simply because of my poor luck.

I'm going back to chess.

Sounds to me like you're bitter about losing in general.

[dunk]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/d4a104fa000721ed876156cfa8b40719/tumblr_mzowxskXkL1s9rpajo1_500.gif

(Credit to http://cardboard-crack.com/post/74026530132/the-genie)

/thread

[Megadeus]

Yep that picture is so much win.

[Teveshszat]

Hello,

I never kown that Garfield was actually a mathemathics professor butg that makes sense.
Magic is a resource Management System and I think I don´t have to explain why it drecreases the luck
factor of anything when you can run a BWL Moddel over it.
the whole system is just based on how profitable is card x and how much advantage I create with it.
We all 2 ancestral Recalls are 1 won game which is the reason why they restircted it in Vintage.

Some decks even don´t have any resonable luck left cause wehave fetchlands which decrease dead
landdraws and shuffle, we have addtional draw and huge libary manipulation. And all this
different tools can be used to a degree of manipulation were you can say iI get the card I need in over 50
or even 70 percent when I need it, this is the reason why some people hate Control so much.
So all in all you don´t have so much luck left because the likelihood which is based in a good designed
deck makes it nealy obsolete. Yeah there are times when your decks kills you with dead draw but
as we all know the only thing that kills you ervery time is the statistic. So loseing a game to that seems
legit for me.
So yes Magic can be considerd a skill based game, but other then chess the skills you need are not only playing
skills for Magic but business skills, likelihood and statistic knwolegde.

Best Regards Teveshszat

Edit: thx for the hint.

[TsumiBand]

Hello,

I never kown that Garfielf

http://25.media.tumblr.com/fSymsOGXO5e191sm7muz2Deo_500.gif

[EpicLevelCommoner]

I hate when people look at skill and luck (or, as they more accurately called, theoretical and empirical probability) as though they were opposite things when in reality, they aren't.

In terms of deck choice and construction, you should pick a deck and build it so that it theoretically has the best matchup against the majority of the expected metagame. Doing so does not guarantee that you'll top every event you ever intend, but it increases the theoretical probability and thus increases the likelihood that the empirical probability will match the theoretical probability.

Same for gameplay decisions: you make the best play possible given the matchup and gamestate, not because it will always win you the match 2-0-0, but because it increases your chances of winning.

TL;DR: Skill means stacking the odds in your favor.