Play/draw - Why is this not regulated?

[Rokkastut]

Hello,

I am just back from GP Copenhagen. On day 2, I played Belcher in the legacy side event. A deck that may win or lose the game/match solely depending on the dice roll. To me it was very frustrating losing alot of dice rolls, and I wonder, why is this not regulated?

In a Chess tournament the players are not only paired against an opponent, but the software also determines if the player has the white or black pieces. Then in the next round, you will most likely be paired against someone with the same amount of points as you, but with opposite color of pieces. This way in a Chess tournament you play the same number of games with the white pieces as you do with the black pieces.

Why is this not implemented in Magic? (WER)

It should be very easy to program into the software, and it would remove the factor of lucky/unlucky dice rolls that may determine games, matches and tournaments.

What do you think?

[iamajellydonut]

Until someone figures out the trick to rolling natural 12s, there is literally no reason to implement such a system. If you truly feel like "lucky" or "unlucky" streaks over the course of a single tournament are detrimental to the competitive health of game, you should probably stop running Belcher.

[Warr]

I think it's a somewhat legit request, but it's an element of randomness that is considered acceptable to the game, unlike chess, which is 100% skill-based.

That, and Wizards/Hasbro are miserly when it comes to spending money on developers, which is why DCI Reporter or whatever has had very little functionality added over the last 20 years, relatively speaking.

Just my 2c though

[Varal]

Chess often have double round robin tournaments. I never heard of any sanctioned Magic tournament using this format. White have a proven advantage in Chess. Magic also has such an advantage but the proof might not be as clear as chess. There's a lot of way to cheat with the "random" selection of a winner since there is no uniform way to determine the starting player.

I remember rolling dice at a tournament, I had the highest result. My opponent says he said low roll. Call a judge. He says we need to reroll, no penalties and probably didn't put any notes of it anywhere. Was it an honest misunderstanding? Probably. Is there a potential for cheating/edge gaining definitely. Similarly an opponent could say he rolled higher than what you saw. Did you see it wrong? Did he or is he cheating?

Is there a way to influence the result of the dice when you throw them? Yes. You're not throwing them strongly on a wall like at a casino, you might just drop weirdly shaped dice more or less delicately. You think your opponent didn't throw the dice randomly enough? Good luck to convince him he has to reroll if he rolled higher than you. He rolled his own dice after you rolled yours. Are his dice fair? Are yours? Should you ask him to roll with yours for fairness? Even if he rolled lower than you? What if a dice is coked or fell down the table or a player "accidentally" touched it? Should you reroll one or two of them?

Should you think about all this before you play a game of Magic? Should you take 30 seconds of the clock every round to be sure there's a fair way to randomly determine the winner? Do you need to waste clock time rolling the dice 4 times because there is an equality?

I agree with you that to ensure fairness in equalizing the chance that each player should be equally often on the play or draw in a given tournament just as it is in Chess. This would prevent cheating and increase the amount of skills in tournaments which is desirable at least at the upper level of competition. There is no collection of starting player data so there could be some shark out there increasing there winning percentage by cheating at dice. I'm not even sure you can be disqualified for unfairly determining the starting player.

[CutthroatCasual]

There is no collection of starting player data so there could be some shark out there increasing there winning percentage by cheating at dice.

Actually, CFB did this a few months ago. Going first had a non-zero impact, something like 53%/47% I think?

EDIT: found the article, I can't remember if this is the same one I'm thinking of, but: http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/frank-analysis-how-important-is-it-to-play-first/

EDIT2: here's the one I was thinking of: http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/play-or-draw/ My guess was spot on. Damn, my memory is good.

[ubernostrum]

If you see it as that much of a disadvantage to be on the draw, remember that enforced alternating play/draw would likely be incredibly demoralizing for you if round 1 you're sorted into the "on the draw" half of the event. And if it's an odd number of rounds, you're guaranteed to be at a disadvantage for the majority of your matches when that happens. Meanwhile, random-each-round play/draw at least gives you the chance to get lucky a few rounds in a row, instead of sealing your fate from round one onward.

[Varal]

Actually, CFB did this a few months ago. Going first had a non-zero impact, something like 53%/47% I think?

EDIT: found the article, I can't remember if this is the same one I'm thinking of, but: http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/frank-analysis-how-important-is-it-to-play-first/

EDIT2: here's the one I was thinking of: http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/play-or-draw/ My guess was spot on. Damn, my memory is good.

Those are Magic Online results. I'm pretty sure that no ones cheat in the die roll on MTGO. I was only suggesting that there is actually no way to know how often a player win the die roll and that there could be people out there with a 55% or more winning percentage over thousands of games. If the starting player was written on the match slips the DCI could investigate such anomalies to look for potential cheating.

[CorwinB]

To an extent, it is implemented in Top 8 with the person with the higher ranking in Swiss rounds choosing if they want to play first.

[Julian23]

This is not 100% related to the discussion but was touched upon in this thread:


When 1 or more dice fall down the table while rolling more than just one, you repeat the entire roll. It sucks for the guy who had rolled something high on one or more dices that remained on the table, but in the same way it benefits him if he rolled low.

It's of course a bit of an awkward situation. At the GP Copenhagen sideevent, my opponent rolled 2d6 and hit a 6 on one of them, while the other rolled off the table. I immediately grabbed his 6 and the one on the floor and handed it to him to re-roll. I would have done the same had it been a 1. My sole reasoning for this is that a judge once told me that he preferred the players to entirely re-roll once a dice drops off a table. I think we really should establish a general procedure that everyone is aware of, in order to have less awkward "oh he's just doing this because I rolled high" situations.

[Dark Ritual]

As long as dice are properly rolled the player who gets the option to play or draw is completely random. There's no need to implement a software solution when dice are proven to be random. Both players have equal chances when it comes to rolling a higher number. WotC isn't going to change that.

[Cambriel]

At the risk of sounding snarky, I have zero sympathy for a Belcher deck losing dice rolls when the entire purpose of that deck is to steal wins from opponents before they can play.

[Cartesian]

To those who say then don't play Belcher - what if the story was that the Belcher player had won all the die rolls, and as a result, the tournament?


As long as dice are properly rolled the player who gets the option to play or draw is completely random. There's no need to implement a software solution when dice are proven to be random. Both players have equal chances when it comes to rolling a higher number. WotC isn't going to change that.
The point isn't that dice rolling is not inherently random. Many things in Magic are just random per design due to the nature of the game. The point of the OP is that the outcome of a match is influenced by a random factor that is not part of the game per se, and which may not be necessary, and in a way that may be significant - probably more than was originally intented by Richard Garfield - in a format like Legacy. I can certainly follow the OP that far, and I think the question is a fair one. I don't think it would be straightforward to implement. Some special cases would have to be considered, such as what happens if player A is paired against player B, and both players have 2 "white" games up until now - should the system then repair, or give one player the third "white" in a row? But it would be possible, at least.

[alphastryk]

The die roll is part of the game. Deal with it.

[Julian23]

ITT: A lot of people missing the actual issue the OP wants to address. Nobody is complaining about getting the bad end of variance in a single tournament.

Instead, the actual point that is that the dice roll right now seems to be a neccessary evil in the abscence of a better way to determine who should go first. I don't think there is a better way to do it that would be feasible, but please try to at least focus on what the original post is actualy about.

[Mr Miagi]

Hello,

I am just back from GP Copenhagen. On day 2, I played Belcher in the legacy side event. A deck that may win or lose the game/match solely depending on the dice roll. To me it was very frustrating losing alot of dice rolls, and I wonder, why is this not regulated?

In a Chess tournament the players are not only paired against an opponent, but the software also determines if the player has the white or black pieces. Then in the next round, you will most likely be paired against someone with the same amount of points as you, but with opposite color of pieces. This way in a Chess tournament you play the same number of games with the white pieces as you do with the black pieces.

Why is this not implemented in Magic? (WER)

It should be very easy to program into the software, and it would remove the factor of lucky/unlucky dice rolls that may determine games, matches and tournaments.

What do you think?

You lost all credibility by starting the topic with Belcher argument :tongue:

But back to the topic, I find current system of determining play/draw just fine. I believe you should not complain about loosing to many dice rolls becuase matemathically you will end up in the 50:50 range...

[Varal]

As long as dice are properly rolled the player who gets the option to play or draw is completely random. There's no need to implement a software solution when dice are proven to be random. Both players have equal chances when it comes to rolling a higher number. WotC isn't going to change that.

Properly rolling dice is more complicated than it seems and it can take a long time to explain it. Time is a scarce ressource in a tournament.


The die roll is part of the game. Deal with it.

Ante is part of the game. Deal with it.


ITT: A lot of people missing the actual issue the OP wants to address. Nobody is complaining about getting the bad end of variance in a single tournament.

Instead, the actual point that is that the dice roll right now seems to be a neccessary evil in the abscence of a better way to determine who should go first. I don't think there is a better way to do it that would be feasible, but please try to at least focus on what the original post is actualy about.

It could easily be put on the pairing sheet or a mandatory way could be put in the Comprehensive Rules. It would save time and prevent cheating. Everyone put a ton of attention to the way the decks are randomized but no one cares about how the starting player is randomized.

If I was a cheater I would put some efforts into this area. The gains might not be as great as the deck manipulation but you would never get caught. Do you really think that someone would get disqualified for asking his opponents to shuffle both dice after one fell of the table only on a 4, 5, 6?

[maharis]

Time is a scarce ressource in a tournament.

As is physical space, and the die roll introduces an object moving around at random, falling off the table, getting lost in the maze of deckboxes/pads/bags on and around the table, rolling into other peoples' games, etc.

I would love if WER or whatever had some sort of RNG in the pairing program that just indicates who goes first on the match slip. Then it's not like, whose dice do we use, who goes first in the roll, this is leaning off a playmat so should we reroll, etc.

I also want to put in another plug for my crusade to ban pile shuffling while the match clock is running. Perhaps the way to enforce it is, if you are currently involved in a match and results have not been reported, no pile shuffling.

"But I'm just counting!" No you fucking aren't, you're trying to mana weave or "break up clumps" and I'm just going to mash shuffle your deck anyway so don't waste our time.

The only time you should be counting your main deck is if you think you've dropped a card and can't find it; in which case, you don't need to make 8 piles or whatever, you can just count the stack like a literate adult. If you're worried about over/undersideboarding, count your sideboard, not your main deck.

Anyway. RNG + no pile shuffling = shorter rounds.

[Megadeus]

Ante is part of the game. Deal with it.


Considering none of the cards are legal in any sanctioned tournament..It's not really part of the game

[Shaman]

I think it's a somewhat legit request, but it's an element of randomness that is considered acceptable to the game, unlike chess, which is 100% skill-based.

Actually white wins more then black so making the first move matters. If making the first move weren't regulated chess would not be 100% skill based.

[Rokkastut]

Thank you for alot of input :-)

The argument that the math will put you on 50% in the long run would only be valid in marathon tournaments. The most tournaments I play are either 4, 5 or 9 rounds, and the chance for winning og losing the die roll in every single match is there. Last GPT I won (GPT Strasbourg) I was on the play in every single match. I played Miracles in a meta full of Show & Tell, and I am sure the standings would have been different if I was on the losing end of the dice roll.

Anyway, for 1000 rounds, you will most likely end up close to 50%. For 4-5 rounds, the number of matches os too low for this kind of math to be relevant. (I am sure some statistic/analytic person can give us the actual numbers for 4-5 rounds, winning/losing all, 1-4 2-3 3-2 etc)

And this is only the math, when it comes to sketchy dice rolls there will be alot of more variables...

Ps. For those of you who are commenting Belcher. As another poster mentioned, what if the Belcher player won all dice rolls and you where on the losing end? Would you prefer if play/draw was determined by WER then?

[Varal]

Considering none of the cards are legal in any sanctioned tournament..It's not really part of the game

This is what I'm saying. It's not because something is part of the game at a given point in time that it needs to be part of the game going forward.

[Julian23]

I am sure some statistic/analytic person can give us the actual numbers for 4-5 rounds, winning/losing all, 1-4 2-3 3-2 etc)

The chance to win or lose all dice rolls is:

In a 4 round tournament: 6.25%
In a 5 round tournament: 3.125%
In a 6 round tournament: 1.5625%
etc.

[Tav]

The day that they change how play/draw is determined is probably the same day that they eliminate lands and implement a mana system akin to Hearthstone.

[Varal]

The chance to win or lose all dice rolls is:

In a 4 round tournament: 6.25%
In a 5 round tournament: 3.125%
In a 6 round tournament: 1.5625%
etc.

Would be interesting to have a correlation between tournament performance and percentage of die roll won.

[ESG]

To those who say then don't play Belcher - what if the story was that the Belcher player had won all the die rolls, and as a result, the tournament?

Then that story would clearly be false, because in the vast majority of Legacy events, plenty of people play decks with Force of Will and/or other ways to interact with Belcher. The trick is to play Belcher in a Modern tournament. :wink:

Also, I would support OP's suggestion if it were feasible. It might be in an online environment, but I don't see how it would work in an in-person setting.

[Fry]

An easy way to not have to deal with the dice roll thing and have an exactly 50/50 shot of going first on a random basis is to roll just one die and ask your opponent, before you roll whether they choose even or odd (with "0" counting as even, though technically it is neither even nor odd). I do that sometimes because it's just easier and no one gets mad if the opponent roll the max number on the dice and you have a very small chance of matching it for a second roll.

[Meekrab]

An easy way to not have to deal with the dice roll thing and have an exactly 50/50 shot of going first on a random basis is to roll just one die and ask your opponent, before you roll whether they choose even or odd (with "0" counting as even, though technically it is neither even nor odd). I do that sometimes because it's just easier and no one gets mad if the opponent roll the max number on the dice and you have a very small chance of matching it for a second roll.
I personally have never seen a die with a zero side, but I'm willing to accept they might exist. 0_o

But yeah one player rolling and the other calling even/odd is a potentially good way to curb dice cheats.

[iamajellydonut]

I personally have never seen a die with a zero side, but I'm willing to accept they might exist. 0_o

You've never seen a d10?

[thecrav]

An easy way to not have to deal with the dice roll thing and have an exactly 50/50 shot of going first on a random basis is to roll just one die and ask your opponent, before you roll whether they choose even or odd (with "0" counting as even, though technically it is neither even nor odd). I do that sometimes because it's just easier and no one gets mad if the opponent roll the max number on the dice and you have a very small chance of matching it for a second roll.

I hate rolling D10s because there's always the argument about 0 which is actually 10.

Also, just FYI, zero is in fact even: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero

[iamajellydonut]

I hate rolling D10s because there's always the argument about 0 which is actually 10.

Agreed. But the conversation always amazes me because "who goes first" seems to be the only game in which it's not unquestionably considered a 10.

[redhamjack]

Odd/even on a D6/10 is the best way to go. I cringe every time I see fnmers rolling a D20 spindown.

I'd prefer more like other sports and just flip a coin. High roll leads to too many problems/ties/potential to cheat.

The only downside I see to just having Event Reporter assign the play is that some decks currently benefit from wanting to be on the draw (virtually winning 100% of their dice rolls). Maybe if the reporter just assigned who gets the option to play/draw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thecrav]

I'd prefer more like other sports and just flip a coin. High roll leads to too many problems/ties/potential to cheat.


Please don't flip a coin with pieces of cardboard worth hundreds of dollars on the table.

[Scott]

Please don't flip a coin with pieces of cardboard worth hundreds of dollars on the table.

Although it does kind of sound like a pogs slammer meets Magic: the Gathering, which is the most 90s thing I've ever heard. And it's on a Saved by the Bell playmat.

[Dark Ritual]

Isn't it mathematically possible for you to be on the draw every round even in a system the OP suggests? If so then I don't see the point. I second the odds/evens idea.

"Complicated" is not a word I would use to describe rolling a d6. Spindown d20's sure that's complicated because it's easy to manipulate but rolling a random number on a d6 is not hard at all. Pretty obvious if you're trying to cheat at rolling a pair of d6'es, just saying. If an 8 year old kid can roll a random pair of d6'es in a game of monopoly so can a 20 year old playing magic.

Going first sometimes grants an advantage. Sometimes it's better to be on the draw. You don't actually know until the end of said game whether it would have been better to be on the play or the draw and that's part of the beauty of magic as a game. Anecdotal but I've lost almost all if not all the die rolls in a given tournament and still top 8'ed. Best example I can think of is the GP Vegas vintage side event where I lost the die roll in every round except 1 I think and still X-1'ed the tournament/top 8'ed including losing the die roll against shops and still killing them on turn 1 on the draw granted he misplayed by playing a chalice on 2 and not playing a thorn of amethyst but I guess he thought not playing a thorn and resolving chalice on two gave him the best chance to win the game.

[Meekrab]

Please don't flip a coin with pieces of cardboard worth hundreds of dollars on the table.
How about we flip a Kruggerand? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krugerrand)

[thecrav]

Isn't it mathematically possible for you to be on the draw every round even in a system the OP suggests?

Not only is it possible, it's not even particularly unlikely. Given how many people are performing the same "experiment" of randomly determining who goes first in a given event and the frequency that MtG events take place, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that this happens to someone every day.

Edit: And the randomization taking place inside the computer would not change that.

[ironclad8690]

Play manaless dredge, even when you lose the die roll, you win the die roll :cool:

[ESG]

Going first sometimes grants an advantage. Sometimes it's better to be on the draw. You don't actually know until the end of said game whether it would have been better to be on the play or the draw and that's part of the beauty of magic as a game.

Sorry, but the vast majority of the time in this format, it's advantageous to be on the play -- hence, why it's awarded to the higher seeds in the elimination rounds. This incentivizes playing in the last round, for example.

If I had the power to always be on the play, I would absolutely take it.

[Dark Ritual]

Sorry, but the vast majority of the time in this format, it's advantageous to be on the play -- hence, why it's awarded to the higher seeds in the elimination rounds. This incentivizes playing in the last round, for example.

If I had the power to always be on the play, I would absolutely take it.

Provide evidence then. As for being awarded to higher seeds in top 8's you failed to make the distinction of the higher seed getting the choice versus automatically being on the play. I mean I would find it hilarious if manaless dredge being 1st place after the swiss had to be on the play and lose because of it. It is not strictly better to be on the play. I have chosen to draw in storm combo and been right for it and no I don't mean just grinding station. You're blowing it way out of proportion how important going first is. It wouldn't surprise me if over my MTG career I've won more on the draw versus on the play. But such a statistic is unknown to everyone playing this game short of you tracking it from the beginning of your tournament career.

[Varal]

Not only is it possible, it's not even particularly unlikely. Given how many people are performing the same "experiment" of randomly determining who goes first in a given event and the frequency that MtG events take place, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that this happens to someone every day.

Edit: And the randomization taking place inside the computer would not change that.

I think you misunderstood what the OP suggesting. It would be simple to pair past draw people with past play people in addition to the match points.

Edit: Matt Sperling talks about this issue in his latest article. (http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-new-mulligan-rule/)