Decks to Beat (2020-21) Discussion Thread

[H]

Anyone interested in this any more?

I wouldn't mind upkeeping it. I don't have access to the actual thread, nor can I move decks though.

Also, I am not so sure about the cut-off. As best I can tell, it was arbitrarily chooses to be 3.4%. Might be good, might not, hard to say, exactly, but I'd wonder why not just a 3.5% either? But then again, we can play that game all day until 4 or 5%.

In any case, here is the January 2020 data:
https://i.imgur.com/Lh4Jg6w.png

https://i.imgur.com/dbRoGBD.png

Which means 3.4% gives a cut off of (rounded) 108 points. I'd be apt to consider 3.5%, which is (rounded) 111 points.

I'd say TES gets in, Dark Depths just misses.

Top decks would be then:
UR Delver
Miracles
Death and Taxes
Eldrazi
Grixis (Delver)
4C Control
Hogaak
TES

Thoughts? Obviously I need to wait until February is well and over to compile those results.

[UseLess]

I appreciate the effort. Would be great if this was kept up to date. Oko doesn't seem to be much of an issue in legacy, just as I expected.

[PirateKing]

I'd like to do whatever I can to support this.
Even if it means passing the torch off.

I think I remember that originally, it was done so there would be 5-6 decks to beat at a time. The metrics were all kind of wish washy before, so maybe a deeper look into that might be warranted.

[H]

I appreciate the effort. Would be great if this was kept up to date. Oko doesn't seem to be much of an issue in legacy, just as I expected.

Well, I think it and Veil are doing something, but are they dominating? No, not really. Keep in mind that most of the Miracles lists are running Oko themselves.

But, it hardly seems that Oko, Veil or Astrolabe are dominant. In fact, it seems the format has adjusted to either playing them, or fighting them, fairly efficiently.

[FTW]

Thanks for doing this H! It'd be great to have the DTB section up and running again.


I appreciate the effort. Would be great if this was kept up to date. Oko doesn't seem to be much of an issue in legacy, just as I expected.

I would guess most of those "Miracles" decks are Bant Miracles with Oko.

If you look at the Feb results so far, according to MTGTop8 and MTGGoldfish, the top 3 decks are:
UR Delver
Breach
Snowko

Both Bant Snowko and 4C Snowko are top decks. Astrolabe Oko decks are doing well but not running over the format.

[H]

It certainly seems like the following might be happening though:

Oko is being played, which means Red Blasts are really good. The decks taking advantage of that are UR and Grixis Delver.

Since many decks are playing Astrolabe and Basics, Wastelands are somewhat low, so 12 Post/Eldrazi is doing well, not to mention Moons are also low, so there is that lack of threat too.

Veil's effect is especially unclear in the data, but it might be the case that it is helping prop up Miracles lists that would otherwise we weaker to combo and/or discard?

[UseLess]

Yeah I realized after making my post that the miracles lists probably contained some amount of Oko's. Still, not a problem card, just a strong one in the right decks. That meta list looks quite healthy to me.

[PirateKing]

To me Veil shows up the most in seeing ANT and TES having swapped dominance in the results.
For a while ANT was DTB or just barely out, with TES kinda middling behind somewhere in the masses.

Now that both your win condition in Tendrils is suspect, along with your main axis to remove the card in the form of discard is suspect, ANT has taken a hard hit.
Meanwhile the less consistent poop out 16 Goblins deck is safer as a result. Also I've seen a number of Echo of Eons type decks being lumped in as TES, not sure what that does to the math.

But that's the most telling sign that something is up in the cardpool to see ANT drop so hard without taking all of storm decks down with it.

[H]

To me Veil shows up the most in seeing ANT and TES having swapped dominance in the results.
For a while ANT was DTB or just barely out, with TES kinda middling behind somewhere in the masses.

Now that both your win condition in Tendrils is suspect, along with your main axis to remove the card in the form of discard is suspect, ANT has taken a hard hit.
Meanwhile the less consistent poop out 16 Goblins deck is safer as a result. Also I've seen a number of Echo of Eons type decks being lumped in as TES, not sure what that does to the math.

But that's the most telling sign that something is up in the cardpool to see ANT drop so hard without taking all of storm decks down with it.

TCDecks categorization does indeed leave much to be desired, honestly. Most of there aren't too bad, but some of them are kind of just lumped together, or named strangely.

[Mr. Safety]

Thanks for posting! I utilize the Source quite a bit as my primary outlet, along with the LaL facebook page and the local yokels.

[FTW]

To me Veil shows up the most in seeing ANT and TES having swapped dominance in the results.

Also I've seen a number of Echo of Eons type decks being lumped in as TES, not sure what that does to the math.

Not much. About 50% of those TES results are Bryant Cook.

His new build is on a hot streak. He made some big changes from older TES builds to adapt to the meta (Wishclaw Talisman over Infernal Tutor, Mox Opal, Defense Grid, Veil, Echo), but by definition whatever he's on is "TES". It still uses the signature cards of Rite of Flame, Burning Wish, and Empty. TES adapted to the meta. ANT hasn't.

That also makes the results hard to interpret. Does it mean TES is that much more dominant in this meta, or does it just mean Bryant Cook is good at storm?

[PirateKing]

Not much. About 50% of those TES results are Bryant Cook.

His new build is on a hot streak. He made some big changes from older TES builds to adapt to the meta (Wishclaw Talisman over Infernal Tutor, Mox Opal, Defense Grid, Veil, Echo), but by definition whatever he's on is "TES". It still uses the signature cards of Rite of Flame, Burning Wish, and Empty. TES adapted to the meta. ANT hasn't.

That also makes the results hard to interpret. Does it mean TES is that much more dominant in this meta, or does it just mean Bryant Cook is good at storm?

No I mean, I've watched his streams, I understand the changes and why. Of course he'll be the best example of the deck. But even then, one man can't put up enough numbers to affect the results like that. It would take several players having similar success, and if we assume they are all not as skilled as their patron, then the deck must have something going for it.

But even beyond all that, I feel like you just said the same thing I said:
TES adapted to the Veil of Summer meta. ANT hasn't.
To which, I agree.

[FTW]

But even then, one man can't put up enough numbers to affect the results like that. It would take several players having similar success,

No, what I'm saying is it is one man.

Check out the MTG Goldfish Legacy metagame. TES is one of the top decks in the current meta.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/legacy-tes-137062#paper

Then look to the right.
13/25 of the decks are Bryant Cook.
Most of the others are Vivarus.
It's just 2 TES pros wrecking the meta.

On MTGTop8, which includes paper events, it's harder to parse. There's a lot of "Storm", but most aren't TES. Even some of the ones called "TES" are really ANT (Cabal Rit, Infernal Tutor, PiF, no Rite).
https://www.mtgtop8.com/archetype?a=35&meta=39&f=LE
Of the 8 true TES decks there, 3 are Bryant Cook. They're missing his 3rd place @ Leaving a Legacy VI, making it 4/9.

He's singlehandedly half of the recent TES results.

[Ronald Deuce]

Getting better source material than TCDecks provides would be good. So would transparency regarding what constitutes a "deck to beat."

I miss seeing the mods' take on what's good and what isn't, but I'm not pleased at the amount of sludge it fueled—and fueled with data ripe for cherry-picking.

[pettdan]

Very nice!


Also, I am not so sure about the cut-off. As best I can tell, it was arbitrarily chooses to be 3.4%. Might be good, might not, hard to say, exactly, but I'd wonder why not just a 3.5% either? But then again, we can play that game all day until 4 or 5%.

I assume it was chosen for a historic reason, then kept to enable comparison between different periods.

[Tylert]

Anyone interested in this any more?

I wouldn't mind upkeeping it. I don't have access to the actual thread, nor can I move decks though.

Also, I am not so sure about the cut-off. As best I can tell, it was arbitrarily chooses to be 3.4%. Might be good, might not, hard to say, exactly, but I'd wonder why not just a 3.5% either? But then again, we can play that game all day until 4 or 5%.

In any case, here is the January 2020 data:
https://i.imgur.com/Lh4Jg6w.png

https://i.imgur.com/dbRoGBD.png

Which means 3.4% gives a cut off of (rounded) 108 points. I'd be apt to consider 3.5%, which is (rounded) 111 points.

I'd say TES gets in, Dark Depths just misses.

Top decks would be then:
UR Delver
Miracles
Death and Taxes
Eldrazi
Grixis (Delver)
4C Control
Hogaak
TES

Thoughts? Obviously I need to wait until February is well and over to compile those results.

I sent a few PM to dice_box in order to have it updated... never had a response.
I'd be glad if anyone would do this again.

[Wrath of Pie]

The bigger question is whether or not Decks to Beat would be an actual measure of anything.

[H]

The bigger question is whether or not Decks to Beat would be an actual measure of anything.

That really depends on what we consider to be "actual" there.

I think it does serve a purpose, that purpose being to frame what seem to be the top performing deck of the previous month. That doesn't mean they necessarily are, but rather, simply we can capture that seeming.

In a sense, it gives us a notion of a meta to consider. From there, of course, we need to actually think further about what the expected meta would be for a given event. But at least the frame is notionally set. Like all frames, it fails to capture the whole of the picture, but it at least provides a structure to evaluate to and from.

[Cire]

No, what I'm saying is it is one man.

Not going to lie, that is so awesome :eek:

[H]

Well, to be 100% clear, I am not exactly a huge fan of the methodology I followed, but I also don't hate it, per se. I simply followed the previous formulation. I don't think TCDeck's parsing of the data is at all ideal in any sense, but what would be the other options?

If there was another way to aggregate the data, I'd be all for it, but I really don't want to be doing the whole thing manually.

[thefringthing]

Considering that for a long time now most of the lists that get published to the decklist sites are from MTGO, where only decks that differ from the others by X cards are disclosed, and the impact of the dozen or two very skilled regular MTGO players, I think it would be best to stop pretending that the metagame percentage numbers given by the decklist sites really mean very much.

It would be better to just acknowledge the subjective nature of a list like this, choose one dedicated person who keeps up with the format, and have them just pick out the five or six decks or deck archetypes they think players should be focused on for testing and deck tuning if they have a sizable upcoming tournament with an unknown metagame.

If that person were me and I were to make such a list today, I would probably choose:

Blue-Red/Grixis Delver
Bant Snow Control
Jeskai Breach
BUG Zenith Oko
Death & Taxes/Maverick


Obviously I'm cheating a bit here by grouping some things together.

[pettdan]

Considering that for a long time now most of the lists that get published to the decklist sites are from MTGO, where only decks that differ from the others by X cards are disclosed, and the impact of the dozen or two very skilled regular MTGO players, I think it would be best to stop pretending that the metagame percentage numbers given by the decklist sites really mean very much.

It would be better to just acknowledge the subjective nature of a list like this, choose one dedicated person who keeps up with the format, and have them just pick out the five or six decks or deck archetypes they think players should be focused on for testing and deck tuning if they have a sizable upcoming tournament with an unknown metagame.


The 5-0 MTGO deck dumps don't seem to be used to assemble the monthly DTB's, from what I could figure out. So it seems your argument fails.

The list you propose would be entirely subjective, which ironically reminds us of the value of having a list based on statistical data.

As it's phrased in the DTB section:

Rather than relying on arbitrary selection or decision-making based on conjecture which can be tainted by personal bias, decks are selected for the DTBF based on their performance at recent, large, competitive Legacy tournaments. Decks which make up a very large portion of the metagame are considered DTB's.

However, I wouldn't mind having a subjective list of DTB's to prepare for as an alternative list.

[Cire]

What about three decks chosen as the highest % of the metagame as taken from the data and then three more decks chosen subjectively to round it out (i.e. what is the date missing)?

[H]

What about three decks chosen as the highest % of the metagame as taken from the data and then three more decks chosen subjectively to round it out (i.e. what is the date missing)?

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but why are we selecting 6 decks? Why not seven? Or five?

[pettdan]

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but why are we selecting 6 decks? Why not seven? Or five?

One way to create a subjective list could be to let users vote for players that get to select DTB's according to their own opinion. The amount of DTB's will then be depending on what these selected players think.

How exactly the amount of decks extracted is decided on could be handled in different ways.. Like, let them grade the DTB's they provide on a scale (1-10 for example), then add all decks' values and have a cut-off at 60% of the max value.. Or any other approach.

[thefringthing]

The list you propose would be entirely subjective, which ironically reminds us of the value of having a list based on statistical data.My point is that meaningful statistical data are not available. There isn't enough data collection, and the data that are collected are heavily biased. I'm arguing that we should not pretend to have an objective list of decks to beat available to us when we don't.

[pettdan]

My point is that meaningful statistical data are not available. There isn't enough data collection, and the data that are collected are heavily biased. I'm arguing that we should not pretend to have an objective list of decks to beat available to us when we don't.

How is it biased? I repeat, the 5-0 deck dumps don't seem to be used, I think that was the only support you provided of the statement that data is biased. I also added a quote of a statement on how the current data being used isn't biased (I'll have to reread it now but I think that's what it said).

[Cire]

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but why are we selecting 6 decks? Why not seven? Or five?

Any number would be arbitrary, but I think if you have the top 3 decks based on stats you can round out the rest of the list with subjective choices of whatever number that weren't captured in the top 3 decks based on stats.

So ATM the stats show:

U/R Burn
Miracle
D&T

As the top 3 based on stats. Then subjectively we can say the rest of the DTB looks like:

Breach
BUG Oko
Hogaake

That definitely misses some deck lists like Eldrazi, Grixis, and TES, but every objective and subjective criteria will miss something. We just got to make our peace with it.

The trick though is picking who is making that subjective determination? A community poll every month seems like way too much trouble.

[H]

One way to create a subjective list could be to let users vote for players that get to select DTB's according to their own opinion. The amount of DTB's will then be depending on what these selected players think.

How exactly the amount of decks extracted is decided on could be handled in different ways.. Like, let them grade the DTB's they provide on a scale (1-10 for example), then add all decks' values and have a cut-off at 60% of the max value.. Or any other approach.

Sure, but in looking at the B&R thread, for example, do you think people are generally open to other's opinions? I actually don't personally find a data-driven, subjective valuation to be bad, but I have my doubts people would "submit" to that as an ideal case. Or even a tenable one.

Not to mention the issue of just who it would be that would be these "representatives."


My point is that meaningful statistical data are not available. There isn't enough data collection, and the data that are collected are heavily biased. I'm arguing that we should not pretend to have an objective list of decks to beat available to us when we don't.

Who is claiming the list is objective though? It is quasi-objective at best.

[pettdan]

Sure, but in looking at the B&R thread, for example, do you think people are generally open to other's opinions? I actually don't personally find a data-driven, subjective valuation to be bad, but I have my doubts people would "submit" to that as an ideal case. Or even a tenable one.

Not to mention the issue of just who it would be that would be these "representatives."

It would be a complement to the current version. It could be updated more frequently, so that would be very useful. Also, it would change more quickly with perceived, expected changes, which can be argued to be a disadvantage but I would consider it an advantage, especially since the current list would contain the slower moving ranking based on statistical data.

The perceived validity of that list would depend on the perceived validity of the selected players voting. I think it would be almost exclusively well-known players, if based on voting, so I think it would be rather accepted. It should take very little of these players' time, so I think it might be possible to get a fair amount of them to actually participate. They would also get some exposure and validation as experts so that could feel nice for them. There are many ways to design this, I wouldn't mind having active source users voting too.. It may be hard to find someone spending the time on this, but not impossible. It might be possible to automate some parts of this but finding somone willing to spend the time to do that would be harder.

[FTW]

This all seems like a problem that can and should be solved at the DCI level.

If store wants to run a paper constructed event and have it sanctioned with prize support, they should be required to do some level of deck registration, scan the sheets, and submit the data to DCI, where the results can be centrally stored and analyzed. This would guarantee compilation of data from events all over the world, not biased towards a few who submit to the decklists sites.

Minimum data that should be submitted to be sanctioned:
- Event type and structure (# of rounds, cut to top X, etc)
- Total # of players
- Deck archetype for each deck
- Complete decklists for top 8
- Top 8 ranking

With a database like that, it would be really easy to determine:
- Metagame %s by archetype, with the ability to filter by region
- DTBs
- Change in metagame over time, especially before and after major bannings

This is useful for the players, for Wizards to better monitor abusive cards and understand the impact of bans, and even for stores to analyze secondary market prices as the metagame shifts.

The primary obstacle with a system like this is getting buy-in from the local stores, but if they tie to to event sanctioning and prize support then it should be easy to maintain and would be overall better for the Magic community as a whole. We live in an age of data, why is there not more data about paper Magic?

[pettdan]

@FTW: they already have data from MTGO, if they wanted data from paper events why would they start collecting it now after so many years, especially when they are trying to transition to more of a digital product. This seems unlikely to happen and anyway it is something we can't influence.

[FTW]

@FTW: they already have data from MTGO, if they wanted data from paper events why would they start collecting it now after so many years, especially when they are trying to transition to more of a digital product. This seems unlikely to happen and anyway it is something we can't influence.

The complaint above was the MTGO data is biased towards a few who play very regularly. The decklists sites now focus on MTGO data and have less coverage of paper Magic.

If they keep sanctioning paper events with prize support, why not provide more support for the paper infrastructure? It's something that would be a lot easier to manage on their end then for us to try to dredge through results to come up with unbiased metagame numbers.

[H]

Wizards is dead set against big data. They even, essentially, "forced" Frank Karsten to stop publishing his full meta-game analysis of GP lists just recently. And that is for formats they regularly support with paper events.

Why should we think they would actively want to do this themselves?

[FTW]

Wizards is dead set against big data. They even, essentially, "forced" Frank Karsten to stop publishing his full meta-game analysis of GP lists just recently. And that is for formats they regularly support with paper events.

Why? Many players want that content. How is it good business to deny the players something most games do and pretend we live in 1995?

[H]

Why? Many players want that content. How is it good business to deny the players something most games do and pretend we live in 1995?

Because they actively fear what big data can do, most likely.

They might even be right, to some extent. It could well be that the indeterminacy of the metagame is shield that mitigates efforts at format solution, that the insolubility of particular matchup data exactly is a part of what keeps format evolution going.

I don't know that they are fully correct, but I'd guess they might be partly right. Some metagame diversity is derivative from people's personal preference, card availability, but some of it also must relate to the inscrutable nature of the exact metagame composition and particular deck's performance against its constituent decks.

[pettdan]

Why? Many players want that content. How is it good business to deny the players something most games do and pretend we live in 1995?

I'm not sure I agree, or rather I think I disagree, but probably they want to stimulate creativity by not presenting clear info on how the format(s) appears to be solved. Which makes some sense for them, they try to create formats with a lot of variation in them to provide a more stimulating experienceffor players and they don't want to contribute to decreasing the variation.

[jmlima]

I'm not sure I agree, or rather I think I disagree, but probably they want to stimulate creativity by not presenting clear info on how the format(s) appears to be solved. Which makes some sense for them, they try to create formats with a lot of variation in them to provide a more stimulating experienceffor players and they don't want to contribute to decreasing the variation.

Most of the times they are just defending themselves from showing that some formats are essentially revolving around 2-3 decks, sometimes even 1 in the case of Standard. The decision not to publish data is essentially defensive, not to stimulate creativity.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Why? Many players want that content. How is it good business to deny the players something most games do and pretend we live in 1995?

They don't want people "solving" formats, but it doesn't account for people winning league trophies on camera with certain decks.

[FTW]

But MTG Goldfish and MTG Top 8 already publish this data about the online metagame. It's out there. People who want to "solve" can already do so.

The only difference is if WOTC wants to get in the game, take advantage of their access to data that these other sites can't get, corner the market on paper data (untapped), and have that content on their own platforms generating revenue for them... or keep letting other sites do it. But that information is out there.

At my LGS, some players will just copypaste the latest online list, including the exact SB. That makes it easy to metagame against because you know exactly what hate to expect from each deck (e.g. if you're playing an unfair combo deck..). Yet not all players do that. Some still innovate and bring fringe decks or homebrews. Why? Because it's fun. Netdecking has been around for over 20 years but never killed the game.

[Tylert]

What is wrong with what was done by admins before??
Why can't we just keep it simple and continue the same thing?
Any other method will be as bad or worse because it will be as much or more biased.

I just want an updated DTB section, I don't care if it's not completely exact.

[jmlima]

...
I just want an updated DTB section, I don't care if it's not completely exact.

Plus, that's an impossible task. DTB depends on the meta you play, etc. MTGO is different from LGS and LGSs vary immensely, big tourneys are also much different, etc. Being a glass empyt kind of guy, not sure if a DTB section is not even a bit misleading.

[pettdan]

What is wrong with what was done by admins before??
Why can't we just keep it simple and continue the same thing?
Any other method will be as bad or worse because it will be as much or more biased.

I just want an updated DTB section, I don't care if it's not completely exact.

It was suggested in this post that the list is bad, which I questioned: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?33280-Decks-to-Beat-(2020-edition)&p=1081486&viewfull=1#post1081486

Then at least I moved on to discuss a potential alternative list, not a replacement. There was also some discussion about MTGO data being not good due to large influence of a few great players (which I don't see as a problem, personally, whatever).

... And you got an updated list, see first post, H is offering to keep updating it I think so that's great, I expressed my gratitude above which I recommend everyone do if they appreciate this effort.

[JackaBo]

I vore for keeping the good old list going, if anyone is up to the task. Let’s not worry about the accuracy and just take it for what it is.

[Tylert]

It was suggested in this post that the list is bad, which I questioned: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?33280-Decks-to-Beat-(2020-edition)&p=1081486&viewfull=1#post1081486

Then at least I moved on to discuss a potential alternative list, not a replacement. There was also some discussion about MTGO data being not good due to large influence of a few great players (which I don't see as a problem, personally, whatever).

... And you got an updated list, see first post, H is offering to keep updating it I think so that's great, I expressed my gratitude above which I recommend everyone do if they appreciate this effort.

Yes yes. don't worry, there was no personnal attacks.
As the other poster before, i'm ok with keeping what exists with its flaws because doing something better would be a lot of work and maybe even impossible due to the lack of data.

[pettdan]

Yes yes. don't worry, there was no personnal attacks.

Your questions were so general, they seemed to misinterpret some parts of the discussion, and didn't directly adress any of the posts in the thread, it appeared that you didn't read it thoroughly, so I presented a summary of relevant posts in relation to your comment. No attack perceived.

@JackaBo: yes, H offered to do it in the first post of the thread, which is very nice. Thanks again, H!

[FTW]

I'm good with keeping this list too. Thanks H for offering to do it and putting in the work!

I don't have a problem with the MTGO data or sticking with the old method. I was just responding to the comments about the ANT vs TES (and ways the whole Magic community could have better data). I would take the dominance of TES vs ANT with a grain of salt... but still be OK with the current DTB list.

[H]

Well, for the time being, I will keep just doing this here. But still, in the end, I can't move threads.

The only "qualifier" is that I think, once we have figured out the "Decks to Beat" we need to do a little subjective evaluation as to what threads pertain to those categories or not. In some cases this will be simple, but in others, it might not be quite so.

[pettdan]

Start updating here, for as long as you feel like it, and before long I predict you'll have adm rights.

[Tylert]

Your questions were so general, they seemed to misinterpret some parts of the discussion, and didn't directly adress any of the posts in the thread, it appeared that you didn't read it thoroughly, so I presented a summary of relevant posts in relation to your comment. No attack perceived.

@JackaBo: yes, H offered to do it in the first post of the thread, which is very nice. Thanks again, H!

In fact it was a reaction to all the "Good" Ideas given in this thread that were either very hard to implement or just completely Biased.
I'm on the "If it works, don't change it" train (And indeed, for me it works).

[Tylert]

Well, for the time being, I will keep just doing this here. But still, in the end, I can't move threads.

The only "qualifier" is that I think, once we have figured out the "Decks to Beat" we need to do a little subjective evaluation as to what threads pertain to those categories or not. In some cases this will be simple, but in others, it might not be quite so.

I'm with you! thanks for the good work :) (And I hope you'll be a mod in the futur so you can do the real thing).

PS: Wasn't there a thread or something like that asking us to name someone to be a mod?

[H]

PS: Wasn't there a thread or something like that asking us to name someone to be a mod?

Yeah, it was in the B&R thread (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?33220-How-to-save-Legacy&p=1080116&viewfull=1#post1080116), which likely means some number of people might not have seen it.


Okay, fine. I'm hijacking this motherfucker. You want new mods? Send me a PM with your top 3 choices of members who you think have the temperament and dedication to the community to do the job. Feel free to explain why you think a person deserves consideration. Don't vote for yourself. If I'm seeing a lot of the same names, the administrative staff will discuss them as mod candidates. Go on then.

I did send in three names (none of which were my own, just to be clear) but I don't know the outcome.

[pettdan]

I'm on the "If it works, don't change it" train (And indeed, for me it works).

It appears everyone is agreeing with this. We can still discuss an alternative list, it doesn't mean we are unhappy with the existing one. It can be interesting to consider what an alternative list could look like, and how it can be created. There is probably no need to put down the foot and kill that discussion, it wasn't about to go overboard and change the existing DTB-list. Well, I guess that discussion died anyway but still.. Sorry if I'm overly sensitive about this, I'm just a little bit allergic to skeptical nay-sayers that have to kill every creative discussion in its cradle..

[H]

It appears everyone is agreeing with this. We can still discuss an alternative list, it doesn't mean we are unhappy with the existing one. It can be interesting to consider what an alternative list could look like, and how it can be created. There is probably no need to put down the foot and kill that discussion, it wasn't about to go overboard and change the existing DTB-list. Well, I guess that discussion died anyway but still.. Sorry if I'm overly sensitive about this, I'm just a little bit allergic to skeptical nay-sayers that have to kill every creative discussion in its cradle..

Well, I don't think we need to be slavishly conservative to doing things as we did in the past, just because we did them in the past. I also would not say that we should think that change is "progress" necessarily, just because it would be different (and so by default notionally "better").

To me, a little skepticism goes a long way in both establishing and re-establishing a Ground on which to base things. So, my questioning honestly does not mean to presuppose an answer either way. It was simply to gauge if we think it is still sufficient to justify the practice. I'm fine with either answer, so long as it is rationally justified.

[pettdan]

@H: ok

Edit: actually, I couldn't find anything in your post that contradicts what I wrote. ;) I kept reading it to try to find what the counter-argument was. Your open for different ideas, I think that was the end message. That's great!

[H]

@H: ok

Edit: actually, I couldn't find anything in your post that contradicts what I wrote. ;) I kept reading it to try to find what the counter-argument was. Your open for different ideas, I think that was the end message. That's great!

Right, I was agreeing, essentially, but just noting that I don't think skepticism is bad, per se. But, like basically anything else, it can be used as a poor means and/or a spurious end.

[Tylert]

@H: ok

Edit: actually, I couldn't find anything in your post that contradicts what I wrote. ;) I kept reading it to try to find what the counter-argument was. Your open for different ideas, I think that was the end message. That's great!

Hey: I'm open to different ideas too!! But they just all seemed wrong :)

[H]

Well, it is March now, but results will likely still trickle in. So, next Monday (the 9th) I will run the numbers and post them.

[arcane7828]

Anyone interested in this any more?

I wouldn't mind upkeeping it. I don't have access to the actual thread, nor can I move decks though.



Thanks for doing this! I was very sad when dice stopped updating :frown:

[jmlima]

Well, it is March now, but results will likely still trickle in. So, next Monday (the 9th) I will run the numbers and post them.

We're eager to know what brainstorm shell is at the top!

Call it my 6th sense, but I have a sneaky suspicion it might also include Delver of Secrets and Force of Will.

[FTW]

We're eager to know what brainstorm shell is at the top!
Call it my 6th sense, but I have a sneaky suspicion it might also include Delver of Secrets and Force of Will.

I have a sneaky suspicion it will include Brainstorm, FoW, Ponder, Preordain, Volcanic Island, Lightning Bolt, and maybe Spell Pierce.... but the question is which 1R card will it be?

[PirateKing]

I have a sneaky suspicion it will include Brainstorm, FoW, Ponder, Preordain, Volcanic Island, Lightning Bolt, and maybe Spell Pierce.... but the question is which 1R card will it be?

Anaba Ancestor obviously. Don't embarrass yourself.

Either way, this is good work, looking forward to new charts monthly.

Thanks again H

[H]

So, ban day, but also DTB day today:

https://i.imgur.com/ZJxyLxU.png
https://i.imgur.com/5ZtTIF9.png

So we have 3116 results, 3.4% of that is (rounded) 106.

The gives us 11 (!) decks to beat. Seems that even with Breach's sort of dominance, people we having decent results with a variety of stuff.

Miracles
UR Burn
Breach
Eldrazi
4c Control
D&T
Infect
OmniTell

Those are the top 8. If we continue on to the arithmetical 11:

Dragon Stompy
Hogaak
RUG Delver

But, now, going into March, we have to consider the new shake-up that will be Breach decks leaving, pretty much as quickly as they came.

[FTW]

Thanks for updating this H!

So the #1 1R card advantage engine for Xerox turned out to be Dreadhorde Arcanist over Underworld Breach. (Anaba Ancestor is too OP, there's a gentleman's agreement not to run it).

3 Oko decks and 2 Delver decks in the DTB, one of each higher than Breach, yet they still banned Breach even though the fair decks it beats up on were more dominant. How much higher can Snowko climb?

[pettdan]

Thanks for the update! Give this man a well deserved vote for admin!

[Fox]

Landstill is officially back! :cool:

[H]

How much higher can Snowko climb?

I'm not sure. Now that, I think, it will have the target on it's back, what can UR Delver do to get some points up on it? Maybe go to notional Grixis for the Sanctuary/Painful Truths package out of the board?

Also, how good is UG Omni vs Snoko? Because I could see that rising some, which then will likely mean that Infect (and maybe Shadow) come up a bit, since they are "fast clock" decks. Also, I'm not sure if Breach's exist is good news for most Eldrazi or bad news.

We will have to wait and see the "full" fallout in a couple weeks. In the meantime, I think one needs to have a fairly solid plan vs. 4c/5c, UR Delver, and Snoko right now.

[H]

Last day of the month! So, some news. One, as usual, I will update the information next Tuesday for March. Naturally, I think results will be a little scarce, but it is what it is now.

Two, as some might have noticed, I now have mod-powers, so I can both update the official thread as well as this one. I can also move topics once we see what makes it into the DTB section.

So, why update two places? Well, the official thread will remain locked. This one will remain open, so everyone can comment, or raise concerns, and so on.

[pettdan]

Nice, congratulations! And thanks for the work you put into this and admining!

[H]

In anticipation, I had a glance at the data beforehand. It is likely that Miracles will be qualified as a DTB. Unfortunately though, we do not have a currently open Miracles thread.

Is anyone willing/qualified to write something of a new primer for more "contemporary" Miracles decks?

[Fox]

In anticipation, I had a glance at the data beforehand. It is likely that Miracles will be qualified as a DTB. Unfortunately though, we do not have a currently open Miracles thread.

Is anyone willing/qualified to write something of a new primer for more "contemporary" Miracles decks?

I don’t know that it really qualifies as a different deck than the other 4c Oko Pile. Unless Hymn-spam becomes a successful tactic, the UW core will not take the easy way out and spam Counterbalance. Until such a time, the white-using 4c Oko just has a better m/u vs Marit Lage and a generally better Wrath effect than Dead of Winter.

Deep down everyone knows Oko needs to go since he's the FTK of PWs, and we shouldn't be pretending black vs white-using 4c Oko represents diversity; add them up.

[H]

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with just keeping the existent thread. In fact, I actually have no idea why it is locked at all. If no one wants to write a new primer, maybe because it isn't needed, or maybe just because no one wants to, I will just unlock it.

[H]

March Update:
https://i.imgur.com/JUCFzMq.png
https://i.imgur.com/EBxCkBx.png

So, this month has both suppressed results, from the ongoing fact that the pandemic has all but eliminated all paper results, and the fact of the number one deck there being Banned already.

So, computationally, our outcome should be a cutoff of 54 points. Since results were low, I don't think we got the full divergence we usually would, since that would give us a "top" 11 decks (minus one banned), and I think even 10 is too many.

As I result, I am going to just take the "next" top 8 decks, giving us:
Death and Taxes (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?6775-Deck-Death-and-Taxes)
Miracles (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?31855-DTB-UWx-Miracle-Control)
UR Delver (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?31294-DTB-U-R-Delver)
BUG Midrange/Control (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?23429-Deck-Team-America-(Midrange-Control-Thread))
Eldrazi (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?30500-Primer-Eldrazi-Stompy)
RUG Delver (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?27776-Deck-Canadian-Threshold-(aka-RUG-Delver-Tempo-Thresh))
4C Control
OmniTell (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?26071-Deck-MonoU-OmniTell)

The issue at hand is that we really don't have an 4C Control thread. I am working on a primer now, I hope to have it done in the next couple days. Just trying to source some matchup information for a primer at the moment.

Questions, comments, concerns?

I will update the official thread later today and move threads today as well.

[caiomarcos]

Posting only to congratulate and give thanks for the effort and work put on this.
I really like to follow and appreciate this is being done.

[FTW]

Thanks for putting the work into keeping this up!

I still vote the Breach thread gets moved to the DTB for lulz :P

[BirdsOfParadise]

I have been missing this, H is a hero, this makes the Source substantially more valuable, and I vote for H as a Top N Most Constructive Poster on the Source for some quite small value of N.

[Fox]

So Oko is running the format (since 4c Oko is 4c miracles is 3-4c BUGgy Oko) by a pretty wide margin. Interested in seeing how bad the consolidation around Oko is next month, without Breach disguising the problem.

[ahg113]

So is there a lot of difference of Oko running rampant and W&6 from a few decision cycles ago? Obviously, Oko has keyword awesome. Is there a realistic chance Oko gets banned in the next or following reveal?

[FTW]

So is there a lot of difference of Oko running rampant and W&6 from a few decision cycles ago? Obviously, Oko has keyword awesome. Is there a realistic chance Oko gets banned in the next or following reveal?

There's a big one. W6 stops you from reaching the mana to cast Oko.

[H]

Realistic chance? Sure. But I don't think it is particularly probable at this point. Without a GP on the horizon, and without Oko somehow showing some insane win percentage (like Breech did), I don't foresee it really going anywhere. It is just plain good and widely played because it is good, which makes it show up in T8 results in large numbers.

[H]

Oh how a month changes things! With some help from a busted new mechanic, of course.

https://i.imgur.com/LvOJ3xP.png
https://i.imgur.com/cRBq63e.png

Again, suppressed results from lack of paper event, and so on. Computationally, we should be about 41 points. However, honestly, it doesn't seem, to me, that Omni is really dominating or doing much. So, I am going to cut to the top 8.

4C Control (Snowko, Czech Pile and more!) (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?33309-4C-Control-(Snowko-Czech-Pile-and-more!))
Grixis Tempo (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?29665-Deck-Grixis-Tempo)
RUG Delver (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?27776-Deck-Canadian-Threshold-(aka-RUG-Delver-Tempo-Thresh))
Eldrazi Stompy (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?30500-Primer-Eldrazi-Stompy)
ANT (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?27161-Deck-ANT-(Ad-Nauseam-Tendrils)-Storm-Combo)
Patriot Delver (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?25531-Deck-UWR-Delver)
BUG Delver (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?27874-Deck-Team-America-(BUG-Delver))
Bomberman (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?31754-Chalice-Bomberman-Bomberman-Stompy)

So, frame is intact, I will work throughout the day to update and move the threads.

[H]

Whoopsy-daisy, I forgot what day it was. The May update will come tomorrow morning, a little too late for me today to start it now.

[FTW]

How do the results get categorized into archetypes?

Looking back at last month, I assume that most of "Grixis Pyromancer", "Patriot Delver" and "BUG Delver" are the three variations of Lurrus Delver and "Bomberman" is mostly Zirda Combo.

4C is interesting. I guess some of it would be Yorion Control, some would be regular companion-less Snowko, and some would be Miracles (including Lurrus Miracles), but it would be interesting to see the breakdown.

[H]

How do the results get categorized into archetypes?

Looking back at last month, I assume that most of "Grixis Pyromancer", "Patriot Delver" and "BUG Delver" are the three variations of Lurrus Delver and "Bomberman" is mostly Zirda Combo.

4C is interesting. I guess some of it would be Yorion Control, some would be regular companion-less Snowko, and some would be Miracles (including Lurrus Miracles), but it would be interesting to see the breakdown.

Well, yeah, the results are still rather screwy, because Lurrus decks are still clouding results. The difference between Miracles and 4c is clear, if it has Miracle cards in there, it is Miracles and not 4c. 4c is what is left after that.

https://i.imgur.com/9PiWBSI.png
https://i.imgur.com/7bu9G92.png

The question is, what now? While Grixis and TA results were mainly fueled by the now banned Lurrus, even post post ban, Grixis has put up results. TA has not. So, I am inclined to cut TA. Our computational level should be about 37 points, but, like has been usual, our suppressed results has not given us much divergence. RUG Delver is in, along with Miracles, Infect, 4c and Lands. Now, "Fish" is actually Esper Vial and that clearly has enough points.

Also, I am inclined to exclude Gyruda for the moment, until the deck demonstrates that it can win through the Companion rule change.

RUG Delver (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?27776-Deck-Canadian-Threshold-(aka-RUG-Delver-Tempo-Thresh))
Grixis Delver (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?29665-Deck-Grixis-Tempo)
4c Control (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?33309-4C-Control-(Snowko-Czech-Pile-and-more!))
Miracles (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?31855-DTB-UWx-Miracle-Control)
Infect (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?28671-Deck-U-G-Infect)
R/G Lands (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?29193-Primer-R-G-Lands)

We don't have a thread for a real Esper Vial deck. I could reuse Bahra's Spicy Popcorn (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?32346-Spicy-Popcorn) thread, but that hardly is the same deck. Might just have to hold off on that deck while I work up a thread.

Questions? Comments? Complaints? I will move threads around later today.

[H]

Well, I took a peak in and, wow, the data for June is ragged and sparse. I am inclined to not even bother drawing anything from it. Unless anyone has some compelling reason to, I think I will just hold off and update for July on August 7th.

[jmlima]

Well, I took a peak in and, wow, the data for June is ragged and sparse. I am inclined to not even bother drawing anything from it. Unless anyone has some compelling reason to, I think I will just hold off and update for July on August 7th.

Makes sense. It's a real muddle, I was looking at mtgo goldfish, and they are back to throwing in a sprinkle of f-t-f and published mtgo results, so there's not even a clear picture (well, as clear as possible) of what's happening online.

[H]

Alright, honestly, I dropped the ball. Data was ragged, data was low and frankly I forgot a couple times.

But, new year, new process I am going to try. Since we are still in a low-data era and likely to stay in one, I am going to do a bi-monthly analysis for this year.

So, with this new process (I had to manually merge the data), here is what the cutoff looks like with November and December 2020's data:



1º
4c Control
102

24º
Infect
22


2º
Death and Taxes
95

25º
Lands
21


3º
Other
83

26º
Reanimator
21


4º
Temur Delver
68

27º
Eldrazi Stompy
20


5º
Hogaak
66

28º
Temur
19


6º
Elves
59

29º
4c Loam
17


7º
Red Prison
56

30º
Turbo Depths
17


8º
Goblins
52

31º
Jeskai
16


9º
Grixis Delver
40

32º
Merfolks
15


10º
Ninjas
40

33º
Dredge
14


11º
All Spells
39

34º
UBx Shadow
14


12º
Aluren
38

35º
Painters
13


13º
OmniTell
35

36º
Pox
13


14º
Cephalid Breakfast
34

37º
Sultai Delver
8


15º
Burn
33

38º
Deadguy Ale
7


16º
Bant
32

39º
Miracles
7


17º
12 Post
31

40º
Ad Nauseam Tendrils
6


18º
Mill
31

41º
Bomberman
6


19º
Maverick
29

42º
Enchantress
6


20º
Stoneblade
28

43º
Esper Vial
6


21º
Doomsday
27

44º
Grixis Control
6


22º
Izzet Delver
25

45º
Lutri Deck
6


23º
Urza
23


Total:
1346







Cutoff:
47.11



So, this means we have 7 Decks to Beat:
4C Control (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?33309-4C-Control-(Snowko-Czech-Pile-and-more!))
Death and Taxes (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?6775-Deck-Death-and-Taxes)
RUG Delver (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?27776-Deck-Canadian-Threshold-(aka-RUG-Delver-Tempo-Thresh))
Hogaak (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?32159-GB-Vengevine) (Placeholder thread, seems we don't actually have a dedicated Hogaak thread?)
Elves (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?26248-Primer-Elves!)
Dragon/Red/Moon Stompy (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?19745-Deck-Dragon-Stompy)
Goblins (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?31114-Deck-Vial-Goblins)

I'll move the thread a little later today. Any comments welcome. Also if anyone knows a more appropriate thread for Hogaak, let me know.

[H]

Whoops, forgot what month it was. I should have an update out this week, with the combined data for January and February.

[H]

OK, here we go, the combined data for January and February of 2021. Obviously with Valki getting hit with the Cascade nerf-bat, I did not consider it, so we will take the other top 8 decks:



1º
Temur Delver
86

27º
Turbo Depths
25


2º
Ninjas
77

28º
Sultai
22


3º
Death and Taxes
70

29º
Merfolks
21


4º
All Spells
61

30º
Doomsday
19


5º
Valki Cascade
61

31º
Mono Black
15


6º
Elves
57

32º
Urza
15


7º
Aluren
56

33º
Bomberman
14


8º
OmniTell
54

34º
Mill
14


9º
Maverick
50

35º
Hogaak
13


10º
4c Control
49

36º
Mono Blue
13


11º
Jeskai
47

37º
Slivers
13


12º
Dredge
45

38º
Buried Phoenix
9


13º
Stoneblade
45

39º
Deadguy Ale
9


14º
Other
42

40º
Tin Fins
9


15º
12 Post
40

41º
Sultai Delver
8


16º
Burn
40

42º
UBx Shadow
8


17º
Bant
39

43º
Esper Vial
7


18º
Turbo Depths
38

44º
Food Chain
7


19º
Infect
36

45º
Sneak and Show
7


20º
Eldrazi Stompy
34

46º
The Epic Storm
7


21º
Red Prison
34

47º
Jund
6


22º
Cephalid Breakfast
33

48º
Landstill
6


23º
Izzet Delver
33

49º
Mono Black Aggro
6


24º
Goblins
30

50º
Pox
6


25º
Temur
30

51º
Tibalt Cascade
6


26º
Reanimator
27



Our cut-off here is 51 points, meaning that Maverick just makes it and 4C Control just misses.
RUG Delver (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?27776-Deck-Canadian-Threshold-(aka-RUG-Delver-Tempo-Thresh))
Ninjas! (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?33432-Retro-Ninjas)
Death & Taxes (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?6775-Deck-Death-and-Taxes)
Oops, All Spells! (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?25386-Oops-All-Spells!-(Formerly-The-Rogue-Hermit))
Elves! (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?26248-Primer-Elves!)
Aluren (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?2599-Deck-Aluren)
Omnitell (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?26071-Deck-MonoU-OmniTell)
Maverick (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?31927-Primer-Maverick-2-0-GW-x)

As always, I welcome any comments, questions or concerns. Interesting results that, having not really looked into the data, would not quite have expected.

[Ronald Deuce]

1º
Temur Delver
86

27º
Turbo Depths
25


2º
Ninjas
77

28º
Sultai
22


3º
Death and Taxes
70

29º
Merfolks
21


4º
All Spells
61

30º
Doomsday
19


5º
Valki Cascade
61

31º
Mono Black
15


6º
Elves
57

32º
Urza
15


7º
Aluren
56

33º
Bomberman
14


8º
OmniTell
54

34º
Mill
14


9º
Maverick
50

35º
Hogaak
13


10º
4c Control
49

36º
Mono Blue
13


11º
Jeskai
47

37º
Slivers
13


12º
Dredge
45

38º
Buried Phoenix
9


13º
Stoneblade
45

39º
Deadguy Ale
9


14º
Other
42

40º
Tin Fins
9


15º
12 Post
40

41º
Sultai Delver
8


16º
Burn
40

42º
UBx Shadow
8


17º
Bant
39

43º
Esper Vial
7


18º
Turbo Depths
38

44º
Food Chain
7


19º
Infect
36

45º
Sneak and Show
7


20º
Eldrazi Stompy
34

46º
The Epic Storm
7


21º
Red Prison
34

47º
Jund
6


22º
Cephalid Breakfast
33

48º
Landstill
6


23º
Izzet Delver
33

49º
Mono Black Aggro
6


24º
Goblins
30

50º
Pox
6


25º
Temur
30

51º
Tibalt Cascade
6


26º
Reanimator
27



This is the greatest goddamned thing I've ever seen.

[BirdsOfParadise]

TABLE

Turbo Depths appears twice --- 18th place with 38 points and 27th place with 25 points.
Presumably, either these are meant to be two different decks or Turbo Depths actually has 63 points and should be higher?

Edit: There's also Valki Cascade at 5th place and Tibalt Cascade at the bottom of the table. Same deck?

[Reeplcheep]

This article is an excellent discussion of control in legacy right now. (https://minmaxblog.com/guest-article-thawing-glaciers/)

[Reeplcheep]

Post MH2 win rates are varying wildly challenge to challenge. I think delver can be contained by Bant miracles, which got significantly powered up by endurance and prismatic ending.

I think we are in a cyclical A. blue tempo (rug/ur delver) -> B. blue control (Bant) -> C. blue a+b (s&s/doomsday) -> A. tempo meta. Which is pretty healthy imo.

Fair non-blue is doing quite well too in the B position (maverick/lands/elves) or c position (titanpost)

Do people think I am correct? Do people like this or prefer brewing to beat an obvious best deck? Which deck can take advantage of this the best? How should one construct your sideboard?

For example, curses is very favoured against C, very unfavoured vs A and around even vs B. Should I make it less bad vs A? Or concentrate flex’s on B. (Urza’s saga/choke/other control hate) and hope to delver is getting endurance’d to death?

[H]

Whoops, I am real late on this. Kind of slammed here at work though, so I think I will just do a 4 month recap in July, catching all of March, April, May and June. Also, I'll try not to miss anything on the merged data.

[H]

March, April, May, June 2021 merged:



1º
Izzet Delver
235

29º
Tin Fins
37


2º
Death and Taxes
200

30º
UBx Shadow
31


3º
Elves
189

31º
Eldrazi Stompy
30


4º
Ninjas
150

32º
4c Loam
29


5º
Turbo Depths
121

33º
Doomsday
29


6º
Reanimator
90

34º
Landstill
28


7º
Miracles
85

35º
Esper Vial
26


8º
OmniTell
85

36º
Pox
23


9º
Maverick
68

37º
Sultai
23


10º
Other
66

38º
Grixis Delver
22


11º
Stoneblade
66

39º
The Epic Storm
22


12º
Lands
65

40º
Nic Fit
17


13º
Sneak and Show
65

41º
12 Post
16


14º
Temur Delver
64

42º
Humans
16


15º
Food Chain
57

43º
Mill
16


16º
Infect
54

44º
MUD
15


17º
Burn
51

45º
Esper
14


18º
Dredge
50

46º
Slivers
14


19º
Painters
49

47º
Bomberman
13


20º
All Spells
46

48º
Deadguy Ale
13


21º
4c Control
45

49º
Jeskai
11


22º
Ad Nauseam Tendrils
41

50º
Affinity
9


23º
Goblins
41

51º
Jund
8


24º
Hogaak
40

52º
Buried Phoenix
7


25º
Cephalid Breakfast
39

53º
Enchantress
7


26º
Aluren
38

54º
Merfolks
6


27º
Red Prison
38

55º
Mono Black
6


28º
Grixis Control
37



Oh boy, that was a good bit a data. Seemed fairly clear, aside the nebulous category of "Bant" which really were all Miracles decks, that just happen to run Green. So, with that merged, Miracles makes it (which makes perfect sense, really). Clean cut off too, 90.5 points, giving us a clear top 8. Sorry Maverick, :frown: (still love you).

UR Delver (https://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?31294-DTB-U-R-Delver)
Death & Taxes (https://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?6775-Deck-Death-and-Taxes)
Elves! (https://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?26248-Primer-Elves!)
Ninjas (https://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?33432-Retro-Ninjas)
Turbo Depths (https://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?28813-Deck-Turbo-Depths)
BR Reanimator (https://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?30840-Primer-BRx-Griselbrand-Reanimator)
Miracles (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?31855-DTB-UWx-Miracle-Control)
Omnitell (https://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?26071-Deck-MonoU-OmniTell)

[Purple Blood]

Is GW depths counted within Turbo Depths?

[H]

Is GW depths counted within Turbo Depths?

Yeah, Turbo Depths is basically just a catch-all for all Depths decks, unfortunately. But we don't even have a thread for GW Depths here anway.

[Reeplcheep]

This is a pretty good summary of the format. (https://mobile.twitter.com/Ozymandias172/status/1493690466361032706/photo/1)

I believe in paper decks like food chain and aluren are very good and should be grouped with 4c control

[H]

This is a pretty good summary of the format. (https://mobile.twitter.com/Ozymandias172/status/1493690466361032706/photo/1)

I believe in paper decks like food chain and aluren are very good and should be grouped with 4c control

It's been pretty hard to get really good data lately, TCDecks data is not very reliable, events are missing there and sometimes the classification is off.

I am more than happy to reconsider how we do the Decks To Beat here, but what should we consider as a process? It's not clear to me how to "extract" it from the Data Collection program exactly. Any ideas? Or should we just move to a purely subjective system?

[Reeplcheep]

Yah that was more of a subjective take, but since it was from one of the better grinders I thought it was wor th mentioning.

If you are fine with the data collection project data you would just rank all the decks by the winrate CI min, which naturally takes into account sample size. Or if you believe tiers are popularity not power just rank it by play percentage. The time period could be anything you want.

[H]

Yah that was more of a subjective take, but since it was from one of the better grinders I thought it was wor th mentioning.

If you are fine with the data collection project data you would just rank all the decks by the winrate CI min, which naturally takes into account sample size. Or if you believe tiers are popularity not power just rank it by play percentage. The time period could be anything you want.

Well, the current system was just a weighting of results. In other words, it was made to give one an idea what one would be most likely to see in a recent top 8. As such, it is heavily weighted (in fact, solely so) on top 8 results. Just going on win rate might give a similar result, but I am not exactly sure.

[Reeplcheep]

Delver’s performance in the super qualifier yesterday was the most dominant of any deck ever since the data tracking project began (I believe).

54 players (1/4 of the field), 215-164 record for a CI min of 53.6%

[H]

So, long time no update, which is totally my fault, but the old methodology didn't seem to really be working and I wasn't happy with the results I could get out of the limited techniques I had.

But the Legacy Date Collection project just put out an interesting compiled sheet for all of this year (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qu7ShMOrIjmAfHn1iwJsoFCqi8QLxholWPdDNrPFOl0/edit#gid=0).

So, what does everyone think of the following "top 8" lists to be put into the DTB section as follows:
https://i.imgur.com/crD2s7S.png

I think it "works" in the sense that those seem as if they'd be the top 8 decks you'd likely be seeing at top tables/in a given top 8.

Comments? Critques?

[Reeplcheep]

Why did you skip the ones not highlighted? Because it seems like by skipping the ones with bad winrates you are doing the same thing I suggested (sorting by CI min). I am on the data project and could even post the list myself for you every month if we are ok going by CI min.

I like CI min as an indicator since it naturally balances play rate and win rate to predict what you see in the top tables. A popular deck with a bad win rate will be eliminated due to its low mean win rate, and a fringe but successful deck will be eliminated due to the large confidence interval. In a tournament, popular bad decks should drop out as the matches go on and you are unlikely to hit fringe decks unless they are very very good.

[Reeplcheep]

As an example, the only difference between my method and yours would be that it would put Jeskai over Sneak & Show. S&S does have a higher win rate, but my method would argue that might be just because it has 3x less players and they may have gotten luckier. From a perspective of hitting it at the top tables, you are more likely to run into Jeskai. Even if sneak and show might be a bit better, 3x more people in the field will make a huge difference especially in the first 4-6 rounds.

[Reeplcheep]

Presumably if the point is “the decks to beat” you want information on what you need to beat to make top8. Imo, a top 8 based approach introduces more variation to the answer (fundamentally a smaller sample size). It also doesn’t answer the question very well: if Tony Scapone spikes 2 challenges do you really need ruby storm hate to top 8? If the field has tons of jeskai players going 50% you won’t see them in the top8 but you do need to beat them to get there.

[H]

I like CI min as an indicator since it naturally balances play rate and win rate to predict what you see in the top tables. A popular deck with a bad win rate will be eliminated due to its low mean win rate, and a fringe but successful deck will be eliminated due to the large confidence interval. In a tournament, popular bad decks should drop out as the matches go on and you are unlikely to hit fringe decks unless they are very very good.

Well, I am not statistician, so I just looked at that column first, because I know what it is saying.

What exactly is CI measuring and telling us? (Not a rhetorical question, I really don't know.) I am not averse to using it, I just want to know what it is saying.

[Reeplcheep]

Informally, The MWP is what the winrate is “most likely to actually be”.
The CI min basically tells you what is the “worst reasonably possible” the winrate could “actually be”.

If you go 7-2 with an unique brew the most likely winrate assuming nothing is 77%. But the sample size is small; you could just be lucky. It’s “reasonably” possible that the winrate is “actually” 45% and you got really lucky or it’s “actually” 94% and you got unlucky.

If elves pilots go 35-16 they most likely have a winrate of 69%, but it could “reasonably” be “actually” anywhere between 55% and 80%.

The CI min is the 45% and 55% numbers in the examples above. The precise definitions of “reasonably” and “actually” are where all the mess comes in, but the data project uses fairly rigorous ones.

[H]

Ah, ok, so CI is confidence interval. Makes sense now. I don't see why CI min would be worse to use, so I can do that.

[Reeplcheep]

Ok I will try to post a nice infographic soon.

[Reeplcheep]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRZxQK4VkAA8Sd4?format=png&name=medium


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRZyLIZVkAAf4Gf?format=png&name=medium

Methodology is on my twitter.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Awesome data Reeplcheep! Although I don't really visit these forums enough or play legacy anymore, that's some really cool stuff.

[TonyRo]

It's encouraging that most of the top decks are fighting for a few percentage points. Thanks for your work!

[Reeplcheep]

There is a pretty vast gulf between the top 4 and the rest. 5% is a huge difference in a game with as much variance as magic.

[H]

So the new update should look like this, if we go with that data?

UR Delver (https://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?31294-DTB-U-R-Delver)
GW Depths (Turbo Depths thread is a bit far from this.)
Lands (https://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?29193-Primer-R-G-Lands)
Doomsday (Not finding a thread for this sort of thing.)
Death & Taxes (https://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?6775-Deck-Death-and-Taxes)
8Cast (https://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?12604-Deck-Affinity/) (This is the closest to a thread we have, I think.)
UWR Control (Oddly, we don't really have a thread for this sort of thing?)
4C Control (https://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?33309-4C-Control-(Snowko-Czech-Pile-and-more!))

Well, this really highlights another issue, in that we don't really have threads for some of these archetypes, unfortunately.

[Reeplcheep]

Yes that looks right. The main difference is including jeskai over S&S and elves. It performs a bit worse but is the second most played deck. I think jeskai can just use miracles thread. It is UWx splashing for pyros and maybe a few EIs.

Doomsday, I will try to steal a primer from wonderpreaux.

GW maverick has often played depths as a flex slot, I think it is ok to use that thread.

[H]

I think jeskai can just use miracles thread. It is UWx splashing for pyros and maybe a few EIs.

It just doesn't seem quite right to me to have a thread called Miracles and full of historical lists that contain Miracle cards, but be for a archetype that now contains no Miracle cards.

I understand the genealogical progression, but still seems odd to me.

[TonyRo]

There is a pretty vast gulf between the top 4 and the rest. 5% is a huge difference in a game with as much variance as magic.

Not trying to be pedantic here, but I don't really know what you mean by this. If I created a game with higher variance and told you the best strategy yielded a 1% edge, would you find that more significant? EV is EV and doesn't really have much to do with variance unless you can't tolerate it, e.g. in a poker bankroll situation. Based on your data, the top 5 or so decks all roughly score within 1-2% of each other, which to me seems very reasonable, especially when people seem to really hate playing against Delver right now. Totally agree that picking something like TES over Delver or Doomsday does feel like a pretty seriously concession though, as the difference in scoring percentage is around an order of magnitude higher than other choices!

I say all that, but also would really like to see a ban or two and also see less Delver. :wink:

[Reeplcheep]

The above data is using very rigorous criteria, and we still found that delver was significantly better than the field. What more do you want?
5% above the field is the usual criteria given for bans by WOTC.
Yes, I believe the less important player skill is, the more balanced the options need to be for metagame health. Magnus Carlsen will beat you with terrible openings like the Bongcloud Attack. But almost everyone is going to switch seats if a slots machine offers 0.5% better payout. Great players on great decks will win usually just 65% of their matches; and if the average player is gaining a third of that just by choosing delver it will cause metagame collapse. EV is EV but most people aren’t pure spikes. They will play other things if they feel it is reasonable for play skill to outwiegh the -EV.

[TonyRo]

The above data is using very rigorous criteria, and we still found that delver was significantly better than the field. What more do you want?
5% above the field is the usual criteria given for bans by WOTC.
Yes, I believe the less important player skill is, the more balanced the options need to be for metagame health. Magnus Carlsen will beat you with terrible openings like the Bongcloud Attack. But almost everyone is going to switch seats if a slots machine offers 0.5% better payout. Great players on great decks will win usually just 65% of their matches; and if the average player is gaining a third of that just by choosing delver it will cause metagame collapse. EV is EV but most people aren’t pure spikes. They will play other things if they feel it is reasonable for play skill to outwiegh the -EV.


1. I don't want anything, I just have a different definition of "significantly" apparently. That's okay, no need to get testy.

2. Yes I know - as I said, I'm pro bans. I just find the scoring percentages to be less drastic than I would have thought. That was my only real point with my initial post. Thanks again to you and Joseph for doing the crunching.

3. Nice chess reference. :cool: Your point about playing other things is really at the heart of what I'm surprised by. With Legacy my feeling has always been that people love it so much because it feels like so much more is reasonably possible and out there to explore. Over any reasonable number of Magic games, I'd intuitively guess that you'd be hard pressed to play enough games to really "feel" the difference in scoring percentages with a lot of these decks, for instance on your list up through Stoneblade. You could play 100 matches over weeks and never notice. I wonder if a lot of the format frustration comes down to how games feel and intangibles that don't have anything to do with statistics and how much Delver actually wins. The interactivity and length of games, common play patterns, etc. But yeah coming from chess myself I'm used to really warped win percentages: if you're making Magnus Carlsen/Bongcloud references I'm sure you know that in chess even just 200 Elo means being something like a 75% favorite.

BTW, I think you're giving people that play slots far too much credit. :wink:

[Reeplcheep]

Sorry perhaps I was too snarky. I’ve heard too much “dElVer isNT a pRoBlem, iTS jUsT MtGo mEtA” over the years.

I am using the statistical definition of significant: not due to chance. The actual observed difference is in the numbers on the left.

People want to feel like they can beat the best deck if they play tighter than the opponent. The stats bear out that it isn’t true (-EV is about the same as the + EV of being a good player). But there is also the intangibles you mention. Magic is so full of haymakers nowadays and games end immediately. When the delver opponent plays an unkillable 8/8 on t3 and always has the game ending hate card because of EI + DRC you can’t kid yourself that maybe you could have played it better. You lost because they are playing the WOTC $$$$ Mythic and you aren’t.

They forced your answer to murktide? Nothing you could have done. You’re dead.
They always find their 2-of meltdown by t3 against your shortcake deck? Nothing you could have done. You’re dead.
That’s the sort of intangibles that makes people quit or play delver.

[TonyRo]

Magic is so full of haymakers nowadays and games end immediately. When the delver opponent plays an unkillable 8/8 on t3 and always has the game ending hate card because of EI + DRC you can’t kid yourself that maybe you could have played it better. You lost because they are playing the WOTC $$$$ Mythic and you aren’t.

This is a big problem for me too. The fact that Delver can super-efficiently parse through half of their deck per game means that it feels like you get slammed with really unfair shit like Meltdown, Ruination, Price of Progress, etc far too often. I also come from a time when blue would never get something as efficient as Murktide Regent. To me Delver is much worse when they have to splash for stuff like Goyf. It's all been said before, it is what it is for now. The timing feels right schedule-wise for a B&R announcement, fingers crossed.

[Reeplcheep]

Like I just almost won the challenge because no-one expected a deck to try to go under delver and Humans was mostly immune to end the festivities. But in semis Reid Duke quickly dug through half his deck to find his 1-of rough//tumble, and I lost. I’m sure that once players see my great finish where I didn’t drop a game against fair blue all swiss, they add 2 rough//tumble and I have a losing record. Because they will always have it when they can see 1/3 of their deck by t3 while committing threats, answering yours, and accruing card advantage at the same time.

[Reeplcheep]

Added bare bones doomsday and GW Depths primers.

[Purple Blood]

This is a big problem for me too. The fact that Delver can super-efficiently parse through half of their deck per game means that it feels like you get slammed with really unfair shit like Meltdown, Ruination, Price of Progress, etc far too often.

There's a reason all the good cantrips are banned in Modern.


I also come from a time when blue would never get something as efficient as Murktide Regent. To me Delver is much worse when they have to splash for stuff like Goyf. It's all been said before, it is what it is for now. The timing feels right schedule-wise for a B&R announcement, fingers crossed.

Which is why cards like Murktide and Delver are idiotic. Why does Blue have the best beaters?

If there's any bans I would prefer it would be Murktide and Delver. They can always do it one at a time if they want to be more conservative about it.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

There's a reason all the good cantrips are banned in Modern.



Which is why cards like Murktide and Delver are idiotic. Why does Blue have the best beaters?

If there's any bans I would prefer it would be Murktide and Delver. They can always do it one at a time if they want to be more conservative about it.

I feel like focusing on the beaters that only function when you have million cantrips+fetches ignores which part of the equation are the actual issue

[Purple Blood]

I don't think its one or the other. It's a problem when Blue can see 3-4x the amount of cards per turn. It's a problem that fetches exacerbate that and make Delve more attractive. And its a problem that Blue has the best aggressive creatures.

They obviously will never get rid of fetches or cantrips from Legacy so then you ask what might they actually do?

I'll try to avoid further muddying up this thread with Ban discussions since there's a separate thread for that...

[Reeplcheep]

Did people find my post useful? Should I post an updated one?

[Airwave]

Did people find my post useful? Should I post an updated one?

Yes, very useful! Thanks :smile:

[UseLess]

Yes, I'd appreciate it as well :).

[H]

Anyone know a good bit about HTML or something? Would it be possible to export the structure of one of the MTGGolfish entries to here (I can rehost the card images easily) in a somewhat easy manner? This would be an easy way to make threads for "new" decks.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Anyone know a good bit about HTML or something? Would it be possible to export the structure of one of the MTGGolfish entries to here (I can rehost the card images easily) in a somewhat easy manner? This would be an easy way to make threads for "new" decks.

Right click
Inspect
If you have your dev tools on it should let you just find the specific element you want.
Copy it

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Wait, are you asking to recreate a webpage Ina post?

[TsumiBand]

Right click
Inspect
If you have your dev tools on it should let you just find the specific element you want.
Copy it

My interest was piqued so I took a look at this site a little bit, as a web dev myself I feel pretty good about saying that this content is not easy to get at if you're not familiar with html.

I didn't go suuuper deep but I checked the Network tab and the Elements, I have a strong suspicion that the decklist and its display elements are server-side generated (so there's not like a "decklist.json" sent to the client that is interpreted and rendered, which makes sense for a site like this but is inconvenient). You'd go a little crazy grabbing the elements yourself, you'd probably want a scraper to grab the parent element and just yeet the desired text of its children into a file.

This is an assessment after like the briefest of glimpses into how that site works so if one is you is galaxy-brained and sees something I didn't, forget I was even here

[H]

Wait, are you asking to recreate a webpage Ina post?

More like use the structure to format a post.


My interest was piqued so I took a look at this site a little bit, as a web dev myself I feel pretty good about saying that this content is not easy to get at if you're not familiar with html.

I didn't go suuuper deep but I checked the Network tab and the Elements, I have a strong suspicion that the decklist and its display elements are server-side generated (so there's not like a "decklist.json" sent to the client that is interpreted and rendered, which makes sense for a site like this but is inconvenient). You'd go a little crazy grabbing the elements yourself, you'd probably want a scraper to grab the parent element and just yeet the desired text of its children into a file.

What I am really after is less the decklist and more the "X copies in XX% of decks" part. Perhaps it would just be easier (since I really know nothing of HTML) to copy it manually. I'll have to take a more detailed look when I have a little more time. I look at the source too and, well, since I don't know anything, it was not particularly clear to me.

[TsumiBand]

More like use the structure to format a post.



What I am really after is less the decklist and more the "X copies in XX% of decks" part. Perhaps it would just be easier (since I really know nothing of HTML) to copy it manually. I'll have to take a more detailed look when I have a little more time. I look at the source too and, well, since I don't know anything, it was not particularly clear to me.

Ah ok, that output is actually a lot more sane than the decklist page for whatever reason. Just looks like a couple of tables with text more or less as you'd expect (apart from the mana symbols, those are svgs)

Depending on what it is you're actually looking to do, it might just be a time-saver to c/p what you see on the screen. If I do that I get a pretty straightforward output (minus the analysis symbols but it sounds like you don't need that for what you're doing)

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

More like use the structure to format a post.



What I am really after is less the decklist and more the "X copies in XX% of decks" part. Perhaps it would just be easier (since I really know nothing of HTML) to copy it manually. I'll have to take a more detailed look when I have a little more time. I look at the source too and, well, since I don't know anything, it was not particularly clear to me.

So I still don't know what you're asking for. If you're painstakingly clear (ie step by step what you want to do, never using words like or that and always saying the whole name of the noun you want to work on) I can probably do it for you.
Anyways scaping off goldfish isn't that hard: First we right click and select inspect. On chrome it actually highlights the rendered element (left) when we mouse over the code:
https://i.imgur.com/624WRzn.png
Here you can see I have my mouse over the <table class> element, specifically named "deck-view-deck-tale".
Clicking the down arrow will expand the list and you can see inside the <table class> is a whole bunch of <tr> (tale row) elements. Some of these are headers, you can see those are marked because have names provided: <tr class "deck-category-header"> We don't really care about those. If you keep drilling in an unlabeled <tr> you'll see it contains four table data <td> elements. The first two are the parts I think you want: The quantity and the card's name.
https://i.imgur.com/b0lbabO.png


<tr>
<td class="text-right">
1
</td>
<td>
<span class="card_id card_name"><a data-card-id="Spell Pierce [NEO]" data-full-image="https://cdn1.mtggoldfish.com/images/gf/Spell%2BPierce%2B%255BNEO%255D.jpg" rel="popover" href="/price/Kamigawa+Neon+Dynasty/Spell+Pierce#paper" data-original-title="" title="">Spell Pierce</a></span>
</td>
<td>
<span class="manacost" role="img" aria-label="mana cost: blue"><!--?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?-->
<svg viewBox="-420 0 100 100" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<g>
<circle fill="#C1D7E9" cx="-370" cy="50" r="50"></circle>
<path fill="#0D0F0F" d="M-352.512,83.719c-4.787,4.871-10.684,7.307-17.688,7.307c-7.861,0-14.098-2.69-18.711-8.073 c-4.359-5.127-6.537-11.662-6.537-19.606c0-8.543,3.717-18.286,11.15-29.224c6.064-8.969,13.199-16.83,21.402-23.58 c-1.197,5.469-1.793,9.355-1.793,11.662c0,5.299,1.664,10.467,4.996,15.508c4.102,5.98,7.219,10.426,9.357,13.328 c3.332,5.043,4.998,9.955,4.998,14.737C-345.336,72.871-347.729,78.852-352.512,83.719z M-352.641,56.357 c-1.281-2.861-2.777-4.762-4.486-5.703c0.256,0.514,0.385,1.24,0.385,2.18c0,1.795-0.512,4.357-1.539,7.689l-1.664,5.127 c0,2.99,1.492,4.486,4.484,4.486c3.16,0,4.742-2.095,4.742-6.281C-350.719,61.721-351.359,59.223-352.641,56.357z"></path>
</g>
</svg></span>
</td>
<td class="text-right">
$&nbsp;0.21
</td>
</tr>

So here's the entry for the 1 spell pierce:
One table row (the text between <tr> and </tr>)
One table data for the quantity:

<td class="text-right">
1
</td>
(there's this thing called CSS where if you name an element a style your browser will "just know" how to render it (as right aligned text, in this case)
One table data to wrap around a class to define the card's info:

<td>
<span class="card_id card_name"><a data-card-id="Spell Pierce [NEO]" data-full-image="https://cdn1.mtggoldfish.com/images/gf/Spell%2BPierce%2B%255BNEO%255D.jpg" rel="popover" href="/price/Kamigawa+Neon+Dynasty/Spell+Pierce#paper" data-original-title="" title="">Spell Pierce</a></span>
</td>
One table data to define the cost:

<td>
<span class="manacost" role="img" aria-label="mana cost: blue">_</span>
</td>
Now there's some more bullshit there, but you don't care how it rendered or found the image, so I snipped it out for now.
And finally the price:

<td class="text-right">
$&nbsp;0.21
</td>

And that's how they format their deck data. Tsumi is correct that all this data is gathered server side, but it all has to be sent to you in order to render.

[TsumiBand]

Yeah I was more hoping for some JSON blob that could be parsed by a script and formstted easily instead of reading some automatically-generated HTML, but fortunately just copying and pasting the actual text on-screen without using the Dev Tools gives a friendly enough output that unless you're looking to do this like 10 times a day I don't think there's a reason to scrape or inspect anything.

[H]

So I still don't know what you're asking for. If you're painstakingly clear (ie step by step what you want to do, never using words like or that and always saying the whole name of the noun you want to work on) I can probably do it for you.

It's this part that I am after:
https://i.imgur.com/n1logBc.png

The Decklist section isn't what I'd need to really copy from there, I can find my own decklists to paste in a post. What I want are the card categories (Creature, Planeswalker, etc.) and the "X copies in XX% decks." The reason I had the idea of trying to take the HTML is so that the post would have that sort of format, with the text centered under each card image. Rehosting the images is easy enough for me, I have a browser extension that can do it in one click.

But to get the text under each image, while keeping it centered with each, is less immediately easy for me. I probably just need to dig a little deeper on the "Inspect" page for each of those elements though.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

It's this part that I am after:
https://i.imgur.com/n1logBc.png

The Decklist section isn't what I'd need to really copy from there, I can find my own decklists to paste in a post. What I want are the card categories (Creature, Planeswalker, etc.) and the "X copies in XX% decks." The reason I had the idea of trying to take the HTML is so that the post would have that sort of format, with the text centered under each card image. Rehosting the images is easy enough for me, I have a browser extension that can do it in one click.

But to get the text under each image, while keeping it centered with each, is less immediately easy for me. I probably just need to dig a little deeper on the "Inspect" page for each of those elements though.

Ah, well this isn't really an issue of HTML, what you want is something like react or javascript that when the page is loaded will do these maths for you and then output some HTML to make it look the way you want.

<div class="spoiler-card">
<a href="/price/The+List/Dragons+Rage+Channeler"><picture>
<span class="price-card-invisible-label">Dragon's Rage Channeler</span>
<source srcset="https://cdn1.mtggoldfish.com/images/gf/Dragon%2527s%2BRage%2BChanneler%2B%255BPLIST%255D.jpg" type="image/jpg">
<img class="price-card-image-image" alt="Dragon's Rage Channeler [PLIST]" src="https://cdn1.mtggoldfish.com/images/gf/Dragon%2527s%2BRage%2BChanneler%2B%255BPLIST%255D.jpg">
</picture>

</a>
<p class="archetype-breakdown-featured-card-text">
4.0 in 100% of decks
</p>
</div>
Above is the element of those cards in Izzet murktide, as you can see it doesn't use any calculations it just looks to output "4.0 in 100% of decks".
When the page is loaded, the server will do those calculations and tell your browser "Hey, write this down: 4.0 in 100% of decks"

The Best Practices way to achieve your goal would be to have an actual database of all decks, so that you could select/aggrigate decks by a criteria and then filter those results.
Something like:
Deck ID, Deck Archetype, CardName, Quantity, Date
And then use SQL to querry this database of all decks
select CardName avg(Quantity) from DeckaBase where Archetype=Delver group by CardName

which will output somehting like
Delver 4
DRC 4
ect ect

and then you take those outputs and use them as inputs for whatever you're using to make your webpage