Printable View
From experience if I only have 1 blue source for mana and no cantrips I almost always ship the hand, unless it is a god hand and has some seriously relevant cards. From my experience mana screw does happen a bit if you take a 1 land hand as you HAVE to hit land 2 on turn 2 otherwise your hand just got a lot worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by DKK
What I'm trying to determine is if we can run 20 land and 8 cantrips and actually decrease mulligans.
I am pretty sure you can, but I think you are going to have alot more success cutting a Wasteland instead of an Island. Cutting blue sources for Ponder when you are only running 14 of them really makes no sense if you are trying to improve the decks consistnecy.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzykat
That's simply untrue. I can see how intuitively you might be inclined to say that cutting a blue source and adding ponders, in an attempt to find blue sources more consistently, would fail miserably, but statistically it actually increases your chance of hitting 2 blue sources by turn 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by bocci
Your chance to naturally draw 2 blue sources by turn 2 is reduced by about 4% in removing a single blue source, but your odds of drawing a ponder, which will find you a blue source if you only have 1 in your opening hand 70% of the time, are quite good. So, something like 30% of the time, a "one-land" hand will have a ponder in it that will find another island.
In actual fact, what this means is that your odds of hitting 2 blue sources by turn 2 are actually increased by almost 5%, not to mention the increased consistency throughout the course of a game granted by running a set of ponders.
Yeah, cutting a blue source for ponders will definitely help you get double blue. But the things is, getting double blue is not really an issue in this deck, since there are only 3 cards that have double blue in their cost. Much more important is getting that first blue mana source, which definitely becomes less likely when you cut them for ponders.Quote:
Originally Posted by GUnit
Also people, while I don't think Ponder is a bad card, before you work in more Ponders, you guys should definitely play the 3rd Sensei's Divining Top. That card has way more synergy with the deck and is a beating under Standstill.
Are Thoughtseizes better than Spell Snares?
The argument against them is that they encourage you to tap out on the first turn instead of waiting for Stifle or a Brainstorm, and open with a fetchland for a non-basic; on the other hand, they are more versatile than Spell Snares against a lot of decks.
Black also offers creature removal mainboard; Plague is less powerful than Pyroclasm, but still potent; Thoughtseize and REB are on similar power levels.
While discard is better suited to protecting Naught, I don't find it to be that great in Dreadstill due to being non-blue, doesn't let you leave mana open for Stifle, but most importantly, can't be played after your opponent pops Standstill. Being left with Force of Will as the only counter that does anything post-still really sucks because it un-does the card advantage Standstill gives you.Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryTroll
Rich and myself were testing the black splash Dreadstill last night and it was actually pretty good but it needs to be tested more. I was visiting the white splash potential of Dreadstill. Seize is good, I think a 2/2 split between them is probally the best way to go. White splash was really nice as well, StP is too good.Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryTroll
On the discussion of Ponder, there's two things you have to take in when you maindeck this card. One, you do make yourself very consistent to an already extremely consistent deck. But I tend to hate running too many Sorceries because if you're under a Standstill they're absolute garbage so you would probally only want to run two.
I found the error in my model and these are the correct probabilities:
With 13 blue sources (20 land, 7 colorless) the probability is:
#Ponder/Brainstorm - Probability of having at least 1 ponder/brainstorm + at least 1 blue source
8 - 0,5306
7 - 0,4863
6 - 0,4368
5 - 0,3816
4 - 0,3201
With 14 blue sources (21 land, 7 colorless) the probability is:
#Ponder/Brainstorm - Probability of having at least 1 ponder/brainstorm + at least 1 blue source
8 - 0,5477
7 - 0,5021
6 - 0,4511
5 - 0,3942
4 - 0,3308
One thing to note:
In a one land hand, ponder is actually much better than brainstorm because it digs deeper and prevents being doomed to 2 dead draws in the case of a whiff. I'd be more likely to keep a single land + ponder hand than the analogue with brainstorm. The BS hand would have to be good to keep.
As I mentioned, a more interesting statistic in the light of mulligan decisions is the sum of the following two probabilities:
A. The probability of having zero blue sources in your opening hand.
B. The probability of having exactly one blue source and zero Ponder/Brainstorm/colorless mana sources in your opening hand.
These are the hands you will mulligan most likely.
(This strictly goes for hands on the play. On the draw it is a whole different scenario. Also, points can be made for keeping hands with Sensei’s Top, but that is not what I would keep.)
Here are the probabilites for 13 and 14 blue sources and variable amounts of ponders:
With 13 blue sources (20 land, 7 colorless) the probability is:
#Ponder/Brainstorm - Probability of mulligan as described above.
8 - 0,1933
7 - 0,2001
6 - 0,2081
5 - 0,2175
4 - 0,2284
With 14 blue sources (21 land, 7 colorless) the probability is:
#Ponder/Brainstorm - Probability of mulligan as described above.
8 - 0,1653
7 - 0,1714
6 - 0,1787
5 - 0,1873
4 - 0,1974
Conluding, cutting a blue source and adding 4 Ponders decreases your mulligan ratio by 0,5%. Adding 4 Ponder without cutting a blue source decreases the mulligan ratio by 3,2%.
And, like Roodmistah said, there are other things to consider when adding Ponder to the deck. The above numbers are to clarify some things and I made them because I like doing these things. However, in a game like Magic, the number of things to consider grow enormously quick, what makes these things difficult.
Before people get carried away with 0.5% vs. 3.2% (or whatever the numbers may be) let's not forget that there's no law against playing 16 blue sources, or 13, and that sensei's divining top is another consideration (although I'd only consider it relevant on the play when against other blue decks).
The stats are informative though- just pointing out that it's not cut and dry, as has already been suggested above.
The next question becomes does 3% matter and what is the effect of seeing those 3 cards...Quote:
Originally Posted by DKK
More interestingly, say you have the 1 Blue source + Ponder (BS is different) and you only have 20 land what's the probably of hitting that 3rd land...does it matter to have 3 lands.
I think it is going to be a matter of am I cantripping just to not see a cantrip and is cutting the numbers of certain cards going to be more detrimental than seeing a lot of cards?
Hello everyone,
i'm currently playing this list:
5x island
3x flooded strand
3x polluted delta
4x wasteland
4x mishra's factory
2x volcanic island
(21 land)
4x dreadnought
3x trinket mage
(7 creatures)
4x stifle
2x sensei top
1x trickbind
4x counterbalance
4x standstill
4x force of will
3x spell snare
4x daze
2x engeneered explosives
4x brainstorm
(32 spells)
I've removed a island for an extra wasteland and a trickbind for the fourth Counterbalance. For the rest i;m not sure about the second EE en the fourth daze. If i would cut the second EE and the fourth Daze i could play to ponders mb.
Would do you guy's think, is it smart to remove the two cards to play the ponders?
Last night i did some testing (Ponder vs 13/14 blue sources) and looked at the numbers. It was not a strictly thorough testing session but rather informal, however, it did help me to confirm an "educated guess" i had made.
I knew i also wanted a number of Ponders in the deck but like jazzycat said, too many cantrips might not always be advantageous since (i'm quoting him a bit out of context) "cutting the numbers of certain cards [could] be more detrimental than seeing a lot of cards". The thing is, the deck is already tight and i'm not sure if cutting important cards for extra Ponders will make it any better.
So i settled on just two Ponders, cutting a land and the third Mage.
Which land? A Wasteland. Sure i missed it in a couple of games but i was always happy to see the Ponder in its place, both in the early and late game. I marked one of my 14 islands as the 'missing' Wasteland to see what i would prefer to have whenever i drew it. It turned out to be largely irrelevant during games. However, i saw it in my openning hand in two games, both of which i would have had to mulligan had it been a Wasteland.
My approach was more informal than DKK's and my sample size could be insignificant, but i was happy to see that his results do not contradict my initial guess and testing:
"Cutting a blue source and adding 4 Ponders decreases your mulligan ratio by 0,5%". In other words, it doesn't help much. You have more Ponders which increased chances of not being able to cast for not having blue sources.
"Adding 4 Ponder without cutting a blue source decreases the mulligan ratio by 3,2%". So not cutting a blue source is better in terms of consistency (which is the whole reason you're adding Ponder); now you just need to evaluate how much you miss having a third Wasteland (or a fourth Factory if you cut that one). I could have used the third Wasteland in my testing but it was never critical so i'm not too sad to see it go temporarily.
As for leaving 21 lands but cutting other cards for Ponder, i haven't done that but i'm not too convinced.
I do think that the Ur version provides you the best chance of success for fitting ponders in optimally. It has more redundancy and thus can give up a little for consistently hitting your first two land drops.
What I really like about the idea of running ponder is that you get a better chance at setting up a turn 2 standstill which is normally backbreaking.
Lastly, in a non-Landstill heavy meta I think cutting a factory is the way to go. Think of it this way...landstill is awfully tough anyway, so if you can make your game a bit better against the rest of the field it might be worth it. I think this is a meta call but basics are hot and I love playing them.
Not true. Both dig three cards deep, but if you have a shuffle effect your next turn, Ponder lets you only get two of those while Brainstorm can you get all three (in exchange for one from your hand). If you play a Ponder and don't use the shuffle effect, Brainstorm would ALWAYS have been just as good or better.Quote:
Originally Posted by GUnit
If you do not hit your second land you have no shuffle effect. In that case with brainstorm you will draw dead for 2 turns, while with ponder you can even lucksack a land on this very turn.
I'm not convinced you've played with either card enough to know what you've just said is ridiculous. By lucksack, do you mean Ponder, shuffle and hope to draw a card? I fail to see how that's better than Brainstorm.Quote:
Originally Posted by DKK
I find such a statement ridiculous and this is not the place to discuss my play experience (which I have enough by the way).Quote:
Originally Posted by URABAHN
Let me make it more clear what I meant in my previous post (I thought it was obvious).
Let's assume this is your hand:
1 Brainstorm
1 Island
5 Random, non-blue, non-cantrip cards
You open with Island and then Brainstorm, and you see this:
3 Random, non-blue, non-cantrip cards.
Now after resolving Brainstorm the top of your library will look like this:
2 Random, non-blue, non-cantrip cards.
Which means, you'll draw absolute crap for the next two turns, virtually already losing the game.
Now if that Brainstorm was a Ponder instead you see the non-land cards at the top of your library, shuffle them away and IMMEDIATELY draw another card, which can be a land. If not, then you have you next draw step to draw a land so you don't miss a land drop. If that won't happen, you've got another draw step to draw a land and still be a turn ahead of the Brainstorm situation.
With a 1 land, 1 cantrip hand there are 3 possible cases:
1. You do not find a land in the top 3 cards.
2. You do find a land in the top 3 cards, but it is not a fetchland.
3. You find a fetchland in the top 3 cards.
In case 1, Ponder is way better than Brainstorm. In case 2, there isn't much difference and in case 3, Brainstorm is slightly better than Ponder.
This is what I thought was commonly known knowledge and was wat GUnit and I pointed at.
How can having the chance of finding your second land not be better than definitely NOT drawing it for the next two turns?Quote:
Originally Posted by URABAHN
I'm not convinced you have played with either card enough to know what you've just said is ridiculous. Even a single game would make this obvious.
You should never, ever, ever lead with Brainstorm if you're trying to find a second land.Quote:
Originally Posted by DKK
98% of the time, you should simply play your Land and pass the turn. Then, 90% of the time, you should Brainstorm during your next mainphase. (If the opponent plays like Tropical Island and passes, you may want to play Brainstorm at the end of his turn, so that you don't signal you're mana-screwed, which may make him Daze your Brainstorm). By waiting until your next turn, after your draw step, you see an extra card.