Goldfishing t2-t3 is actually pretty common. I cannot provide the statistical numbers, but I have build the deck, somewhat incomplete, but I will win the game (unless some sort of disruption is played) T2-T3 about 60% of the time I play.
Printable View
Goldfishing t2-t3 is actually pretty common. I cannot provide the statistical numbers, but I have build the deck, somewhat incomplete, but I will win the game (unless some sort of disruption is played) T2-T3 about 60% of the time I play.
I think that K2 has already posted the answer to that a few pages before.Quote:
Originally Posted by catmint
I think we just all have to stop nagging about the turn we combo out. If we are not being realistic, than it's in our own disadvantage. Comboing out is highly dependant of our skills and the easy of play with the deck. And I'm the first to admit that sometimes I'm just fumbling around with the deck and thus slowing the combo down. And the discussions should continue about the deck, not just when we combo!Quote:
Originally Posted by catmint
If you think your opponent is packing spot removal, you can obviously wait an extra turn. But you don't Pact on your second turn if you want to go off turn 3. You use the summoner's pact turn 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by catmint
I can understand your skepticism, but as a somewhat neutral observer (I don't play Elves Combo, but rather Solidarity, which I will freely admit is far slower, at turn 3-5), I can confirm what Neil and k2thej have been saying.Quote:
guys I have to agree with NihilObstat... if you dont start to be more realistic, it does not make sense to discuss any longer!
k2 .. a lot of your posts make sense... I think you have to be a man and admit that you were just wrong!
I don't mean to be offensive, so please don't take my posts personal.
I have tried goldfishing 55 games with the living wish build I got:Quote:
Originally Posted by catmint
27% turn 2
67% turn 3
7% turn 4
This has been rounded. Of course after spot removal the deck does slow down a bit.
Good to see my proposed stats are holding up haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil
It is important to have a common understanding of the elve community when we can realisticly combo goldfishing and beeing challenged by the different decks. The reason for that is that only in this way we can be creative and find ways to improve the deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darklingske
If someone posts a concern and the answer of most people is: "that does not matter, because with high skill and my list you combo off turn 2 or 3 80% of the time", there is no need to discuss anything... The common understanding is also relevant when we discuss if it is worth weakenging the combo for disruption, utility or aggro plan.
kidding? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by k2thej
...55 games sounds a lot, but you have to get a better understanding of mathematical variance.
If you draw 7+4 cards out of 60, the statistical likeliness to get 1 of 4 glimpse is ~55%.
55 Hands is a pretty small sample. If you flip a coin 1000 times, you will very likely have something like ~500 times tails/heads, but within flipping 50 times there might be larger deviations from 50:50.
OMG!!!! How many times do you want me to test goldfishing before you agree?? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by catmint
Also by your assuming that glimpse is the only way of comboing off, which is not true. Think about it this way if there is only one way of going off the deviation of a 55 sample will become larger. However, if there a multiple ways to go off the deviation off a 55 sample will become smaller. I'm still in High School and haven't taken statistics yet but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this.
95% confidence interval says that his turn 4 win percentage is no greater than 20% (i.e. he can combo turn 2-3 80% of the time).Quote:
Originally Posted by catmint
I do hope they lose some steam. Its way hard to last that longQuote:
Originally Posted by k2thej
How do you combo without a glimpse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil
When I mean combo: Cast an emrakul or a banefire the same turn to win the game. I also know that I can have 8 elves including an archdruid by turn 2 in play without a glimpse and this will very often win the game. However, this is not what I consider comboing off.
So what did you consider comboing off without a glimpse?
This might also give an insight in how you get to your numbers...
You do need a glimpse to combo, but you do not need to have it in hand when you start the turn. Cards like regal force and bouncing visionary make it easy to find. I combo without a glimpse initially in my hand very frequently.Quote:
Originally Posted by catmint
So do the above posts mean people are agreeing with me about the 80%?
Hehehe, this is TOO funny. Just to proof how unrealistic you guys are being:Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil
27+67+7 = 101
So Neil is saying that he comboed before turn 5, around 101% of the games he goldfished. That is magically nice ;)
Oh, well, I'm tired on this non-sense. Do not round up and generalize, do exact math. If you loose to mana screw or mana flood, also write it down, there should be at least another 2%, minimum, of wins after turn 4.
Btw: I played a 31 person tournie the other day. 3-2
G1: Zoo, win 1st, 2nd game I drew shit and he got 3 Bolts, 3 Paths, 1 Ethersworn, 3rd game 3 Bolts, 3 Pahts, 1 Ethersworn. 1-2
G2: Countertop, both games he sets Counter+Top by turn 2, protected by fow, GGs! 0-2
G3: Burn, nice hands, comboed when he was tapped out. 2-0
G4: CounterThopters, he wasn't as lucky. Wishing for art/ench removal was great. 2-0
G5: MonoR Goblins. 2-0
I'm so mad I didn't win Zoo, but those games were ridiculous, and still I was about to aggro-win him both games.
I did not say you have to have it in your starting hand. I am saying if you draw 7+4 cards the statistical probability to have a glimpse is ~57%.Quote:
Originally Posted by k2thej
Obviously I am the only one who is questioning 80% by T3. If nobody else wants to question that I am going to join NihilObstat and let you discuss here whatever you think is important. It's not fun to discuss something if the common understanding is: "Disruption does not affect us and we don't need disruption, because we race everything"
What he's saying is that when you don't have a glimpse you apparently have a combination of Visionary/Heritage Druid/Wirewood Symbiote and Nettle Sentinel that can make you dig for it.
While you can see two more cards, getting that combination of cards isn't exactly likely on turn 3. If it were I'd advice you to stop playing Elves and play Imperial Painter instead because when you can consistently get such a combo online Painter does it better.
Anyway, the percentages are just off and you know it, you need a very specific combination of cards to go off turn 3 without glimpse. 4 is much more realistic.
The 101% is probably just a result of some rounding that is off.
I think by "turn 4" he meant "turn 4 or after" since he was just checking the % of turn 2 or 3
I understand your point of seeing 4 extra cards but that is if you don't do anything and just wait. If you cast regal you will see a lot more than 4 extra cards. Each card you draw also has the probability of being another card-drawer or pact to get a card drawer so you have to factor that probability in as well. The probability you will see a glimpse by turn 3 is very hard to calculate, since you would need to calculate the prob of having glimpse in your opening hand (40%) and add that to the prob of successfully using a card drawer in your hand to find a glimpse. the number of different ways this can possible happen, along with each of their respective probabilities would take an extremely long time to calculate (and this is from someone studying mathematics).
Instead, the best way to test it is to see how many times you are able to combo by a given turn. Once you have a large enough sample size you will be able to know. The sample side does not need to be more than 100, and certainly not 1000 as someone previously suggested, since the law of diminishing returns tells us this.
When we goldfish is more important than people are giving it credit for, since this displays the difference in speed between the different builds. Nihil is writing it off because he doesn't believe it can happen, and I think if I did not think it could happen I would write them off as well. But IF my statistics were correct, just think IF for a second, then I think we might be able to agree that it is favorable to go for the speed build. Therefore, it is not an irrelevant matter when we goldfish since it will point us towards the most effective build of the deck. When I have time, likely this coming weekend, I will post a full analysis of trials with all the accuracy people could ever desire, and this will provide unbiased, numerical evidence that will help us decide if the speed build is in fact speedy enough, or if we do need other support to complement it.
Very well spoken/written!Quote:
Originally Posted by k2thej
Looking forward to your data. I am also going to goldfish your build and my current one and compare how large the difference is of starting the combo and finishing it sucessfully. I am also courious how my number deviate from yours (same build), so I can see how big the skill disadvantage is (which I suspect is there...)
I am still questioning Neil's goldfishing. Curious to hear what it means for him to "go off without glimpse".
Just wanted to throw in a bit of news regarding my build (4 Cradle 6 Fetch, 4 Forest 2 Bayou)
I finally hit the wall with bad hands - 7 card hand with only Cradle - mull into 6 card hand with only Cradle, mull into no lander.
However, this was the first game where this occurred in about 20 games played so far. In my evaluation I think I can be comfortable with 2 Cradle. I still feel that Cradle is somewhat necessary due to Vengevine being in the deck. I'll post more thoughts on this later.
Yes I did round it off. I goldfished once on turn 5 which is 2% oh wait! It's 1.818181...% or maybe you would prefer it as a ratio of integers which is 100/55. I ignored turn 5 since the discussion was about goldfishing before turn 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by NihilObstat
Well like k2thej said you don't need a glimpse in hand to combo off. Pacting or wishing into a regal force normally works to draw into a glimpse. I count goldfishing on a given turn as casting a Emrakul and with the second turn by swinging for lethal. Which does bring me to one point, you run banefire and emrakul? won't replacing the banefire with living wish be better? Also another way to go off without glimpse is with a hand like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by catmint
1 Living wish, 1 Priest of titania, 1 fyndhorn elves, 1 wirewood, 1 Quirion ranger, 1 Heritage druid, and 1 forest. The wirewood, quirion, and or Heritage druid can be replaced by pacts. Or if you have a similar hand what you draw into might also make it work. Turn 2 cast the priest. Play all the 1 cmc elves and tap and untap the priest. It is important to remember to bounce the quirion with wirewood so you can use quirions ability again. After all that you should have enough mana to living wish into an emrakul. I know it is improbable to get such a hand but I do remember having this hand and asking myself can I combo off turn 3 with this.
Check my list some posts ago ... of coures I only play 1 win-con.
Good to hear that you consider going off as casting emrakul. The number of doing without glimpse by T3 is very low with my build. I don't play titania though...I don't think it makes a big difference, but maybe you can also include the percentage where you cast emrakul without glimpse next time you goldfish.
It's not usually casting Emrakul without glimpse at all, it's casting Emrakul without glimpse initially.Quote:
Originally Posted by catmint