Printable View
If I didn't feel like having already put far too much time into the data, I'd calculate pure MTGO statistics and 150+ player paper events seperately, just to see how they differ. I wouldn't be surprised if Miracles is 20%+ of the online metagame, by just looking at Top4 data of the last 50 dailies
Post SCG support dropping, that's 99.5% of the Legacy currently being played. So by inference 99.5% of Legacy doesn't matter. Even Classics now are basically never cresting 7 rounds. Eternal Magic when reflected against Magic as competitive enterprise doesn't matter, and Competitive Magic as a means of earning money when reflected against anything else you could be doing with your time doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian23
Didn't knew MKM stopped their Tournament Series, BoM Team stopped operating and WotC dismissed their GPs so SCG is the only Legacy Tournament organizer worldwide....Quote:
Originally Posted by nedleeds
...not to mention Ovinogeddon, Prague Eternal, the now two Eternal Weekends, all the 100-200+ people tournaments in Spain and the regular 300 player events in Japan. And that's only the one's I'm aware of from the top of my head. The Legacy meta is so much larger than whatever data you get from just SCG.
On another note, Randy just found Miracles:
http://i.imgur.com/gGDZVu2.png
Well for one using your data, delver decks have a combined share of more than miracles. So delver has a greater dominance.
Outside of the usual results you can find there are by far more popular decks than what we see.
Now can we get back to speculation and not "dominance" numbers that we don't fully have?
This is by far the worst analysis of legacy I've ever seen here. It totally ignores everything actually happening in tournaments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
Isn't this the same dude who bitches about how un-fun it is for Shops to lock you out of games?Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian23
Yeah. He demonized shops because of how fun it was. And pretty much acknowledged miracles needs a ban bit it's all good because he likes it
I feel like Homer in the tree house of horrors The Shining episode:Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
"Urge to Rant, Rising. "
http://i.imgur.com/JrjxtnD.png
I can almost smell the greed and grease emanating from his piggy fingers.
(Edited... fck me, I didn't want to post in here again.)Quote:
Originally Posted by nedleeds
Your classic got 9 rounds yesterday.
Do yourself a big favor and stop this. You make yourself look like a clown unable to juggle data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jain_Mor
Thanks for the "genius" (auto-infatuation pushed me to quote it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
And you are close for the win rate. But the reality is I counted by matches:
- 1st place equal 3 matches, 3 wins;
- 2nd place equal 3 matches, 2 wins;
- 3-4th places equal 2 matches, 1 win;
- 5-8th places equal 1 match, 0 win.
You sum it up and have your win percentage. I redid my analysis with all the 50+ players events that took place in 2016 for which top8 is recorded in mtgtop8.
It gave 58 placings:
6 first positions;
6 nd
17 3-4
29 5-8.
99 matchs, 47 wins. 47.5 % winrate.
Miracle win about half of its matches. Statistics is not big enough to be trusted more precisely, but shows a pretty even result.
But this should not be interpreted as "miracle is not dominant", it is the most represented deck. And so the one which take the most top8 shares. And seeing that on internet, the most picked deck for going to an event.
Very strange analysis, it is busted because it performs at about 50% winrate against the metagame?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
You can say that. It depends how much you consider decks to be similar. If we were splitting miracle decks in different categories and not differentiating between delver flavours, you would be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
Truth is, miracle is using a very particular approach, and when you face it, it is a very different match than against most things. It is a game against miracle. While facing delver can involve chocking on manadenial like versus D&T, DRS calculations, combat calculations,... It is a more classic legacy game.
"Top8" does not equal "metagame", mind that. "About to 50% winrate" in the T8 can be busted depending on the actual distribution of opposing decks we can get from DtB data. ~50% winrate has a very different value depending on if you achieve that against Lands/D&T/etc or against Jund/Storm.Quote:
Originally Posted by dte
You can NOT say this, because it has ZERO relation with the performance of the deck. It's like claiming Affinity is dominant with 25% metagame presence just because two players joined your local 8-man tournament with their Modern Affinity decksQuote:
Originally Posted by dte
Really? Most metagames I have seen, being big journeys or locals, reflect quite well the deck distribution on mtgtop8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
So I use this as a reflection of the metagame, and it is what I consider to build decklists and sideboards.
As it was all the decks which have reached a top8 in 2016 at any 50+ players event recorded in mtgtop8, I would say it was somehow representative of the general metagame. The fact is, that miracle is represented enough that its bad MUs have more chances to enter top8 than decks that have a poor miracle MU so I would agree that there is a minor twist here, but not a warping one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
That's something you often do, trying to use reductio ad absurdum by claiming that two propositions are similar, while they aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Claiming that Delver variants taken as a whole partake a bigger chunk of the metagame than miracle, taking into account every bit of metagame data that is available, has not much to do with the results of a single 8-man journey.
The topic of the last three pages was that Top8 data do NOT equal metagame deck distribution. Thats the reason for the buzz and is a prove that dedicated deckbuilding/sideboarding for Miracles is NOT effective, otherwise the deck wouldn't have such an overall and T8 specific performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by dte
If you want to argue with decks which prey for Miracles, you also need to look at how Miracles performs against them in the later rounds and T8 of a tournament. The point is, that we can't really see any significant effect of these decks in regards to Miracles performance statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by dte
Sidneyious claims that a sheer metagame presence of a deck automatically makes it dominant, no matter if we see any if the decks present in T8/16/32 statistics and previously denies statistical evidence in regards to Miracles position based on his local metagame. This is absurd. Delver is 16,8% of the metagame (online+paper) while Miracles is ~18% (online+paper), so he plain lied that Delver has a higher metagame share than Miracles and you can see it with just one fucking look at MtgTop8 data. On top of that it made 6 out of 40 Top8 spots in the last 5 mayor events listed on the page. That makes less Top8 placings than it should have according to metagame shareQuote:
Originally Posted by dte
I didn't reply to that because I think like Julian that it's kinda irrelevant what happens in local metagames.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I mean, don't get me wrong, it is relevant in our dayly playing experience, but what you can share with the worldwide internet community about your half-infect metagame (for exemple)?
Here, on a global thread,
Once again, my experience of playing is that top8 metagame is quite close to global metagame. And if you do not lose your firsts couple of rounds, it gets closer and closer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I do not think I often see a tournament with less than 15-20% miracle players registering. It is a common deck to be seen.
I don't know what you call "dominant". The word has different meanings, and here it can be seen as the concentration (or representation), or as the efficiency (or winrate). Clearly, miracles and delver are dominant if you speak about representation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
The efficiency is something to look at if you want to chose which deck you want to play.
The representation is something to look at to know how to properly build your 75+.
Whatever is something to look at if you want to whine. Anybody can find a good reason.
The point is that metagame presence only is no indicator of if a deck is good in the metagame or not. You get that only if you set the metagame representation into context with the actual results (T8/16/32). It isn't hard to compare the Delver supertype to Miracles as I have presented the numbers already for both. Miracles has ~21% of T8 with ~16% metagame share (paper only) aka 35% overperformance and Delver (online+paper) 16,8% metagame share and 16,3% T8 spots which means that Dever UNDERPERFORMS according to the very small dataset of the last 5 mayor events
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I agree that presence is different than efficiency, and separated the two concepts in my previous post. As representation is something that is already easily and readily accessible, althought through minor biases, the discussion is mostly about how to determine efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I would say that your dataset is too small to allow any relevant conclusion. 5 events?
I would suggest that you redo the exact same analysis with the 5 previous events, and then with the 5 previous one.
If you cannot (or do not have the time to do so, which would be understandable), give us the percentage for each of these 5, for us to see how your data have to be trusted.
If all your results are consistent, it is very interesting data indeed. If not, it would be nice from you to report so.
Actually... if you go to MTGgoldfish and sum up all Delver variants for the Leagues in August, there are more of them than there are Miracles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear