The Performance of Dredge

According to Smmenen's (now free) article, Dredge was a poor performer in the SCG Open. Actually, I've read a lot of tournament reports/breakdowns for big tournaments where Dredge had a poor performance, with lots of players using the deck but just a very minimal percentage doing well.

However, frogboy's articles regarding Dredge illustrate something entirely different - that the deck is a powerhouse. I personally agree with this statement, as in random games in MWS and in the lcoal store, the deck just blows everyone out, even with multiple pieces of hate. The power, speed, and resiliency all come together for a very potent deck.

Why then, is it underperforming by people's standards? Is it because it's a cheap deck, so a lot of players pick it up and just do not really know how to play it properly? Or is it because the graveyard hate in big tournaments are just too much?

Dredge does poorly in big tournaments because its a lot more fragile than people want to think. It relies on the two zones that are most hated on in Legacy - the Graveyard and the Combat Phase. Plus, there are all sorts of random "bad cards" that just completely blow out the entire strategy.

Think stuff like Elephant Grass, Tabernacle, Mogg Fanatic, Cabal Therapy, and Moat in addition to all the other, more common hate the deck hits - Crypt/Extirpate/Ravenous Trap/Bojuka Bog/etc. And lets also not forget Tarmogoyf, who pretty much stops the Ichorid slow roll plan all by himself (as does any deck with large/moderate numbers of dudes w/4+ toughness.

Dredge isn't a bad deck, but it is very, very fragile and hateable, and bigger tourneys favor more consistent decks over more powerful ones. That's why Dredge is so much better at small events like MWS or your local store than it is at a big tournament.

For general tournament play, most people are bad at mulligans and the absolute worst at sideboarding. Since you don't actually play legit magic with the deck, guess what points you actually have control over where percentage points can be made or lost from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artowis

For general tournament play, most people are bad at mulligans and the absolute worst at sideboarding. Since you don't actually play legit magic with the deck, guess what points you actually have control over where percentage points can be made or lost from?

---

Is it winning the die roll?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeenieBopper

Is it winning the die roll?

---

I must ask: How are we supposed to know? I don't think that kind of data is colleted at tournaments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morgan_coke

And lets also not forget Tarmogoyf, who pretty much stops the Ichorid slow roll plan all by himself (as does any deck with large/moderate numbers of dudes w/4+ toughness.

---

You need to explain this one.

Racing a single Tarmogoyf or a single Knight of the Reliquary is really really easy. If you're not attacking with your guy, I have all the time in the world to win. My favorite play against Zoo is to bring back Ichorid, not attack, and just get like 3 Zombies. If you are, I get to crack with an Ichorid and keep a Zombie back to block. Either way I eventually alpha strike you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artowis

For general tournament play, most people are bad at mulligans and the absolute worst at sideboarding. Since you don't actually play legit magic with the deck, guess what points you actually have control over where percentage points can be made or lost from?

---

This. Dredge does have a hard time against hate if you keep a poor hand, or if you sideboard incorrectly. If you know what you are doing, very few people actually board enough hate to stop Dredge from picking up the match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anusien

If you're not attacking with your guy, I have all the time in the world to win. My favorite play against Zoo is to bring back Ichorid, not attack, and just get like 3 Zombies. If you are, I get to crack with an Ichorid and keep a Narcomoeba back to block so I get 3 more Zombies.

---

Fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artowis

For general tournament play, most people are bad at mulligans and the absolute worst at sideboarding. Since you don't actually play legit magic with the deck, guess what points you actually have control over where percentage points can be made or lost from?

---

The UW Tempo guys did a video against a random MWSer with Dredge. In at least one of the games, the guy kept a hand without a Dredger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anusien

The UW Tempo guys did a video against a random MWSer with Dredge. In at least one of the games, the guy kept a hand without a Dredger.

---

Before you point fingers, you should note the context: He had mulled to five. I'm not sure what I would have done in that situation, were I him. He had multiple lands and discard outlets. A mull to four is not going to be stronger unless it has a Dredger, a discard outlet, and a land, which is pretty damn unlikely.

Game 2 he had a likely turn 3 win even through Force of Will, but my hate trumped him.

Incidentally, Anusien is talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFFumGU8n0o

I think that a lot of people play the decks even though they don't know how to pilot it correctly because it's one of the cheapest competitive deck available. You're not playing normal Magic with dredge and you need to know lot of things in order to play it decently.

Personally, I don't play it anymore because people have lucksacked many times in my face (Top deck relic, -> Top Deck relic the turn he cracked the other one), because it's so fragile, you need a decent hand in order to face hate, and because the deck really hates me. I keep having Narcomoeba in A LOT of hands, always lacking land, dredger or discard outlet and having bad dredges...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

Personally, I don't play it anymore because people have lucksacked many times in my face (Top deck relic, -> Top Deck relic the turn he cracked the other one), because it's so fragile, you need a decent hand in order to face hate, and because the deck really hates me. I keep having Narcomoeba in A LOT of hands, always lacking land, dredger or discard outlet and having bad dredges...

---

That's how my luck has been since I've picked up the deck.
Maybe the reason Dredge is doing so bad is because the good players are just getting really unlucky?
I'm not saying I'm a good player, because I'm not, but I guess it's at least worth mentioning that bad dredges and mulligans are beyond the reach of most players.

Not only that, but Dredge is considered the boogeyman of the format more than any other deck, which leads to decks like the MBC deck packing 4 Bojuka Bogs. People are just scared shitless of the deck.

@ OP: I would also like to add/address the difference between qualitative and quantitative information gathering. Smmenen's articles are usually based on the latter, whereas Frogboy's have been generally based on the former. Personally, I'm a hardcore believer in qualitative methods, so charts and graphs don't impress me as much as a good ole tournament report. After SCG $5k Orlando, a top 8 Merfolk player wrote a tourney report that was far more important than had you just seen the stats on what he played against. He friggin beat Zoo with Merfolk primarily because the Zoo player was sick as hell and apathetic to what was actually going on. Also, considering this thread, the dredge matchup left many questions in my mind, especially why didn't the Golgari Grave-Troll get Dread Returned? Anyway, my point is that there is no inherent contradiction between Smmenen and Frogboy's respective methods/findings and that both are valuable for different reasons. Smmenen would seem to have found the deck is under-performing, which then leads to a need for qualitative investigations into why.

To get to the bottom of this would require a more in-depth look at poor Dredge tournament performances and trying to see why they performed badly. I don't think anyone has the time or resources to really get to the bottom of it, although some people did outline a few potential reasons above (bad mulliganing, bad sideboarding, lots o' hate, skill level of the pilot, etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMogg

@ OP: I would also like to add/address the difference between qualitative and quantitative information gathering. Smmenen's articles are usually based on the latter, whereas Frogboy's have been generally based on the former. Personally, I'm a hardcore believer in qualitative methods, so charts and graphs don't impress me as much as a good ole tournament report. After SCG $5k Orlando, a top 8 Merfolk player wrote a tourney report that was far more important than had you just seen the stats on what he played against. He friggin beat Zoo with Merfolk primarily because the Zoo player was sick as hell and apathetic to what was actually going on. Also, considering this thread, the dredge matchup left many questions in my mind, especially why didn't the Golgari Grave-Troll get Dread Returned? Anyway, my point is that there is no inherent contradiction between Smmenen and Frogboy's respective methods/findings and that both are valuable for different reasons. Smmenen would seem to have found the deck is under-performing, which then leads to a need for qualitative investigations into why.

To get to the bottom of this would require a more in-depth look at poor Dredge tournament performances and trying to see why they performed badly. I don't think anyone has the time or resources to really get to the bottom of it, although some people did outline a few potential reasons above (bad mulliganing, bad sideboarding, lots o' hate, skill level of the pilot, etc.).

---

+1

Additionally, IMO the only things numbers from a discrete event can tell you is what happened at that event. I think that statistics are fascinating but its the analysis that makes them valuable. I would be much more apt to conclude something about the type of decks people play in an area then what decks are the top decks from one event.

Speaking of tournament reports where are the excellent ones lately?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forbiddian

Before you point fingers, you should note the context: He had mulled to five. I'm not sure what I would have done in that situation, were I him. He had multiple lands and discard outlets. A mull to four is not going to be stronger unless it has a Dredger, a discard outlet, and a land, which is pretty damn unlikely.

Game 2 he had a likely turn 3 win even through Force of Will, but my hate trumped him.

Incidentally, Anusien is talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFFumGU8n0o

---

It's not like any of you play that well. From 3.45: In game 1 when you pay upkeep for your Grunt the second time you should have removed his tribe (he does so himself which is a bad play); that makes Thug much worse since his Thug can't chump to go to the gy then (unless he also blocks with Putrid Imp, but the he runs the risk og losing Imp altogether). In addition, he shouldn't have attacked with Narcomoeba. It would have been much better to block with Narco and Thug. After he declines to block you should have used Jitte to kill Thug, that sends it to the top of his library and it's a dead draw. Then you could kill the Putrid Imp. But I agree that the game was pretty much over at that time.

Dredge is bad because it can never anticipate the hate that is coming. there are a variety of cards that can hate you out of the game.

Lets make a list:
crypt
relic
chalice of the void
leyline of the void
planar void
ravenous trap
boujoka bog
jailor

So in theory, ichorid should usually win game 1. So then game 2 you bring in the anti hate. what do you bring in? darkblast for jailor? ray for leyline? pithing needle on crypt? bujoka bog isnt even stopable.... chalice at 0 for crypt?

guess wrong and you lose game 2. oops. now game 3, you saw what they played in game 2... side in to stop that plan they have. well this doesnt work because a smart player will play one of each. so ill play a crypt, a relic, a planar void and a boujoka bog. now ichorid just rolls over and dies because they can never have the right tech for the hate.

Oh, and because a lot of bad players play dredge. Examples:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rico Suave

You need to explain this one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ciberon

I must ask: How are we supposed to know? I don't think that kind of data is colleted at tournaments.

---

Good Dredge players know the right time to Therapy, what to Therapy for, and siding in Chain of Vapors. Bojuka Bog also isn't really a good hate piece against Dredge.

Also, why did you quote those two? What does that imply?

I've won games when I've seen multiple Crypts and Relics. Actually, I consistently win even when seeing these hate cards, and I know some Dredge players do so as well. Are there really that many bad Dredge players running about?

If this really is a question of playskill, I find it a lot more believable that those of you claiming that Dredge is overpowered are testing against weaker players, not that everyone that actually plays the deck in large tournaments happens to be terrible.

The simplest answer to the question "why is Dredge peforming poorly?" is that Dredge is a poorly-performing deck. Do we need to analyze why Burn is putting up similar numbers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obfuscate Freely

If this really is a question of playskill, I find it a lot more believable that those of you claiming that Dredge is overpowered are testing against weaker players, not that everyone that actually plays the deck in large tournaments happens to be terrible.

The simplest answer to the question "why is Dredge peforming poorly?" is that Dredge is a poorly-performing deck. Do we need to analyze why Burn is putting up similar numbers?

---

To be fair, it's not just Dredge players who are terrible. Most tournament players are terrible. Other decks are just more forgiving. I've watched a lot of matches at SCG Legacy $5ks, and I've not seen any dredge players I've been impressed with.

I personally think it is player error. I have seen one person piloting dredge that I thought was good. When a lot of people go to tournaments with their buddies, I bet Dredge is just loaned out to someone who has rarely played it before. It is also cheap as hell to build, thus a good entry into the format since you aren't dropping 1k on a manabase. A while ago I was watching a guy play LED Dredge and he mulled into the following: Breakthrough, Cabal Therapy, GGT, Stinky, Colisseum, City. This is a turn 3-5 win easily and he proceeded to lose to Thor playing Goyf Sligh or something. This is how he played it out: draw go, draw discard GGT go ..... then lost on turn 4-5 to dudes + burn. He had the match won with turn 1 Therapy self for GGT, dredge 6, if you hit nothing relevant, Breakthrough for 0 (or 1) go. Turn 3 activate CC and go nuts. OR he could have activated the CC on turn 2 and then Breakthrough on turn 3 ...

Also, Dredge is hard to SB properly and so many people are afraid to go down to 4-5 cards its ridiculous. Find an answer for the hate and go nuts. Therapy misplays is probably the most likely occurrence and I don't think a lot of people know how to properly bait a Crypt. All it takes is some playtesting and goldfishing with the deck and you begin to understand, I think a lot of people just aren't willing to take the time to understand a complex deck like Dredge. These are the people who need to play CB control garbage, anyone who has been playing 1 year can OWN with this deck.

I think it's the difference between actual tournament conditions and testing conditions. And I wouldn't reduce that to something as simple as player error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smmenen

I think it's the difference between actual tournament conditions and testing conditions. And I wouldn't reduce that to something as simple as player error.

---

Is everyone just not reading the parts of the articles where I win all of the tournaments or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogboy

Is everyone just not reading the parts of the articles where I win all of the tournaments or something?

---

Sadly, not everyone is you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogboy

Is everyone just not reading the parts of the articles where I win all of the tournaments or something?

---

You're going to split the finals in Columbus with me, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smmenen

I think it's the difference between actual tournament conditions and testing conditions. And I wouldn't reduce that to something as simple as player error.

---

You sir would be an optimist, but never underestimate the human conditions of ignorance and laziness.

I want to thank kicks_422 for starting this thread. I haven't laughed this hard in weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogboy

Is everyone just not reading the parts of the articles where I win all of the tournaments or something?

---

How can you appeal to tournament results, while simultaneously maintaining that Zoo and Goblins are "miserable?" Those decks are showing up in elimination rounds with much greater consistency than your pet combo decks.

I know that you think your local 30-mans are infinitely more competitive than any of the 100+-person $5ks, but you have to realize how ridiculous your position sounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obfuscate Freely

How can you appeal to tournament results, while simultaneously maintaining that Zoo and Goblins are "miserable?" Those decks are showing up in elimination rounds with much greater consistency than your pet combo decks.

---

Isn't it true that Zoo and Goblins see much more play than combo? Everyone can play with creatures - it's the most straight-forward wincondition in the game. One can argue that both Zoo and Goblins are the easiest decks not to fuck up with. Winning via diverse combo paths isn't that hard - but people generally rather play something moron-proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obfuscate Freely

How can you appeal to tournament results, while simultaneously maintaining that Zoo and Goblins are "miserable?" Those decks are showing up in elimination rounds with much greater consistency than your pet combo decks.

I know that you think your local 30-mans are infinitely more competitive than any of the 100+-person $5ks, but you have to realize how ridiculous your position sounds.

---

I didn't respond to Smmenen on this point, but I'd think you'd be able to understand what he's saying. I don't think Max is saying at all "Zoo and Goblins are literally incapable of winning tournaments". He's saying more like "Decks that can't interact with the opponent in any meaningful way and don't do anything broken are bad choices for tournaments." There are lots of matchups where you just simply have no chance. It's like, in Vintage, you COULD play RG Beats or something, but shouldn't you have Ancestral Recall and Yawgmoth's Will in your deck?

Measuring the strength of a deck is really very difficult. We simply don't have enough objective data to do it well. There are ton of confounding variables which are difficult to control (do these really need to be listed again?). I'm not saying tournament data isn't useful, but I think there are serious limitations to it, and we have to draw our deductions wisely. I think we can make some broad claims and produce ballpark predictions about what a metagame will look like (that isn't the same thing as defining which decks are actually the best).

From experience (obviously, not objective data), I think Dredge, with a good pilot (which I'm not claiming to be), is substantially better than many of you realize.

I said this in a previous thread, but it deserves mention again. Reasons I believe Dredge hasn't and will not be performing as well as it could, why other decks may put up better results compared to Dredge than they otherwise might, and why dredge could decline in strength:

• Many Legacy players can pilot Dredge game 1, but few can pilot it effectively after sideboarding. Games 2 and 3 separate the good pilots from the poor ones.
• The deck is extremely atypical (unique even), and so many don't have the experience (or skill) to see the correct lines of play (which are sometimes counterintuitive) when the going gets tough.
• Combo decks cannablize each others' playerbases.
• Anti-blue/CB decks cannibalize each others' playerbases. (dredge fits the bill)
• Combo decks which are faster than Dredge will prey upon it.
• Decks with a lower skill requirement will have better average results given the overall Legacy playerbase.
• Decks which play cards are more readily available or useful to other archetypes in magic or Legacy will see more play (and put up more results) than Dredge.
• While Dredge really can viably play through GY hate, it is still a serious obstacle. I expect GY-hate to increase in the format, and that means more barriers.
• Dredge is unlikely to receive new tools/cards, while other archetypes (which are considered to play magic in a more orthodox manner by developers) are more likely to benefit from futures sets.
• GY-Hate and silver-bullet board control is constantly being developed in new sets, and the diversity of this hate is a serious threat to a deck which has extremely limited sideboarding options (note, that the deck doesn't use the draw step as effectively or filter cards as most decks might).

peace,
4eak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anusien

I didn't respond to Smmenen on this point, but I'd think you'd be able to understand what he's saying. I don't think Max is saying at all "Zoo and Goblins are literally incapable of winning tournaments". He's saying more like "Decks that can't interact with the opponent in any meaningful way and don't do anything broken are bad choices for tournaments." There are lots of matchups where you just simply have no chance. It's like, in Vintage, you COULD play RG Beats or something, but shouldn't you have Ancestral Recall and Yawgmoth's Will in your deck?

---

I answered this point in the other thread:

Quote:

---

My example was illustrative, but it's not about luck, it's about math. It's about odds. It's about metagame positioning with a recognting of metagame dyanmics.

You play the odds. If you know with a great deal of certainty that ANT is going to do poorly, based upon the fact that it generally does, than it's not luck that you won't face it. If the 'auto,loss decks" like Belcher, ANT, etc make up less than 20% of the total field, your chances of facing them in round one is less than 20%. And with each tournament victory, your chances of facing them diminishes.

That's why Zoo decks win, and have won. And, that's why they are a perfectly reasonable choice, despite what the author of this article claims.

---

The reason it's ok to play Zoo is because even though there are virtually unwinnable matchups, you nonetheless maximize your chances of winning a tournament by playing Zoo because you don't expect to face those matchups because, at first, they aren't that much of the field, and second, becuase they tend to lose and cluster at the bottom. See my quote. It's about playing the odds, not about the fact that there are unwinnable matchups.

The fact that there are unwinnable matchups is determinative to the issue of whether the deck is a good deck choice. Every deck has bad matchups. It's a matter of maximizing expected good matchups and miniizing EXPECTED bad matchups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skeggi

Isn't it true that Zoo and Goblins see much more play than combo? Everyone can play with creatures - it's the most straight-forward wincondition in the game. One can argue that both Zoo and Goblins are the easiest decks not to fuck up with. Winning via diverse combo paths isn't that hard - but people generally rather play something moron-proof.

---

Not necessarily.

This forum should be far more conversant with the SCG Open results, since they are publically available.

In a number of the tournaments, Dredge and ANT are the most popular archetypes, but the worst performers. There may be 5 zoo and 15 ant in some of those SCG opens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anusien

I didn't respond to Smmenen on this point, but I'd think you'd be able to understand what he's saying. I don't think Max is saying at all "Zoo and Goblins are literally incapable of winning tournaments". He's saying more like "Decks that can't interact with the opponent in any meaningful way and don't do anything broken are bad choices for tournaments."

---

You're just burning a strawman.

Obfuscate Freely isn't saying by any means that a single tournament win by Zoo or Goblins eradicates Frogboy's argument. That wasn't stated or even implied. He's saying that Zoo and Goblins, two decks that have performed, have been lambasted by Frogboy in an article while Frogboy's pet deck, which hasn't performed at all except in Frogboy's hands, is exalted as the greatest deck ever. It appears that Frogboy just didn't do research for his article.

Frogboy's explanation was basically this: Everyone except Frogboy is terrible at this game. Everyone else picks the wrong deck, builds Ichorid wrong even when he picks the right deck, then plays it wrong even when he picks the right deck and takes the right build.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anusien

It's like, in Vintage, you COULD play RG Beats or something, but shouldn't you have Ancestral Recall and Yawgmoth's Will in your deck?

---

If RG Beats were consistently placing Top 8 and sometimes winning tournaments while decks running Ancestral Recall and Yawgmoth's Will were not doing either as often as RG Beats, then I'd choose RG Beats all day.

Quote:

---

It's like, in Vintage, you COULD play RG Beats or something, but shouldn't you have Ancestral Recall and Yawgmoth's Will in your deck?

---

Yes, because in Vintage just about 100% of the decks that win tournaments run them. You could say with more or less equal validity given aggregate tournament results, "In Legacy, you COULD play AN, but shouldn't you have Tarmogoyf and Lightning Bolt in your deck?"

I tend to agree that the numbers are misleading. Aggro decks probably only make so many top 8s because they make up such a massive percentage of the field. That said, tournament data suggests Zoo and Goblins aren't losing nearly as much against ANT and Dredge as they "should be". Is that because of bad combo players? Sure some of it is, but that's who's playing it. If a deck existed that has a 99% matchup against the entire field but was too difficult to pilot well, then it's just as much as liability as sitting across from resolved Ad Nauseam tapped out with a grip full of elves. On top of having to fight through hate and counterspells, combo has the added liability of taxing its pilot exponentially more than Zoo does mentally.

Sure ANT is probably a "better deck" but, like Dredge, it usually doesn't win tournaments and neither together posts the results Zoo does. You could try to cop out and say, "the Zoo player just didn't play against any combo" but then I would say, "what about the combo player who didn't play against any CBtops?" Even still, Zoo has a better chance against ANT than ANT does against CBtop and the former is objectively more common. Should you be doing something unfair in Legacy if you want to win a tournament? Maybe. But most people who do win aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forbiddian

Frogboy's explanation was basically this: Everyone except Frogboy is terrible at this game. Everyone else picks the wrong deck, builds Ichorid wrong even when he picks the right deck, then plays it wrong even when he picks the right deck and takes the right build.

---

I would agree with this (although there are more than Frogboy who are not terrible). Most people are terrible at this game. Frogboy is non-terrible, and doubly non-terrible with Dredge. Dredge is a harder deck to be non-terrible with than Zoo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

If RG Beats were consistently placing Top 8 and sometimes winning tournaments while decks running Ancestral Recall and Yawgmoth's Will were not doing either as often as RG Beats, then I'd choose RG Beats all day.

---

Most people aren't playing the deck with Ancestral Recall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obfuscate Freely

How can you appeal to tournament results, while simultaneously maintaining that Zoo and Goblins are "miserable?" Those decks are showing up in elimination rounds with much greater consistency than your pet combo decks.

I know that you think your local 30-mans are infinitely more competitive than any of the 100+-person $5ks, but you have to realize how ridiculous your position sounds.

---

<dude> Why doesn't anyone win tournaments with Dredge?
<max> I, um, do
<ObFreely> HYPOCRISY!

I was just answering the question. Your point isn't totally without merit, but I'm not really appealing to those results when I tell people the deck is awesome except as a matter of form.

@Smmenen's point on positioning: Zoo is only positioned well against Merfolk, Goblins, and midrange piles of AIDS; there are decks that are equally dominant against those decks that don't totally fold to combo decks.

Quote:

---

Everyone is terrible at this game.

---

Fixed. I'm less miserable than most people but I'm still pretty bad. I mean honestly, how are people seriously claiming that the 5ks showcase the highest skill level of Magic when people are game lossing themselves out of tournaments and playing 3 Aether Vial with a straight face? Do you want me to go through the archives and pull out all of the earth-shattering punts from the coverage?

Quote:

---

Even still, Zoo has a better chance against ANT than ANT does against CBtop

---

This is just incorrect and illustrates most of my points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anusien

Most people aren't playing the deck with Ancestral Recall.

---

What does this mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IsThisACatInAHat?

Yes, because in Vintage just about 100% of the decks that win tournaments run them. You could say with more or less equal validity given aggregate tournament results, "In Legacy, you COULD play AN, but shouldn't you have Tarmogoyf and Lightning Bolt in your deck?"

I tend to agree that the numbers are misleading. Aggro decks probably only make so many top 8s because they make up such a massive percentage of the field. That said, tournament data suggests Zoo and Goblins aren't losing nearly as much against ANT and Dredge as they "should be". Is that because of bad combo players? Sure some of it is, but that's who's playing it. If a deck existed that has a 99% matchup against the entire field but was too difficult to pilot well, then it's just as much as liability as sitting across from resolved Ad Nauseam tapped out with a grip full of elves. On top of having to fight through hate and counterspells, combo has the added liability of taxing its pilot exponentially more than Zoo does mentally.

Sure ANT is probably a "better deck" but, like Dredge, it usually doesn't win tournaments and neither together posts the results Zoo does. You could try to cop out and say, "the Zoo player just didn't play against any combo" but then I would say, "what about the combo player who didn't play against any CBtops?" Even still, Zoo has a better chance against ANT than ANT does against CBtop and the former is objectively more common. Should you be doing something unfair in Legacy if you want to win a tournament? Maybe. But most people who do win aren't.

---

WOW, LIES! I have lost 1 tournament matchup to Zoo ever, and both games I mulled to 5 then died on turn 4 to a good draw and saw Null Rod on turn 2 in the second.

But I appreciate you proving the point that its about skill. DDFT/DDANT matchups VS CB garbage are almost always 50/50 (oftentimes in favor of combo) assuming the storm combo player knows how to play the matchup. Zoo is a joke, unless you draw a hideously slow hand you just setup the IGG loop or mull to 5-6 trying find a good hand for turn 1-2 AdN or DD or IGG loop and just win since there isn't a single thing they can do. This is how dredge works as well except there are a lot of plays that a lot of people don't see. I guess a lot of people just succumb to the hate but ... I have won a lot of games with Leyline on the table. Dredge takes a lot of outside the box thinking.

Now I would say Goblins is a LOT harder to play than Zoo but both are very simple. Its tough to fuck up: cast dude, attack, burn, win. Goblins has a lot more variables that Zoo because its creatures are worse and it requires greater combat math and considerations on the opponents spot removal. Zoo just drops big dudes and attacks. Dredge will do this on occassion, and dork beatdown with Stinky, Imp, and Moebas is AWESOME. But it usually is not as simple as that, you have to WIN the game by playing your deck correctly AND do this while your opponent is trying to jack you up. Its not like you have retarted 4/5s for 1G to stall out or attack for the win should you make some kind of mistake or dredge like shit.