View Poll Results: Most bannable card in Legacy? (not that they will touch it)

Voters
192. You may not vote on this poll
  • Brainstorm

    16 8.33%
  • Force of Will

    4 2.08%
  • Lion's Eye Diamond

    35 18.23%
  • Counterbalance

    34 17.71%
  • Sensei's Divining Top

    103 53.65%
  • Tarmogoyf

    46 23.96%
  • Phyrexian Dreadnaught

    2 1.04%
  • Goblin Lackey

    4 2.08%
  • Standstill

    6 3.13%
  • Natural Order

    8 4.17%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1159 of 1178 FirstFirst ... 1596591059110911491155115611571158115911601161116211631169 ... LastLast
Results 23,161 to 23,180 of 23542

Thread: All B/R update speculation.

  1. #23161

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoid View Post
    I wouldn't label it as hypothesis testing but just as simple counting experiment to first order.
    If you interpret the data as Bernoulli experiment with n matches an k wins.
    The error then becomes sqrt(k(n-k)) if you assume the result of the data is close to the "true" value.
    I don't understand how delver's matchup against bant is part of the same experiment as delver's matchup against death and taxes. As long as you make sure you aren't double counting, each matchup should be independant. You are testing the null that each deck is 50% against each other deck; and if you compare 15 decks against 15 decks that is 14*15/2=105 separate hypothesis. So your alpha of 5% turns into a FWER of 99.5%

    We have the deck overall win rate graphs elsewhere.

  2. #23162

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reeplcheep View Post
    I don't understand how delver's matchup against bant is part of the same experiment as delver's matchup against death and taxes. As long as you make sure you aren't double counting, each matchup should be independant. You are testing the null that each deck is 50% against each other deck; and if you compare 15 decks against 15 decks that is 14*15/2=105 separate hypothesis. So your alpha of 5% turns into a FWER of 99.5%

    We have the deck overall win rate graphs elsewhere.
    It is not.

    You have you have n matches for each matchup which are assumed to be independent from the rest.
    One deck wins k/n games.

    Assuming 50% win rate seems a stretch.

  3. #23163

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoid View Post
    It is not.

    You have you have n matches for each matchup which are assumed to be independent from the rest.
    One deck wins k/n games.
    Exactly and that has a possibility of happening by chance 1/20 times with normal Alpha levels/confidence intervals. If you do 105 independent versions of that now you have a 199/200 possiblity that at least one happened by chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoid View Post
    Assuming 50% win rate seems a stretch.
    It has to be the null, otherwise you could say the fact that the mirror wins 50% of its games tells you something significant. Which is absurd.

  4. #23164
    Hymn-Slinging Mod
    H's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    The U-easy-anna
    Posts

    3,413

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    I was thinking last night that the chart I posted might be a little more interesting if each cell had the actual match-up wins and losses, so one could easily see the notional power at a glance.

    On the assumption of a 50% win rate, I am no statistician, but this seems OK, since can't we start with the "ideal" notional set-up where each player has a 50% chance to win (there being only two players and we ideally pretend that each deck is 100% the same). (Here, of course, I am thinking of the way physics might ask us to assume a penguin is a cylinder.) Then, what we are considering are the notional interventions (perhaps in the line of this sort of causal model) where card choices are "interventions" that work on the outcome of a given match. Of course, one major issue is that the "player skill" issue might overdetermine outcomes in some cases (along with just the "random" nature of what cards show up in a given game), but we aren't really doing an actual experiment anyway.

    But, with this amount of data about players, it might be possible to creature a normalized "skill level" (as a sort of baseline win-percentage) and then compare how deck/card choices seem to intervene on that. But, we cannot have a control there, but I guess we can compare it to our hypothetical 50% "ideal" win rate.

    Of course, consider that I am not a statistician at all, so maybe I have no idea what I am talking about actually. (Maybe there is no maybe there either.)
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  5. #23165

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reeplcheep View Post
    Exactly and that has a possibility of happening by chance 1/20 times with normal Alpha levels/confidence intervals. If you do 105 independent versions of that now you have a 199/200 possiblity that at least one happened by chance.
    I still don't know where you're trying to go with this.
    If you have enough samples, outliers are expected.
    In fact it would be weird if you don't have them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reeplcheep View Post
    It has to be the null, otherwise you could say the fact that the mirror wins 50% of its games tells you something significant. Which is absurd.
    Filling the diagonal in this type of chart doesn't make sense in general because it's 50% per definition.
    You can also skip one of the 2 triangle sections since they have to add to 100%.

  6. #23166
    Member

    Join Date

    Sep 2011
    Posts

    4,776

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    I agree with Reeplcheep. 50% makes sense as a baseline. What you really want to know is if Bant is favored against Sagavan, unfavored, or the matchup is about even. Using anything else as a null wouldn't tell you that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoid View Post
    I still don't know where you're trying to go with this.
    If you have enough samples, outliers are expected.
    In fact it would be weird if you don't have them.
    I think he's getting at this:
    https://xkcd.com/882/

    In order to avoid nonsense like that, I think he adjusted his alphas to account for doing 105 tests instead of 1 test. But then alpha is so small that basically nothing is significant, so it doesn't tell you anything useful either.

    Ideally you want more data. Or maybe weed down to fewer decks based on number of matches.

  7. #23167

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoid View Post
    Filling the diagonal in this type of chart doesn't make sense in general because it's 50% per definition.
    You can also skip one of the 2 triangle sections since they have to add to 100%.
    Yah, that is why it is 15x(15-1)/2=105 cells, not 15x15=225 cells.

    Quote Originally Posted by FTW View Post
    Ideally you want more data. Or maybe weed down to fewer decks based on number of matches.
    Thats what I didn't like about the chart. I weeded out all matchups that have a sample size lower than 30 like TES vs Reanimator. Of the 105 cells, 80 should be blank and it should only show the 25 most common ones. But that doesn't look as nice.

  8. #23168
    Hymn-Slinging Mod
    H's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    The U-easy-anna
    Posts

    3,413

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reeplcheep View Post
    Thats what I didn't like about the chart. I weeded out all matchups that have a sample size lower than 30 like TES vs Reanimator. Of the 105 cells, 80 should be blank and it should only show the 25 most common ones. But that doesn't look as nice.
    Indeed, although if the actually win/loss was in the cell, rather than just a percentage, you could see the the notional power somewhat immediately. So, instead of 75% being in a cell, put 3-1, so one would know what the record is, but also that it is a low-data case. I guess it doesn't look as slick like that though.
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  9. #23169
    Member

    Join Date

    Sep 2011
    Posts

    4,776

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    I still think the table presentation is too busy. It could be simplified without losing important info.

    1) Block out the diagonal. Mirror match is always 50%. Not useful.

    2) Round and reformat cells (e.g. 33,33 -> 33%). There's not enough matches to have certainty to 2 decimal places. It just clogs up the table with twice as many numbers, without those numbers conveying much. Rounding to the nearest % is good enough for most practical use anyway.

    3) Label whether it's row beating column or column beating row. You can figure it out based on known MUs, but we shouldn't have to guess.

    4) Maybe have the number of matches played in brackets (below each %)
    Example:
    33% 25%
    (9) (8)

    Then you can still see the %s and the colored heat map but can also see the number of matches played and figure out the win-loss.

    @Reeplcheep: Looking at only those 25 matches, does that improve the FWER? What results were significant?
    What if you just do a 1-tailed test on the winner for each pair? (Is this > 50%, instead of is it <> 50%?)

  10. #23170

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by FTW View Post
    @Reeplcheep: Looking at only those 25 matches, does that improve the FWER? What results were significant?
    What if you just do a 1-tailed test on the winner for each pair? (Is this > 50%, instead of is it <> 50%?)
    Yah i only got 4 significant matchups once I cut to 25 matchups. before nothing was significant. I only did 1-tailed by only picking the winning of each pair or matchups.

  11. #23171
    Member
    Barook's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2007
    Location

    Germany, Germering, Munich
    Posts

    7,489

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    What are the results of EW? Can we finally get over it and ban something?

  12. #23172
    Hymn-Slinging Mod
    H's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    The U-easy-anna
    Posts

    3,413

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barook View Post
    What are the results of EW? Can we finally get over it and ban something?
    Charts are from the Legacy Data Collection Project, you can find the decklists at the URL under each image.

    Wasteland (Friday):

    Lists @ MTGGoldfish

    Bayou (Saturday):

    Lists @ MTGGoldfish


    Sylvan Library (Sunday):

    Lists @ MTGGoldfish
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  13. #23173

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Modern Horizons were a mistake.

  14. #23174
    Member
    Barook's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2007
    Location

    Germany, Germering, Munich
    Posts

    7,489

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    @H: Thanks. Pretty interesting that UR Delver showed up in force on Friday, but not so much on the other days.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoid View Post
    Modern Horizons were a mistake.
    For the formats? Yes. For Hasbro's pocket? Certainly not. Expect more over the top bullshit that absolutely need banning ASAP in MH3, because that stuff sells.

  15. #23175

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoid View Post
    Modern Horizons were a mistake.
    Most of it, yeah

  16. #23176

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barook View Post
    For the formats? Yes. For Hasbro's pocket? Certainly not. Expect more over the top bullshit that absolutely need banning ASAP in MH3, because that stuff sells.
    People buy literally anything.
    Look at any of the butt ugly Secret Lairs.
    Sells like no tomorrow.

    However, so does cocaine, which has at most dubious health benefits.

  17. #23177
    Hymn-Slinging Mod
    H's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    The U-easy-anna
    Posts

    3,413

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barook View Post
    @H: Thanks. Pretty interesting that UR Delver showed up in force on Friday, but not so much on the other days.
    Especially since card availability was a total non-factor for these. Still, I think that goes to show that, even if UR Delver is "the best deck" (at least in theory) some people will just play something else, regardless.
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  18. #23178

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    I think play patterns are pretty bad. But the meta seems healthy as the delver does have many consistent predators (lands/elves/D&T/GW depths). A true tier 0 deck would have even or positive matchups across the board. Why delver always is top dog is that it’s bad matchups are even worse vs doomsday.

    It’s a RPS metagame but when it is 70-30 URx/DDay, 80-20 DDay-Fair non-blue, 60-40 Fair non-blue/URx it’s easy to see why most spikes choose delver. The top16 conversion rate wasn’t that insane

  19. #23179

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reeplcheep View Post
    I think play patterns are pretty bad. But the meta seems healthy as the delver does have many consistent predators (lands/elves/D&T/GW depths). A true tier 0 deck would have even or positive matchups across the board. Why delver always is top dog is that it’s bad matchups are even worse vs doomsday.

    It’s a RPS metagame but when it is 70-30 URx/DDay, 80-20 DDay-Fair non-blue, 60-40 Fair non-blue/URx it’s easy to see why most spikes choose delver. The top16 conversion rate wasn’t that insane
    Conversion rate is a bad metric because only so many can make top whatever and an infinite number of people can run.

    However, if it's just UR, it's predators and the decks that pray on those, it's pretty boring and the real challenge is to guess the fractions as the wheel turns.

  20. #23180

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoid View Post
    Conversion rate is a bad metric because only so many can make top whatever and an infinite number of people can run.

    However, if it's just UR, it's predators and the decks that pray on those, it's pretty boring and the real challenge is to guess the fractions as the wheel turns.
    Here is the data from the legacy data project. Hard non-mirror winrates collected by hand. This was a ton of work so if you like stuff like this please consider helping out with data collection or the Patreon.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1886 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1886 guests)