Where do you get your data. Mine is from the actual match up grids, found here.Originally Posted by FoulQ
Baseless assumptions and theories like "recovering fast enough from a board sweep to win" don't really seem to hold up to real tournament results.
I disagree with all of the rest of your conclusions. You discount landstill and ANT by saying things like, "...But honestly, are people really still playing landstill that much? And combo seems to always be underplayed."
This is once again completely made up, and frankly wrong. Look at the Worlds 2009 Team Title finals, Merfolk vs ANT. Look at the DTB, obviously they aren't updated as much as they should be, but as soon as someone says "I'll start playing a deck that scoops to combo because no one around here plays combo" combo decks will always start popping up.
Goblins auto-scoops to any form of combo and has a much worse matchup against Ichorid and even "fringe decks" like enchantress.
You have some good points. I guess I was a little too aggressive. I'm not necessarily arguing that goblins is better than merfolk in every way, just that the points brought up before me didn't seem to be entirely valid.
I didn't meant to discount landstill and ANT. What I meant to say is that merfolk shows up in higher proportions than landstill in an average metagame. And that tendrils traditionally has a fairly low amount of people playing it in any given meta, though this can and will fluctuate.
I'm not going to trust one grand prix and six/seven matches as the truth either though. I believe in my testing of that matchup much more than six grand prix matches.
I don't really think we can draw conclusions about an average meta from worlds, considering it had 11 merfolk decks, among other things. I would hope a merfolk gets to the finals.
The math seems to support your points which makes it tricky for me to explain that I believe the advantages goblins has over merfolk are somewhat intangible. But I don't think calling my argument baseless is very fair when some of your own argument is based on personal experience as well.
I think we can (maybe?) agree that there are advantages and disadvantages to playing either deck, but the way it was originally stated made it seem like merfolk was a better choice, so I apologize if my interpretation of jeff's post was wrong.
Yes, goblins "auto-scoops" to combo, but I still have the firm belief that goblins has a better zoo matchup than merfolk does (though still unfavorable), and that goblins has a positive matchup versus merfolk, and those decks (along with random goyf deck which both decks tend to have decent numbers against) are two very popular decks. I put those three decks into consideration when I make a deck choice more than decks like landstill and ANT, is all I was trying to say.
It seems that 11 professional teams believed that Merfolk was the best bet against the field, based on their testing (which was I'm sure more than 6-7 Grand Prix matchups).
I think that says more about the viability of Merfolk than the fact that it won. It's not like the professional teams picked Merfolk because of budget reasons, and it's not like they're professional because they suck at this game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVFg1_dpRAg The first match shown appears to be Legacy.
That's a great point Forbiddian. However, we can't be sure what factors went into why they made the decision and if those same factors apply to us. I was only trying to make a minor point, not overarching proof that goblins > merfolk, so sorry if I came off that way.
Continuing on the update to the primer that has now cited the increasingly popular white splash, I thought P.S brought up an excellent suggestion for dealing with the sweepers such as firesprout, which is now more prevalently seen in various countertop decks such as Supreme Blue: http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=27996
The suggestion is the card Reverent Mantra, and since merfolk white splash is only comprised of two colors, in an anti agro sideboard, this card may find itself a new home.
Reverent Mantra:
3W
Card text: You may remove a white card in your hand from the game instead of paying Reverent Mantra's mana cost.
All creatures gain protection from the color of your choice until end of turn.
If the generally accepted threshold for blue cards to play Force is 20-22 (and you need Force on turn one), then the threshold for being able to cast Mantra a turn or three later can't be that much lower. To be generous, lets say 15 cards -- is Merfolk really going to have that many white cards? Even with 8 Swords and 4 Mantra, you're only up to 12 and I don't see pitching Swords being a great anti-aggro plan.
Yeah that's the thing I think it would require too many white spells to be able to reliably play it. As far as white pitch spells, my favorite is definitely Abolish though (what you thought I would say Scars of the Veteran?). But I don't really think we can support Abolish either, unfortunately. It's a neat find though, I could see them maybe running that over in Death & Taxes maybe... I just don't think we can run any white pitch spells, because they demand you to be so dependant on your splash.
Bless your heart, we must consider Blue/White Tempo's strategy and win percentages in an entirely different deck thread. -4eak
Just so you know, the threshold for a reasonably reliable FoW is 18. From my experience, you miss maybe 1/10 times you have FoW in hand with that number of blue cards. Still, I think 15 is a good estimate and I think getting there is unlikely. Besides, is Mantra really that good? Sure it's a tempo boost, but at the cost of two cards. And doesn't Force essentially do the same thing (only better!). Sure, there's the case when you're playing against goblins, but that's the only I can think of where Mantra is better, well, that and maybe ichorid, but that's pushing it.
I could be wrong but I don't think he was suggesting the card to deal with aggro, but rather to deal with damage based board sweepers. This would probably help to deal with Supreme Blue, but I can't think of too many other decks that run these sweepers.
How exactly do you call people out on made-up statistics and then make up several yourself?
Goblins scoops to Storm Combo. Period. Every single other combo matchup in Legacy can be made manageable depending on your maindeck, your board, and if you're splashing. I'm 4-0 against the ever terrible Dark Depths combo, 3-0 against two different builds of Painter's Stone, 3-4 against Ichorid since the nerfing of Mogg Fanatic (I was unbeaten against it before that), and so forth.
Merfolk does have a better Ichorid matchup, admitted. Point being?
A huge amount depends on what you're doing with the blue spells. Some blue spells replace themselves when they're cast, so it's safer to run fewer blue spells in those decks (for a long game). You're still allowed to cast your blue spells while staying open for Force. In a deck like Merfolk, most of your blue spells go onto the table, so for a longer game, a higher blue count would typically be required.
For the short-game, though, statistics can be applied based solely on the number of blue spells in your deck to tell you how effective your Forces will be. "From my experience" seems a little bit shady, so I'll just clear it up with a bit of math. Here's the method used:
The values are taken from the Deep Deck Analysis function on MWS. Fuck I love that function, it's like the pokerstove of MTG.
Opening hand for 4 Forces + 12 other blue (16 blue):
Relative probability of exactly 1 Force no other blue: 28237
Relative probability of 1 force + another blue: 101636
Relative probability of multiple forces: 24416
Probability of no second blue, given Force of Will: 18.3%
Here's a results table:
P(force and no second blue|7 cards drawn), P(force and no second blue|10 cards drawn),
16 U: 18.3%, 7.13%
18 U: 13.6%, 4.49%
20 U: 9.95%, 2.76%
Obviously there's not going to be a cut off, the question is, at all points, "Is the next-best blue card, given that it helps force of will by N% better than the next-best non-blue card?"
Hopefully this table helps you decide better. It's notable that Vintage players play with as few as 16-18 blue spells routinely (and you don't get many draw steps before your opponent plays a must-counter in that format). It's only in Legacy where numbers as high as 20 or 24 are routinely stated as "the minimum number of blue spells required to run Force of Will." Whatever that means.
That said, the white spell seems real shitty. BFT is almost strictly better than that spell, and neither would stop a Wrath of God. Even if I ran 60 white spells, I'd still find that shit unplayable, and the low white count is just another good reason why that card shouldn't see play.
The Deep Deck Analysis function on MWS seems pretty cool but what are the numbers in regards to?
Relative probability of exactly 1 Force no other blue: 28237
Relative probability of 1 force + another blue: 101636
Relative probability of multiple forces: 24416
What's the total sample size of the data collected?
I think relative probability means that if you take the relative probability and normalize it by the sum of all the relative probabilities, you get the probability. For example, for a relative probability of 1, 1, and 1, the actual probabilities are 1/(1+1+1) for each.
This is important, but it goes beyond simply being able to cast FoW. What you're forced to pitch is also relevant.
In Vintage, you're forced to use fewer blue cards because there's so much power in the other colors. That doesn't mean that you're happy with having to pitch Ancestral Recall to avoid losing because it's your only option, but the upshot is that you can run non-blue cards such as Demonic Tutor.
In Legacy, there are fewer reasons to splash for power, with Goyf being a rare counterexample. In the final analysis, you aren't just gauging how often you can cast FoW, but what options you have when you do cast FoW. It's obviously better to have more choices of cards to pitch, as you can pitch a less relevant card to counter a less dangerous spell. You're not pitching a bad card as you wouldn't have bad cards in the deck, but you can determine on the fly which of several options is least important at that time. With fewer blues, you have fewer options, and the net cost of Forcing can go up.
As you say, it's a sliding scale. However, you're not just balancing blue vs non blue card quality with the abiliity to cast FoW, but also with the relevance of the pitched card when you do. The fewer options you have, the more hurtful casting FoW gets.
Most people blindly suggest new cards for decks. True contributors also suggest what to remove. It's not about what's good, but rather what's better than the current selections.
Obviously with more options, it becomes slightly less punishing, but the most important factor is often whether or not you have Force of Will available in *any* capacity. You don't generally use Force of Will for a marginal gains play, rather to focus down a single target that would be devastating to your game plan. A "must force" as it were. It's quite rare where you'd decide to Force or not Force based on which blue card you're forced to pitch.
The difference between making the must-Force play and not is typically on the order of 2-3 cards and/or 4+ mana-tempi.
The difference between pitching your best blue and your worst blue is typically measured in a fraction of a card. I mean, yeah, it's better to have more, but by far the most important factor that people should be considering is simply whether or not you'll have Force available.
You seem to be suggesting that the threshold for card quality should be drastically lowered for blue spells so that these junk blues can protect your better blues. I'm not positive that you're actually espousing that crazy plan, but: it's crazy.
It's better to have better card quality in general, even if that means pitching better cards than to sink lower to protect your best blue spells. If you design your deck properly, the white cards should be just as important or even more important than the blue spells. Otherwise you wouldn't splash for them.
It's not a monte-carlo simulation, it's the actual probability, so there's no "sample size of the data collected." The data simply are those calculated numbers.
I truncated the numbers to five or six significant figures to shorten my input time, since nobody gives a shit if it's 7.1% or 7.0898272985% In fact, the latter is really just clunky. If you want the actual values, they're readily available with the MWS program under Deep Deck Analysis.
By relative probability, I mean the relative probability. I don't know a rigorous definition, so maybe this example will suffice:
If the relative probability of event A happening is 7 and the relative probability of ~A happening is 2, then the probability of A happening is 11%. P(A)/(P(A)+P(~A))=11.11... %
This works if all the relative probabilities have the same denominator or are simply events taking place. It's a very good shorthand when you're just going to divide out the denominators anyway.
Not sure where you got that idea. =) In the end there are a ton of good blue cards, even a ton of good blues that fit well into a deck. I'm not advocating including Sea Monster to give us more FoW options, but finding 18-22 appropriate blues isn't exactly a difficult thing to do for most decks. I just think the Vintage decks you refer to use less blue because they're trying to fit more off-color power in, not because they want to. I'm not a Vintage player; that's just my hunch.
Most people blindly suggest new cards for decks. True contributors also suggest what to remove. It's not about what's good, but rather what's better than the current selections.
Incidentally, blue improves just as much as black does in Vintage, and probably more. Vintage players are faced with fundamentally the same decisions that Legacy players are faced with: Is the off-color card better by enough to outweigh the odds that I'll be stuck with Force of Will and that card and can't force a clutch situation because it wasn't the next-best blue spell available?
Just for reference, here are recent TPS lists:
21 blues:
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30065
19 blues:
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=29935
18 blues:
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=29551
17 blues:
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=29354
There are lists with as many as 22-23 and some with as few as 16, although I CBFd looking through every list. All the 5 most recent TPS lists have a different number of blue spells, and most of those would be below what Legacy players would tout as the minimum number of blues.
The point I was trying to make is that conventional wisdom in Legacy is born more out of a habit than any real foundation. Vintage players are more willing to break that taboo because they're used to running with fewer blue spells, possibly out of necessity, although Vintage players are asking the questions about their cards that Legacy players should be asking. Legacy players seem to yell out a number, like 20, and imagine that it has any meaning.
To a TPS player, the question of "How many blue spells should I run" takes as much careful planning and consideration as Legacy players spend agonizing over whether they should add a land.
So, uh, how about that Legacy deck called "Merfolk"? Seems like not that many people are talking about it these days.
Bless your heart, we must consider Blue/White Tempo's strategy and win percentages in an entirely different deck thread. -4eak
Oh man I think I read about that once. Can't remember where though.
SummenSaugen: well, I use Chaos Orb, Animate Artifact, and Dance of Many to make the table we're playing on my chaos orb token
SummenSaugen: then I flip it over and crush my opponent
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote