Or, more simply, it's not tempo loss if you have 0 cards in hand since you'd do nothing anyway.Originally Posted by jares
If you're referring to having zero cards in hand at the end of the turn of when you played Risky Bet, then I believe that we're on the same page. Something like this:
- Untap Step: Three Mountains in play, no cards in hand.
- Draw step: drawing Risky Bet.
- Main Phase: Tap 2 Mountains, play Risky Bet. Draw Lightning Bolt and Fireblast.
- Play Lightning Bolt and Fireblast.
As previously noted, the odds of this happening might not be too high.
Cheers,
jares
I think he's referring to: You had a risky bet in your opener, you drop everything you have, then on turn 3-4 you just EOT it as your last card, play something if it's an instant, then untap and draw and hopefully play 2 more cards and end it.
After a bit more games, i realized having a second risky bet in your hand is effectively like having just 1 (barring counters). Decreased their numbers from 4 to 3. I don't want to see 2 of them too often.
I already thought about the 2 Risky's in hand. If you find yourself in that position keep in mind that they are instance, Cast 1, cast 2nd in response. The card does NOT say "as part of the casting cost discard you hand". That means it is the 1st part of the resolution of the spell. This gives you a chance to cast any instances you draw off the 1st Risky before the 2nd Risky resolves. This does require having enough land and that you draw more instances but you do have a chance of getting something out of each of them.
Oh, and I was already thinking 3 for the same reason.... 2 if I found it to be problematic.
Sorceries and permanents (the sort that we'd run, at least) are still dead when you draw them off the first resolving Bet. Sorceries and permanents probably make up about 3/4 of most Burn decks, so you're likely just wasting 1R by stacking them. (My deck only has Bolt/PoP/Fireblast as instants.) There's also the problem of having mana to do anything after stacking Bets, which itself costs 2RR.
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.
I said "This gives you a chance to cast", I didn't say it was a good chance. Really the only likely time I could see a double Risky paying off is if I got a FireBlast off the 1st to resolve. I would still have 2 lands when the 2nd resolves and 2 cards. Otherwise you need to have at lest 5 lands in play.
If you have 6 lands (you need 4 for 2 risky bet + AT LEAST 2 more for casting two more instant in response) into play and 2 Risky Bet in hand, you're playing against your dog probably.
I participated in a big tournament yesterday. I went 6 : 1 : 1 with this list:
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Fireblast
4 Flame Rift
4 Price of Progress
4 Goblin Guide
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders
1 Sulfuric Vortex
18 Mountain
1 Barbarian Ring
4 Faerie Macabre
3 Volcanic Fallout
3 Smash to Smithereens
2 Red Elemental Blast
1 Pyroblast
1 Sulfuric Vortex
1 Tormod's Crypt
Round 1: Spiral Tide 2:1
Round 2: UGB Control 2:0
Round 3: DelverBurn 2:0
Round 4: Burn 2:1
Round 5: Threshold 1:2
Round 6: Threshold 2:0
Round 7: Painter 2:0
Round 8: ID
I was 6th out of (around) 130 players, pretty cool.^^
Top 8: Lost 0:2 against Hive Mind.
WantToPonder
former: Team SpasticalAction & Team RugStar Berlin
Team MTG Berlin
The Dragonstorm
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...he-Dragonstorm
See my previous post. The 1 just above where you said that...
As for something new, I have started testing Risky Bet and have found it to be solid addition! I am running 3. Yes, I get a few instance where I get 2 in my hand but even then if you only have mana to cast 1 its a 2 for 2, could be worse. Using them as a followup to a Magma Jet has been great. That extra card has gone a long way to edging out a win in some close games.
Another thing I am reconsidering is Fetch lands. Before with just the fetches I didn't see a lot of impact in using them; Risky however, is making me reconsider them. I will leave it to someone else, likely Jares, to do the math n this as I am too lazy but what i think we would find is that the combination of Fetch+Risky magnifies the draw of either 1 alone enough to make Fetches worth including even if you don't run Grims. So that is what I am looking at now.
With the inclusion of 3 Risky's what I have pulled out: -1 Fireblast (I had 3 but unless you have 3+ lands in play you don't want a Fireblast in hand when you cast Risky), -1 PoP, -1 Vortex. All 3 cards are now in my SB in place of the 3 Flame Javelins that I no longer see a real need for. I still need to do a lot of playing around to see what I will want to move to the SB for them, but this seems a good place to start.
Anyway, so far I'm happy with them so i just need figure out the Fetch land and what 3 cards exactly I pull out for them.
Hey,
maybe its my playstyle but i always keep as much Cards in hand as i can. If my Hand is empty i want my opp. to be dead.
But if i would play Risky Bet. It would only be 2 of them. Think that should be the best number.
Vexing Devil gets alot better together with Lava Mancer. If there are enought Creatures your Opp. has to remove Devil is a great card.
regards
At the top of my head, I also feel that, if I were to play Risky Bet, [2x] would be the most reliable configuration. I haven't done any testing on it though, so I'll still need to find out for myself.
Cheers,
jares
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure about what you mean by the following: "the combination of Fetch+Risky magnifies the draw of either 1 alone". Could you please expound on that?
Kind Regards,
jares
Against most aggro-ish creature I will hold back a bit as well, making sure I have something for problematic creatures until i either A) have a sweeper in hand, or B) enough damage in hand to kill even if it is not in 1 turn. I played Goblins as my main deck for years and the biggest mistake I watched other goblin players make is over extending the board. Learning not to leave your self open to a sweeper to wipe you out. I see Burn the same way; if I draw a less then amazing hand, such as 4 lands, I will slow-play it, not committing to many burn spells to the head until I either have a sweeper in hand or enough Burn in hand to kill them. Risky Bet helps loosen the grip a bit. I can be free to swing a bit more freely.
ok, without digging around for my logic textbook to figure out exactly how the formula would be it would work something like this...
If I remember correctly in an older post you said each land you draw would reduce the odds of drawing a land on your next draw by about ~1% starting with about ~30% after the opening (this is just an average).
Let us assume that we are now 4 turns into the game and 1/3 of the cards we have drawn is land so we still have a ~30%. When you cast Risky Bet you would have ~60% chance the 1st card is NOT a land, and the next card would be ~1% +/- based on if you drew a land with that 1st card.
Using either card alone you can do statics to figure out the odds of drawing X# of land or non-land cards by a given turn. But if you are using both Fetch lands and Risky the odds magnify, because you have to take into account the odds you get both Fetch lands and Risky.
Again, none of these numbers are going to compare to the type of %'s you would see if you were playing blue and might still be too small to make Fetch lands worth it to many, but I am at lest reconsidering them.
Ah, if I understood correctly, you're referring to the rate at which a deck is able to Thin and draw-into its deck (e.g. Blue Deck are able to do this at a much advanced rate; Dredge is somewhat like the exception because that deck is able to access its cards more quickly via the graveyard).
I currently don't have time to be precise about the numbers that would support this, but I'm certain that Fetch Lands and Risky Bet will surely increase this "deck-thinning rate" (for lack of a better term) significantly (relative to the usual rate at which Burn is able to do this), given that Burn traditionally does not concern itself too much with these effects/functions.
I'll try to post some figures on this when I can (likely to be when I start testing Risky Bet for myself).
Cheers,
jares
With Risky Bet is it worth reducing creatures even more in this deck? The more VCA we get the better right?
I would say yes, but I only run 4 now anyway, 4 Hellsparks.
It really depends on how much you're willing to bet on Risky Bet. Hehe
I personally wouldn't like Risky Bet to affect how I would configure the rest of my deck, at least not too much. Currently, I'm not even sure if I would use the card, but it at least looks like something worth testing. Others have already done their testing, and the results look like they're worth looking into.
I've noted somewhere that increasing the number of 1cc cards in the deck would lessen the probability of having Risky Bet cause a Tempo Loss, so maybe this should also be taken into consideration alongside the idea of lessening the number of creatures. RogueBuild's configuration is unique (essentially not running any creatures), and would seem to be the best way to explore your line of thinking further, so you might want to consult with him regarding his philosophy and play style. For the more generic Burn build, though, lessening the number of creatures will surely affect the early-game consistency, so this will have to be thought-through more carefully.
Kind Regards,
jares
There is a Legacy daily tonight in 3 hours, 20 minutes (11:30pm EST). Here is my list, any suggestions?
Sorceries:
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
Instants:
4 Price of Progress
4 Magma Jet
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Fireblast
Creatures:
4 Keldon Marauders
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Goblin Guide
Lands:
14 Mountain
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Barbarian Ring
Sideboard:
3 Pithing Needle
3 Red Elemental Blast
3 Smash to Smithereens
3 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Volcanic fallout
Last edited by AlmostGrown; 04-24-2012 at 09:22 PM. Reason: thoughts
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
