All B/R update speculation.

[Arsenal]

As the guy who ran the deck, this is not Maverick. It's just SCG being bad at deck names. It's Junk.

Sorry, didn't double check. I'll amend my list.

EDIT: Full Maverick data from thecouncil:

January 2013 - 10th out of 47 charted decks.

February 2013 - 11th out of 49 charted decks.

March 2013 - 9th out of 53 charted decks.

April 2013 - 7th out of 48 charted decks.

May 2013 - 8th out of 55 charted decks.

June 2013 - 5th out of 50 charted decks.

July 2013 - 12th out of 40 charted decks.

August 2013 - 7th out of 48 charted decks.

September 2013 - 10th out of 44 charted decks.

October 2013 - 13th out of 51 charted decks.

That averages to 9th place out of 49 charted decks from January-October 2013.

November 2013 - 8th out of 47 charted decks.

December 2013 - 18th out of 49 charted decks.

January 2014 - 23rd out of 38 charted decks.

That averages to 16th place out of 47 charted decks from November 2013-January 2014.

For anyone to claim that Maverick was "dead" pre-TNN... the data just doesn't show that. HSCK is fixated on only using Bob Huang's 129+ player data, but as I (and many, many others) have pointed out, narrowing the data pool to such an incredibly small sample size creates significantly higher variance than if you simply included all the data in the analysis. Read Page 311 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post787935) if you want to see HSCK get statistically bitch slapped, it's a pretty good read.

[HSCK]

For November on TC:

32 tournaments were under 30, roughly 40%.

For December on TC:

25 tournaments had under 30

7 had between 30-50

11 had between 50-100

10 had 100 or more.

That's almost half of the results you use as data for December under 30 players.

For January:

8 tournaments with over 50 players on TC

8 more between 30-50

9 with under 30, 9! But if you look at the graphs what comes up? All of it weighted the same. Please tell me how your data is the best and why it makes sense when your pool is so heavily populated by smaller tournaments?

[Namida]

Please tell me how your data is the best and why it makes sense when your pool is so heavily populated by smaller tournaments.

Can you direct me to the "best" data collected in December and January that this data is inferior to?

[FTW]

"Yes, what this format needs is a 3-mana Blue Progenitus... who can be equipped"
Stellar card design there.

Affinity has been doing that for days:
Etched Champion
Cranial Plating

3-mana progenitus seems good

[Zombie]

Affinity has been doing that for days:
Etched Champion
Cranial Plating

3-mana progenitus seems good

Not even remotely the same card, plus it only goes into one specific, quite lackluster shell.

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

Hope Show and Tell is gone when the next update comes around, and I wouldn't mind seeing TNN gone either. It would be nice to see Legacy go back to being a format in which half the games against Tier 1 decks weren't completely stupid.

As it stands, Legacy is in a bad place because bitching about it on The Source is much more fun than playing...truly the best barometer of format health.

[Darkenslight]

And where did Wild Nacatl fall when it was first banned?

Wizards felt that it was STUPID BULLSHIT. Which....turned out to be wrong.

And as for the datastreams 'debate' going on between Arsenal and HSCK, I would be interested in seeing the major differences between the two types of dataset over that period of time, because, well, that would be interesting.

[Barook]

And as for the datastreams 'debate' going on between Arsenal and HSCK, I would be interested in seeing the major differences between the two types of dataset over that period of time, because, well, that would be interesting.

I second this. Maverick wasn't too well-positioned since quite a while and of course it can do better in smaller tournaments where you have a higher chance to dodge problematic match-ups. Top 8s of Maverick in large tournament have been rather rare for quite a while now (and then it can mainly attributed to the deck expertise and skill said player has). When even Maverick veterans like e.g. Dayv Doberne dismiss the deck because it isn't well positioned anymore, you know what's up. And that was in the months before TNN.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Dayv Doberne

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOLMIApSbbI

[Barook]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOLMIApSbbI

So? He's a musician.

He sometimes streams Legacy as well: http://www.twitch.tv/sunyveil/profile

[Bed Decks Palyer]

So? He's a musician.

It surprised me. Two very distinct hobbies.

[catmint]

Can you direct me to the "best" data collected in December and January that this data is inferior to?

Not sure if there is. However, just because there is no optimal source of statistical data available does not mean we should just take what is there and call it "the truth". We end up like Arsenal harassing every second thread with TCdata claiming to know the absolute truth about the meta because of the January results (which are around 50% short of what is the usual amount of results contributed). Anyway, even if the results stay the same in January, there are also flukes and hypes, so the DTB list can easily go through another couple of major changes in the upcoming months. We've seen times where sneak was DTB#3-4, then one month it was out of DTB and suddenly it was back in the front. Also Team America has had some months in the top before it went back down again.

I am not saying that certain trends won't stick but people jump to very early conclusions before the meta has settled and there is enough data over a longer period of time to proof an actual trend.

[Arsenal]

The reason I use thecouncil (as does this very website) is to refute baseless and/or anecdotal claims. People were saying Jund is still a top tier deck and TNN didn't effect it in any way. I provided data that clearly showed otherwise. People were saying that TNN decks aren't that big of a deal and the meta is as diverse now as it was pre-TNN. Again, data I provided showed that is not the case.

When I make a statement on the meta, I at least provide data to support my position. Others rarely do. And I think I already responded to your "the meta is still in flux" position. Today is February 5th, 2014. TNN has been in Legacy since November 1st, 2013, and was spoiled well before that. That's a full three months for players to figure out how they plan on tackling the TNN issue. As the data has shown, players have figured out that playing with TNN is better than playing without it. As a result, you see former top tier decks sliding into irrelevancy and effectively being replaced with some flavor of SFM-TNN.

Also, I usually post data for Jan-Oct 2013 plus Nov 2013-Jan 2014 just to illustrate the difference between pre-TNN and post-TNN Legacy, not just Jan 2014 data. But how many more months do you need to finally acknowledge the shift? Another 3? 6? 9? When is the line drawn where the entire community can say, "Yep, that isn't good for the format"?
________________________________________________________________________

HSCK -

I agree, sub-33 player data is bad. If you'd like for me to parse those tourneys from my data, I will. However, even if I remove the "bad" 50%, that still leaves me with a much, much larger sample size to draw conclusions from than if I take only the top 10% of tourneys as you're doing (the 129+ players ones you cited from Bob Huang's articles) and try to draw conclusions from that. Does this finally make sense to you? The larger the sample size, the lower the variance...

[Julian23]

When is the line drawn where the entire community can say, "Yep, that isn't good for the format"?

I completly agree with your evaluation of TNN and would also rather see it gone. Regarding your above question though, drawing such a line is always going to be an arbitrary choice. So while you feel 3 month should be enough, I for example feel like 6 month is fair enough to eventually draw conclusions.

So looking at it as a competitor, I want to see TNN gone. But trying to look at it "from the outisde", I'm genuinely curious about what is going to happen in the metagame over the coming months.

[testing32]

I completly agree with your evaluation of TNN and would also rather see it gone. Regarding your above question though, drawing such a line is always going to be an arbitrary choice. So while you feel 3 month should be enough, I for example feel like 6 month is fair enough to eventually draw conclusions.

So looking at it as a competitor, I want to see TNN gone. But trying to look at it "from the outisde", I'm genuinely curious about what is going to happen in the metagame over the coming months.

I agree completely.

On another note you guys have got to start taking the tcdeck data with a grain of salt. It gives you an idea of what is happening but because of the recording of lower turnout tournaments and the backwards looking nature of the data. It's like looking at the S&P 500 to get a general idea about what the meta is doing. After a huge splash like TNN the beginning of the month looks very different than the end of the month.

If anyone looks at the direction of the meta and concluded that shardless, maverick, storm, jund or miracles was a good choice to bring to a large tournament after november I believe they are very poor at evaluating a deck choice for large events.

edit: and mav was a poor choice long b/f TNN showed up

[Einherjer]

Calling both Miracles and Jund bad choices shows that you are very poor (to take your words) at evaluating a decks strength, outside its data-realm.


Greetings

[testing32]

For a large event Miracles is a poor choice. Even if you are a fast player someone you're paired against isn't going to be. In addition, many rounds with a deck that isn't going to win with time left on the clock is not a great decision. That deck is much better suited for magic online and smaller events.

Jund is solidly tier 2 and doesn't run brainstorm. If I want to win an event I want to bring a deck that has been putting multiple copies into the top 16.

[Arsenal]

Calling both Miracles and Jund bad choices shows that you are very poor (to take your words) at evaluating a decks strength, outside its data-realm.


Greetings

Not too long ago, I provided data from the 5 most recent 129+ player tourneys (not just SCG Opens, I used international events too). Jund I believe had 1 Top 8/Top 16 showing in that time. SFM-TNN decks had something like 17 in that same time.

This was a couple weeks ago, so things may have changed in the 129+ player data subset, but I doubt it. Jund wasn't/isn't performing in the smaller tourneys nor in the larger events. Why is Jund a good choice right now?

[Einherjer]

For a large event Miracles is a poor choice. Even if you are a fast player someone you're paired against isn't going to be. In addition, many rounds with a deck that isn't going to win with time left on the clock is not a great decision. That deck is much better suited for magic online and smaller events.

Jund is solidly tier 2 and doesn't run brainstorm. If I want to win an event I want to bring a deck that has been putting multiple copies into the top 16.

You clearly have no fucking idea what you are talking about, Sir. I've been playing Miracles since close to two years and I've been drawing three times in this time frame. I've seen Delvermirrors ending in draws. Don't you tell me about it being Miracles fault. Yes, it's slow - and yes the player should be fast - but there are plenty of those capable. Just because you are not able to handle one to two Top-activations per turn in a time given does not conclude that nobody else can. If the opponent is slow, I call a judge.

Jund a tier2 deck? You aren't testing this format, are you? Jund dismembers TNN-Decks, its control-MU varies greatly upon build on both sides and it can handle Combo G2/3 while stealing lucky G1s. But if TNN is so prevelant its main duty is cutting them into pieces - which this deck is easily able to.

EDIT: To your sentence about Top16: Ah yeah... if a deck doesn't Top16 this goddamn SCG-Events it sucks, got it.

Greetings

[testing32]

Not too long ago, I provided data from the 5 most recent 129+ player tourneys (not just SCG Opens, I used international events too). Jund I believe had 1 Top 8/Top 16 showing in that time. SFM-TNN decks had something like 17 in that same time.

This was a couple weeks ago, so things may have changed in the 129+ player data subset, but I doubt it. Jund wasn't/isn't performing in the smaller tourneys nor in the larger events. Why is Jund a good choice right now?

You realize that with the current January data Jund has an outside shot of landing on the DTB section of this forum. Will this change your opinion of jund? It won't change mine.