All B/R update speculation.

[Lemnear]

If I didn't feel like having already put far too much time into the data, I'd calculate pure MTGO statistics and 150+ player paper events seperately, just to see how they differ. I wouldn't be surprised if Miracles is 20%+ of the online metagame, by just looking at Top4 data of the last 50 dailies

[nedleeds]

I think those two are by far the two most important, one might even argue the only important stages. Everything else isn't really important. Something does well in a 30 person tournament? Whatever.

Post SCG support dropping, that's 99.5% of the Legacy currently being played. So by inference 99.5% of Legacy doesn't matter. Even Classics now are basically never cresting 7 rounds. Eternal Magic when reflected against Magic as competitive enterprise doesn't matter, and Competitive Magic as a means of earning money when reflected against anything else you could be doing with your time doesn't matter.

[Lemnear]

Post SCG support dropping, that's 99.5% of the Legacy currently being played. So by inference 99.5% of Legacy doesn't matter. Even Classics now are basically never cresting 7 rounds. Eternal Magic when reflected against Magic as competitive enterprise doesn't matter, and Competitive Magic as a means of earning money when reflected against anything else you could be doing with your time doesn't matter.

Didn't knew MKM stopped their Tournament Series, BoM Team stopped operating and WotC dismissed their GPs so SCG is the only Legacy Tournament organizer worldwide....

[Julian23]

...not to mention Ovinogeddon, Prague Eternal, the now two Eternal Weekends, all the 100-200+ people tournaments in Spain and the regular 300 player events in Japan. And that's only the one's I'm aware of from the top of my head. The Legacy meta is so much larger than whatever data you get from just SCG.

On another note, Randy just found Miracles:

[Sidneyious]

Well for one using your data, delver decks have a combined share of more than miracles. So delver has a greater dominance.

Outside of the usual results you can find there are by far more popular decks than what we see.

Now can we get back to speculation and not "dominance" numbers that we don't fully have?

[HSCK]

Well for one using your data, delver decks have a combined share of more than miracles. So delver has a greater dominance.

Outside of the usual results you can find there are by far more popular decks than what we see.

Now can we get back to speculation and not "dominance" numbers that we don't fully have?

This is by far the worst analysis of legacy I've ever seen here. It totally ignores everything actually happening in tournaments.

[Stuart]

On another note, Randy just found Miracles:

Isn't this the same dude who bitches about how un-fun it is for Shops to lock you out of games?

[Megadeus]

Yeah. He demonized shops because of how fun it was. And pretty much acknowledged miracles needs a ban bit it's all good because he likes it

[Dice_Box]

Yeah. He demonized shops because of how fun it was. And pretty much acknowledged miracles needs a ban bit it's all good because he likes it

I feel like Homer in the tree house of horrors The Shining episode:
"Urge to Rant, Rising. "

[Stevestamopz]

I can almost smell the greed and grease emanating from his piggy fingers.

[CabalTherapy]

Post SCG support dropping, that's 99.5% of the Legacy currently being played. So by inference 99.5% of Legacy doesn't matter. Even Classics now are basically never cresting 7 rounds. Eternal Magic when reflected against Magic as competitive enterprise doesn't matter, and Competitive Magic as a means of earning money when reflected against anything else you could be doing with your time doesn't matter.

(Edited... fck me, I didn't want to post in here again.)
Your classic got 9 rounds yesterday.

[Lemnear]

Well for one using your data, delver decks have a combined share of more than miracles. So delver has a greater dominance.

Outside of the usual results you can find there are by far more popular decks than what we see.

Now can we get back to speculation and not "dominance" numbers that we don't fully have?

Do yourself a big favor and stop this. You make yourself look like a clown unable to juggle data.

[dte]

Excuse my ignorance, how did you get the win rate number? Is it something you calculated, if so how? Or is it somewhere located on mtgtop8 that I can't seem to find?

OMFG why I never think to do this? You're a genius!


This is easy. A deck's rank in the top8 tells you exactly how many matches it has won and how many it has lost. 5th-8th place have a 0-1 record (0% win-rate). 3rd & 4th are 1-1 (50%). 2nd is 2-1 (66.6%), and 1st is 3-0 (100%).

You can't just average the win rates from each top8 though; count every match. eg, A deck that makes 3rd place (50%) one week and 1st (100%) the next has an overall 80% win-rate - not a 75% win rate!

Thanks for the "genius" (auto-infatuation pushed me to quote it).
And you are close for the win rate. But the reality is I counted by matches:
- 1st place equal 3 matches, 3 wins;
- 2nd place equal 3 matches, 2 wins;
- 3-4th places equal 2 matches, 1 win;
- 5-8th places equal 1 match, 0 win.

You sum it up and have your win percentage. I redid my analysis with all the 50+ players events that took place in 2016 for which top8 is recorded in mtgtop8.
It gave 58 placings:
6 first positions;
6 nd
17 3-4
29 5-8.

99 matchs, 47 wins. 47.5 % winrate.

Miracle win about half of its matches. Statistics is not big enough to be trusted more precisely, but shows a pretty even result.
But this should not be interpreted as "miracle is not dominant", it is the most represented deck. And so the one which take the most top8 shares. And seeing that on internet, the most picked deck for going to an event.

An 51.67% winrate in the Top8 against D&T, Lands, Infect and Grixis as the other DtBs (in the last months), which we consider more or less bad matchup for Miracles, isn't something you would call busted?

Very strange analysis, it is busted because it performs at about 50% winrate against the metagame?

Well for one using your data, delver decks have a combined share of more than miracles. So delver has a greater dominance.

You can say that. It depends how much you consider decks to be similar. If we were splitting miracle decks in different categories and not differentiating between delver flavours, you would be right.
Truth is, miracle is using a very particular approach, and when you face it, it is a very different match than against most things. It is a game against miracle. While facing delver can involve chocking on manadenial like versus D&T, DRS calculations, combat calculations,... It is a more classic legacy game.

[Lemnear]

Very strange analysis, it is busted because it performs at about 50% winrate against the metagame?

"Top8" does not equal "metagame", mind that. "About to 50% winrate" in the T8 can be busted depending on the actual distribution of opposing decks we can get from DtB data. ~50% winrate has a very different value depending on if you achieve that against Lands/D&T/etc or against Jund/Storm.

You can say that. It depends how much you consider decks to be similar. If we were splitting miracle decks in different categories and not differentiating between delver flavours, you would be right.
Truth is, miracle is using a very particular approach, and when you face it, it is a very different match than against most things. It is a game against miracle. While facing delver can involve chocking on manadenial like versus D&T, DRS calculations, combat calculations,... It is a more classic legacy game.

You can NOT say this, because it has ZERO relation with the performance of the deck. It's like claiming Affinity is dominant with 25% metagame presence just because two players joined your local 8-man tournament with their Modern Affinity decks

[dte]

"Top8" does not equal "metagame", mind that.

Really? Most metagames I have seen, being big journeys or locals, reflect quite well the deck distribution on mtgtop8.
So I use this as a reflection of the metagame, and it is what I consider to build decklists and sideboards.

"About to 50% winrate" in the T8 can be busted depending on the actual distribution of opposing decks we can get from DtB data. ~50% winrate has a very different value depending on if you achieve that against Lands/D&T/etc or against Jund/Storm.

As it was all the decks which have reached a top8 in 2016 at any 50+ players event recorded in mtgtop8, I would say it was somehow representative of the general metagame. The fact is, that miracle is represented enough that its bad MUs have more chances to enter top8 than decks that have a poor miracle MU so I would agree that there is a minor twist here, but not a warping one.

You can NOT say this, because it has ZERO relation with the performance of the deck. It's like claiming Affinity is dominant with 25% metagame presence just because two players joined your local 8-man tournament with their Modern Affinity decks

That's something you often do, trying to use reductio ad absurdum by claiming that two propositions are similar, while they aren't.
Claiming that Delver variants taken as a whole partake a bigger chunk of the metagame than miracle, taking into account every bit of metagame data that is available, has not much to do with the results of a single 8-man journey.

[Lemnear]

Really? Most metagames I have seen, being big journeys or locals, reflect quite well the deck distribution on mtgtop8.
So I use this as a reflection of the metagame, and it is what I consider to build decklists and sideboards.

The topic of the last three pages was that Top8 data do NOT equal metagame deck distribution. Thats the reason for the buzz and is a prove that dedicated deckbuilding/sideboarding for Miracles is NOT effective, otherwise the deck wouldn't have such an overall and T8 specific performance.

As it was all the decks which have reached a top8 in 2016 at any 50+ players event recorded in mtgtop8, I would say it was somehow representative of the general metagame. The fact is, that miracle is represented enough that its bad MUs have more chances to enter top8 than decks that have a poor miracle MU so I would agree that there is a minor twist here, but not a warping one.

If you want to argue with decks which prey for Miracles, you also need to look at how Miracles performs against them in the later rounds and T8 of a tournament. The point is, that we can't really see any significant effect of these decks in regards to Miracles performance statistics.

That's something you often do, trying to use reductio ad absurdum by claiming that two propositions are similar, while they aren't.
Claiming that Delver variants taken as a whole partake a bigger chunk of the metagame than miracle, taking into account every bit of metagame data that is available, has not much to do with the results of a single 8-man journey.

Sidneyious claims that a sheer metagame presence of a deck automatically makes it dominant, no matter if we see any if the decks present in T8/16/32 statistics and previously denies statistical evidence in regards to Miracles position based on his local metagame. This is absurd. Delver is 16,8% of the metagame (online+paper) while Miracles is ~18% (online+paper), so he plain lied that Delver has a higher metagame share than Miracles and you can see it with just one fucking look at MtgTop8 data. On top of that it made 6 out of 40 Top8 spots in the last 5 mayor events listed on the page. That makes less Top8 placings than it should have according to metagame share

[dte]

The topic of the last three pages was that Top8 data do NOT equal metagame deck distribution. Thats the reason for the buzz and is a prove that dedicated deckbuilding/sideboarding for Miracles is NOT effective, otherwise the deck wouldn't have such an overall and T8 specific performance.

I didn't reply to that because I think like Julian that it's kinda irrelevant what happens in local metagames.
I mean, don't get me wrong, it is relevant in our dayly playing experience, but what you can share with the worldwide internet community about your half-infect metagame (for exemple)?

Here, on a global thread,

If you want to argue with decks which prey for Miracles, you also need to look at how Miracles performs against them in the later rounds and T8 of a tournament. The point is, that we can't really see any significant effect of these decks in regards to Miracles performance statistics.

Once again, my experience of playing is that top8 metagame is quite close to global metagame. And if you do not lose your firsts couple of rounds, it gets closer and closer.
I do not think I often see a tournament with less than 15-20% miracle players registering. It is a common deck to be seen.

Sidneyious claims that a sheer metagame presence of a deck automatically makes it dominant, no matter if we see any if the decks present in T8/16/32 statistics and previously denies statistical evidence in regards to Miracles position based on his local metagame. This is absurd. Delver is 16,8% of the metagame (online+paper) while Miracles is ~18% (online+paper), so he plain lied that Delver has a higher metagame share than Miracles and you can see it with just one fucking look at MtgTop8 data. On top of that it made 6 out of 40 Top8 spots in the last 5 mayor events listed on the page. That makes less Top8 olacing than it should have accorsing to metagame share

I don't know what you call "dominant". The word has different meanings, and here it can be seen as the concentration (or representation), or as the efficiency (or winrate). Clearly, miracles and delver are dominant if you speak about representation.
The efficiency is something to look at if you want to chose which deck you want to play.
The representation is something to look at to know how to properly build your 75+.
Whatever is something to look at if you want to whine. Anybody can find a good reason.

[Lemnear]

The point is that metagame presence only is no indicator of if a deck is good in the metagame or not. You get that only if you set the metagame representation into context with the actual results (T8/16/32). It isn't hard to compare the Delver supertype to Miracles as I have presented the numbers already for both. Miracles has ~21% of T8 with ~16% metagame share (paper only) aka 35% overperformance and Delver (online+paper) 16,8% metagame share and 16,3% T8 spots which means that Dever UNDERPERFORMS according to the very small dataset of the last 5 mayor events

[dte]

The point is that metagame presence only is no indicator of if a deck is good in the metagame or not.

I agree that presence is different than efficiency, and separated the two concepts in my previous post. As representation is something that is already easily and readily accessible, althought through minor biases, the discussion is mostly about how to determine efficiency.

You get that only if you set the metagame representation into context with the actual results (T8/16/32). It isn't hard to compare the Delver supertype to Miracles as I have presented the numbers already for both. Miracles has ~21% of T8 with ~16% metagame share (paper only) aka 35% overperformance and Delver (online+paper) 16,8% metagame share and 16,3% T8 spots which means that Dever UNDERPERFORMS according to the very small dataset of the last 5 mayor events

I would say that your dataset is too small to allow any relevant conclusion. 5 events?
I would suggest that you redo the exact same analysis with the 5 previous events, and then with the 5 previous one.

If you cannot (or do not have the time to do so, which would be understandable), give us the percentage for each of these 5, for us to see how your data have to be trusted.

If all your results are consistent, it is very interesting data indeed. If not, it would be nice from you to report so.

[jmlima]

...This is absurd. Delver is 16,8% of the metagame (online+paper) while Miracles is ~18% (online+paper), so he plain lied that Delver has a higher metagame share than Miracles and you can see it with just one fucking look at MtgTop8 data. ...

Actually... if you go to MTGgoldfish and sum up all Delver variants for the Leagues in August, there are more of them than there are Miracles.