|
That's interesting:
I've always thought the spread looked more like this.
Deck building: X%
Player execution: Y%
Variance: Z%
You build a deck that works 60% of the time
You have 15% variance depending on deck consistency (bad draws, mulligans, inconsistency etc...)
You have 15% variance from outside variables (metagame, opposing deck disruption, etc..)
You have 10% influence based on player execution.
Play perfectly with a good deck and you should do well 70% of the time.
Sub par deck? Drop the winrate, bad execution? Drop it some more.
Is your deck favored in the meta? That gives you up to 15% more. Bad meta? You lose almost 15% more
So top players will have about 70% base chance to win. 15% more if they predict the meta correctly, and up 15% more if the opponent was not ready for them.
|
On November 19 2014 10:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
That's interesting:
I've always thought the spread looked more like this.
Deck building: X%
Player execution: Y%
Variance: Z%
You build a deck that works 60% of the time
You have 15% variance depending on deck consistency (bad draws, mulligans, inconsistency etc...)
You have 15% variance from outside variables (metagame, opposing deck disruption, etc..)
You have 10% influence based on player execution.
Play perfectly with a good deck and you should do well 70% of the time.
Sub par deck? Drop the winrate, bad execution? Drop it some more.
Is your deck favored in the meta? That gives you up to 15% more. Bad meta? You lose almost 15% more
So top players will have about 70% base chance to win. 15% more if they predict the meta correctly, and up 15% more if the opponent was not ready for them.
The thing I don't agree with is that you can build a deck that works 60% of the time. 60% of the time at goldfishing maybe, but 60% of the time you win with a deck with format variance and card variance (and even matchup variance within the matchup, a perfectly fine draw that beats one deck could lose you the game against others.)
That and 70% seems to be out of nowhere, no pro has a game win rate that high lifetime in events, nobody. Like I said, the only skill involved in the game can be broken down into deck choice and execution, both of which account for maybe 20-30% of your actual win rate apart from outliers like playing a metagame deck at a lopsided tournament. The rest is variance. You could have the perfect deck for the tournament and 0-3 drop to poor draws, and it's not like that's a remote possibility.
The weird thing about skill in Magic is that low skill gives you a much greater chance at losing a winnable game than high skill has at winning a game you should lose. That, I believe, is the reason for the win rate gap between skilled and unskilled players, rather than skill having a lot more to do with winning than variance.
Basically this: The higher skilled you are, the more variance matters.
|
60% winrates is because that's what's needed to consistently win best 2 out of 3
Most decks perform well 2 out of 3.
10% is how much you can affect the game (even less than your 20%-30%)
15% is variance due to your deck's consistency. Belcher has bad variance, lands has good variance (for example)
15% extra is variance from what affects you. How easy is your deck to hate out? How easily is it disrupted? How ready is the metagame for you?
Put it all together and I'm saying that a perfect player playing perfect will have about 70% winrate +\- 30%
Add the fact that no deck is perfect and no player is perfect, on average top players will less than 70% winrate which matches player stats like Kai Budde's 64%
|
Clarification: My numbers are inherently abstract. I believe that decks do majority of the work at winning of losing any random best of 3, hence why a good deck is marked at 60%. Internal and external variables have more effect than player skill so I have them at 10% and 15% respectively so that all 3 variables easily fits in the remaining 40%
To me it's 60% deck choice, 40% variables.
Of that 40%, only 10% is player skill and 30% is "shit that happens"
Of that 30% half is stuff that happens to you and half is inherent weaknesses of the deck.
Just for clarification on why those numbers are what they are to me.
|
Just curious. Why do you lump metagame with variance? Isn't that something you can predict if you do enough research? (ie Matt Sperling's burn deck in PTM15 was a result of extremely good metagaming)
|
It gets even more interesting when you look at limited 
|
On November 19 2014 11:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Clarification: My numbers are inherently abstract. I believe that decks do majority of the work at winning of losing any random best of 3, hence why a good deck is marked at 60%. Internal and external variables have more effect than player skill so I have them at 10% and 15% respectively so that all 3 variables easily fits in the remaining 40%
To me it's 60% deck choice, 40% variables.
Of that 40%, only 10% is player skill and 30% is "shit that happens"
Of that 30% half is stuff that happens to you and half is inherent weaknesses of the deck.
Just for clarification on why those numbers are what they are to me.
My personal estimates are odds rather than probability and depend more on lines.
|
Most decks have too many meaningful choices to have player skill at only 10% who wins a game
|
yea I agree. 10% seems way too loose.
|
On November 20 2014 01:17 Whole wrote:
yea I agree. 10% seems way too loose.
Because it is.
Once again, it is under the assumption that the deck does most of the work and your lines of play only makes more efficient how well the deck works.
If you believe that player choices are much more relevant then let's discuss how we can quantify that. 60% I only go because I think of it as winning a best of 3, a parameter that does not have to be adhered to.
|
Hello, I'm playing in MTGO Standard Pauper Tournaments, since like 1 year, tournaments are free, and you can win cards, tix or credits, there are two weekly tournaments, on sunday and monday.
there are not much people, but very nice people, playing this format, tournaments are usually from 15 to 35 players.
Here the tournament website:
http://pdcmagic.com/
here my profile:
http://pdcmagic.com/gatherling/profile.php?player=GodZo
and here you can find some stats of more of 40 online tournaments:
http://standardpauperplayers.freeforums.org/theros-and-khans-of-tarkir-blocks-finalists-analysis-t110.html
the cost of Standard Pauper Format is like free (just the first 12 dollars for the account),
after I joined it, I didn't spent 1 cent, and I have 9 pauper full set collections.
|
UR Control is hilarious. And Greedy.
|
The list from the above hilarity.
+ Show Spoiler +4 Dig Through Time
4 Dissolve
3 Magma Jet
3 Magma Spray
3 Anger of the Gods
2 Steam Augury
3 Jace's Ingenuity
2 Polymorphous Jest
2 Swan Song
1 Negate
1 Narset, Enlightened Master
2 Keranos, God of Storms
2 Soul of Shandralar
8 Mountains
6 Islands
4 Temple of Epiphany
2 Shivan Reef
3 Swiftwater Cliffs
3 Mystic Monastery
Sideboard
2 Arc Lightning
2 Fated Conflageration
1 Pearl Lake Ancient
2 Chandra, Pyromaster
1 Magma Spray
2 Disdainful Stroke
2 Aetherspout
1 Negate
2 Goblin Rabblemaster
I like that 75, might end up taking Pearl Lake out for something else eventually. Unsure on the board as it's pretty messy and not really stream lined at all.
|
Would anyone be interested in playing some Cockatrice? I would mostly be looking to play Standard because there is a PTQ next month but I would be willing to do other stuff to. MTGO is ok but I have been bouncing around cards too much and it feels like 50 bucks every other day. PM me and maybe we can get some contact details exchanged.
|
On November 25 2014 04:30 .AK wrote:
Would anyone be interested in playing some Cockatrice? I would mostly be looking to play Standard because there is a PTQ next month but I would be willing to do other stuff to. MTGO is ok but I have been bouncing around cards too much and it feels like 50 bucks every other day. PM me and maybe we can get some contact details exchanged.
If you want to test on MWS sure, but you'll be playing against UB Vault strictly though 
|
After a few days (Thanksgiving break for college) I could get some games in on Cockatrice or MTGO. I play Jeskai Aggro (pretty stock list), but wouldn't be against playing some other archetypes
|
On November 19 2014 10:36 deth2munkies wrote:
That and 70% seems to be out of nowhere, no pro has a game win rate that high lifetime in events, nobody.
Actually, many pros do. I did the http://xamleeg.kavu.ru/ with Raph's (Lévy) account a few months ago when I was covering Bazaar of Moxen with him, and his match winrate was above 73%. My match winrate is at 63% and I'm pretty bad. I do agree game win-rate is usually lower, but I wouldn't be surprised if some pros managed to be over 70% for long periods of time (whene there's a deck they play particularly well).
I do think most pros have a lifetime events match win rates over 70% (I could ask Pierre Dagen or Jeremy Dezani to let me do it with their account).
|
Woohoo! Just got back from my LGS' Legacy evening. I won the event going 4-0 with my Legacy burn deck! The last time I attended (three weeks ago) I went 4-0 as well! These last two events were the first time I ever won in Legacy.
I won't lie, I'm pretty bad and luck definitely had a decent bit to do with it (gotta love goldfishing awesome burn hands), but it feels good!
|
ugh every deck in this Standard format feels like a pile of crap on the draw
if only any deck stuck out as not-garbage for this GP
|
Doing FNM with a homemade Abzan hydras should be interesting
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
