Suppose we have a metagame with two decks: for the sake of exposition, let’s call them Mardu Vehicles and Janky Rogue Brew (Replace Mardu Vehicles with CoCo, or CawBlade, or Bloodbraid Elf aggro, or Mono Black Devotion, etc etc, to discover why I never play Standard.)
Let’s say you are planning on attending a tournament, and are trying to decide which deck to bring. For each deck, let’s assume that you can calculate (based on historical data, playtesting, etc) the match win probability of that deck against the field.
Obviously, if you play a mirror match, your match win probability is 50%. The only additional data you need is how likely Mardu Vehicles is to beat the Janky Rogue Brew: if Vehicles is an 80% favorite, then you also know that the rogue deck has only a 20% chance of beating Vehicles.
We can summarize the probabilities in a matrix:
MarduVehicles | RogueBrew | |
---|---|---|
MarduVehicles | 0.5 | 0.8 |
RogueBrew | 0.2 | 0.5 |
The way to read this table is to find the deck you are considering playing on the left, then look up the column of the deck that you will be playing against. We can call this 2x2 matrix of win probabilities P.
The other piece of metagame information we need is how many people will be playing each deck. We can encode this information in a vector, say (0.9,0.1), representing a hypothetical metagame where 90% of people are currently playing Vehicles, and 10% are playing the Jank Brew. Let’s call this metagame breakdown vector m.
Finally we can calculate our expectation to win a game with each deck: w=Pm. In this case we will get (0.53, 0.23).
This makes sense: if we play Vehicles, we have a very high (90%) chance of playing a mirror match, and in that case, whether or not we win is a tossup. The other 10% of the time, we will playing the Jank deck, and win almost every time. This bumps our overall chance to win a random game up slightly above 50%.
Now if we want to pick a deck for the tournament, our choice is clear (assuming we are using no other considerations beyond maximizing our match win probability): play Vehicles.
Of course, we are not the only players going through this exact exercise: others will observe the same facts we did (that it is far better, for maximizing win probability, to play Vehicles than the Jank deck). Thus two things will happen over time: first, players will switch decks, and m will change. Second, players will innovate, and modify their decks, or perhaps brew an entirely new deck to prey on both existing decks. In this section, we will analyze only the first effect: the change in the metagame composition, assuming that the deck contents stay fixed.
We will need a slew of assumptions about player behavior to make this analysis: for example, we will assume that
and of course there are many potential objections to each of these assumptions! But let us forge ahead anyway, since we need some reasonable starting point for making our analysis.
If players have perfect information about the metagame, they can look at the vector w and draw the following conclusions: if they are already playing Vehicles, they are already playing the best deck, and have no reason to change decks. If they are playing the Jank deck, they notice that they can strictly increase their win probability by dropping Jank and picking up Vehicles. Therefore over time, there will be a shift in players away from Jank and towards Vehicles. This shift will continue until either (i) all players are playing Vehicles, or (ii) both decks have the same match win probability, i.e., 1/2, in which case all players are happy with their deck choice and do not change.
Let us call a metagame (P,m) where all players are happy with their current deck an equilibrium metagame. We can characterize such a metagame mathematically as one where
The decks with m_i=0 are those that have been extirpated from the metagame due to being too poor against the rest of the field. Let us call such decks dominated. Every non-dominated deck must have a win probability of exactly 1/2, otherwise everyone would switch to a better deck with a higher win percentage. The last condition, that m_i >= 0, encodes the fact that the fraction of the metagame occupied by a deck cannot be negative.
Computing the equilibrium metagame is not so trivial (it is a type of quadratic programming problem called a linear complementarity problem (LCP), and as far as I can tell a nasty one at that, since the matrix P is not symmetric) but the code below does so, essentially by checking for every possible set of dominated decks and solving for a possible equilibrium with those decks dominated. If I run the code on the Vehicles, for example, it is obvious that Vehicles dominates the Jank brew, and indeed I get that the equilibrium metagame is
Equilibrium Metagame:
MarduVehicles 100%
RogueBrew 0%.
Perhaps more interesting is applying the code to the Vintage metagame described in Eberhart's P9 results. We get
Equilibrium Metagame:
Shops 24.9007%
Eldrazi 24.4953%
Dredge 8.3284%
Combo 20.9646%
Oath 6.50955%
BigBlue 10.6315%
Mentor 0%
BlueControl 0%
Other 4.16994%
which says that, according to the P9 win percentages, it is incorrect to play Mentor(!!!). Of course it is easy to explain away this conclusion: the win percentages in Eberhart's data are not very robust (Mentor doesn't really have a 0% win probability against Dredge and Combo, for instance), weaker players tend to play the most popular deck, depressing Mentor's win statistics, etc. But it's a starting point if you want to play around with how altering the win percentages of decks against each other alters the expected metagame balance. For instance, it is possible to observe several counterintuitive effects:
Here is the code if you want to try yourself. You will need the Eigen linear algebra library. The code expects the first line of the input to be the number N of decks in the metagame, followed by N lines of N+1 columns each, where each line begins with the deck name (one word, no spaces) followed by N floating-point numbers listing the win percentage of the deck against the field (including itself).
#include <Eigen/Core>
#include <Eigen/Dense>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
bool hasEquilibrium(const Eigen::MatrixXd &P, int dominated, Eigen::VectorXd &result)
{
int ndecks = P.rows();
result.resize(ndecks);
int idx = 0;
vector<int> idxmap;
while (dominated > 0)
{
if (dominated % 2 == 1)
{
idxmap.push_back(idx);
}
idx++;
dominated /= 2;
}
int subdecks = idxmap.size();
Eigen::MatrixXd subP(subdecks, subdecks);
for (int i = 0; i < subdecks; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < subdecks; j++)
{
subP(i, j) = P(idxmap[i], idxmap[j]);
}
}
Eigen::VectorXd rhs(subdecks);
rhs.setConstant(0.5);
Eigen::FullPivHouseholderQR<Eigen::MatrixXd> solver(subP);
Eigen::VectorXd sol = solver.solve(rhs);
if ((subP*sol - rhs).norm() > 1e-8)
{
cerr << "Warning: linear solve failed on domination strategy " << dominated << endl;
}
for (int i = 0; i < subdecks; i++)
{
if (sol[i] < 1e-8)
return false;
}
result.setZero();
for (int i = 0; i < subdecks; i++)
{
result[idxmap[i]] = sol[i];
}
Eigen::VectorXd candidate = P*result;
for (int i = 0; i < ndecks; i++)
{
if (candidate[i] - 0.5 > 1e-8)
return false;
}
return true;
}
int main()
{
int ndecks;
cin >> ndecks;
if (ndecks < 1)
{
cerr << "Error: you must provide at least one deck win percentage to analyze" << endl;
return -1;
}
if (ndecks > 30)
{
cerr << "Error: too many decks" << endl;
return -1;
}
if (ndecks > 18)
{
cerr << "Warning: this analysis runs in exponential time. It may take quite a while to process a metagame with " << ndecks << " decks" << endl;
}
Eigen::MatrixXd P(ndecks, ndecks);
vector<string> names;
for (int i = 0; i < ndecks; i++)
{
string name;
cin >> name;
names.push_back(name);
for (int j = 0; j < ndecks; j++)
{
double winpercent;
cin >> winpercent;
P(i,j) = winpercent;
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < ndecks; i++)
{
for (int j = i; j < ndecks; j++)
{
if (fabs(P(i, j) + P(j, i) - 1.0) > 1e-8)
{
cerr << "Warning: entries (" << i+1 << ", " << j+1 << ") and (" << j+1 << ", " << i+1 << ") don't sum to one!" << endl;
}
}
}
// check for all possible sets of dominated decks
for (int dominated = 1; dominated < (1 << ndecks); dominated++)
{
Eigen::VectorXd breakdown;
if (hasEquilibrium(P, dominated, breakdown))
{
cout << "Equilibrium Metagame:" << endl;
for (int i = 0; i < ndecks; i++)
{
cout << names[i] << " " << 100*breakdown[i] << '%' << endl;
}
}
}
}
EDIT: A few words about the next steps:
More reliable data is needed to fill out the match win probability matrix for the current set of Vintage archetypes. I used the P9 data as quick way to get started, but a single-digit number of games is woefully inadequate for determining the match win probability of two decks against each other.
Now it is possible to play around with the data: you can simulate the effect of adding a new printing, or restricting a card, by adjusting the win probabilities between decks, and/or adding new decks to the metagame. Of course estimating the effect of restrictions etc. on match win percentage is not an exact science (unless somebody is willing to do a lot of playtesting), but what the program above will allow you to do is to quantify the exact and often counterintuitive relationship between changes in match win percentage and changes in metagame balance. "Restriction Gush will actually help Mentor" is the kind of claim that can be tested, for instance.
@ChubbyRain I promise you I'm not. The hypothetical 20 player tourney was taken straight from top 8 finish percentages. You will likely get slightly more rogueiness in a live field, but not much. Maybe you play 1 to .5 rogue decks more than that hypothetical field. What I am assuming, is that people would like to stroll into their actual tourney on Saturday and cash. (A big assumption. Some people don't and will tell you they don't care, which is cool.) So to do that, you should look at your actual metagame and beat that, rather than the overall metagame where you "get crushed" if you mainboard shops hate... something I don't believe anyway.
]]>20 decks in a tourney, 6 Shops, 2 Eldrazi, 1 Oath, 10 other blue decks and then you. (That's just going by the macroscopic data. I'm sure there is a card shop on the Atlantic Coast somewhere, in which you could find 10 Shops decks in a field of 20) If you play 6 matches on the day, you'll play 3 against blue 2.5 against Shops, and .5 against something else... roughly. Assuming that the tourney pairs winning decks together for ensuing rounds, and assuming that the inbread blue decks tend to lose to Shops, then you might actually see more Shops on the day.
A deck that can go 50/50 against blue and crush shops looks pretty good in that environment. If you can win early in the tourney against a couple tempo mentor decks, you likely take home some nice prize money. Interestingly, a deck that is 50/50 against Shops and crushes blue (I think the creation of this deck is actually much hard though) would also be a killer deck in these tourneys.
]]>P.S. How often do you win or top X your local events?
]]>In your example even, 5ish people out of 20 would be on shops. I'd guess most others would be on blue. So most of those blue decks will metagame against each other, and then presumably shops stomps on all the inbred blue decks (using this as an example, of course not all events go this way but you'd be silly to build your deck to beat the minority in the room).
]]>For the life of me I've never understood why players don't just decide to crush certain kinds of decks that they know they will run into.
Because no matter how powerful shops is (or is deemed to be), the majority of the Vintage playerbase will always play blue-based decks. So you're asking to get crushed in any tournament if you played a deck with the cards listed above since the majority will be blue players.
So actually that is precisely what people do with their decks and why Misstep, Flusterstorm and such are played in the maindeck, despite being dead versus shops. It's to beat other blue decks that they know they'll face.
]]>For the life of me I've never understood why players don't just decide to crush certain kinds of decks that they know they will run into.
]]>Someone needs to tell the Northeast that Workshops need to be scarce.
We can handle that. Just starting playing:
4x ingot chewer
4x ancient grudge
4x dack fayden
4x fragmentize
4x pithing needle
4x shattering spree
in every deck. They'll get the message. haha
]]>So assuming we all agree that Vintage is not really a one-deck format, there are a few possible explanations for the above data:
The format's best players play Shops, and its worst play decks that prey on Shops, so that the win percentage of Shops against its predators is not accurately reflected in tournament results;
Even though Shops as a whole has a winning match percentage against all other archetypes as a whole, individual builds of Shops are weak against individual builds of, say, Big Blue, and this finer-grained relationship between the decks is not captured in the aggregate data.
Fascinating and great posts. There's always: Few people can afford the cost of Workshops. This puts a cap on the number of players who can play the deck, so discourages others from adjusting their decks to beat it, and so it lets the few Workshop players do disproportionately well. What happens if we create a rock-paper-scissors metagame (with the favorable matchups being, say, 60-40) but only let 10% of the people play rock instead of the one-third we’d expect?
That 10% plays rock. 90% play scissors. Rock has a great win percentage, but only because it’s too rare to justify anyone playing paper.
Or, as mentioned, players are not very good at recognizing or switching to the best decks so even if there's a current best deck not everyone switches to it, so it's not worthwhile to build a deck so targeted against it.
An old but relevant post: http://www.archive.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=21004.msg334559#msg334559
"The price and rarity of Workshops means that Workshop decks are going to be scarce at most sanctioned events (except GenCon and other huge tournaments). This results in Workshop decks not appearing commensurate to their power and makes metagaming against them more difficult."
I had the same thought, which is why I wanted to look at the change in metagame breakdowns to see exactly what percent of people switch decks as opposed to tweaking their current one.
I plotted the metagame breakdowns from the P9 Challenges since October and the common trend seems to be that an increase in percentage of metagame share for a particular archetype was almost always followed by a decrease the following month and vice versa. There was only one instance in which a deck (Oath) saw a continued decrease in metagame share over two consecutive events.
]]>I discussed this a bit with Matt and the assumption that winrates are static is what's giving a lopsided equilibrium in this state. Realistically speaking the higher proportion a deck is of the metagame the more people will tune their deck to beat it. This is why we see so many pyroblasts in a metagame where 60%+ of decks are blue. Note that I'm not criticizing what you did: I think it's interesting and it's also unclear how (or minimally a pain) to model tuning decks.
One thing you can do is to introduce a new hypothetical deck to the metagame with adjusted win percentages. These percentages are inevitably going to be to some extent hypothetical, but for example, say you added a tuned Gush deck with artifact hate, which boosted the matchup against Shops to 55% at the cost of 5% less effectiveness against other blue decks:
10
Shops 0.5 0.567398 0.604167 0.527473 0.580645 0.649485 0.511905 0.601504 0.655738 0.45
Gush 0.432602 0.5 0.458824 0.539326 0.557971 0.573964 0.553073 0.517647 0.549669 0.55
Dredge 0.395833 0.541176 0.5 0.557377 0.642857 0.377049 0.446429 0.38961 0.490196 0.54
BigBlue 0.472527 0.460674 0.442623 0.5 0.40625 0.588235 0.403226 0.473684 0.571429 0.51
BlueControl 0.419355 0.442029 0.357143 0.59375 0.5 0.571429 0.5625 0.475 0.73913 0.48
Combo 0.350515 0.426036 0.622951 0.411765 0.428571 0.5 0.446429 0.461538 0.565217 0.48
Oath 0.488095 0.446927 0.553571 0.596774 0.4375 0.553571 0.5 0.505618 0.545455 0.45
Eldrazi 0.398496 0.482353 0.61039 0.526316 0.525 0.538462 0.494382 0.5 0.561404 0.49
Other 0.344262 0.450331 0.509804 0.428571 0.26087 0.434783 0.454545 0.438596 0.5 0.45
GushPrime 0.55 0.45 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.52 0.55 0.51 0.55 0.5
You get
Shops 29.8689%
Gush 29.8689%
Dredge 0%
BigBlue 0%
BlueControl 0%
Combo 0%
Oath 0%
Eldrazi 0%
Other 0%
GushPrime 40.2621%
Now the new Gush deck (and its original, Shops-soft variant, which preys on the Shops-hardened version) take up 70% of the metagame. With enough match data about different variants of the different decks, presumably these percentage adjustments could be made less hypothetical.
]]>I actually think it's entirely possible that vintage is a 'one deck format'. There are many ,many reasons for this, here are just a few off the top of my head:
We can't assume that everyone has perfect information. With the advent of MODO vintage and analyses like this one, we are trending towards more information, but it is far from perfect. Some players still show up with outdated decks. And I'd argue most don't know the 'win percentage' of archetype A vs. Archetype B.
We can't assume everyone is a rational player, whose sole goal is to win. People have deck and play style preferences that push them towards sub-optimal strategies. Some play to have fun, so winning is secondary.
Another hypothesis is it is much easier to 'screw up' playing blue than shops, i.e. blue decks have a larger decision tree and therefore also more opportunities to make mistakes. Given that most vintage players are fairly casual and are not on the pro tour/grand prix/scg tour grind, they are more likely to make mistakes when on a blue deck.
I don't know if there's a solution to this problem outside of more restrictions. The power of shops since printing of lock pieces started in Mirridon has always been that even if you packed a metric ton of hate, you still lose if you can't cast any of them. That problem still exists and will continue to exist as long as there are turn 1 spheres powered out by workshops. We know workshops are not going anywhere, so that leaves thorn or sphere, both of which seem way to underpowered to be restricted.
P.S. Frank Karsten wrote an excellent article examining what makes a good constructed format using game theory, highly recommend everyone to read!: https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/what-can-game-theory-tell-us-will-make-a-good-constructed-format/
]]>I discussed this a bit with Matt and the assumption that winrates are static is what's giving a lopsided equilibrium in this state. Realistically speaking the higher proportion a deck is of the metagame the more people will tune their deck to beat it. This is why we see so many pyroblasts in a metagame where 60%+ of decks are blue. Note that I'm not criticizing what you did: I think it's interesting and it's also unclear how (or minimally a pain) to model tuning decks.
I'm rolling with the assumption that winrates are static for the remainder:
Since as mentioned before the conclusion that shop becomes 100% of the meta appears to depend on none of its winrates being below 50%. You'll notice in your first set of data that shops had a 40% winrate against oath but in the aggregate it had a record of 43-84, or ~51% winrate.
Because of this, a natural question is "how likely is it that shops really has a sub 50% winrate against oath?" The oath versus shops matchup is much discussed, since oath is in many people's eyes the deck to play if you expect a bunch of shops. I do not know much of any stats, but it's fun to learn, so I tried to figure this out. We have a binomial distribution, a sample of n=84 and a winrate of ~51% in the sample size. I had no idea how to figure this out, but based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_proportion_confidence_interval the first mentioned method seems reasonably accurate. Assuming I know how to use a z-table and didn't mess up the calculation, it's ~9% likely that shops has a sub 50% winrate against oath, which is lower than I expected. Anyone who actually knows stats should feel free to call me out for doing something stupid
]]>The format's best players play Shops, and its worst play decks that prey on Shops, so that the win percentage of Shops against its predators is not accurately reflected in tournament results;
Even though Shops as a whole has a winning match percentage against all other archetypes as a whole, individual builds of Shops are weak against individual builds of, say, Big Blue, and this finer-grained relationship between the decks is not captured in the aggregate data.
I have no idea how to correct for #1 (if it's even true), but #2 could be fixed by going back through Diophan and ChubbyRain's data and doing a more fine-grained taxonomy, splitting archetypes that contain multiple, strategically-varied builds.
I can try doing this, but as it represents a very significant time investment, I'd like to get your thoughts first about what taxonomy you consider reasonable: if you had to decompose the metagame over the past year into ~15 archetypes so that
decks with similar strategic roles in the metagame (and similar win percentage against other archetypes) are grouped into the same archetype;
decks with different strategic role, but similar core, are classed as different archetypes;
what groups would you pick?
]]>If your program and theory is good, then I guess it sort of reinforces what we all already know... Shops is the best
edit If you get a chance, can you add in some //comments . I'd like to try and trace the program but cannot decipher it.
Here is the code with more comments. I'm happy to explain if there are parts that are still confusing.
#include <Eigen/Core>
#include <Eigen/Dense>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
// Calculates whether the metagame is in equilibrium, given a matrix of win probabilities P and a set of dominated decks.
// 'dominated' is a bit field encoding whether each deck is present in the metagame, or hated out. A '0' in bit position
// i means that the deck is dominated (not present in the equilibrium metagame) and '1' means the deck is present.
//
// Returns true if an equilibrium exists given the set of dominated decks. If the equilibrium exists, the composition of
// the metagame is stored in 'result.'
bool hasEquilibrium(const Eigen::MatrixXd &P, int dominated, Eigen::VectorXd &result)
{
int ndecks = P.rows();
result.resize(ndecks);
// constructs a list of non-dominated decks. idxmap[i] is the ith non-dominated deck.
int idx = 0;
vector<int> idxmap;
while (dominated > 0)
{
if (dominated % 2 == 1)
{
idxmap.push_back(idx);
}
idx++;
dominated /= 2;
}
int subdecks = idxmap.size();
// Extracts from P the submatrix Pn corresponding to only the non-dominated decks.
Eigen::MatrixXd subP(subdecks, subdecks);
for (int i = 0; i < subdecks; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < subdecks; j++)
{
subP(i, j) = P(idxmap[i], idxmap[j]);
}
}
// solves Pn m = 0.5.
Eigen::VectorXd rhs(subdecks);
rhs.setConstant(0.5);
Eigen::FullPivHouseholderQR<Eigen::MatrixXd> solver(subP);
Eigen::VectorXd sol = solver.solve(rhs);
// check that the linear system did indeed get solved
if ((subP*sol - rhs).norm() > 1e-8)
{
cerr << "Warning: linear solve failed on domination strategy " << dominated << endl;
}
// the metagame composition m can fail to be an equilibrium metagame for several reasons:
// - it requires that one of the decks make up a negative proportion of the metagame;
// - it implies that one of the "dominated" decks has a >50% win percentage (in which
// case we were incorrect in labeling that deck as dominated.)
// check the first condition
for (int i = 0; i < subdecks; i++)
{
if (sol[i] < 1e-8)
return false;
}
// check the second. Calculate the win percentage of all decks, given P and m.
result.setZero();
for (int i = 0; i < subdecks; i++)
{
result[idxmap[i]] = sol[i];
}
Eigen::VectorXd candidate = P*result;
// check all win percentages are <= 50%.
// Of course for the non-dominated decks we will get a win percentage of exactly 50%
// so we only really care about what the value is for the dominated decks.
for (int i = 0; i < ndecks; i++)
{
if (candidate[i] - 0.5 > 1e-8)
return false;
}
return true;
}
int main()
{
// read in the number of decks
int ndecks;
cin >> ndecks;
if (ndecks < 1)
{
cerr << "Error: you must provide at least one deck win percentage to analyze" << endl;
return -1;
}
if (ndecks > 30)
{
cerr << "Error: too many decks" << endl;
return -1;
}
if (ndecks > 18)
{
cerr << "Warning: this analysis runs in exponential time. It may take quite a while to process a metagame with " << ndecks << " decks" << endl;
}
// read in deck names and win counts
Eigen::MatrixXd wins(ndecks, ndecks);
vector<string> names;
for (int i = 0; i < ndecks; i++)
{
string name;
cin >> name;
names.push_back(name);
for (int j = 0; j < ndecks; j++)
{
int nwins;
cin >> nwins;
wins(i,j) = nwins;
}
}
// contruct the win probability matrix from the win counts.
Eigen::MatrixXd P(ndecks, ndecks);
for (int i = 0; i < ndecks; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < ndecks; j++)
{
P(i, j) = double(wins(i, j)) / double(wins(i, j) + wins(j, i));
}
}
// check for all possible sets of dominated decks. Each integer from 1 to 2^{# decks} encodes a different set
// of possible dominated decks, where each '0' bit in the integer represents a dominated deck.
// Since it is impossible to have a metagame where all decks are dominated, we skip the dominated=0 case.
for (int dominated = 1; dominated < (1 << ndecks); dominated++)
{
Eigen::VectorXd breakdown;
if (hasEquilibrium(P, dominated, breakdown))
{
cout << "Equilibrium Metagame:" << endl;
for (int i = 0; i < ndecks; i++)
{
cout << names[i] << " " << 100*breakdown[i] << '%' << endl;
}
}
}
}
]]>If your program and theory is good, then I guess it sort of reinforces what we all already know... Shops is the best
edit If you get a chance, can you add in some //comments . I'd like to try and trace the program but cannot decipher it.
]]>The final matrix (of win counts this time, not win %; to calculate win percentage of deck i against deck j, compute M(i,j) / (M(i,j) + M(j,i))
9
Shops 96 181 58 48 36 63 43 80 40
Gush 138 354 78 96 77 97 99 132 83
Dredge 38 92 17 34 18 23 25 30 25
BigBlue 43 82 27 27 13 30 25 27 28
BlueControl 26 61 10 19 20 24 18 19 17
Combo 34 72 38 21 18 31 25 36 26
Oath 41 80 31 37 14 31 40 45 30
Eldrazi 53 123 47 30 21 42 44 49 32
Other 21 68 26 21 6 20 25 25 12
I plugged this data into my code and got the surprising result:
Equilibrium Metagame:
Shops 100%
Gush 0%
Dredge 0%
BigBlue 0%
BlueControl 0%
Combo 0%
Oath 0%
Eldrazi 0%
Other 0%
Sure enough, according to the aggregated match win data, Shops has a winning match percentage against the entire field... not sure what to make of this.
]]>