[Free Article] What Now



  • I figured since offering my two cents before the changes went so well I might as well offer them after. Hope you all enjoy!

    http://www.numotgaming.com/what-now/



  • Nice article. I'm pretty surprised with the Vintage Community Liaison team idea. I don't know if vintage can be simplified in 3 names, and there would be lots of candidates. For me those 3 names would be a fantastic idea, but I don't know how Wizards would answer to this proposal.



  • The last time a "liason" from Vintage went to visit WotC, we got a firmed up restricted list with no foil loophole.


  • Administrators

    @AmbivalentDuck I would be too biased to directly respond to Danny's idea - but I think it's important to note that there already ARE informal Vintage Community Liasons, in the sense that WotC employees ask players for advice about the format already. The difference is that the TMD and greater Vintage community has no voice in who is involved in this process.



  • I'm not opposed to you being a liaison. My concern is largely that formal elections would lend legitimacy to positions that are actually questionable. Take for example Steve's past contention that personal and financial investment in acquiring power helped the format. The future of Vintage is online BECAUSE he opened his mouth and said that. We could have foil Moxen and widespread sanctioned Vintage by now, but instead we get MTGO's crappy interface. It's a poorly written program and I'm sure that you or Rich could write better in your sleep.

    Any liaison also has an onus to appear reasonable and responsive to WotC's desires and concerns, but I think Vintage is clearly best served by "playtest cards" and "playtest tournaments" that make no sense for Wizards to tolerate from any other format. What's best for the format isn't necessarily what's best for the game or the company. Individual players whose investment is in appearing to understand the format have the freedom to advocate in favor of "playtest tournaments" and the like, but any formal group has to appear legitimate to both sides.



  • "They occupied basically the same percentage of the metagame as all of the Mishra’s Workshop decks combined"

    This statement is not true.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cj99OKyaTn7zLvyh3ONDmlBHkSNh0MIf0ZpEI22fsSM/edit#gid=1650014417 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cj99OKyaTn7zLvyh3ONDmlBHkSNh0MIf0ZpEI22fsSM/edit#gid=383122250 FYI.



  • @Smmenen Can you go into a little more detail about this? Your spreadsheets are only telling me exactly what I've been reading about: Shops is about the same as Mentor everywhere, except for online. I don't put much weight on online results because of how heavily skewed they are by individuals. I play online. I know that there aren't too many players online. Paper results have a dramatically higher impact on my perceptions.



  • Shops are 30% of Q1, 2016 Daily 3-1 or 4-0 decks, and 31% of Top 16, 33% of Top 8, 42% of Top 4, and 50% of Top 2 MTGO P9 challenge tournaments in Q1.

    Gush is 21% of Q1 Daily 3-1s or 4-0 decks, 21% of Top 16, 25% of Top 8, 33% of Top 4, and 17% of Top 8 MTGO P9 challenge tournaments in Q1.

    The statement that was made in this article is simply not true, that Gush decks are, in aggregate, performing about the same as Shops in aggregate. Gush decks are significantly behind Shops by almost every metric on MTGO results.

    If you don't want to "give weight" to MTGO results, that's fine. But it seems pretty obvious that Wizards does. I frankly think they should give weight to both.

    That said, I also believe that the single best data point every month is the P9 challenge as it is much larger than most paper events, more competitive with stronger players, and global. So to ignore MTGO seems foolish.

    As flawed as MTGO is, paper has many flaws as well, such as proxies, budget decks, etc. that don't exist to nearly the same extent on paper.

    I would very much like to know where the author of this article got his data.



  • Thank you for that Steve; manipulation (whether intentional or not) of relatively simple metrics seems to be a recurring theme when arguing against the most recent restriction. It's unfortunate we have to vet something within our own community that should be relatively transparent.



  • @Smmenen said:

    Shops are 30% of Q1, 2016 Daily 3-1 or 4-0 decks, and 31% of Top 16, 30% of Top 8, 42% of Top 4, and 50% of Top 2 MTGO P9 challenge tournaments in Q1.

    Gush is 21% of Q1 Daily 3-1s or 4-0 decks, 21% of Top 16, 22% of Top 8, 33% of Top 4, and 17% of Top 8 MTGO P9 challenge tournaments in Q1.

    The statement that was made in this article is simply not true, that Gush decks are, in aggregate, performing about the same as Shops in aggregate. Gush decks are significantly behind Shops by almost every metric on MTGO results.

    If you don't want to "give weight" to MTGO results, that's fine. But it seems pretty obvious that Wizards does. I frankly think they should give weight to both.

    That said, I also believe that the single best data point every month is the P9 challenge as it is much larger than most paper events, more competitive with stronger players, and global. So to ignore MTGO seems foolish.

    As flawed as MTGO is, paper has many flaws as well, such as proxies, budget decks, etc. that don't exist to nearly the same extent on paper.

    I would very much like to know where the author of this article got his data.

    The reason why I don't give too much weight to MTGO is because there are so few players playing it. If you look at the breakdown of how many players are playing Shops, how many are playing Gush, etc., you'll find that there might be less than 10 players on each archtype, representing the data on all of MTGO (note that this does NOT count P9 challenges, which are an entirely different beast than Dailies). I equate MTGO Daily data to a rough equivalent of a local metagame of 100 players. It's really not something that I would use to make broad conclusions on the format as a whole. That's why when I see that Gush and Shops are both 20% on paper, I take it that they're roughly equal in the metagame. I don't think that's unreasonable.



  • @DeaTh-ShiNoBi said:

    @Smmenen said:

    Shops are 30% of Q1, 2016 Daily 3-1 or 4-0 decks, and 31% of Top 16, 30% of Top 8, 42% of Top 4, and 50% of Top 2 MTGO P9 challenge tournaments in Q1.

    Gush is 21% of Q1 Daily 3-1s or 4-0 decks, 21% of Top 16, 22% of Top 8, 33% of Top 4, and 17% of Top 8 MTGO P9 challenge tournaments in Q1.

    The statement that was made in this article is simply not true, that Gush decks are, in aggregate, performing about the same as Shops in aggregate. Gush decks are significantly behind Shops by almost every metric on MTGO results.

    If you don't want to "give weight" to MTGO results, that's fine. But it seems pretty obvious that Wizards does. I frankly think they should give weight to both.

    That said, I also believe that the single best data point every month is the P9 challenge as it is much larger than most paper events, more competitive with stronger players, and global. So to ignore MTGO seems foolish.

    As flawed as MTGO is, paper has many flaws as well, such as proxies, budget decks, etc. that don't exist to nearly the same extent on paper.

    I would very much like to know where the author of this article got his data.

    The reason why I don't give too much weight to MTGO is because there are so few players playing it.

    Alot of the paper tournaments are tiny as well. I mean, we literally have like a number of 13 player events in our paper tournament data (which is why one of the tabs weights by tournament size). Also, lots of paper tournaments don't permit proxies, so there are many fewer Workshops than their would otherwise be. People are forced, in Europe for example, to play budget decks instead.

    Both MTGO and paper data have their flaws. That's why I think you have to look at both.



  • @Smmenen said:

    @DeaTh-ShiNoBi said:

    @Smmenen said:

    Shops are 30% of Q1, 2016 Daily 3-1 or 4-0 decks, and 31% of Top 16, 30% of Top 8, 42% of Top 4, and 50% of Top 2 MTGO P9 challenge tournaments in Q1.

    Gush is 21% of Q1 Daily 3-1s or 4-0 decks, 21% of Top 16, 22% of Top 8, 33% of Top 4, and 17% of Top 8 MTGO P9 challenge tournaments in Q1.

    The statement that was made in this article is simply not true, that Gush decks are, in aggregate, performing about the same as Shops in aggregate. Gush decks are significantly behind Shops by almost every metric on MTGO results.

    If you don't want to "give weight" to MTGO results, that's fine. But it seems pretty obvious that Wizards does. I frankly think they should give weight to both.

    That said, I also believe that the single best data point every month is the P9 challenge as it is much larger than most paper events, more competitive with stronger players, and global. So to ignore MTGO seems foolish.

    As flawed as MTGO is, paper has many flaws as well, such as proxies, budget decks, etc. that don't exist to nearly the same extent on paper.

    I would very much like to know where the author of this article got his data.

    The reason why I don't give too much weight to MTGO is because there are so few players playing it.

    Alot of the paper tournaments are tiny as well. I mean, we literally have like a number of 13 player events in our paper tournament data (which is why one of the tabs weights by tournament size). Also, lots of paper tournaments don't permit proxies, so there are many fewer Workshops than their would otherwise be. People are forced, in Europe for example, to play budget decks instead.

    Both MTGO and paper data have their flaws. That's why I think you have to look at both.

    I agree both MTGO and paper data have their flaws that we have to put up with, and I'm not advocating throwing out MTGO data, but MTGO amplifies its own data due to the number of events one player can participate in. Skilled players like Rich Shay, Brian Schlossburg, and Montolio can contribute a huge number of 3-1 or 4-0 for Shops and lopside the results. You pointed this out in your podcast: Doomsday on MTGO is a great example of this, as there's really only one guy who plays it, but he puts up enough results to make a significant portion of the metagame. To me, putting a lot of weight on MTGO Dailies is like putting a lot of weight on the results of a small metagame. There's value to MTGO Dailies, but they don't describe the big picture. That's my view.



  • A small meta is somewhat interesting in that it shows you what's difficult to adapt to even given a high chance of seeing a particular player/deck.



  • @Smmenen

    Hi Steve,

    Now that I'm home and dome with all of my non-Magic obligations, let give you and everyone else a more proper response.

    I believe that your point breaks down into two separate issues. The first is that I said that Mentor's performance was equal to every Shops deck. That's actually not what I said. I said they occupied "basically" the same percentage. I could have used "around", "nearly", "almost", or a litany of other synonyms. At that moment though I felt like saying what I did. One's opinion on what constitutes a close enough percentage to use that kind of an adjective/adverb may be different, but that's a pointless argument since it's a matter of opinion.

    The second issue is the data I'm using and how I'm getting it. For the paper data I stuck to your Q1 results because I couldn't find the other IRL results from the archived TMD to go any further back. The IRL data showed Mentor actually having a .65% edge on Shops, so I don't believe we disagree about those results. For the MTGO data, I used all results between October 8th, 2015 and April 3rd, 2016 provided by mtgo.com. I went with these dates because they were both after the Chalice/Dig/Thirst change and after Daily Events became four rounds again. I then broke up the data into Mentor, Shops, Decks with Gush (Gush for short), and Other. For the sake of simplification, I defined "Mentor" as any deck with Monastery Mentor and Gush. The reason I chose that definition is because in my eyes those are the defining elements of the deck, and any extra Dragonlords serve as an alternative threat. Here is what I found:

    Mentor Total = 85
    Shops Total = 123
    Gush Total = 64
    Other = 272

    Metagame Total = 544

    With these numbers Mentor adds up to be 16% and Shops adds up to be 22%. For me personally, 6% is close enough where I feel comfortable using the word "basically", but I can understand if some people disagree. What's interesting though is if we dig into this further. Stacking up decks with Gush vs decks with Mishra's Workshop in this time period, we have these numbers:

    Combined Gush Total = 149
    Shops = 123

    That's 27% of the field for Gush vs 22% of the field for Workshops. Again, a 5% difference would be close enough for me to say feel ok with saying "basically", but from this range of dates it clearly indicates that Gush had a larger metagame presence than Mishra's Workshop. What about the most played archetype in each of those categories during this time period? For the whole of Gush that archetype is Mentor, and for Mishra's Workshop it's Ravager Shops. Analyzing just those, we now get these numbers:

    Mentor = 85
    Ravager Shops = 61

    That's now 16% vs 11% in favor of Mentor, which makes Mentor more played than any Shops archetype from October 8th, 2015 to April 3rd, 2016. Since we're continuing the deeper exploration of data, what happens if you change the parameters? Instead of just Mentor with Gush, what if you talk about all deck that use the card Monastery Mentor? Also, for Shops, what if you discount the Workshop decks that aren't based on locking people out of the game under numerous Sphere effects? That condition on Shops may seem somewhat arbitrary, but I believe that the vast dislike for Shops comes from being put in a position where you literally can't play Magic. If all the deck was doing was powering aggressive artifact creatures while letting you interact with it I'm not sure we'd even need to entertain the idea of Shops being "bad for the format". In my classifications I found five such decks for Mentor and 14 such decks for Shops respectively. With these shifts now in mind, we now have this:

    Adjusted Mentor = 90
    Adjusted Shops = 109

    That's now 17% to 20%, a 3% difference. I definitely feel comfortable using the word "basically" here, but I can understand disagreeing both with 3% being close enough and the classification I used to get those numbers.

    Now I don't consider these numbers to be infallible. I am human, and as a single person with learning disabilities gathering all of this data without someone to check my work it's entirely possible I may have messed up somewhere while adding all of my numbers together. Still, no data was intentionally manipulated and these were the numbers I had in front of me while I was writing. Between all of this and the fact that there are some major differences with IRL and MTGO Vintage because of things like infinite combos, ease of changing decks compared to paper, and card availability that affect the respective metagames, I felt comfortable saying that Mentor and Shops were "basically" the same percentage. From now on I will definitely be more clear with my words in order to prevent misunderstandings like this, and I thank you for your feedback.

    On a personal level Steve, in the future I would really appreciate the chance to give a real explanation before my credibility is attacked. I'm sorry that I didn't go into this much detail on my Facebook response to you, but I was not in the physical nor mental place to give this in depth of a response (I also couldn't actually provide my data since I was on my phone at school and they were saved to my computer at home). I know we haven't interacted all that much, but I personally respond better when I don't feel like I'm being confronted.

    I hope this answers any questions you may have. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thank you for taking the time to comment on my article.

    Danny Batterman



  • @DBatterskull said:

    With these numbers Mentor adds up to be 16% and Shops adds up to be 22%. For me personally, 6% is close enough where I feel comfortable using the word "basically", but I can understand if some people disagree.

    According to the data you just presented, with a total count of 544 decklists reported in the daily's you surveyed (the denominator), a 6% difference is equal to 33 decklists.

    That means that there were 33 more Shops decks in reported daily's than Mentor decks. No, "basically the same" is not an accurate description. Nor is any synonym.

    To put that in context, in historical Magic Metagame reports, there were many occassions in which only the top 3 or so decks even constituted more than 6% of the overall metagame. In other words, you could fill all of the Dredge decks in a metagame in some quarters with that percentage. That's more than many archetypes combined. I don't think there is any reasonable definition of "basically the same" that can bridge that gap.

    My concern with your article is not simply the factual inaccuracy which I pointed out here, and which you now acknowledge having presented your data, but the impression conveyed in what may be reasonably read as a critique of the DCI's decision.

    I don't always agree with the DCI, and I am on record saying I probably wouldn't have handled this restriction the same way, but I've been incredibly disappointed with some of the vitriol, venom and false characterizations of the DCI.

    I must also add that I suspect that there are further errors in your data that undercount the number of Shop decks in your sample. In both the Daily Sample and Premier Event Sample I compiled with Kevin, we found that Shops were consistently no less than 31% of all reported decks. So for you to find that Shops are only 22% is a pretty significant discrepancy that I am skeptical can be explained by simply going back to October. Since Shops are both 31% of the Premier Top 16s and the reported dailys in our sample (Jan 1 to March 20th, when we did our podcast), Shops would have to be about 12% of the reported decklists in October, November and December to average out to 22%. That seems very unlikely to me.

    It's possible that people jumped off of Shops hastily following Chalice's restriction, and that could explain a brief dip in Shops numbers, but Kevin and I had previously found Shops to be 50% of reported daily decks prior to Chalice's restriction. In any case, I think my data - starting in January (or, in the case of the premier events, November) makes more sense as it is more proximate.

    I should also add, lest you feel picked on, that my concern here is not you or any particular individual, but the overly casual claims made by far too many Vintage players (including VSLers on Dark Petition) regarding prevalence, dominance, or representation.

    On a personal level Steve, in the future I would really appreciate the chance to give a real explanation before my credibility is attacked.

    My first in this post in this thread merely says that a statement in your article was false/incorrect. Not every time someone disputes an empirical statement should it be interpreted as an "attack on someone's credibility."

    I was watching a little bit of the replay of Rich Shay's twitch stream this evening, and I was actually astonished that some people felt that by posting data here and asserting that a quote in your article was a false statement that I was "attacking your credibility."

    Moreover, my credibility was actually repeatedly attacked because I "wrote a book about Gush." There was also a good deal of venom and vitriol. Sad.

    Moreover, your article, and others like it, could be read as an attack on the DCI's credibility. I consider that far more serious than any individual's pride. The legitimacy of the format depends on that, not to mention risks of an overreaction.

    Second and more importantly, I did give you a "chance to give a real explanation."

    I replied to your post linking this article with the comment:

    ""They occupied basically the same percentage of the metagame as all of the Mishra’s Workshop decks combined" This statement is not true. https://docs.google.com/.../1cj99OKyaTn7zLvyh3OND.../edit... https://docs.google.com/.../1cj99OKyaTn7zLvyh3OND.../edit... FYI."

    To which you replied:

    "This is all I'm going to say in this regard as I candidly don't want to get into this debate: I used a different data set than this, and mine took different things into consideration."

    You had a chance to explain, you responded, and I found your response troubling on account not only of its vagueness and unwillingness to provide specifics, but more importantly because of the position that you were unwilling to even discuss it at all. Although I found your reply a bit suspicious, I never felt that you were being deceitful - just a bit fast and loose. That impression appears well founded, by your own admission.

    I often enjoy your work, so I appreciate your willingness to try to strive for greater clarity. I think we can all aspire to that.



  • @Smmenen can any of your reaction to this article also be your bias for Gush and possibly your fear it might be on the chopping block next B&R announcement? Just curious. No offense intended.



  • @Smmenen said:

    Shops are 30% of Q1, 2016 Daily 3-1 or 4-0 decks, and 31% of Top 16, 30% of Top 8, 42% of Top 4, and 50% of Top 2 MTGO P9 challenge tournaments in Q1.

    Gush is 21% of Q1 Daily 3-1s or 4-0 decks, 21% of Top 16, 22% of Top 8, 33% of Top 4, and 17% of Top 8 MTGO P9 challenge tournaments in Q1.

    The statement that was made in this article is simply not true, that Gush decks are, in aggregate, performing about the same as Shops in aggregate. Gush decks are significantly behind Shops by almost every metric on MTGO results.

    If you don't want to "give weight" to MTGO results, that's fine. But it seems pretty obvious that Wizards does. I frankly think they should give weight to both.

    That said, I also believe that the single best data point every month is the P9 challenge as it is much larger than most paper events, more competitive with stronger players, and global. So to ignore MTGO seems foolish.

    As flawed as MTGO is, paper has many flaws as well, such as proxies, budget decks, etc. that don't exist to nearly the same extent on paper.

    I would very much like to know where the author of this article got his data.

    @Smmenen But what is the actual quality of the data? The data is presented as a 'random sample', but is it? I'm not accusing you of bias, but I believe the data you present is. You make a compelling argument based on it, but it's not really the 'whole story'. The Q1 data says that Shops was 30%, but, on 1 hand, the March data shows a drop to ~22% (if my cursory review of the data is correct). That implies that Shops was as much as ~34% of the pre-March meta. It seems disingenuous to use Q1 when Jan-Feb is so much different than March. You criticize the author for treating a 6% difference as approximately equivalent, but a 12% month-to-month variance is represented as non-significant...

    The second biasing is not looking at or accounting for non-randomness. Dailies (and to an extent P9 Challenges) fire on the same days at the same times - you can 'count' on them. It's like looking at data from a single shop and expecting new people to come in every day - it just doesn't happen. Montolio has 11 finishes on Shops in Q1, BlackLotusT1 has 11 finishes on Shops in Q1, and The Atog Lord has 7 finishes on Shops in Q1 - that's almost 40% of the Q1 Shops decks in the data! Are good players the problem or is the deck really over-powered?

    I would say, in defense of the article in question, a 6% difference in decks being presented as approximately equal is probably more reasonable than you argue given the quality of the underlying statistics (the error bars are likely enormous). If the MTGO data were a true random sample (it's not) or the data was pared down to represent a more random sample (bad idea because the data set would get even smaller and error bars would get larger) or the data included all decks played (best idea but is it possible at this point?), Gush is pretty close to on par with Shops over Q1. To say otherwise makes the data seem more robust than it really is.



  • @Ten-Ten said:

    @Smmenen can any of your reaction to this article also be your bias for Gush and possibly your fear it might be on the chopping block next B&R announcement? Just curious. No offense intended.

    I'd prefer we not make this about something it isn't. It's pretty clear that both sides of this most recent restriction are emotionally charged - to say the least.

    From a neutral standpoint it feels as though Steve has been relatively transparent as to his stance both pre and post restriction. For what it's worth I'm not seeing this transparency from the majority of nay sayers.

    On a more aggressive note; data can be interpreted many ways - something I've learned from working in the medical field. That being said does this blog post or many of the outrageous vitrol induced posts that have been slung over the past week back up any of their claims with directed citation? Nope.

    I'm no fan of Steven but this seems pretty clear cut to me.



  • @Ten-Ten said:

    @Smmenen can any of your reaction to this article also be your bias for Gush and possibly your fear it might be on the chopping block next B&R announcement? Just curious. No offense intended.

    It is possible that my sensitivity to Gush could make me more inclined to respond to unfactual or unfounded statements regarding it. I probably would not have responded to a comment made about Dredge in the same way.

    But it's more the fact that Vintage commentators and pundits on websites and social media have a really bad habit of making completely unsupported claims about data far too often, and it's long been a pet peeve of mine. That's why I started collecting data more than ten years ago.

    The idea, suggested in the twitch stream, that my "data" was biased because I "wrote a book about Gush" makes no sense unless you think I was selectively omitting data or lying about the calculations.

    @Fred_Bear said:

    @Smmenen But what is the actual quality of the data?

    That's a very odd question. Do you think Wizards has lied about the daily results?

    The data is the daily reported MTGO decklists and the MTGO P9 decklists. That is, every day after a daily fires, Wizards of the Coast posts the decklists on their website here. Kevin and I went through every single daily in the Q1, 2016 up to our recording date, and then compiled them. So did the author here.

    The raw data is here.

    The cleaned data is here.

    And then then aggregate data is here.

    While it's possible that Wizards is lying about the decks that actually performed as they claimed, that seems very unlikely. Asking about the quality of the data is odd because it's the information that Wizards publishes. We simply collected it from their website.

    The data is presented as a 'random sample', but is it?

    Huh? No it's not presented as a random sample. It's almost the entire population. You don't sound like you understand what is presented here.

    Sampling is a statistical technique to draw inferences about a population when the population is too large to count. In this case, we have almost the entire population, so sampling is unnecessary. The only thing missing are daily results in which there were two dailies fired in the same day. According to Wizards, that is less than 20% of dailies.

    I'm not accusing you of bias, but I believe the data you present is.

    I think you misunderstand the data. You believe I was presenting a sample rather than the whole population of data.

    You make a compelling argument based on it, but it's not really the 'whole story'. The Q1 data says that Shops was 30%, but, on 1 hand, the March data shows a drop to ~22% (if my cursory review of the data is correct). That implies that Shops was as much as ~34% of the pre-March meta. It seems disingenuous to use Q1 when Jan-Feb is so much different than March. You criticize the author for treating a 6% difference as approximately equivalent, but a 12% month-to-month variance is represented as non-significant...

    First of all, that's the "opposite" of the whole story. Removing data makes is less than "the whole story."

    In any case, there is tremendous month to month variance in vintage and always has been going back to the earliest data sets we've ever collected. Look at the % of Gush decks in the Premier events. There was only one is the January Top 16, 2 in the February Top 16, and 7 in the March Top 16. That doesn't make "data" biased. It just means that there is tremendous variance.

    That could have easily explained why the author's data differed from that I collected, except that when he shared his data set, it becomes clear that that's not the case here.

    The selection of quarterly data is not "disingenuous" even in the remotest. First of all, it's consistent with historical approaches:
    http://themanadrain.com/topic/138/vintage-metagame-data-archive

    Secondly, we know the DCI makes it's decisions a month in advance, so they largely didn't have the benefit of March data to make their decision, so, if anything, Jan-Feb is the most relevant period.

    In any case, my criticism of the author here has nothing to do with variance or date range for selected input - it has to do with the fact that, according to his own data, Mentor and Shops decks are not even close to "basically the same" amount of the metagame. 16% v. 22% is a pretty enormous metagame representation difference that is equal to 32 decks in his data set and a larger percentage than most archetypes in the metagame.

    The second biasing is not looking at or accounting for non-randomness. Dailies (and to an extent P9 Challenges) fire on the same days at the same times - you can 'count' on them. It's like looking at data from a single shop and expecting new people to come in every day - it just doesn't happen. Montolio has 11 finishes on Shops in Q1, BlackLotusT1 has 11 finishes on Shops in Q1, and The Atog Lord has 7 finishes on Shops in Q1 - that's almost 40% of the Q1 Shops decks in the data! Are good players the problem or is the deck really over-powered?

    The same thing happens in paper data. If Brian Kelly plays in 5 tournaments out of a 20 tournament data set in a single quarter and makes top 8 each time, he shows up 5 times in the paper data set. No one has ever objected that we should be concerned about this problem in Vintage or Magic paper data sets to my knowledge.

    I would say, in defense of the article in question, a 6% difference in decks being presented as approximately equal is probably more reasonable than you argue given the quality of the underlying statistics (the error bars are likely enormous). If the MTGO data were a true random sample (it's not)

    That's right. It's not a random sample. It's almost the entire population. Sampling is a statistical technique to draw inferences about a population when the population is too large to count. In this case, we have almost the entire population, so sampling is unnecessary.

    If I were sampling, the idea that the reported data was more "biased" would have merit. But these aren't samples.

    Gush is pretty close to on par with Shops over Q1. To say otherwise makes the data seem more robust than it really is.

    Um, no, actually, it's not. In paper, yes, that's true.

    But on Magic Online, it's consistently clear that Shops are about 33% larger part of the reported results.

    Just to be clear, here is the breakdown of Q1 Dailies by archetype:

    1. Shops - 32% of all reported daily decks (72 decks out of a 241 reported decks)

    2. Dredge - 15%

    3. Oath - 10%

    4. Mentor - 10%

    5. Delver - 7%

    And then everything else is under 5%.

    But if you add up all of the Gush decks in our population (all Mentor, Delver, Doomsday, etc), as we did in the tab, you get to 20.74% (21%).

    Which happens to be the same percentage as all of the Gush decks in the Top 16 of the premier events.

    So, no, Gush decks are not "pretty close to par" with Shops in Q1. Shops are 32% and Gush is 21%. That's not even close to "pretty close." That's not the same vicinity, let alone galaxy.

    It has nothing to do with "robustness." A 6% difference is a huge difference when you consider that that is almost as large as all of the Delver decks, for example, in the population. There is no world in which Mentor is "basically" the same amount of Shops.


  • TMD Supporter

    If I may indulge in a slightly off topic aside, what I love about this Vintage community, and TMD in particular, is the level of rigor of the debate. I am grateful for the analysis that Steve, Kevin, and Danny, and several others contributed to this particular debate, and many others.

    The Vintage metagame is an incredibly complex system, and reasonable human minds, which are inevitably biased to some extent, can disagree as to how best to analyze and distill meaning from the incongruous sets of data, particularly with respect to ill-defined concepts as dominance of a particular archetype, or the appropriateness of restricting a card.

    In sum, this thread, stripped of the personal attacks and ruffled feathers, is representative of what I think makes this such a great forum. Keep up the good work gentleman, and keep it clean.



  • @Smmenen said:

    Do you think Wizards has lied about the daily results?

    The data is the daily reported MTGO decklists and the MTGO P9 decklists. That is, every day after a daily fires, Wizards of the Coast posts the decklists on their website here. Kevin and I went through every single daily in the Q1, 2016 up to our recording date, and then compiled them. So did the author here.

    Quick question, then... The data you present represents **EVERY **decklist or every decklist which went 3-1 and 4-0 in the dailies? I am under the impression that your data was ONLY 3-1 and 4-0 decks from the dailies - the data shared with us on mtgo.com and mtggoldfish.com.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to The Mana Drain was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.