Oh Boy I Can't Wait For VSL Season 6!



  • That's results-oriented thinking. Forcing Swords rather than Misstep doesn't matter unless he might have another Misstep (he could have countermagic rather than a 2nd Swords)

    Looking to his actual hand to determine whether your line was correct is not a very good method of analysis


  • TMD Supporter

    @ajfirecracker said in Oh Boy I Can't Wait For VSL Season 6!:

    That's results-oriented thinking. Forcing Swords rather than Misstep doesn't matter unless he might have another Misstep (he could have countermagic rather than a 2nd Swords)

    Looking to his actual hand to determine whether your line was correct is not a very good method of analysis

    But that's exactly how you started this conversation. Don't forget, your very first comment on this evening's VSL show was:

    "Not to name names too hard but since @Smmenen didnt understand how he could beat Caleb's game 1 hand of Mental Missteps and Swords to Plowshares I'll throw my 2c in. "

    Of course I couldn't understand how to beat a hand of 3 misstep and 2 Plow, because I don't know he had 3 Misstep and 2 Plow. Your very first statement was the definition of results oriented analysis. I can't beat a hand that I don't know, and is exceptionally improbable.

    After a half dozen further posts, you've now got the conversation so twisted around that you are applying the very same point I was making about your observation.

    Let's recap.

    In post 72 in this thread, you basically said that the plays in the VSL tonight were very bad, and singled out my play in G1 against Caleb, and specifically my post-Doomsday sequence. In particular, you said that I made a mistake not Forcing the Swords instead of Misstep. But also said that using Gush to force a win was probably a mistake, although you admitted it was possibly defensible to avoid giving him a draw to play more outs. But your main point was that I played the Force incorrectly.

    In post 76, I specifically conceded that this was a mistake, but my point was that targting the Misstep instead of the Swords only mattered because he had a 3rd misstep. If he didn't have another Misstep, it doesn't matter whether I Force the Misstep or the Plow directly.

    I used the opportunity of that post to further elaborate my thinking in that situation, and analyze the sequencing. One of the key points I made here was that I was playing around a bunch of other scenarios that you weren't considering. For example, I was trying to play to beat a hand with Plow, Force, and Flusterstorm, among other possible things, like a double Force, or double Plow.

    My implicit point is that your characterization and description of this play as such low quality benefits enormously from the fact that you can see his hand, and don't have to consider the countless other possibilities I was contending with. Seen from that perspective, the question of whether putting the Force on the MIsstep or the Plow is relatively trivial, and certainly not something I was focused on as possibly consequential.

    But I also used this post for one other purpose: to point out that the main sequence I was considering, but backed off from, was to Misstep his MIsstep before responding with Gush. You can probably see me nearly do this in the stream and replay. I pointed out that had I done that, it would have inadvertently worked out for me, because then his 3rd Misstep would have been irrelevant. But if you are me, and assume he doesn't have a 3rd Misstep and likely has other countermagic, then I don't see how I could have possibly seen that possibility.

    Then, in post 77, answering my query, you assert (although not entirely consistent with your earlier acknowledged concern about doing this), that you think the correct play is probably to just pass the turn after Probe is countered.

    Then, oddly, you reiterate a point I already conceded, that my targeting with Force was incorrect. Then, heightening the stakes, you assert that this play is simply the correct play, not the psychic play.

    Since I already acknowledged - and clearly - that my targeting with Force was suboptimal, I said as much in my reply in post 79. But, I repeat a point I've already made, that the targeting decision only matters if he has 3 or more Misstep.

    But I use this opportunity to add another point to the discussion: that my assumption that he did not have a 3rd Misstep was drawn, in part, by the fact that Ancestral resolved. The commentators in the replay express surprise that he let the Ancestral resolve, and letting Ancestral resolve signals that either he doesn't have Misstep or has few. That's a reasonable inductive conclusion.

    But in post 80, you replied by saying that "If he has less than three Missteps, I'm not aware of any situation where Forcing the Misstep is better".

    Trying to point out that you've now misconstrued my point, I replied in post 82 by saying that I never said that Forcing the Misstep was better - just that whether Force targeted MIsstep or Swords doesn't matter unless he has more Missteps. Taking an action does not imply it's better. It's possible to believe it is equivalent.

    I already conceded that the play was an error. But my point is that I didn't think that play would matter at all or make a difference because I effectively ruled out the possibility that he had a 3rd Misstep without any other countermagic for the reasons I already stated. I objected to your phrasing because my statement "Forcing Misstep or STP" didn't matter was transmuted into "Forcing Misstep was better" by the construction of your post. That's a misrepresentation of what I was arguing.

    The sub point was that I had already decided he didn't have a 3rd Misstep not simply because it was exceptionally improbable (which it is), but because he let Ancestral resolve.

    Which brings us to your final response, post 83, where you describe, most puzzlingly of all, my response as "results oriented thinking," by which you mean "looking at his hand to determine whether my line was correct."

    That's a truly mystifying response. If you've tracked my explanation for my lines, then I can't possibly see how you've reached that conclusion. Am I missing something?

    I've already conceded that targeting Misstep instead of Plow is just a procedural error, and should be an automatic play. But in the context of a very complex situation where I was considering literally dozens of variables and possibilities, I think you are being a bit too harsh in your characterization.

    Specifically, my point is that that play you adjudged to be "very low quality" doesn't matter if you assume, as I did, that my opponent didn't have a 3rd Misstep, and instead what I was facing was a combination of some other cards. My focus was on how to combat a much different spread of tactics, like Plow or double Plow and Force, possibly double Force, and Flusterstorm. I did think he might have a single Misstep, to stop my own, but I really didn't think he'd have 3, and let Ancestral resolve.

    Far from relying on what his actual hand was, by providing the context for my considerations and for putting yourself in the position of someone who has to consider a much, much wider range of possibilities than the viewer, and also inductively tentatively concluding as I did, that he didn't have 3rd Misstep, for the reasons I've already stated, the play I made become comprehensible, if not rational.

    It's just unfortunate that had I taken almost any other sequence I considered I would have won. As I said, the main sequence I was starting to pursue was:

    1. play probe
    2. he missteps
    3. I Misstep his Misstep
    4. At this point, he would have missteped my misstep,
    5. then I could have played Gush here, and I would have won, because
    6. He would have played Plow in response
    7. which I force, pitching Force,
    8. and he plays the 2nd Plow,
    9. Which I fluster
      And I win with him holding the 3rd Misstep.

    The difference between this line and the line I took (irrespective of which card I targeted with Force) only makes a difference if he has a 3rd Misstep, which I pretty much ruled out, instead of, say, Force (rather than the Standstill or Snapcaster).

    But there are still one other dangling matters to address. There is the matter of the risks of passing the turn. In your first post on this topic, you acknowledged that it may be defensible to want to avoid giving him another draw. It's possible to conceive of him having a hand where a single additional draw makes more "plays" live. This particular example isn't true here, but if he had ran more Plows maindeck, then a Lotus could easily turn on more. Or a Lotus might turn on another Plow and a Snapcaster, and let him hold up Flusterstorm.

    After all, it turns out that he did have Snapcaster in hand (which functions like a 4th Misstep). With Lotus, he has 3 STPs and 3 Missteps, and can play Standstill as well, which gives him three more cards!

    So, I don't think we can conclude that passing the turn is automatically the correct play. In fact, it could be disastrous. At least, not based upon the analysis you've presented thus far. It would take a good deal more proof than you've presented. And, certainly not in the sharp terms you've framed it.

    I'm more than disappointed with the way that particular game played out (and would like to take back a few other plays this evening), but given the circumstances and the overall situation, I don't think your characterization is fair (it also ignores the high quality Doomsday pile I constructed there - an unusual one that relies on fetching to thin to 3 cards pre-Ancestral), and it also ignores the inferences that can be drawn from the fact that Ancestral resolves.

    Perhaps most importantly, your suggested line, passing the turn, is far from proven as a superior sequence to the one I took, or the alternative I was considering and described in my numbered sequence above.

    Best,

    Stephen


  • TMD Supporter

    I haven't read everything yet (at work... yeah, I'm bad). One thing I realize, it's much easier to see misplays when:

    1. You are the one playing, so your mind is in a different place then a person who is watching from a screen. I'm not saying that excuses certain misplays (not referring to any situation in particular). It's always so much easier when you're not in the heat of the moment.

    2. Obviously, you don't know both hands. They would have to not allow us to see the hands to see how much our thought process of, "he clearly should have done X instead of Y" is influenced by knowing both hands. For viewership purposes, I don't feel this is a good thing, but to better recognize misplays over lack of information, this is important.

    Again not talking about what specifically occurred last night, just a thought because of last night.



  • @Smmenen I hope I haven't given you cause for offence - I'm not saying you're a bad player or anything along those lines. My view is quite the opposite on that point. My claim is much more modest than that.

    I don't think the Doomsday/Standstill matchup is the most egregious in terms of play mistakes (although to be fair allowing Ancestral to resolve was pretty questionable, I think I would generally trade my 3rd Misstep for 3 turns)

    My point was more "If Stephen targets his Force in a way I'm pretty sure all Vintage players should by now know to do automatically, he wins the game". You seem to agree on every part of that sentiment, so I'm just going to drop the in-between argument that has somehow sprung up.

    As to the "play Gush" vs "sit on Gush" argument I think Lotus is actually a very interesting point of departure for analysis. I prefer to sit on Gush there, which if your opponent topdecks a simple 1-for-1 answer is equivalent to the "play Gush" line (because he has to act first, 1 answer will be stranded on the stack). So passive Gush is only at a disadvantage versus single topdecks that enable multiple answers - narrowing down the field of concern to things like Black Lotus and Ancestral Recall (or possibly multi-mana lands). One posture you might adopt is "sit on Gush, play it in response to Lotus or in response to answers" which is only worse than the aggressive Gush line if he has Black Lotus in hand and topdecks an answer (I think this is extremely unlikely); if he topdecks Ancestral Recall and simply casts it, you can Gush in response and are no worse off than the aggressive line. If he topdecks Ancestral and plays it in the middle of a stack, it becomes extremely contextual and difficult to analyse. If you can hit his Ancestral with a Flusterstorm that also sweeps up other cards (I think this is likely) then the topdeck is blank and waiting to make your opponent act first is +1 relevant card compared to the aggressive line. If he successfully resolves Ancestral on top of a stack and finds additional impactful cards then you're pretty well punished, but your opponent's mana restrictions become a major factor.



  • I had a chance to re-watch last night's show with the comments and wanted to clarify a few things. First, in match 3/game 3 during the turn that it appeared I missed my land drop, while conducting the cantrip, I mapped out exactly what to do on the following turn, which was to fetch Tundra, Gush & replay it and put down the Moat. Somehow, I clicked to finish the cantrip and hit "Ok" and it was suddenly Paul's turn. I'm not sure how that occurred, perhaps owing to still having some discomfort with MTGO's interface v. paper Magic or it being near midnight and playing a too bit quickly. But since there was confusion in the comments section on what happened, I wanted to clarify that I didn't forget to put my land into play that turn; it was just suddenly no longer my turn after I indicated to finish the Brainstorm. I recognized the mishap as soon as it occurred and thought "what the heck just happened?" I may have misclicked something, but it happened so quickly I'm not sure how precisely it occurred. I may be going senile. :-D

    Secondly, I've heard the term "raw dog" used to describe draws off the top with no filtering or measures to protect from bad topdecks (Preordain, Ponder, tutors) but actually did not know it had a more common "urban dictionary" type of meaning. Ooops. My regrets if the commentary came across as unwholesome.

    Hope everyone enjoyed the show despite the bloopers,

    -B


  • TMD Supporter

    @brianpk80 Brian as you once told me at Vintage champs as we sat there and talked. We are not robots and we can't think like that. It's easy to make mistakes, the human brain is funny in a lot of ways. It's especially easy to make a miss click mistake on any video game (not just MTGO). I wouldn't be too hard on yourself.



  • @mdkubiak said in Oh Boy I Can't Wait For VSL Season 6!:

    @brianpk80 Brian as you once told me at Vintage champs as we sat there and talked. We are not robots and we can't think like that. It's easy to make mistakes, the human brain is funny in a lot of ways. It's especially easy to make a miss click mistake on any video game (not just MTGO). I wouldn't be too hard on yourself.

    Thank you, Mark.


  • TMD Supporter

    @brianpk80 Anytime. :)



  • Not a big fan of these pods. The tiebreaks feel too random. A 2-4 has a potential to go to the playoffs over several 4-2s. Too much forced seeing the same deck / commentators many times over the same night. Not easily intuitive who goes where. Too much emphasis on the first weeks. Let's figure something else next time please.



  • @BazaarOfBaghdad It probably makes sense to do it that way so that people don't have to play every week, but I'm getting pretty tired of seemingly every video I go to watch being cast by a particular person whose commentary is generally lacking.



  • Anyone else predict 3 Dredge decks next week? :)



  • @BazaarOfBaghdad said in Oh Boy I Can't Wait For VSL Season 6!:

    Anyone else predict 3 Dredge decks next week? :)

    I do not predict that. I'd love to see it though!



  • @ajfirecracker Against a Mentor-only leader with zero Dredge-hate sideboard cards? I believe all three of the others have some experience with Dredge, so it would make some sense for someone to run it. But yes, what makes sense and what will happen are often two different things altogether.



  • As boring as Gush mirrors are, do we really need three dredge mirrors?


Log in to reply
 

WAF/WHF

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