Can control decks support a 61st card?

[Godot]

Today Rich Shay posted this regarding the 3rd place deck from the French Vintage champs:

My second concern is not something which can be explained away by a limited card pool – the fact that the deck is sixty one cards. A sixty one card deck is never correct, because it effectively reduces the number of Ancestrals, Yawgmoth’s Wills, Force of Wills, etc. Having 61 cards in a deck almost always means that a little more discipline must be shown in deck construction.

Toad posted this on the SCG forums in response to a question about his decklist from "A Second Gift From The Other Side Of The Ocean":

Both builds (the German one and mine) run 61 cards. It's something we have always done for Control decks.

At the time I read this I didnt really think of much of it aside from, 'oh, those crazy europeans', but this is apparently becoming quite widespread over there and I'd like to hear the reasoning.  Why play 61 cards??  In any given deck there will always be some card that is weaker than the rest, thus lessening your chance of drawing the most powerful cards in the deck.  Do modern control decks run such an abundance of draw/tutoring that the increase in utility from a 61st card is worth decrease in the probability of drawing the more powerful cards in the deck?  Why is this phenomenon so much more common across the pond, and what is the reasoning behind it?

[dicemanx]

The reasoning is as follows:

Adding a 61st card has a trade-off: you incrementally decrease the likelihood of drawing any particular card, but you substantially increase the likelihood of drawing a specific card. By substantially, that could mean going from 0% to some percentage if the 61st card added is unique. Such practice was common in Keeper decks that played with a variety of silver bullets that could be easily tutored up. The European Gifts-Belcher deck adds a 3rd Duress as the 61st card, substantially increasing the likelihood of seeing an early Duress. Of course you can look at it as if its not the 3rd Duress that's the 61st card, but it is instead anything else; however, as the deck stands now every card is considered crucial to the deck, so whatever you end up cutting you decrease the chances of drawing that particular card.

In addition, I personally happen to run 61 cards in any Dragon deck that features Lim Dul's Vault. The reason for this is that up to turn 3 (if you draw first, or certain combinations of mulling and playing a Bazaar early) you can loop through your deck at least once with the Vault to find 2 or more critical cards in case the right combination doesn't appear the first time around. If WGD had sixty cards, then you couldn't do this on turn 3 having drawn a card on turn 1, since the library would have a multiple of 5 cards (50 to be precise). Sure, this won't happen too often, but Dragon can run 61 cards more readily than most other decks so its usually worth it to add the extra card for this reason.

[Luiggi]

dicemanx: besides Dragon, would you advocate running a 61st card in any other combo decks? Since Dragon can go through its library so fast with Bazaars and Vaults it seems like having that extra card is much less annoying than it would be in other decks without as much fast/continuous library manipulation. How would you apply your reasoning to something like TPS or Long, for example?

Luiggi

[Rico Suave]

Many of my games playing control will end with me having gone through half my deck (usually followed by Will).  That means I basically have a 50% chance of seeing any given card during one of those games just through all of the card draw.  How often do you think that 61st card is going to show up?

If I am running a 61st card, that means I will basically be playing a card that I could choose not to run, but I play it anyway.  Every game this card is drawn in, it will affect the performance of the deck.  Without that card it means I can topdeck that Ancestral a turn earlier.  It means my Brainstorm will not draw that 61st card, it will dig just far enough to find Tinker.  It means I can mulligan and see Black Lotus in my opening hand more often. 

After running a 61st card in many of my decks and keeping careful track of what my draws would have been sans that card, the only thing I noticed was that I'd rather have just drawn the next card instead the vast majority of the time. 

[Machinus]

The 61st card debate is ridiculous. Haven't we already realized that its a terrible idea? This has been argued for so many years. Making your deck bigger makes all the cards in it worth less. If you can't design a deck good enough to do all the things you want to do, you need to start over and prioritize what you are trying to do. Diluting your deck is never a good idea. It doesn't matter how powerful the cards in it are. The other guy is playing the same cards and he will draw them quicker than you.

[dicemanx]

dicemanx: besides Dragon, would you advocate running a 61st card in any other combo decks? Since Dragon can go through its library so fast with Bazaars and Vaults it seems like having that extra card is much less annoying than it would be in other decks without as much fast/continuous library manipulation. How would you apply your reasoning to something like TPS or Long, for example?

Luiggi

WGD is a unique deck in that what you actually want to see are *combinations*, not individual cards. A deck like TPS or Deathlong can draw individual bombs, while Dragon does not have a single individual bomb outside of Ancestral Recall. Even Dragon's "power cards", Bazaar or Intuition, are weak on their own unless they have the relevant support cards. Given this fact, WGD wants to maximize chances of certain combinations coming up. It also wants to maximize the effectiveness of its most powerful tutor - Lim Dul's Vault (It is actually ironic that as I say this, the winning Paris WGD deck ran zero Vaults - draw your own conclusions on that one). Therefore, 61 cards is acceptable. Other combo decks, however, that utilize the power of individual bombs, have to be 100% 60 cards.

Many of my games playing control will end with me having gone through half my deck (usually followed by Will).  That means I basically have a 50% chance of seeing any given card during one of those games just through all of the card draw.  How often do you think that 61st card is going to show up?

Surviving to the mid game against specific decks might require upping the percentages of seeing certain cards early. The key is that you don't automatically want to see the same cards against every type of deck in the early stages. Also, you might be wanting to resolve multiple copies of a particular card throughout the course of the game. Hence I  think what you say here is an oversimplification, but I will concede the fact that exhaustive analysis might indeed indicate that 60 is the absolute optimal card count on average. However, a lot of times I don't mind "weakening" myself by extending the count to 61 cards in order to have greater flexibility against a wide range of decks.

[Mixing Mike]

I've run a 61st card before.  Sometimes a decklist it just too tight but you really can't drop anything without losing too much of a consistency level you don't want to drop.  I've seen plenty of players who have run decks with 61 cards and placed well with them on more than one occasion.  Decklists are getting tighter and tighter these days, so I can see why a lot of people would want to run a 61st card.

I don't think that discussing this topic will get anybody anywhere.  You can try out 61 cards and if you can really tell the difference and you have a problem with it then just don't play it, or you can just refuse to try it out in the first place.  I personally can't tell the difference between a 60 card deck or a 61 card deck.

[Lord of the Goats]

61 cards mathematically gives you less of a chance to draw your broken restricted cards. period. based on that there is no reason to run more than 60 because that is the minimum.

does it really  make a difference in a game? no

a match? no

a 6 round tourney? no

a 10 round tourney? no

5 10 round tourneys? maybe

hell, there may be a greater possiblity that you win a game because running 61 keeps you from getting decked than it makes you loose a game. someone should actually do the math

also, the 61st card is always the weakest unecessary card in the deck... so it really can't be the 3rd duress 'cause duress is nuts.

my opinion: it won't make a difference over the course of any given tournament so who cares.

[The M.E.T.H.O.D]

If there is a 61st card, something in the MD isn't nessesary. NEVER EVER EVER GO OVER the magical number because it does dilute your bombs, plain and simple. 

[Grand Inquisitor]

Realistically there is no rigorous way to answer this question.

The trade-off, which has already been mentioned, is diversity of a unique card vs. probability of drawing more potent cards.

There are a few factors which limit our ability to decide which part of this trade-off is more valuable:

1) It is impossible to test the number of possible archetypes, and possible card choices to see if any deck actually benefits from the added utility.  In a 'there must be other life out there' kind of way, I would guess that some (tournament level) deck can take advantage of it.

2) The value of the added utility is probably proportionally related to the diversity of the expected metagame.  If you know you're going to play 1/3 Fish, 1/3 TPS, 1/3 Drain.dec, it's probably pretty easy to cut down to 60 cards.  At a large event with a new set (or something) it's probably more difficult.

3) Play style.  This is my favorite way to end magic arguments.  And I do believe in it.  There will always be claims of optimal game choices/sideboard strategies/decks, but when it comes down to it, most of this is decided in hindsight.  People do what they feel comfortable with, and what works for them to be successful.  Since we don't all play significant sample sizes of magic, some of this is just decided on intuition.

[Dozer]

Also, the issue of mana management has not been mentioned yet. I am one of those who have played 61 cards in most control decks they built, simply because in most cases, it makes my mana/spell ratio better.

The numbers (mana sources/total cards):

26/61 = 42,6 %
26/60 = 43,3 %
27/61 = 44,3 %
27/60 = 45,0 %
28/61 = 45,9 %

Not factoring in Control decks that run less than 26 total mana (if there are any), 44.3 % is the ratio that has always served me best in terms of not getting flooded or screwed as often as the other configurations do. The extra mana (which usually is my 61st card) helps a lot. Drawing broken cards does not help a bit if you get mana-screwed. This rule is not set in stone, by the way. I have played 60 cards in Control decks before, and I would do it again. Especially in an environment without Wastelands this is feasible. But for me, playing the decks with the 61st card as mana balancer has always won out against forgoing the consistency for brokenness. It also enables you to play with one more colorless mana source, which is always a card you'd be sad to miss (especially LoA, Boseiju, Wasteland, Mana Crypt).

For combo decks, I agree to the common wisdom of 60 cards. Control decks can afford to add to their consistency, so for them the optimal ratio has to be figured out in testing. Have you never felt that you could need half a land? That is where a land/mana source as 61st card comes in, because that allows mana fine-tuning without having to re-structure a deck to include more cantrips.

Dozer

[dandan]

Never say never. Anyone who thinks that there can be no exception from 60 card decks should have a history lesson. Wheel/Lotus decks had to have more than 60 cards to win and were the reason that the rule of 4 came in (not that much more fun Sol Ring/Ancestral/Time Walk/Juggernaut/Craw Wurm decks that followed).

Having said that, I don't feel that the trade off drawing fewer bombs is usually worth the option of the extra mana/extra silver bullet. Stick to 60 cards is fine advice for beginners but I acknowledge that exceptions may exist.

[Mykeatog]

All this conversation about being able to run more 'silver bullets' has me thinking...

Have you ever played with Cunning Wish?

Just me?

60 Cards is good. As The Lord of all things Goat said, it may not matter in a game, match, or day... but (as opposed to what the almighty goat said) if it will matter EVER at all in my entire life, then I will never play an extra card EVER. I would like someone to post a 61 card decklist here that the community couldn't pull a card out of.

[Smmenen]

I think Dozer is right. 

The only compelling reason that I think there is to run 61 cards is mana base issues. 

Running 61 cards means that 22, 23, 24, etc mana divides into 61 in different ratios than 60. 

For example, with mono blue in 2001, I would often want 22 mana sources in a 61 card deck instead of 23 but 22 in a 60 card deck was too much and 21 in a 60 card deck was too little. 

There is a trade-off.  So long as that trade off is understood and accepted as part of the design, I see no *inherent* problem with 61 cards.  It just requires a strong justification to make it a rational thing to do.

[CF]

The mana source statistic isn't really that helpful in T1, since there are cards that act like .5 mana sources etc - it's possible to get the right mana source percentage (or at least the ideal smooth-running deck) within the 60 card limit.

The only place where such things factor in is in a deck with like.. only Relentless rats and Swamps. I'm sure 60 isn't the ideal number in that deck. In T1 hower, it is. Always. Basta. Leave this dead horse alone already.

--
Chris

[Bulls on Parade]

I think Dozer is right. 

The only compelling reason that I think there is to run 61 cards is mana base issues. 

Running 61 cards means that 22, 23, 24, etc mana divides into 61 in different ratios than 60. 

For example, with mono blue in 2001, I would often want 22 mana sources in a 61 card deck instead of 23 but 22 in a 60 card deck was too much and 21 in a 60 card deck was too little. 

There is a trade-off.  So long as that trade off is understood and accepted as part of the design, I see no *inherent* problem with 61 cards.  It just requires a strong justification to make it a rational thing to do.

The problem is, this number hardly changes by adding just one card to a deck (.367 for 22/60 compared to .361 for 22/61) so you won't experience a noticeable difference with just one more card. If someone was suggesting playing an 80 card deck with 30 lands rather than a 60 card deck with 22, you would notice a difference in the number of lands you were seeing, but I'm sure we can all agree that would be a terrible idea- so, there isn't really a reason we should be playing with decks of more than 60 cards.

[MuzzonoAmi]

This may not be true for a deck like Mono Blue, which essentially runs off 4 mana until it kills, but for a more mana-intensive Control deck (like SSB), it could offer a potential benefit. And

Not factoring in Control decks that run less than 26 total mana (if there are any)

[dandan]

All this conversation about being able to run more 'silver bullets' has me thinking...

Have you ever played with Cunning Wish?

Just me?

60 Cards is good. As The Lord of all things Goat said, it may not matter in a game, match, or day... but (as opposed to what the almighty goat said) if it will matter EVER at all in my entire life, then I will never play an extra card EVER. I would like someone to post a 61 card decklist here that the community couldn't pull a card out of.

25 Black Lotus
39 Wheel of Fortune {don't get hung up on the exact ratio-the total number of cards is the issue, adding FoW might be good too}

Going first (old style draw)
8 cards
Wheel 8 times and win

Hard to do that with 60 cards. I don't think anyone can argue that decks that care about the number of cards in your deck could not be better if they have a non-60 card deck. See Battle of Wits. I agree that at present there is no good deck that does this but it IS possible. Could someone reply to this specific point?

Also the example I gave used creatures as silver bullets with SotF to find them. IF there was a metagame where there were significant numbers of decks that could be beaten if you had access to creature/artifact/land/graveyard/enchantment/hand kill it would be very hard to do that all with a 60 card deck. In that case it MIGHT be better to have a larger deck. Again I don't think this applies to a single good Vintage deck at present but the possibility is there.

I think most people are replying to the question - are there any Vintage decks (such as the French ones) that should have 61 (or more) cards. I agree the answer to that should be NO.

However, I read the question as being 'Is it possible that a Magic deck may have 61 or more cards and still be optimal?'. To that I say YES (although the vast majority of decks should really be 60 cards and extra cards are a sign of lack of discipline in deck construction)