Ongoing Richmond Results

[Evenpence]

Not everybody has the time or the ambition to be a pioneer for the format, Steve. A lot of players are quite content playing their pet deck and finetuning it to perfectness for each tourney/metagame they play in. So you´re a generalist. Other people are specialists. Perfect.

Others of us think that their pet deck IS actually the best deck to play in a tournament, like UbaCap.  I didn't have ANY bad matchups except for Slaver this weekend.  Seriously.  AND I changed the MD significantly from Day 1 to Day 2.  That's two innovative lists over the course of three days that I took risks running and it completely payed off.  I even beat Slaver Day 2 because of my changes.

[forests failed you]

I like to switch things up.

I'm the only person who plays different decks all the time, apparently. 

Although I think my chances of winning the event in day one would have been much higher with Grim Long, I actually try to push things along a little bit.

I'm always dissapointed when "name" players play the same old shit, predictably.  It doesn't really do anything for the format. 

I had a Tendrils list all ready to go for Richmond, and they you posted the challenge to beat me playing Burning Slaver.  I couldn't resist.

[warwizard87]

hey congrats to all the winners =D  this was my first t1 tourny in irl and i enjoyed my self a ton, 5-3 was not to bad losing to suicide black (wtf) mono blue and friggorid (last round) i played oath with muddle the mixtrues and a horried side XD

i some how managed to oversleep day 2 and did not wake up till 10 till 10  and i was 10 mins away oops, missed day 2 god that sucked. i actuly boarded for friggorid this time =D

thanx guys for making a new t1 player feel welcome in what i was starting to fear was a closed crowed

[Sgt. Pepper]

Btw: how did the BW Confidant deck do that some of the meandeckers where playing? I know none of them didn't top 8, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they did poor. Besides, there must be a good reason for people like Orlove to be playing it over the Ichorid deck other meandeckers where playing. Perhaps some of them could tell us what went wrong, what they would change and if they would recommend the deck to anyone else?

[orgcandman]

we know what the top8 looked like, and through team discussion, I know that TMWA took 11th. What did the rest of 9-16 look like?

-Aaron

[Evenpence]

As an aside:  The 9th-16th isn't completely reliable, as you're out of contention at x-2, because it was cut to a top 8.  If it was a cut to a top 16, the 9th-16th lists would be more accurate, as many people dropped after going x-2.

[Machinus]

As an aside:  The 9th-16th isn't completely reliable, as you're out of contention at x-2, because it was cut to a top 8.  If it was a cut to a top 16, the 9th-16th lists would be more accurate, as many people dropped after going x-2.

I was top16 and I only had 1 loss.

There was a lot of redundancy in the top16, so I don't think the impression of the tournament will change much from the top eight decks.

[forests failed you]

As an aside:  The 9th-16th isn't completely reliable, as you're out of contention at x-2, because it was cut to a top 8.  If it was a cut to a top 16, the 9th-16th lists would be more accurate, as many people dropped after going x-2.

Decks 9-16 out of 150+ seem fairly relevent since they are still in the top ten percent of the best performers.  Especially if there is a high consistency of one deck in the top 16 that was not in the top eight.  For instance if 9-16 had four Gifts decks it would be fairly relevent information... since there was not Gifts in the top eight.

[Dante]

As an aside:  The 9th-16th isn't completely reliable, as you're out of contention at x-2, because it was cut to a top 8.  If it was a cut to a top 16, the 9th-16th lists would be more accurate, as many people dropped after going x-2.

Decks 9-16 out of 150+ seem fairly relevent since they are still in the top ten percent of the best performers.  Especially if there is a high consistency of one deck in the top 16 that was not in the top eight.  For instance if 9-16 had four Gifts decks it would be fairly relevent information... since there was not Gifts in the top eight.

Exactly, the difference between x-2 and x-1-1 can be the difference of 1 card and if you ran those matches again, it might have come out the other way.  The makeup of the decks that didn't quite make it to top 8 is totally relevent in a field that big.