Sideboarding Ancestral Recall In Stax

[Jacob Orlove]

The only number that matters is their odds of drawing Misdirection, because if we don't draw Ancestral, it doesn't matter that we could have been running another card instead (aside from some very limited tutor options). If we're considering the utility of Ancestral versus the possibility of getting it Misdirected, we need to be assuming that we're drawing Ancestral, because the rest of the time we just don't care.

Now, it's true that there's a difference between an opening hand Ancestral and one drawn later, but trying to argue that MisD is irrelevant because it'll only hit an early hand Ancestral one game in twenty is misleading, because you'll only draw that early ancestral two or three games out of twenty anyway.

[Implacable]

Additionally, it must be considered that a player in a tournament often has a chance to scout out his opponents before the next round.  If I'm running Pitch or MDG against a Stax player, I obviously take into account that any Misdirections in my opening hand are dead, and mulligan accordingly.

[wethepeople]

A quick mathematical interlude.

Given a 60 card deck, and a 7 card opening hand with no mulligans, a player has the following chances of drawing Misdirection.

If they run one: 11.67%
If they run two: 22.15%
If they run three: 31.54%
If they run four: 39.95%

So the probability of you drawing Ancestral Recall under the same circumstances, also is 11.67 percent, I do not however know how to compare the likelihood of one drawing Ancestral and their opponent drawing one of say, four Misdirections maindeck, but I feel I can make the assumption that it is in fact very low.

And when this particular situation does occur, you much realize that the only real loss is that you have one dead card at hand, that is of course if you don't choose to cast it. As stated several times before, it is very common for Gifts/PL players to simply get rid of Misd because it has no effect on Stax. As soon as they see Mishra's Workshop for example, or any other card common in Stax builds, the opponent will commonly ditch Misd via Force of Will, Brainstorm etc. because they also do not want to be at the slight disadvantage with one dead card at hand, Misdirection. All you must avoid is being ridiculously stupid and just going for a turn one Recall, which obviously you should never do. I really cannot emphasize the unlikelyness of Misdirection when you even have AR.

So unless your opponent is unaware of what you are playing, which is uncommon for most people piloting such decks as Pitch Long, or Gifts, your opponent rarely holds Misdirection. You must also consider that when you are forced to hold Ancestral Recall because the opposing players probably has Misd, then both you and your opponent have one unplayable card at hand, practically making it equal.

You might as well throw all those juicy artifacts with high casting costs to the chopping block because if I am not mistaken, Mana Drain is far more common than Misdirection, and when Gifts or other decks of the like resolve a Drain with large amount of mana on it, it is nearly the equivalent of good game, as is when one steals your AR.

You must also consider the random games that you win versus decks other than Gifts/PL due to the resolution of Ancestral Recall. I understand that in Stax AR does not necessarily mean GG. But you must admit that it does build such great amounts of tempo that it gives you such a strong advantage that your opponent has minimal chances of ever catching up.

[Implacable]

I thought that this little piece of mathematical information drawn from Feinstein's last tournament might actually be interesting.  While initially evaluating the entire tournament proved to be interesting, I realized that it seems unfair to base a good player's metagame call on the entire tournament, because he's likely to be playing at the top tables for most of the day.  Thus, I drew my information from the Myriad Games T16, which for any tournament was unusually packed with Gifts lists.  It's not reasonable to draw results solely from the T8, because it does not include the more marginal decklists that a good player would still be playing for much of the day at the top 8 tables.  These are the facts as follows:

-There are ~12 Misdirections in the Top 16 (T16).  I say this number because I do not have access to the bottom half of the T16 results, but I can assume that each of the Gifts lists runs 2 Misdirection in the 9-16 slots, because 3/4 Gifts lists in the T8 run 2 Misdirections, and because it is the standard quantity of Misdirections for Meandeck Gifts, which I have found to be the most popular current build.

-This means that, out of 60x16 (960) maindeck cards in the T16, there is a 12/960 (1.25%) incidence of Misdirection.  In other words,  1/80 cards that opponents draw in the T16 will be Misdirection.

-Now, let us assume that the player of 5C Stax is smart enough not to tutor out Ancestral against a deck with Misdirection in it.  If they are not, then they deserve to fail (no offense).  This means that Ancestral Recall will only be drawn in the 1st five turns 20% of the time.  Accordingly, in a match against a deck with Misdirection (2 being the assumed number of Misdirections), the incidence of concurrent draws of MisD and Ancestral is .2x.4 (8%).  In other words, the Ancestral + Misdirection problem will only come up once every 12 Game 1s!

-Before any conclusions are drawn, it must be remembered that there is a large proportion of matches in which there will not be any Misdirections.  1/2 of all decks (or more, depending on the Gifts lists in the lower 8) are Misdirectionless. 

-Based on the two details supported above, I can state conclusively that the fear of Mr. Feinstein is statistically groundless.  Even if you played only the Top 16 players throughout the whole 5 round tournament, you would only have a 50% chance of drawing a Misdirection-wielding opponent each round, which means that you would only play 2-3 Game 1s.  In the Top 8, you would play 1-2 opponents with Misdirection, increasing the total number of Game 1s to 3-5, a number which is still statistically miniscule.  If my opponent decides to mess with the odds and keep in Misdirection for Games 2 and 3, then they don't know what they're doing (which usually bodes well for the opponent of a Gifts player).  Ancestral Recall should be played in any deck that can support it, and should never, ever, be anywhere but the maindeck.

[Shock Wave]

I'm drawing this conclusion from playing hundreds of games vs. many different players, with the overwhelming majority having access to Misdirection in their maindeck.  The session I posted was but one example.  There have been many sessions versus a vast array of players, some of whom I did pick-up games with.

Ok, so you've tested "hundreds" of games. How were those games tested? Did you simulate a tournament environment in which you assume a random opponent, or did you continually test the first game of a match-up against the same player playing the same archetype? What card did you replace Ancestral with and how did it prove to be better? What archetypes did it prove to better against? Can you provide specific examples of how Ancestral Recall would have lost you the game?

1) I consider gifts to be the best deck in the format... the overwhelming majority run Misdirection main.   
2) Pitch Long often runs Misdirection.  If Gifts isn't the best deck in the format, Pitch Long probably is.
3) Fish runs Misdirection.  Fish is pretty popular.

Regardless of what the top decks in the format are, the percentage of Misdirections played in an event compared to other cards that other people will be playing is extremely small. That number may go up slightly when you get to the Top 8, but even then, we're talking about very small probabilities here.

4)  5c Stax simply cannot win games where its ancestral is hijacked.  I watched it happen at more than one tournament, often in top 8's.  If the above three decks all run misdirection, it does not seem unreasonable to deduct that a large percentage of a given field in a major tourney will be running the card.

Ok, so why would you walk into a situation where your Ancestral backfires? Like Steve said, you wouldn't walk a Smokestack into a Drain, so why cast an Ancestral recklessly?

I reached my sideboard strategy mainly from those above principles that were then applied to my testing.  Misdirection is not some narrow card seen in only one part of a region... Misdirection is all over the place.  Yes, it's more prevalent in my area of New England, but  I've seen it do well in plenty of other regions both from posted results and first hand viewing.  There was a good amount of it as the last Star City, in Virginia.

It seems the main counter-argument I'm getting is 'I would never ever cut Ancestral because it's just too good.  Regardless of how much its best answer is floating around, the card just wins games.'  That line of thought just doesn't cut it for me right now.  If you haven't actually played Stax, it's hard for you to realize just how devastating losing Ancestral Recall is.  To me, the deck just doesn't need that risk.  Stax might be the only deck in the format that is better off without playing Ancestral Recall main.  Sure, it's a great card to run if you have the ability to do so, but Stax simply does not need the card to win.

Ok, Misdirection is not "all over the place" in large events. It may be in your area, but even if it is, players aren't entitled to knowing what their opponents are running before an event. Are you comfortable cutting a very powerful card because you assume the number of Misdirection in an upcoming event is going to be high? This isn't a slight tweak we're talking about here, so the argument that "Ancestral is too good to cut" is one that is worth addressing. Also, the question of whether Stax needs Ancestral isn't what we're concerned about. The question is "What card would be better in the slot of Ancestral Recall?" Once you figure out what that card is, you would have to do some extensive testing to get some information on why that replacement is giving you a better chance to win than AR would.

The threat of Misdirection is enough to convince me that maindecking Ancestral Recall will actually lead to more losses than wins in this particular deck.  It's a hard conclusion to swallow for many people, but I get the feeling that the majority of people who are against the strategy in this thread simply haven't tried it and are posting on general feelings towards Ancestral Recall.  It's good to think out of the box sometimes.

I don't think this is a matter of thinking outside of the box. You've made a very strong statement which goes against a fundamental principle of Vintage deckbuilding. It's going to take a lot more detail than "I've tested hundreds of games" to compel your argument.

[Dxfiler]

You also need to ask yourself how many of those game you actually would have drawn Ancestral Recall in, and how many of those games you would have been able to cast it. It doesn't matter if AR is in your maindeck if you never draw it, and short of 'marking' one of your cards (say, with a different edition or something), you can't really tell whether or not it's the change you've made or the deck having a winning streak despite your change.

I agree with this statement and have recently made pyroblast my official Ancestral replacement.  I only play one Pyroblast maindeck, so it's very easy to track if and when Ancestral would be better.  Some might say it's unfair that I replaced Ancestral with a card that will undeniably help my theory, since pyroblast stops alot of problem cards i'm worried about.  That is an understandable position, but the fact is I was trying to fit in a pyroblast into 5c Stax for a long, long time.  Mana Vault, as I mentioned earlier, is certainly on the chopping block, but I know I don't want Ancestral main so pyroblast gets that spot for the moment. 

Here's the most recent list I've been testing:

// Lands
    3  Wasteland
    1  Strip Mine
    4  Gemstone Mine
    4  Mishra's Workshop
    4  City of Brass
    1  Tolarian Academy
    1  Bazaar of Baghdad
    2  Mishra's Factory

// Creatures
    4  Goblin Welder
    1  Sundering Titan
    1  Duplicant
    2  Gorilla Shaman (1)
    1  Triskelion

// Spells
    1  Mana Crypt
    1  Trinisphere
    1  Balance
    1  Black Lotus
    1  Sol Ring
    1  Mox Pearl
    1  Mox Sapphire
    1  Mox Ruby
    1  Mox Jet
    4  Smokestack
    4  Chalice of the Void
    1  Tinker
    1  Demonic Tutor
    3  Crucible of Worlds
    1  Mox Emerald
    1  Vampiric Tutor
    4  Sphere of Resistance
    1  Mana Vault
    1  In the Eye of Chaos
    1  Red Elemental Blast

// Sideboard
SB: 3  In the Eye of Chaos
SB: 1  Ray of Revelation
SB: 1  Ancestral Recall
SB: 1  Darkblast
SB: 3  Seal of Cleansing
SB: 3  Juggernaut
SB: 2  Tormod's Crypt
SB: 1  Shattering Spree

Ok, so you've tested "hundreds" of games. How were those games tested? Did you simulate a tournament environment in which you assume a random opponent, or did you continually test the first game of a match-up against the same player playing the same archetype? What card did you replace Ancestral with and how did it prove to be better? What archetypes did it prove to better against? Can you provide specific examples of how Ancestral Recall would have lost you the game?

I've already been over this, but to elaborate: I do a big mix of games when I test.  It's a combinations of full blown matches and game 1's vs. both known and unknown opponent's.  I can't really break it down person by person, because I'm constantly playing different people under different circumstances.  Unless it's a pre-scheduled testing session where I know the exact deck I'm facing ahead of time (like the Shay session), the majority of my testing is against an unknown field.  Sometimes I'll just pop on MWS, sometimes i'll get an IM out of the blue.  Either way, the majority of the time I go in under tournament like conditions.  Even with friends who I actively test against online, I usually ask them to mix it up and play different decks against me rather than the usual if I'm testing something new.  I do this because it's the best way to prepare yourself for a Type 1 environment... You could literally face anything at anytime.  I do the pre-scheduled testing blocks to get the known decks out of the way.  The rest I leave up to whoever asked me for a game.

Regardless of what the top decks in the format are, the percentage of Misdirections played in an event compared to other cards that other people will be playing is extremely small. That number may go up slightly when you get to the Top 8, but even then, we're talking about very small probabilities here.

Again, for me personally, the threat is great enough that I fear Misdirection and won't walk ancestral into it if I'm piloting 5c Stax. 

Ok, Misdirection is not "all over the place" in large events.

Apparently I should have clarified when i said "all over the place."  By place, I mean top 8's... and that's where I get all my testing data.  That's where the overwhelming majority of the community makes their decisions on decks... they look at top 8 results of big tourneys.  Guess what?  MisD is all over top 8's of big tourneys right now.  The most recent Spain tourney featured 7 misdirections in top 8.  Day 1 of SCG Virginia had 8, Day 2 had 7.  This is just big tourneys from the last month, and none of those are near me.  Yes, I actually attended the Virginia ones, but I don't consider 14 hours to be 'close.'

It may be in your area, but even if it is, players aren't entitled to knowing what their opponents are running before an event.

No, players aren't entitled to knowing what they're up against, but they should have a general idea of a metagame when they walk in the door.  I'm not talking about scouting, I'm talking about just knowing what the top decks are in general.  If you know the top decks, you generally know a large portion of what a given field will play.  People look at top decks.  People copy top decks.  This forms a metagame.  Anyone looking to be even remotely successful in this format needs to be aware of the general metagame for any given tourney.  Period.

Ok, so why would you walk into a situation where your Ancestral backfires? Like Steve said, you wouldn't walk a Smokestack into a Drain, so why cast an Ancestral recklessly?

Stax is a deck that actually walks into drains constantly.  It has no choice.  It can't sit there and play a long game.  It has to just keep dropping heymakers in the form of lock pieces hoping that enough of them eventually stick.  Ancestral is not a lock piece.  Lock pieces can't be misdirected, Ancestral can.  I have no qualms about running a recall into a drain.  If misdirection wasn't played right now, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

 

I don't think this is a matter of thinking outside of the box. You've made a very strong statement which goes against a fundamental principle of Vintage deckbuilding. It's going to take a lot more detail than "I've tested hundreds of games" to compel your argument.

I'm not sure what else I can say.  I've presented evidence to support my admittedly unconventional theory.  You can either use that information or disregard it.  If you disregard it, that's fine with me.  I'm not out to convert people.  People love playing their broken cards, and Ancestral is pretty much the most broken of all.  I don't think its needed right now in 5c Stax given both the prevalence of misdirection and the raw power of the deck. I've given what I feel are sufficient enough reasons to support that.

This is the last time i'll say this: My sideboard Ancestral Recall theory is strictly a metagame decision and should not stand for all time.  I feel it's a strong strategy right now for this deck and this deck only.  I posted it hoping it people would find it helpful.  If you didn't find it helpful, that's fine, too.

For those willing to get over the suggestion of not maindecking Ancestral Recall and actually give it a try, I believe you'll be pleasantly surprised.

- Dave Feinstein

[Jacob Orlove]

If we're considering the utility of Ancestral versus the possibility of getting it Misdirected, we need to be assuming that we're drawing Ancestral, because the rest of the time we just don't care.

Now, it's true that there's a difference between an opening hand Ancestral and one drawn later, but trying to argue that MisD is irrelevant because it'll only hit an early hand Ancestral one game in twenty is misleading, because you'll only draw that early ancestral two or three games out of twenty anyway.

You just look at the intersection of the events that you draw Ancestral and they draw Misdirection, and compute probabilites of those (independent events, so it's very easy).  The probability

P(Opponent has Misdirection | You have Ancestral) = P(Opponent has Misdirection)
P(You have Ancestral | Opponent has Misdirection) = P(You have Ancestral)

from the independence of the events, so neither one is useful.  That you have Ancestral is irrelevant when determining when an opponent has Misdirection.  You need to look at the overall intersection of the two events to guage when it's actually going to happen, that is,

P(You have Ancestral & Opponent has Misdirection) = P(You have Ancestral)*P(Opponent has Misdirection)

No, you're missing my point. It does not matter that the odds of intersection are low, because we only care about their Misdirection if we already have Ancestral. If we don't have Ancestral, we literally do not care whether they draw Misdirection or not, so the only case we need to look at is the one where we already have Ancestral. As you said, that's the same odds as for them having Misdirection in general (31.5%, with three Misdirections). That means an early Ancestral is going to get Misdirected something like three games in 10, against Gifts.

I cannot stress enough how irrelevant that intersection probability actually is. We do not care that Ancestral will get Misdirected in 3% of your total games against Gifts. We care that it will get Misdirected 30% of the time against them. That's how we evaluate the actual utility of the card Ancestral Recall in the Gifts matchup, because it has exactly no relevance to the game at all if we do not draw it--there is zero difference between an undrawn Ancestral and an undrawn Pyroblast.

Now, this is not to say that Ancestral is correct or incorrect, just that the only probability we care about when considering that question is the odds that our opponent will have Misdirection.

[Shock Wave]

I've already been over this, but to elaborate: I do a big mix of games when I test.  It's a combinations of full blown matches and game 1's vs. both known and unknown opponent's.  I can't really break it down person by person, because I'm constantly playing different people under different circumstances.  Unless it's a pre-scheduled testing session where I know the exact deck I'm facing ahead of time (like the Shay session), the majority of my testing is against an unknown field.  Sometimes I'll just pop on MWS, sometimes i'll get an IM out of the blue.  Either way, the majority of the time I go in under tournament like conditions.  Even with friends who I actively test against online, I usually ask them to mix it up and play different decks against me rather than the usual if I'm testing something new.  I do this because it's the best way to prepare yourself for a Type 1 environment... You could literally face anything at anytime.  I do the pre-scheduled testing blocks to get the known decks out of the way.  The rest I leave up to whoever asked me for a game.

Ok, well since you've found a replacement for your AR, I think the results of further testing will give us more details as to if/how/why this is an improvement to the deck. Otherwise, we're pretty much speculating. If we're going to speculate, I'm putting my money on Ancestral Recall winning more games than a Red Blast.

Again, for me personally, the threat is great enough that I fear Misdirection and won't walk ancestral into it if I'm piloting 5c Stax.

So what's the problem if you're not walking into it? If you hang on to it, the results are that you have AR in your hand they have a Misdirection. I don't see how that is such a tragic situation.

Apparently I should have clarified when i said "all over the place."  By place, I mean top 8's... and that's where I get all my testing data.  That's where the overwhelming majority of the community makes their decisions on decks... they look at top 8 results of big tourneys.  Guess what?  MisD is all over top 8's of big tourneys right now.  The most recent Spain tourney featured 7 misdirections in top 8.  Day 1 of SCG Virginia had 8, Day 2 had 7.  This is just big tourneys from the last month, and none of those are near me.  Yes, I actually attended the Virginia ones, but I don't consider 14 hours to be 'close.'

Hrmm. Well, I personally would not consider 8 Misdirection in the top 8 to be an overwhelming number. That's what, 3 decks at most that are running them in significant numbers? That's not even half the Top 8. What about the rest of the decks you may play against along the way? You're trying to build the best deck to beat the field, not the best deck to beat the decks in the Top 8.

Anyone looking to be even remotely successful in this format needs to be aware of the general metagame for any given tourney.  Period.

Being aware of the metagame does not necessarily mean that the decks you intend to face will actually comprise a large portion of the field. We can't predict metagames, and because of that, preparing your deck for an event involves drawing a certain line when making card choices based on metagame projections. There comes a point where card choices based on metagame projections can be disastrous if your predictions are wrong.

Yes, we're only talking about one card here, but this isn't a trivial issue. We're talking about a hideously broken spell that has the power to win games upon resolution with more frequency than arguably any other card in the game. I don't think that it is wise to cut such a beast with nothing more than metagame speculation to go upon, especially when the projected numbers for Misdirection are, in my opinion, underwhelming.

Stax is a deck that actually walks into drains constantly.  It has no choice.  It can't sit there and play a long game.  It has to just keep dropping heymakers in the form of lock pieces hoping that enough of them eventually stick.  Ancestral is not a lock piece.  Lock pieces can't be misdirected, Ancestral can.  I have no qualms about running a recall into a drain.  If misdirection wasn't played right now, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

I disagree with the statement that you must cast a Smokestack into a Mana Drain, given the opportunity. I think this may be the case under some circumstances, but in others it is just a bad play.
 

I'm not sure what else I can say.  I've presented evidence to support my admittedly unconventional theory. I've given what I feel are sufficient enough reasons to support that.

I'm contending your theory not because I think that there is no possibility that you're right, but rather because I don't feel the evidence you've provided is very compelling, and in some cases (ie. the results of your testing) it can't even be submitted as legitimate evidence at all. Now that you've chosen a replacement for your Ancestral, and you plan to run through your testing gauntlet again, I think we will end up with more tangible details on this experiment.

This is the last time i'll say this: My sideboard Ancestral Recall theory is strictly a metagame decision and should not stand for all time.  I feel it's a strong strategy right now for this deck and this deck only.  I posted it hoping it people would find it helpful.  If you didn't find it helpful, that's fine, too.

For those willing to get over the suggestion of not maindecking Ancestral Recall and actually give it a try, I believe you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Well, I certainly support your venture into unconventional deckbuilding theory. I think players that are truly great at this game are willing to try things that most believe to be impossible or foolish. I think that on the surface, you'll agree that cutting AR from any deck that can support blue falls into the "foolish" category. That doesn't mean that this is the case. I am very skeptical, but if you can present findings that suggest otherwise, I'll tip my hat to you. 

[Vegeta2711]

I like this argument a lot.

Seems like we can break it down into two parts, Dave's recollections and personal experiences of his testing and a lot of data / mathematical arguments from the other side. Oh and the quibbling over said math and Dave saying the same thing every response. Seriously, it seems like at this point we're talking past one another.

Here's the base flaws I see in this whole discussion.
1. Mis-D is good against 1 card in the deck.
2. Realistically, and the data provided in the thread shows this, it's a very small amount of time where the situation comes up.
3.The Stax player apparently has to misplay AR quite badly, since it'sbeen established by Rich and Steve that the Gifts player will be BS'ingaway / RFGing mis-d quite a bit once they realize the match.

So why is this even a big deal again?

[MaxxMatt]

5C-Stacks is a deck that can tutor bombs and restricted cards.
If you are arguing that AR would be Misdirected  enough to be significantly bad, I'm thinking about you targeting it with all your tutors so often that the math made by JDizzle and J_Orlove almost become the same.

If you don't searh enough for AR, you would see it in your initial hand really so few times that all our arguments could be considered a bit *flawed*.

If you would use your tutors' power to check for it for a different pletora of reasons, THEN, we would talk each other NOT about siding AR out or in, but about HOW WE would properly use that ASTOSNISHINGLY BROKEN card EVEN against MIs-Ds

If I saw only BS and Islands from opponent's side, I can think about Gifts.dec with Mis-Ds.
At that time, I would avoid play early game AR or I would not play it before anything else. I would sacrifice, instead, other bombs to throw through counterspells and then kick them with my AR.

If, after that process, opponent's Mis_D would be ready to be played YET, then, I would have however lost the game.


On the other hand, I would apply exactly the opposite argument against Mis-D-less decks.
AR is cheap, strong and tamptative enough to be countered with *normal* counterspells.
My subsequent bombs would play a better role after AR get *normally* countered.

Even if ( from my scientifical perspective and background )  I'm addicted to do percentage counts and applying rules depeding on it, I cannot sacrifice cards such AR because of opponent's Mis-Ds.

There isn't a SINGLE NUMBER ( excluding 100% ) that would guarantee  you that your AR would get countered with Mis-D.
Or that your opponents would draw cards instead of you.
Or that you need to resolve it blindly and as soon as you can.
Or that it is safer in your side rather than maindeck.

Or that, there would be a single better card to add to your maindeck in the AR's slot

Almost any game situation would come down to the rationale that playskills and luck would mix their impact on the game and bless you or kill you.

I played 5C-Stacks instead of Monobrown stacks or Red.Welders.stacks almost and especially because A LOT OF GAMES are won by all the coloured restricted cards. Their impact and their inherent strenght is overwhelming when compared with drawbacks.

If I'm aware of my opponent, I would not get my AR though his MIs-Ds for sure. I could play all my deck out, keep that damn AR in hand AND THEN try to win, even with or without it.
...but I would leave it maindeck... or cut colors and play MUD

Maxx

AR replaced by Pyroblast

A little note from an old player

If you REALLY want to lose AR for a situational counterspell, AT LEAST, add ReB.
If you have IteoC in play and you play Pyro during a counterwar for some reasons, they can Mis-D it on your enchantment.
If you have ReB, instead, they would not be able to do it so simply.
ReB is a modal spells that cannot change the *type* of target choosen in declaration. If you target a spell they would retarget a spell, if they target a *permanent* they would redirect it on another target. PYro, instead, would target first and then kill things if they are blue.

[wethepeople]

So why is this even a big deal again?

I actually couldn't figure that out myself, I personally don't even see the purpose of a thread disussing one very minor change in a well-known decklist that doesn't even make sense to me.

[Implacable]

So why is this even a big deal again?

I actually couldn't figure that out myself, I personally don't even see the purpose of a thread disussing one very minor change in a well-known decklist that doesn't even make sense to me.

Well, I believe that it's a big deal because this thread is a conflict between feelings vs. statistics, a conflict that permeates Vintage.  You can 'feel' that Ancestral isn't good because it gets Misdirected, but the statistics don't make it a relevant worry.

[Smmenen]

But this thread is also about the capacity of players to mitigate risks by changing the way we play.

I think one of the great lessons of modern Vintage is that a matchup can swing - not because of any changes to the deck - but because of a change in how we pilot a deck.   

Vintage decks have such great velocity - meaning the ability to rifle through and manipulate their libraries - in addition to the great number of choices presented each and every turn, that Vintage players can pursue multiple avenues of play at any given juncture.    What this means is that a change in play or approach can change outcomes more dramatically than a deck tweak.    If Misd is such a threat, I don't see why Ancestral just can't be sandbagged until the point in time when you can be sure your opp. isn't playing a Misd deck or won't be able to use or doesn't have Misd.   I contend that the utility of Ancestral, played with such restraint, is still greater than the utility of the next best card.   

I think the statistics plus the restrained play argument are in tandem (although neither alone is quite as poweful) stands as a pretty solid refutation of the central contention in this thread.   

The point is that the answer isn't always to change our decks, but change the way we play.   Anyone with decent experience in modern Vintage knows the truth of this statement.   It's one of the great lessons of our era. 

[dicemanx]

I think the statistics plus the restrained play argument are in tandem (although neither alone is quite as poweful) stands as a pretty solid refutation of the central contention in this thread.

To be fair, the restraint argument is weaker for a deck that has limited card drawing and tutoring power, and frequently relies on its draw step to produce its threats. Drawing an Ancestral against a deck packing Misdirections and not casting it could essentially resut in the total loss of a turn. The statistics argument is also incomplete as by your own admission we haven't even looked at what is replacing that AR.

There are other issues that can complicate the analysis. For instance, instituting some sort of cap on the number of colored spells, or limiting the number of 1cc spells like Welders and AR (to make CotV for 1 more potent) could all factor in beyond just the Misdirection issue.

Well, I believe that it's a big deal because this thread is a conflict between feelings vs. statistics, a conflict that permeates Vintage.

To be more precise, it's not just a "feeling" - what's in question is the interpretation of testing results, and the ability to determine the answers to certain questions via testing. We very rarely have any sort of scrutinizing of testing in these forums - it would be very interesting and enlightening if we had more threads delving into people's methods as a check of the validity of their claims borne from that testing. We have people make claims based on their "testing" all of the time here (myself included) but rarely is it discussed how that testing is done, and more importantly how their data is being analyzed and how their conclusions are made.

[Smmenen]

I think the statistics plus the restrained play argument are in tandem (although neither alone is quite as poweful) stands as a pretty solid refutation of the central contention in this thread.

To be fair, the restraint argument is weaker for a deck that has limited card drawing and tutoring power, and frequently relies on its draw step to produce its threats. Drawing an Ancestral against a deck packing Misdirections and not casting it could essentially resut in the total loss of a turn.

Yes, but you also are only seeing half of the restraint argument's foundation.   There are two components: velocity made possible by library manipulation and sheer options made possible by mana accelleration.  You mention only the former:

weaker for a deck that has limited card drawing and tutoring power, and frequently relies on its draw step to produce its threats

 Stax hands often have multiple plays any given turn because of the latter and not the former.  I was careful to point this out in my previous post with this statement:

in addition to the great number of choices presented each and every turn, that Vintage players can pursue multiple avenues of play at any given juncture. 

Consider this hypothetical Stax hand:

1 Shop
1 City of Brass
1 Mox Pearl
1 Goblin Welder
1 Sphere of Resistance
1 Chalice of the Void
1 Smokestack

There is absolutely no tutoring power in that hand, yet as is full of decision making that could lead to different results.

It isn't even just that you can play virtually any of those cards on turn one, but there is also the consequences of subsequent plays.  For instance, assuming for the moment, hypothetically, that hte correct turn one play is Stack, that doesn't answer what the correct turn two or three play(s) are.   

You have decision trees that look like this:

                D
              /
             /
A  ---->  B
 \            \
  \            \
   C            C
   / \
B    E

Where A = Stack
B = Welder
C= Chalice
D = Crucible

etc, you get the drift. 

The restraint argument stands pretty strong. 

[dicemanx]

There is absolutely no tutoring power in that hand, yet as is full of decision making that could lead to different results.

There's no Recall in that hand. If you have a Recall and are making the decision to forego casting it because you fear Misdirection, then that is essentially trimming down that decision tree, and lowering your threat density too. Even after your initial explosion (whatever line of play you decide to follow), you would still have to make a decision at some point regarding that AR - if you decide against playing it, your options are not only limited but the inaction could prove fatal.

I'm not arguing that Stax doesn't frequently have a large decision tree to contend with - the issue is that even if you're postponing the casting of AR, you will soon reach a situation where you exhaust your early turn plays, and if they are insufficient for victory, you'll have to make a decision regarding that Recall. If that decision is not to cast it, you're essentially losing a turn/draw step, which could prove fatal. If however, you go strictly by the numbers and argue that Misdirection on AR is unlikely (it always is in your favor), that's fine, except that as I mentioned before, it might be an unnecessary concession of certain odds which the more skilled players don't enjoy having to give - if there's a very powerful card that has a small chance of losing you the game when cast, then as the stronger player you might forego playing that card.  This is reminiscent of the arguments I made against Trinisphere, a card that is situationally powerful but it was played in a deck that most strong players would likely stay away from to this day if Trini were still unrestricted.

[Smmenen]

There is absolutely no tutoring power in that hand, yet as is full of decision making that could lead to different results.

There's no Recall in that hand. If you have a Recall and are making the decision to forego casting it because you fear Misdirection, then that is essentially trimming down that decision tree, and lowering your threat density too. Even after your initial explosion (whatever line of play you decide to follow), you would still have to make a decision at some point regarding that AR - if you decide against playing it, your options are not only limited but the inaction could prove fatal.

Peter, that is a completely different agument, one that I also anticipated.  You are not undercutting the restrained play argument, what you are doing is attacking the utility argument.

The weakest part of my argument is that even with restrained play

U(Ancestral Recall) > U (Alternative Card)

That is, the Utility of Ancestral Recall is greater than the utility of other cards, given restrained play.

You are shifting to an attack on that argument rather than undercutting the point I was making about different play.

And I said this earlier in the thread,

1) Rational decision making is cost benefit decision making

2) Cost Benefit decision making in deck design is a function of utility and opportunity cost.
Put anther way, each card chosen in a deck reflects the lowest opportunity cost or the highest utility for that slot

That's why I asked two questions in this thread that have not yet been answered:

A)

et me ask you a pointed question: If Ancestral Recall said, you may not play this on turn one 40% of the time of your choosing, would you still play it?  In Stax, I probably would.    That percentage was chosen not simply to mitigate the risk you fear, but to eliminate it.  If the answer is no, then I think there is a substantial basis to your claim - even though this gross hypothetical doesn't fully reflect the reality we are talking about.   There are risks attendant with every spell in Stax.   Just like you don't play Smokestack into Mana Drain, why can't you hold back Ancestral if you think they have Misd?

B)

Secondly, what is the threshold number of Misdirections in the field that would make Ancestral suboptimal?   That is, assming that the no deck in the field ran MIsdirection then Ancestral would be included and that if every deck in the format ran 4 Misdirections, then we would not run Ancestral, where is the threshold in which we cross from one to the other?   I'm curious as to what Dave's specific answer is to this question.   I think the answer will greatly clarify his reasoning.  For example, is it 60% of the field running an average of 3 Misd?   Is it 33% of the field running 2 misd?   What is the thresold that makes Ancestral optimal to suboptimal?   If we can pinpoint that place, then we'll have some greater insight into the reasonability of the decision.

Both questions try to get to the utility question.   

[warble]

If however, you go strictly by the numbers and argue that Misdirection on AR is unlikely (it always is in your favor), that's fine, except that as I mentioned before, it might be an unnecessary concession of certain odds

No, the decision is far more rational in a game space.  You're considering conditional probability, while we are considering the impact of one card in 60.  Will this card potentially lose the game in this metagame?  Yes.  Why are you evaluating more statistics?  It's a point with no rebuttal, smells like a won argument to me.

[dicemanx]

Peter, that is a completely different agument, one that I also anticipated.  You are not undercutting the restrained play argument, what you are doing is attacking the utility argument.

Then perhaps I'm not understanding your "restrained play" argument. I don't buy the idea that it's as simple as not playing AR if there's a danger of Misdirection, and that this is similar to showing restraint by not walking a Smokestack into a Mana Drain. However, a deck like Stax doesn't have the luxury of always accumulating threats via its draw step; as dxfiler already indicated, often you'll have to walk that Smokestack into that Drain regardless, because restraint can often be much more fatal. My point was that if you're planning on showing restraint in certain situations when considering whether or not to cast the AR, you might be better off playing another threat card that won't put you in such positions in the first place.

The restraint argument would have much more validity if there was some way to ensure that the AR did not get clipped by a Misdirection, via things like Duress, or countermagic, or tapping the opponent out with a Sphere in play. Then the restraint would have meaning, because you're postponing the casting of a card until a time when you are more likely to resolve it or not get caught by a Misdirection. Sure, you can wait until the Gifts/PL player pitches his Misd to FoW, or Brainstorms it away, but if you're waiting for such an occasion in the early game with Stax, you're effectively playing a card down in a phase of the game that's most critical for a deck with very little card drawing and limited tutoring/search.

No, the decision is far more rational in a game space.  You're considering conditional probability, while we are considering the impact of one card in 60.  Will this card potentially lose the game in this metagame?  Yes.  Why are you evaluating more statistics?  It's a point with no rebuttal, smells like a won argument to me.

Unfortunately, I did not understand any part of this paragraph, or how it addresses the point I made.

My argument, to repeat an earlier simplified scenario, was that I was the more skilled player in a given game, I wouldn't use a card that guaranteed me the game 60% of the time, if 40% of the time it would result in a loss. I don't see it as it being 10% in my favor - I'd see it as unnecessarily conceding 40%.

If Ancestral Recall said, you may not play this on turn one 40% of the time of your choosing, would you still play it?  In Stax, I probably would.

Unanswered because it seems like a poor analogy. Misdirection can still be available turn 2. I don't see how postponement (and the restraint argument) addresses the threat that Misdirection poses.

Secondly, what is the threshold number of Misdirections in the field that would make Ancestral suboptimal?

Good question. We can only speculate at this point, because we don't have any hard evidence.

[defector]

Has anyone considered running wheel of fortune instead? It avoids Mis-D, generates a powerful draw, and avoids Chalice. Also, played with restraint, it shouldn't feed combo.

[warble]

No, the decision is far more rational in a game space.  You're considering conditional probability, while we are considering the impact of one card in 60.  Will this card potentially lose the game in this metagame?  Yes.  Why are you evaluating more statistics?  It's a point with no rebuttal, smells like a won argument to me.

Unfortunately, I did not understand any part of this paragraph, or how it addresses the point I made.

I wouldn't use a card that guaranteed me the game 60% of the time, if 40% of the time it would result in a loss.

what is the threshold number of Misdirections in the field that would make Ancestral suboptimal?

Both of these arguments are intrenched in statistics, while we are asking a design question.  We aren't talking about a benefit of a card, we are talking about a drawback severe enough to cost you a game.  I believe you accept that restricted play of ancestral recall reduces its power, but the best analogy here is probably to a riskier play such as an unprotected animate dead in dragon when your opponent has blue mana open.  If you cannot expect to win in a timely fashion, you may choose to risk your entire board for a win.  The difference between ancestral and animate on a dragon is that you're risking to win the game, and you have a tremendous support mechanism in place for the play in dragon...and it still loses the game a lot.

Because we accept the reduced power of ancestral recall, it is more the uniqueness of what ancestral recall offers to stax that we lose.  This isn't a win, this 3 cards with no guarantees.  By following the statistics, we're pinpointing the threshold of where ancestral becomes suboptimal, and with distribution we can easily concoct metagames with optimal scenarios of a maindecked, a sideboarded ,and a completely excluded ancestral recall.  I believed that the issue was not how to gauge a metagame, however, but how to beat a misdirection-infested metagame.  With pitch long and gifts, it's not hard to believe the current metagame fits into the completely excluded ancestral scenario, but justifying it's inclusion in the sideboard is difficult even with this assumption.  Perhaps it is a bias actually being located inside of the misdirection-infested metagame, but that opinion on the matter is precisely the insight that I can bring to the argument.  I have no knowledge of the other two metagames currently because my metagame is infested beyond my comprehension with misdirection and it actually causes me to change my deck's fundamental strategy.  When a stax player says to me that it causes his deck to change it's strategy by excluding a single card, this seems more than reasonable, it seems like stax is simply following suit.  Because stax does not routinely employ a protection engine for ancestral, it chooses to protect that play by either placing the card in the sideboard or foregoing that strategy altogether because of metagame concerns.  It is a fundamental choice to not play cards that will, under certain circumstances, immediately cause you to lose the game when played.  This can be likened to a control player's choice to maindeck tormod's crypt, except that tormod's crypt doesn't under any circumstances lose the game for you.  It is a metagame choice to take a calculated risk, but our risk has a downside that is too great to ignore, and in fact dominates the upside in a majority of the matches in my metagame.  I understand that there is some measure of a metagame, and that your specific metagame may not call for this extraordinary measure to control gifts and pitch long.  I believe the topic of this thread was much more focused on that specific circumstance of a misdirection infested metagame, and a fundamental choice of my version of stax is to not play cards that will either lose you the game or be dead in that environment.  It's a whole different ballpark when we're playing with Oath, Ichorid and Stax mirrors.

Edit:  Yes, dicemanx, your points are valid and I'm not trying to dispute their validity, just providing additional input.  I base my decision on different criteria, providing an additional point of view but not necessarily disputing...anything...becaus e it's a different design view.  Cheers, mate.

[dicemanx]

So...you're basically agreeing with my points.

One note though:

the best analogy here is probably to a riskier play such as an unprotected animate dead in dragon when your opponent has blue mana open.  If you cannot expect to win in a timely fashion, you may choose to risk your entire board for a win.  The difference between ancestral and animate on a dragon is that you're risking to win the game, and you have a tremendous support mechanism in place for the play in dragon...and it still loses the game a lot.

There isn't a need to make such a comparison, as you even clarify:

Because stax does not routinely employ a protection engine for ancestral, it chooses to protect that play by either placing the card in the sideboard or foregoing that strategy altogether because of metagame concerns.

WGD has the means to protect that animate (the deck is built to protect the combo most of the time when going off), and will only rely on a blind animate if there is no choice. Stax doesn't have very good means of protecting an Ancestral, as you point out and as I've pointed out before.

[Smmenen]

Sure, you can wait until the Gifts/PL player pitches his Misd to FoW, or Brainstorms it away, but if you're waiting for such an occasion in the early game with Stax, you're effectively playing a card down in a phase of the game that's most critical for a deck with very little card drawing and limited tutoring/search.

Playing a card down?   You mean its utility diminishes?   In other words, if the utility of Ancestral Recall as a turn one play could be measured in a field w/o Misd, the value would dip if you restrain your play?   

Granted.   My argument is that even with such restraint, the U(Ancestral) > U(alternative card).   Alternatively, I think it is incumbent upon the person arguing otherwise to demonstrate that the opportunity cost of the slot truly is so high that it would be better to run something else.   

However, a deck like Stax doesn't have the luxury of always accumulating threats via its draw step; as dxfiler already indicated, often you'll have to walk that Smokestack into that Drain regardless, because restraint can often be much more fatal. My point was that if you're planning on showing restraint in certain situations when considering whether or not to cast the AR, you might be better off playing another threat card that won't put you in such positions in the first place.

Peter, this point doesn't support your rejection of my analogy.     It is a given that at certain times restraint will be the wrong play just as it is often going to be the correct play.   You seem to be denying the fact that not playing a card is sometimes the correct play.   Do you believe that?

The correct play is always the play that maximizes your chances of winning.   Sometimes that means not playing a card and sometimes that means playing a card despite the risks because the alternatives are worse.   Ancestral fits this bill, just as Smokestack does for Ancestral.   You seem to be trying to deny this fact by arguing that sometimes you can't play with restraint.   Well, no kidding    But that doesn't kill the analogy - it sharpens it. 

The restraint argument would have much more validity if there was some way to ensure that the AR did not get clipped by a Misdirection, via things like Duress, or countermagic, or tapping the opponent out with a Sphere in play. Then the restraint would have meaning, because you're postponing the casting of a card until a time when you are more likely to resolve it or not get caught by a Misdirection.

Apply what you just said but substitute the words Smokestack for AR and Mana Drain for Misdirection and you'll see how silly it is.   It's not that you want to "ensure" that you card doesn't get clipped - it's about timing it so you maximize your chances of winning. That's how Stax players win games all the time. 

If Ancestral Recall said, you may not play this on turn one 40% of the time of your choosing, would you still play it?  In Stax, I probably would.

Unanswered because it seems like a poor analogy. Misdirection can still be available turn 2. I don't see how postponement (and the restraint argument) addresses the threat that Misdirection poses.

Because you play cards at a time that maximizes the odds that you'll win the game.   Waiting to play a card often does this.

Secondly, what is the threshold number of Misdirections in the field that would make Ancestral suboptimal?

Good question. We can only speculate at this point, because we don't have any hard evidence.

Let's talk about taxes.   If the government taxed 100% of your income you wouldn't work at all.    If the government taxed none of your income, you would presumably work at a rate that would maximize your income potential (assuming you are an income seeker).   Now, at what rate of taxation can the government tax that would maximize government revenues but minimize people's disincentive to work?

It's the same question.   Assuming that 100% of the field with 4 misd would mean you wouldn't run Ancestral and 0% of the field runinng misd means you would, where does the Misd tax of Ancestral become inefficient to run Ancestral?   

Whatever the answer is, I'm willing to bet that we aren't remotely there yet.   

[Elric]

Secondly, what is the threshold number of Misdirections in the field that would make Ancestral suboptimal?

I asked this question in the second post of this thread. 

Ignoring the differences across the decks that play Misdirection for a second, what would you call the "cut-off" point for the average number of Misdirections you expect to see (for each other deck in the field) above which you wouldn't run Ancestral in this deck and below which you would run Ancestral in this deck?

I didn't try to fill in an answer there.  However, it's my opinion that the cut-off value is very high; you would still want to run Ancestral Recall in this deck even if 60% of the field played 3 Misdirections and the rest of the field played none (but I couldn't say what the cut-off value should be).  Given that this is more Misdirections than you should reasonably expect to see played in almost any metagame, and I believe you would still want to run Ancestral in this metagame, it follows that if you don't have very good knowledge of a specific metagame with a ton of Misdirections, you should run Ancestral.

[Shock Wave]

Secondly, what is the threshold number of Misdirections in the field that would make Ancestral suboptimal?

I asked this question in the second post of this thread. 

Ignoring the differences across the decks that play Misdirection for a second, what would you call the "cut-off" point for the average number of Misdirections you expect to see (for each other deck in the field) above which you wouldn't run Ancestral in this deck and below which you would run Ancestral in this deck?

I didn't try to fill in an answer there.  However, it's my opinion that the cut-off value is very high; you would still want to run Ancestral Recall in this deck even if 60% of the field played 3 Misdirections and the rest of the field played none (but I couldn't say what the cut-off value should be).  Given that this is more Misdirections than you should reasonably expect to see played in almost any metagame, and I believe you would still want to run Ancestral in this metagame, it follows that if you don't have very good knowledge of a specific metagame with a ton of Misdirections, you should run Ancestral.

Personally, I would run Ancestral even if the entire field were running 4 Misdirection, the same way I would still run Black Lotus even if I knew the entire field was packing 4 Chalice of the Void or 4 Null Rod.

[diopter]

Secondly, what is the threshold number of Misdirections in the field that would make Ancestral suboptimal?

I asked this question in the second post of this thread. 

Ignoring the differences across the decks that play Misdirection for a second, what would you call the "cut-off" point for the average number of Misdirections you expect to see (for each other deck in the field) above which you wouldn't run Ancestral in this deck and below which you would run Ancestral in this deck?

I didn't try to fill in an answer there.  However, it's my opinion that the cut-off value is very high; you would still want to run Ancestral Recall in this deck even if 60% of the field played 3 Misdirections and the rest of the field played none (but I couldn't say what the cut-off value should be).  Given that this is more Misdirections than you should reasonably expect to see played in almost any metagame, and I believe you would still want to run Ancestral in this metagame, it follows that if you don't have very good knowledge of a specific metagame with a ton of Misdirections, you should run Ancestral.

Personally, I would run Ancestral even if the entire field were running 4 Misdirection, the same way I would still run Black Lotus even if I knew the entire field was packing 4 Chalice of the Void or 4 Null Rod.

In Stax? I wouldn't. Black Lotus being shutdown by Chalice or Rod >40% of the time doesn't actively lose you the game the way Ancestral being misdirected >40% of the time does.

[warble]

I would run Ancestral even if the entire field were running 4 Misdirection, the same way I would still run Black Lotus even if I knew the entire field was packing 4 Chalice of the Void or 4 Null Rod.

LOSE the game...you LOSE the game when ancestral gets misdirected.  When you have a black lotus matched up against chalice or null rod it's just a dead card, the same as if you had to mulligan one more time.  If you look back in the thread I make an analogy to animate on worldgorger and state how that would be a far more appropriate comparison than something like tormod's crypt.  Well, black lotus is a 0 cost artifact that gets shut down by null rod the same way, and it's similarly a bad comparison.  There's a big difference between dead cards and unplayable cards...dead cards are questionable, unplayable cards are just plain terrible to have sitting in your deck.

Diopter, you beat me to it.

[Shock Wave]

I would run Ancestral even if the entire field were running 4 Misdirection, the same way I would still run Black Lotus even if I knew the entire field was packing 4 Chalice of the Void or 4 Null Rod.

LOSE the game...you LOSE the game when ancestral gets misdirected.  When you have a black lotus matched up against chalice or null rod it's just a dead card, the same as if you had to mulligan one more time.  If you look back in the thread I make an analogy to animate on worldgorger and state how that would be a far more appropriate comparison than something like tormod's crypt.  Well, black lotus is a 0 cost artifact that gets shut down by null rod the same way, and it's similarly a bad comparison.  There's a big difference between dead cards and unplayable cards...dead cards are questionable, unplayable cards are just plain terrible to have sitting in your deck.

Diopter, you beat me to it.

Ancestral is unplayable if your opponent is running Misdirection!? It loses you the game by sitting in your hand!? Where in the rules of this game does it state that if you draw Ancestral, you absolutely must cast it? Keeping an Ancestral in your hand because your opponent runs Misdirection is just as dead as a Lotus in your hand because your opponent has a Null Rod or Chalice in play. They have no influence on the game if they stay there. That doesn't make them unplayable, or mean that they should be cut because your opponent is playing the appropriate counter measures.

[forests failed you]

I would run Ancestral even if the entire field were running 4 Misdirection, the same way I would still run Black Lotus even if I knew the entire field was packing 4 Chalice of the Void or 4 Null Rod.

LOSE the game...you LOSE the game when ancestral gets misdirected. 

Untrue.  I have won several games where my Ancestral Recall has gotten Misdirected.  Read Steven's tournament report from VA. on SCG as evidence to this fact.