The worst article on vintage I've ever read...

[Dxfiler]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/12773.html

 They list this horrid mono-blue deck that's derived from the author's "stochastic" principle.  They run it into a gauntlet that doesn't include non-SS fish or UBAstax...which is very convenient since this deck gets absolutely reamed by nullrods and uba mask.  The worst offense of all are these match stastistics...

" Against Control:

Pre-Sideboard: 91% Win
Post-Sideboard: 80% Win "

How in the blue hell does your matchup go down post sideboard?  And if it does, against what versions of control?  Mise well generalize.

" Against Aggro:

Pre-Sideboard: 67% Win
Post-Sideboard: 70% Win "

Weee... more generalizations.  It'd be nice if there were some cold hard BELIEVABLE stastistics against real decks...

Here's the attempt:

 "Against Oath:

Pre-Sideboard: 91% Win
Post-Sideboard: 80% Win"

 "Against Gifts:

Pre-Sideboard: 94% Win
Post-Sideboard: 100% Win"

" Against Control Slaver:

Pre-Sideboard: 91% Win
Post-Sideboard: 78% Win "

and my favorite...

" Against Long:

Pre-Sideboard: 100% Win
Post-Sideboard: 100% Win "

O'rly?

Give me a fucking break.  These stastistics are just plain impossible.  As I mentioned in the SCG forums, this article reeks of being done by pros who obviously haven't explored the format very much but pretend to.  This article is EMBARASSINGLY bad.  The only thing I agree with on the entire article was the choice by the author to conceal his true identitiy.

- Dave Feinstein

[SpencerForHire]

Anusien and I did some testing with this deck.   It loses to landscrew more than it's opponent.  So it forgot the matchup vs itself.
Preboard: 30%
Postboard: 30%

Also instead of coming off as format ignorance this article came off a bit more as deck Bias.  Who was he testing against?  Was it magic work station pugs?  Was it a friend?

Also if this was his first attempt at the format and he got halfway decent results of course he is going to have bias towards his deck, it's his deck and he wants it to succeed.  You can't say each and every one of us has gotten better than realistic results (albeit not this unrealistic) with his or her pet deck.

[Kasuras]

If a deck playing 4 Force of Will and 1 or more Misdirections cannot beat Grim Long on a regular basis, coupled with the fact that Grim Long can get turn 1 kills on a fairly (I won't get into percentages) regular basis; how can a deck with less Force of Wills have a 100% chance to win? How can a deck have a 100% to win, when judging from the other percentages (91%, 79%, 73%) 100 games have been played against every deck? Did it get a god-draw and Grim Long a suck-draw every time of those 100 times?

I could quote him endless times where he is totally wrong on vintage, but that's not worth my time. If this is supposed to be the level of writing expected to win 30 dollar, I'll get to writing soon.

[Klep]

The fact of this format (hell, most formats) is that nothing has a 100% matchup against any competetive deck.  Claiming otherwise is a clear indicator that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Moxlotus]

I just took it as a joke article.  Similar to how my teammate Mat Endress wrote an article on how Voltaic Key would dominate the format if unrestricted.

[Vegeta2711]

I laughed.

I'd be disappointed if it was actually Chapin, but I doubt it is. I find it hard to believe he's stupid enough to claim multiple 100%'s.

[Komatteru]

How do you lose to Stax with 10 Islands and like, Back to Basics?

Also, someone on the SCG forums brought up a good point: how did this get published?  The site rules explicitly state that any article where the author claims matches are 80% favorable against every deck in the existing field will be dismissed as nonsense.  An unknown writer would never be able to get SCG to publish an article with 100% match claims.

[Dxfiler]

Also, someone on the SCG forums brought up a good point: how did this get published?  The site rules explicitly state that any article where the author claims matches are 80% favorable against every deck in the existing field will be dismissed as nonsense.  An unknown writer would never be able to get SCG to publish an article with 100% match claims.

Well, it's definitely an established pro, because that's the only way it makes it onto the site anonymously... other than Chapin/Flores my next guess is Zvi.  There was a theory on Oscar Tan, but I doubt it.  In any event, it's clear some big name writer who is well established/respected among SCG said one of two possible statements when proposing the article:

"HEY!  HERE IS MY ARTICLE ON THE ULTIMATE VINTAGE DECK.  I BROKE THE FORMAT.  IM GOING TO POST IT ANONYMOUSLY SO PEOPLE CAN'T CRITICIZE ME DIRECTLY, BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S JUST PLAIN BETTER THAN WHAT THOSE IDIOTS CAN COME UP WITH AND I DONT WANT TO HEAR THEIR GIBBER JABBER."

or

"HEY!  HERE IS MY ARTICLE MOCKING VINTAGE PLAYERS.  THE FORMAT IS A COMPLETE JOKE, SO I MISE WELL MAKE A COMPLETE JOKE DECK!  AM I RIGHT OR AM I RIGHT?  IM GOING TO POST IT UNDER THE ALIAS 'SLY', BECAUSE IT'S A NOD TO HOW CLEVER MY INSIDE JOKE IS.  THOSE VINTAGE PLAYERS WON'T KNOW WHAT HIT THEM.  LOLOL."

I honestly don't think the article is a joke... but if it is it's a very poor one.

- Dave Feinstein
 

[Jacob Orlove]

In the past, SCG has done a genuinely good job with their fake joke articles, both in terms of making them funny, and in terms of making them blindingly obvious. This is neither.

[sean1i0]

I'm still in the middle of reading it, but I've noticed something very interesting:  In Mike Flores response to Steve's last article, he said, "Anyway, Chapin played like 700 games of Vintage recently and...."  Well, in this article the author says, "We...played...700 games, which equates to approximately 280 matches."  Now it is still very possible that this is a coincidence, but I think that this much more strongly points the probability of this being written by Pat Chapin than anyone else.  That would also explain the match up percentages, since Pat Chapin is almost always going to be much more skilled than the opponent he faces on Apprentice or Magic Workstation.  Also, the average Joe who picks up Grim/Pitch Long without extensive testing is more often than not going to screw himself out of wins without this deck actually having to do anything except counter here and there.

[The Atog Lord]

I know I'd feel better about the deck if it weren't 64 cards.

[Kowal]

Anyone complaining this article isn't funny clearly doesn't share my hatred for unnecessary complications through terminology.  There are also a TON of subtle jokes in the article.  I was very pleased with it, though I fear I might be the only one who "gets it."

[Jacob Orlove]

I actually didn't sit down and read it, because the stochastic part was so bad.

[Anusien]

I only know about stochastic games from AI and game theory, which is clearly not what is going on here.

Anyway, ow.  I played CS and watched it not find land in like 18 cards.

[SpencerForHire]

Interesting that I had similar results.  I was playing an opponent who was running CS and I did not see land in roughly... 18 cards..

If this was a satire on the format or suppose to be a joke it was a poor one in my opinion.

[JACO]

If I had to guess an author, it would either be 'TheLegendOfMagic' or 'RandomMiser.' That deck is totally something that both of them would play, and claim to be good.

[Komatteru]

Nah, Legend's deck would have more 2 of's in it.  Anyone remember the masterpiece that was "A Beautiful Mind"?

Also, if no one saw it, I had this to say about the Stochastic part on the SCG forums:

That's a pretty half-ass definition for stochastic too. A Stochastic process is one that has one or more random variables. The entire process is not always random, but rather some element of it is governed by a probability distribution, and that element has some affect on the overall outcome. Traditionally, what is done is that the probability space a stochatic process maps into is arranged to account for the nonrandom parts of the variable.

For example, say you want to measure the voltage across something in a circuit. Your voltmeter isn't perfect, and it has some sensor noise to it. This is governed by a probability function (which you somehow figure out experimentally). Since the amount of noise that the meter reads affects what you get, you have a stochastic process. If the noise happens to be high, then the actual voltage will be much lower than the voltage that appears on the meter, for instance.

In his example, the stochastic variables are how much of a deck will be present, since it depends on how likely the deck is to appear. Describing the deckbuilding process as "stochastic" is pretty strange, as it makes it sound like the cards are chosen with some sort of randomness. In this case, the process of choosing the deck can be said to be dictated by a stochastic process.

[Bram]

I suspect Mike Long is the author.

[rakso]

Okay. I confess. It was me.