Suggestions for Improving your Game

[Redirus92]

Don't make excuses for awful play.

Know when to mulligan.

Know all 75 cards in your deck.

If you can do these 3, you're ahead of like 80% of players already.

"know all 75 cards in your deck"  Thats the lowest amount now?   Have I missed something?

[Mophead-Masquerade]

"know all 75 cards in your deck"  Thats the lowest amount now?   Have I missed something?

60 maindeck cards + 15 Sideboard

[DutchKnight]

Is the appropriate thread to ask: How does the Tezzeret deck work? I've been away from magic while planeswalkers have been printed and I dont quite grasp it. Sorry noob question I know but in a way this'll help improve my game right? Thanks

[chrissss]

Is the appropriate thread to ask: How does the Tezzeret deck work? I've been away from magic while planeswalkers have been printed and I dont quite grasp it. Sorry noob question I know but in a way this'll help improve my game right? Thanks

Basically: you play Tez, search for voltaic key / Time vault, then the next turn do the same and you have infinite turns.

If that doesn't work ( or even if it does) you can make your artifacts 5/5 creatures, and in decks with low cost artifacts, you can do 20 damage easily.

[John Jones]

Or you can just go fetch a time vault and use Tezz and a mox to untap to win the game.

[shadow00]

Excellent posts! Lots of good idea ideas here, thanks guys.

[mutedequilibrium]

I read the following article many, many years ago. It changed my perspective on gaming, and especially Magic, in a profound way.

Playing to Win part 1: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

There were also a few follow ups that are also worth reading,

Part 2: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-2-mailbag.html
Part 3: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-3-not-playing-to-win.html
Survivor: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-example-richard-hatch-on-survivor.html

[AmbivalentDuck]

1.  When you're about to lose and only one card in your deck can save you, your mindset and play must absolutely revolve around that card factually being the top card of your library.

2.  Never assume you've lost and stop thinking about ways to win.

3.  Never concede without seeing your opponent's win condition(s).  If you mull to zero game 1 as Ichorid...fine...make your opponent win and don't play anything.  Concede in response to anything that would let them know what you're playing, but still make them do *something* to give you an information advantage.

[Mr. Fantastic]

I read the following article many, many years ago. It changed my perspective on gaming, and especially Magic, in a profound way.

Playing to Win part 1: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

There were also a few follow ups that are also worth reading,

Part 2: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-2-mailbag.html
Part 3: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-3-not-playing-to-win.html
Survivor: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-example-richard-hatch-on-survivor.html

I had the exact same reaction to this as you.  Really, I consider this required reading for any serious gamer.

[Almanomada]

Secondly, always be aware of the game state, your surroundings, and your opponent's actions.  In other words, watch out for opponents trying to cheat you.

  If you feel that your opponent is playing too slowly, politely ask them "could you please play a little faster?".  They usually will.  However, if they continue to play too slowly, simply call a judge and ask them "could you please watch for slow play?".  That will either get your opponent moving, or get them warnings/game losses for slow play.

Man I hate that.  I consider it unsportsmanlike conduct.  I had it happen in a PTQ final round where I was 4-3 and basically playing for prizes at that point but my opponent had played 3 other players whom I knew personally and I had an entire group rooting for me.  game 1 I dredged out the win turn 2 and chumped his 2 goyfs game 2 with the combo golgari thug/narcomoeba and the guy behind a game still played incredibly slow and annoying but luckily i pulled it out in the last few minutes.
This is a great board and I also play very format I can just love the game and want to play in every viable tournament i can get to.

[Cavius The Great]

Secondly, always be aware of the game state, your surroundings, and your opponent's actions.  In other words, watch out for opponents trying to cheat you.

  If you feel that your opponent is playing too slowly, politely ask them "could you please play a little faster?".  They usually will.  However, if they continue to play too slowly, simply call a judge and ask them "could you please watch for slow play?".  That will either get your opponent moving, or get them warnings/game losses for slow play.

Man I hate that.  I consider it unsportsmanlike conduct.  I had it happen in a PTQ final round where I was 4-3 and basically playing for prizes at that point but my opponent had played 3 other players whom I knew personally and I had an entire group rooting for me.  game 1 I dredged out the win turn 2 and chumped his 2 goyfs game 2 with the combo golgari thug/narcomoeba and the guy behind a game still played incredibly slow and annoying but luckily i pulled it out in the last few minutes.
This is a great board and I also play very format I can just love the game and want to play in every viable tournament i can get to.

Is it unsportsmanlike when someone doesn't diliberately do this intentionally? It might be a double edged sword on both sides. I might actually go so far as to consider someone a jerk for calling a judge on me when I'm trying to make a crucial play decision.

[serracollector]

One tip I have:

Don't ever give any information about your decklist.

I was playing r/g beats one time at a tournament, and my oponnent was playing Tog.  Game 2 he says "now I need to side in "insert counter" for your Red Elemental Blasts".  I say "I didn't side any Red Elemental Blasts (sad face)".  Then you Red Elemental blast their (insert broken blue card), and win. 

Never ever give info away.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

One tip I have:

Don't ever give any information about your decklist.

I was playing r/g beats one time at a tournament, and my oponnent was playing Tog.  Game 2 he says "now I need to side in "insert counter" for your Red Elemental Blasts".  I say "I didn't side any Red Elemental Blasts (sad face)".  Then you Red Elemental blast their (insert broken blue card), and win. 

Never ever give info away.

The problem with this is that a clever player may realize that you are trying to mislead them, and then know that you have REBs as a result.  By trying to give away misinformation you risk giving away actual information.

[Mr. Fantastic]

One tip I have:

Don't ever give any information about your decklist.

I was playing r/g beats one time at a tournament, and my oponnent was playing Tog.  Game 2 he says "now I need to side in "insert counter" for your Red Elemental Blasts".  I say "I didn't side any Red Elemental Blasts (sad face)".  Then you Red Elemental blast their (insert broken blue card), and win. 

Never ever give info away.

The problem with this is that a clever player may realize that you are trying to mislead them, and then know that you have REBs as a result.  By trying to give away misinformation you risk giving away actual information.

Agreed.  It's comparable to a false tell in poker.  Smart people aren't easy to fool so the less info you give them the better; it's better to just say nothing at all.  Also, sticking with poker analogies for the moment, what you're proposing is an angle shoot, serracollector—something that isn't exactly illegal but is borderline unethical (deliberately lying in an attempt to gain an advantage).

[fowftw]

This is an excellent bulletin on the basics.  The section under practice is the only one that I have a problem with.  I'm not on a team, nor have I had any team mates.  I live in an area that is not known for having local Vintage players - we are very few and far between.  Finding a game online is, was, always was, and always will be a nightmare (rude opponents, severely scrubby opponents, or no opponents at all).  Then I have a complicated work schedule with a two-hour (one-way) commute.  (yeah, Rich, I just started a new job.  It's a shitty new job, but it's paying the bills)

Do you have a local game shop? Go there a few times and get to know the people there. Then ask if people would be willing to join an email list to coordinate online Vintage games.

[internalrust]

What do you do when you find yourself tinkering with an already good deck.

[Delha]

What do you do when you find yourself tinkering with an already good deck.

Evenpence suggested including a blank card in the deck, the idea of which I loved. Whenever it comes up, decide which of the cards you are considering for the slot would be better for you. From there, it's just a matter of keeping a running tally. This obv only works for singleton changes, anything bigger than that will be more hazy.

Other than testing til your eyes bleed, the best answer I can think of is to always ask yourself why whatever card you're considering (be it for adding or cutting) belongs in the deck, and if there is another card that fills that role more effectively.

[AmbivalentDuck]

The problem with single card changes is that they don't usually hurt, but can be enormously helpful.  Ie.  I netdeck Elephant Oath and add a Sorrow's Path.  How much lower is my match win %?  It's "just" a dead card.  By contrast, consider putting Balance in that same slot (ie. You're constrained to have a 61 card maindeck).  Despite the prevailing wisdom, your match win % will probably go up considerably since tutoring for Balance isn't what one would call a bad play.

Now, the problem is the diminishing returns.  For every card you add beyond 60, your odds of seeing either it or the tutor to find it diminish.  Consider trying to build a 100 card version of storm combo that gets 4 Contract from Below.  Is this better than the best netdecks?  I seriously doubt it.

[Delha]

The problem with single card changes is that they don't usually hurt, but can be enormously helpful.  Ie.  I netdeck Elephant Oath and add a Sorrow's Path.  How much lower is my match win %?  It's "just" a dead card.  By contrast, consider putting Balance in that same slot (ie. You're constrained to have a 61 card maindeck).  Despite the prevailing wisdom, your match win % will probably go up considerably since tutoring for Balance isn't what one would call a bad play.

Now, the problem is the diminishing returns.  For every card you add beyond 60, your odds of seeing either it or the tutor to find it diminish.  Consider trying to build a 100 card version of storm combo that gets 4 Contract from Below.  Is this better than the best netdecks?  I seriously doubt it.

That's not how this testing scenario works though. This doesn't tell you should add or remove card X. If someone decides to push their decklist to 100 cards, they've got bigger problems than tuning. This method is just to tell you how useful X is relative to cards Y and Z, without having to test your list separately with each.

To fix your example, I'll arbitrarily pick the slot of Brainstorm to replace with a blank. I assume we can both agree that in the majority of times you draw into the blank, Brainstorm will serve you better than anything else, and thereby defends it's inclusion against other cards. If you chose two cards with very similar utility, then the method tells you that as well.

[AmbivalentDuck]

I disagree.  The marginal utility of "anything I want" over even a "super-cycling" slot is ridiculous.  When I want that slot to be a narrow answer, it's disproportionately rewarding.

As a false dilemma, consider the slot to be only Balance or Brainstorm in emidln's UBw Ad Nauseam Tendrils deck.  To save you the trouble of looking it up, it looks exactly like you'd expect it to.  The white splash deals with Fish and Stax out of the board, including the SB Balance.  When you want the slot to be Balance, it'll win you the game.  When you want it to be Brainstorm, it may be more frequent but may not necessarily contribute to a game win.  I also lose the emotional cost of losing the game to a dead Balance in hand when I'm testing this way.

Now as the tester trying to decide between the two (even though obviously they're almost never in conflict), which do you choose?  Well, obviously Brainstorm.  Does that work with your method?  I don't think so.

Another way of looking at it...you're playing Tez.  The vast majority of the time you draw Mox Pearl *will not* be in your opening hand.  If the blank can be either Mox Pearl or See Beyond, which one would a tester using your method choose?

[Delha]

Started a new thread to stop derailing this one.

[Smmenen]

One of the best tips I can give for improving your game is to hone in on the reasons why you make play errors.   Do you mismanage your mana?  Do you not know what to tutor for?  Do you lack strategic clarity?  Do you mess up on the stack?  Do you feel anxiety or pressure in tournament conditions?

There are a host of reasons why people make mistakes, but not everyone makes mistakes for the same reason.   How might you uncover these mistakes? 

Keep a log.  When you test, take notes not just of your life totals, and game counts, but why you lost.   Over time, you will see patterns.  Then, you can work on these patterns and develop behaviors that reduce or eliminate them.