'Incoherent' metagame

[Grand Inquisitor]

When I prepare for a large event I usually make a short list of the decks I expect to see.  Recently this has been getting more and more difficult.  Its not that I can't think of decks I plan on facing, its that the list is no longer short.

Before the last Waterbury I presented my teamates with a list of decks with descriptions and a loose ranking attached.  Now looking at the list with hindsight, I see that there are multiple incarnations of decks within an archetype.  For example, if we take the recent placing of Gro-still as a sign that it is a competitive derivative of the dryad archetype, it adds to a list of multiple viable options: 3-color aggressive, 4-color aggressive, gro-still, control.  The same can be said for most other major archetypes.  In aggro workshop there's TnT, Broodstar Runner, 7/10.  In fish, there's Gay-R, WTF, One Fish Left...

I'm not bringing this up with the notion that we should be in complete shock.  With a card pool this size, we should expect some diversity.  However, even Hulk, the format's poster-child, has an identity crisis over whether it wants red in it or not.  This is supposed to be the most consistent deck, the deck with the most uniform strategy, and people have been having success with significantly different builds.

Shouldn't we have figured this out yet?  Is it just that everyone's card shops are so different that they require different tools?  Is it pet cards, sentimentality, Vintage players being bad vintage players?  Or is it the opposite, where metagames are so subtle and complex that in order to optimize your deck, you can't possibly netdeck every last card?

Some purists on this site argue convincingly that over a certain time period with a finite card pool (no matter how large), that certain cards, decks, and strategies are inherently more powerful and more synergistic.  This leads then to define the metagame pro-actively in spite of any 'hate'.  Recent examples (if you believe the presses) are GAT and possibly Long.

What I want to ask people on this site has to do with a very simple and exact question: what defines the best decks in our formats?

Is it card pool (and to a certain degree innovation) as the purists would say?

Is it metagame, in that where you play defines which cards are more or less powerful?

Perhaps its something altogether non-strategic.  Do Star-City feature articles promote decks that may or may not be the best in the format?  Does this distortion cause a shift among the non-testing Vintage population that causes everyone else to react?

Is it possibly a fourth factor?  Do vintage players, on a large scale, make poor choices in deck construction?  Does this lead to mogrel variations of archetypes which relay an incoherent metagame?


Discuss.



***I'm aware of the potential for discussions of this type to degenerate.  Please stay on topic.  Don't argue if GAT was or wasn't metagame defining.  Argue why or why not there can be a metagame defining deck in the first place and what makes it so.***

[Ric_Flair]

I have been thinking about this myself.  I think that there are three major factors at work here:

1) The subpar players in the format.
2) Unavailability of certain cards.
3) Large geographical distances.

While there is a core of players in the format that are very good, by in large, as JP pointed out, this is the format for people that quit Magic.  So a certain toleration of scrubbiness is inherent in format.  Second, many people latch on to decks and refuse to let them go.  Again as JP pointed out, the format is experiencing rotations for the first time due to the increase in the power level of new sets like Mirrodin.  Finally, I think that the whittling away that takes place on the PT, which separates quickly decks like Gobvantage from decks like FCG, does not occur because of the lack of skilled players playtesting.  There are too many variations on themes.  One of these variations, almost by definition, should be better.  We just don't have the critical mass of players playing at a high level necessary to figure out which variant is best.  There is a reason that PT decks, even designed by different teams, look very similar--the best and most efficient cards rise to the top.  But this takes a HUGE amount of time and brains, both of which the format, as a whole is lacking.  Without the big money prizes there are too few people willing to dedicate Pro level time and energy to the format.  Please don't try to say it is because the cardpool in Vintage is bigger.  That is so BS.  Phil's articles have shown us that the de facto cardpool in Vintage is, in fact, quite small.

Certain cards scarcity also have forced innovations that sap the format of concentrations of high level players focusing on tier one decks.  Decks like Fish and Gay/R which are really good, are good because lots of people without full power are constantly innovating.  They stay with the best decks because people can't afford, usually, to switch over.  Furthermore, with Workshop and Bazaar very hard to find, it is hard to get lots of playtesting done.  Furthermore with the 5 proxy rule still in effect, such playtesting is usually pointless because those decks can never be run.

Finally, the large distances that format spans, without any real format setting tournaments, like PTs, means that local metagames will spawn decks that other metagames would be hostile to.  I am thinking here of last years 6-7 month period in which combo dominated Germany largely thanks to a drought of Wastelands.  This isolation, like in evolutionary biology, gives rise to a host of different "species" of decks within the same overall "genus."

[Matt]

First off, excellent thread. Wish I had more to say about it.

There is a reason that PT decks, even designed by different teams, look very similar--the best and most efficient cards rise to the top.

Do you think the recent parallel innovation of Team Reflection's BFD and Team Short Bus's 7/10 Split decks is the first drops of a coming storm of such parallels?

[bebe]

I do not think it can attributed to card pool. Eccentric meta games are a reflection of the players in the area. Toronto is notoriously eccentric. Everyone is constantly searching for a deck that has not yet been posted or played. It started with Nevyn's Turboland, then Fish, Landstill, Dragon and O.Stompy. In between we had Eureka decks, Electric Eels, et all. I don't think its a matter of skill level or experience either. I believe that some metas do not take themselves as seriously as others and really like to experiment more. This seems the case here. As a consequence decks that would appear to be strong in more defined metas often struggle here  when confronted by these rogue monstrosities. The card pool is large enough to find all sorts of synergistic builds that are not commonly seen. I don't believe that the number of possibilities for competitive decks has been anywhere near fully explored.
I also believe that Type 1 is seen as a more casual format then the others. We don't have the same support as the other formats. We are lucky to get twenty players at a Type 1 tournament and yet any Type 2 draws double or triple that number.  You end being paired against the same group tournament after tournament soyou try and find a deck that will offer some surprises. It gets vtoo mundane playing the same deck against the same players week after week. I think there is a natural tendency to spice it up a bit.

[jpmeyer]

I think that the failure of players to "whittle" down decks is really the biggest part of this.  For instance, I'm having trouble thinking of why you would play Landstill or GAT over Grostill.  In a similar way, until I got REALLY bored about thinking about matchups that I will never encounter (who wins in the Vengeur Masque vs. TPS matchup?), I was making a metagame matrix up of just about every Type 1 deck I could think of in order to find any "strictly inferior" decks.  While I never did finish completely, in a few instance, like with respect to aggro-control decks, I couldn't think of a single matchup where Suicide Black would be better than Fish (any variety) or U/G Madness.  I also couldn't think of any place where Ankh Sligh or Goblin Sligh would be better than Food Chain Goblins.

Similarly, I've tried splashing black into Madness in order to get Tog and Duress.  While I COULD conceivably play this deck, it's almost in all likelihood strictly inferior to Tog.

[Grand Inquisitor]

who wins in the Vengeur Masque vs. TPS matchup?

Yes this is obscure.  However, a mask build piloted in Hadley recently was toting root mazes in the sideboard; a natural addition.  Along with duress and FoW, I would argue that this is a better arsenal against storm combo than 4-color Hulk puts up, and with a possibly quicker clock as well.  Its little caveats like this that make me think this question is more complex than people want to admit.

[Hi-Val]

There is a reason that PT decks, even designed by different teams, look very similar--the best and most efficient cards rise to the top.

Do you think the recent parallel innovation of Team Reflection's BFD and Meandeck's 7/10 Split decks is the first drops of a coming storm of such parallels?

Actually, I think it was Short Bus that came up with 7/10 Split, not Meandeck.

Type 1 is not dominated by hardcore Spikes. Those guys go to T2. To paraphrase a friend from a long time ago, a deck not only has to work, it has to be cool. People who quit magic adopt T1 as a way to play with all their fun old cards.

As a result, people will often play decks that are fun as well as good. I like aggro-control more than control, so I will play Gay/R over Drain Slaver, even though the latter is the better deck. I think you'll find this a lot in T1 below the levels of the big names.

[Phantom Tape Worm]

Decks like Fish and Gay/R which are really good, are good because lots of people without full power are constantly innovating. They stay with the best decks because people can't afford, usually, to switch over.

Not to delve into specifics too much, because that's not what this thread is about, but fish and gay/r are not good because _lots_ of people without full power are "innovating".  There has been next to no innovation on gay/r since it was created a year ago, certainly not by lots of people anyway.  If we are to say that wtf is an innovation on gay/r, this was strictly orlove doing the innovating.  The point is, it is NOT the case that LOTS of people are doing the innovating, it seems to be a select few that do all the innovation on just about everything.  Sorry to nit pick.  


Back on topic: Another possibility is that good players are skewing the metagame.  Certain players who like a particular decktype, example hi-val chosing to play gay/r over slavery, will gravitate toward an inferior deck but do well with it and post their results.  This in turn influences the metagame as a whole by misleading the public as to what is good.

Just a hypothetical example: 7/10 split may be a horrible deck (it is not, but for the sake of arguement let's say it is), but because we had both Triple_S and Sliver King (both of whom are phenominal players) playing it at GP:DC, we knew we would have a winning deck to talk about on TMD in the aftermath.  Shortbus produced a new deck that will influence the metagame by having good players take it to an event; and it may be the case that these good players will do well no matter what deck they take.

[Smmenen]

Some purists on this site argue convincingly that over a certain time period with a finite card pool (no matter how large), that certain cards, decks, and strategies are inherently more powerful and more synergistic.  This leads then to define the metagame pro-actively in spite of any 'hate'.  Recent examples (if you believe the presses) are GAT and possibly Long.

I assume that you refer to me when you say "purist" since i have indeed, in the past, espoused this view of Vintage.

The answer is essentially complex.  

Vintage has the largest card pool in magic, but what is probably more important is that it has the largest objective gap between the most powerful cards and the weakest: i.e. Black Lotus and Sorrow's Path.  

In most formats, the card pool is not nearly as expansive, but what is more, they finaly figured out somewhere along the way that certain designs were too good.  Result?  

You can't actualy make any conclusions about a format based upon the size of its card pool alone.  We may assume that becuase wizards makes mistakes (as they do), that a smaller card pool will have some variation in power, but not as much as a larger card pool.  We may also assume that a larger card pool offers greater potential for antithetical strategies.

The problem though, is that Vintage clearly has a far greater imbalance in good to bad cards than every other sanctioned format.  The result is that in Vintage, I sincerely believe that there are superior strategies and inferior strategies based upon the fact that the card pool is so increadibly broken.  There is nothing that can be done to fix that and keep type one resembling what it currently does.  

In the past, I have always said that you need to find the most powerful, resilient, and consistent deck and this is determined by card pool criteria.  In the past, I have felt that balance in this format was simply the brief uncertaintly that followed new sets or restrictions.  I have tried several strategies in the months since Long (which, btw, in my opinion was the most disgusting deck I have ever played in Magic - but that's the topic for another day (anyone want to do Banned deck tournaments ? ) )  And all of the strategies I have tried have not been as successful as either Long or GAT or BBS.  I have tried Death Long, Slavery, Draw7, and many others and they do not put up the numbers that I am certain I would be experiencing with Long.  

However, while I beleive that there is a inherently best strategy in the format, metagame considerations may overcome the prima facie presumption that this deck is best.  In the case of GAT, no strategy could effectively stop it consistently becuase it has more countermagic and disruption than any other deck, a lighter mana base, and an extremely low mana curve with over 12 free spells.  In the case of Long, it was so damned fast that any hate you had would generally be too slow and the deck has too many answers to anything you might try becuase of Wish.  

Once you restrict all the borken decks that develop based upon objective considerations, then you enter the realm of building decks out of bad cards that have tremendous synergy.  Lion's Eye Diamond may fit that case - but so does Bazaar and possibly Gush.  

So the practical question becomes: where is the broken deck that warrants restriction currently?  There may not be one at the moment.  How can this be?  The first answer is that it hasn't been discovered yet, but that isn't satisfying to either of us becuase we have been 4 months into the vintage metagame with no clearly dominant deck - and Hulk winning the most, but people generally do not see it as a deck requiring restirctions at the moment.  Slavery's problem is essentially that Gorilla Shaman negates Chalice ot eh Void, the reason to run Workshops - therefore the Drain version becomes superior.  

I think the real answer is not metagame coherence, but card advailability.  Last extended season, I was shocked to play in PTQs in December where there were only 1-2 copies each of the so-called tier one decks in a 90 person PTQ (one Belcher, one Tinker, 1-2 Desire decks, ete).  What was everywhere?  Janky metagame decks: Dumptruck, RDW, and other decks of that sort.  

I have explained before that allowing only five proxies pretty much dramatically diminishes the range of decks that will show up - and what is more, that creates a ripple effect elsehwere becuase of the expectation of seeing those sort of decks.  This is exacerbated by what I can only describe as an inherent taste for u/g and other blue based aggro control decks that is not similiarly experienced anywhere else except in perhaps Keeper.  People realy like aggro-control - it fits people's tastes in magic and I think that was part of the appeal of Gro.

So when you appeal card availability, onto deck choice, the channels of innovation are not widely formed and the result is that the format is distorted.  But I'm not entirely certain that that is actually so different from other "real" formats.  I found it extremely interesting that despite the attempts by the Pro's to "break" extended, each team missed many other decks run by other players.  For example, only the japanese saw the Twiddle decks, and Oath was played becuase of an underestimation at the use of Chalice.  There are many other examples of the lack of symmetry in Pro Tour development from last extended season and a thourough review of the season would be highly revealing.  

In short, I'm not sure that the metagame is incoherent so much as it is extremely balanced.. at the moment.

Steve

[Saucemaster]

Some purists on this site argue convincingly that over a certain time period with a finite card pool (no matter how large), that certain cards, decks, and strategies are inherently more powerful and more synergistic.  This leads then to define the metagame pro-actively in spite of any 'hate'.  Recent examples (if you believe the presses) are GAT and possibly Long.

Sniping aside for the moment, I'd love to hear from someone who actually disagrees with this statement in and of itself.  Given a finite card pool containing cards of varying degrees of power, how can certain cards, decks, and strategies NOT be inherently more powerful and more synergistic?  I'm talking about simple logical entailment here.  Given A, B follows.  Does anyone disagree?  Because that's probably the best place to start the discussion from.

If we can agree on that, then we can discuss what factors may be mitigating the inherent dominance of a few key strategies--and then we've developed a useful frame of reference for the discussion.  But it seems important to get clear on this point first.

What I want to ask people on this site has to do with a very simple and exact question: what defines the best decks in our formats?

Is it card pool (and to a certain degree innovation) as the purists would say?

I think you mean to say that the "purists" you describe would claim that it is ONLY the card pool and innovation that drives the "best decks".  Any answer to your question that doesn't start with an analysis of the card pool seems to me to be woefully inadequate.

Here's my view of it, and you can all consider yourselves $0.02 richer.

1) Given a limited card pool filled with cards of varying power that relate to each other in various more or less synergetic ways, a few strategies/decks (I'll use the two interchangeably) will rise to the top.  If these strategies are comprehensive enough to thoroughly and completely out-power the vast majority of potential counterstrategies the cardpool allows, then they've become dominant and restriction-worthy.  See the various criteria put forward by a few members of this site as to what is restriction-worthy and what isn't, etc.  The decks that don't overpower everything else but still employ a fundamentally superior strategy--say Decks A, B, and C--are the "naturally" superior decks in the format.

2) Inevitably, however, as soon as a metagame coalesces--which is what happens when you've found the format's best decks--that will open up an entirely different space in which the cards' power/synergy/etc is no longer defined solely by their relationship to the fundamental rules and restrictions of the game but also now in their relationship to the metagame.  That's where we get the entire origin of the term "metagame"--token elements of the game itself (particular cards or constellations of cards as opposed to general rules) become part of the fabric of the game as it's actually played.  

This analogy may do more to confuse than help, but it makes sense to me, so here goes: think of the "naturally superior" or "framing" decks in the format as providing the basis for the format's discourse.  Think of each deck--and I think Smmenen wrote this once, which is probably where I got it--as a logical statement about the rules of the game.  The ground level of statements that form the basis for all future discourse are of course just about the rules of the game itself, which is one of the reasons why Magic theory is actually important, so that we know what these basic statements are actually saying and better understand the further levels of discourse that follow.  The thing is, as in logic or mathematics, once you've derived a set of conclusions or logically true statements, those statements blend into the background; they become just as much a part of the system as the basic rules.  So development continues from there.

3) That's where we get to the "metagame" decks.  These are decks that thrive in the spaces opened by the dominance of the "framing" decks.  It's as if the rules of the game itself have been added to.  Because Moxen are so fundamentally superior to lands that any deck that can use them to play its spells does, but because coincidentally they are artifacts requiring an activated ability, Null Rod suddenly has value.  This is solely because of the fundamental dominance of Moxen, but that doesn't lessen the value of Null Rod.  Null Rod takes Moxen as a given because they ARE a given.

4) And of course, this all exists in time as well as a sort of logical space, so this continually shifts and changes depending on the sum total of the logical "statements" of the game at the time.  And the dominant decks themselves have to shift as the rules on which they are founded change in part due to their own dominance.  (Totally random aside for probably Ric Flair and not many others, but it's sort of like one of early/mid Foucault's critique of the human "sciences"--the subject of the science itself changes as a result of the very fact that it is the subject of a science.)

Is it possibly a fourth factor?  Do vintage players, on a large scale, make poor choices in deck construction?  Does this lead to mogrel variations of archetypes which relay an incoherent metagame?

Then there's the addition of human quirks into the whole picture, which in Vintage almost upsets the entire theory.  Because the unwritten assumption of all of the above is simple and often completely inaccurate: we're assuming that the most important thing to each player in the game is WINNING.  As soon as anything--"personal play style", "fun factor", anything--comes before winning, the entire thing breaks down a little.  We can argue forever about whether it's better to play a "metagame deck" or one of the "naturally dominant" decks, but the real problem isn't that, it's that people will play "fun decks", or that they "always play control" or "always play combo", etc.

In other words, this is a rehash of arguments we've all grown accustomed to: Spikes are the assumption built into the notion of a "coherent metagame", and Vintage has too few Spikes relative to other formats to keep the metagame as coherent as some of us purists would like.

I have like a billion more comments on this, but this post is long and boring enough as it is.

[Dr. Sylvan]

I think I fall into the "purist" category that believes there is a definite set of best decks for a cardpool. Right now, I believe the incoherence is being gradually phased out of the format.

-----Mirrodin legal
2003-09&10 - 20 archetypes (4.0 / T8)
2003-11&12 - 20 archetypes (4.0 / T8)
-----Restriction: Burning Wish, Chrome Mox, Lion's Eye Diamond
2004-Janu. - 26 archetypes (4.4 / T8)
2004-Febr. - 19 archetypes (3.8 / T8)
-----Darksteel legal
2004-Marc. - 34 archetypes (3.8 / T8)
2004-Apri. - 28 archetypes (3.1 / T8)

I think we're narrowing the envelope toward fully exploring the cardpool. Each time we get a format turnover, it halts or reverses the trend. For instance, when Long was uber-nuked by the DCI, everybody tried everything because they felt less constrained by speed. Then it settles down, revs up... like two steps forward, one back. The caveat here is that I think our batch of best decks is larger than, say, Standard, but we're actually less potentially diverse than 1.5 (if I had data, I could make a beautiful curve, but there aren't 1.5 tournies to use).

After doing some Block and Standard stats lately (no malignant tumors yet), I've got these results:

MirDs-BC : 6 archetypes (PT Kobe T64)
OnMir T2 : 13 archetypes (Regionals finalists posted on SCG)

(1 Block one-of, 6 Type 2 one-ofs)

Unfortunately I don't have anything for Extended. If we did, there'd be a much more solid expectation of how many archetypes Type One would level off at. However, I think it'll be a lot closer to the Standard number than the current one. My belief in the continued refining of the number of successful archetypes comes from the other trend: played cards.

MirDs BC: 109 cardnames
OnMir T2 : 204 cardnames
(Tony: This is lower than Rosewater's ballpark, presumably because (a) I'm only using finalists, not Top 8s or a whole PT; (b) We're still minus a set.)

T1 2003-10/11/12 : 352 cardnames (10 tournies)
T1 2003-01 : 262 cardnames (5 tournies)
T1 2004-02 : 267 cardnames (5 tournies)
T1 2004-03 : 376 cardnames (9 tournies)
T1 2004-04 : (haven't finished yet; Give Me Waterbury Decklists!)

It might not sound inevitable that Vintage should have less than 300 cards playable in a given set of eight or nine Top 8s, but consider how the restricted list pumps up the number of cardnames used, and how the restricted cards continuously suppress the use of other cards. A fully developed metagame would likely result in a cardname list not much longer than Standard. (If we rough-estimate that roughly just the fourteen one-ofs in March fall off the map, that should cut down close to my theory by itself.)

Hopefully somewhere in there was insight on the direction of the 'incoherent metagame'. (I wrote this over the course of several hours while I compiled a lot of the Regionals numbers, so clarification requests are welcome if it's hard to follow.)

Lastly:

I have like a billion more comments on this, but this post is long and boring enough as it is.

I want to hear them. <3 the Patron Saint of the Sauceless. :)

[Fishhead]

Is it metagame, in that where you play defines which cards are more or less powerful?

Is the metagame so static that we can talk about *where* more than *when*?  Time passes and players adapt; the metagame changes even without cards from new sets being added to the pool.  And, as a corallary, you won't bring the same deck to the weekly tournament too many times unless you want to face some prepared hate.

Can Slaver win against decks which pack 5-7 artifact removal spells?  It might be the best deck in some theoretical sense, but when people revive 4xGorilla Shaman Sligh or start cramming their SBs with Artifact Mutations then it stops winning and something else becomes dominant.  Similarly, when Tog starts packing tons of DA for the mirror match can it still survive against decks gunning for it?

I'd have to think if any archetype has won C&Js three weeks in a row since the GroTog days.  Certain decks put up consistent results, but there is no best deck in a practical sense.

[Pern]

In the largest cardpool, you're more certain to find a balancing answer to any given strategy.
This gives all other strategies a better shot,
and reduces the chance for there to be a "best deck".

I would contend that,
barring the existence of cards that still need restricting or banning,
Type one should spread out instead of coalescing.

[Ric_Flair]

I think some people are missing the point here.  The point is not why there is no best deck, but why there so many different variants on same sort of decks.  The reason I make the distinction is because it is important and caused by two different things.  The fact that there is no best deck is because, in my opinion, the metagame is relatively balanced.  The fact that there are plurality of variants around basic deck types is because we, as a community, are not being as rigorous as we should be.  Basically, the three reasons I articulated above.  

As for the idea of a best version of a given deck, I think that there is really no way to debate this.  The only thing that keeps this from being the case is the fact that Vintage does not have a unified metagame with a feeder system.  If it did, and there were substantial prizes, I think we would rapidly see "best" versions emerging.  I think that the GAT family of decks proves this.  Eventually someone will figure out which is the best formulation of that deck and win over and over again (I think someone may have already ::cough:: Ultima), but there are too few tournaments and too few players to make this determination with any degree of certitude.  In PT formats there are thousands of players playing in hundreds of tournaments, and the data pours in.  Add to this the creative engines that are the Pros themselves and we see how decks are pruned and purified.  In GAT the question revolves around the draw engine.  I think that soon we will see which engine is best.

[begin aside]
@Saucemaster:

Totally random aside for probably Ric Flair and not many others, but it's sort of like one of early/mid Foucault's critique of the human "sciences"--the subject of the science itself changes as a result of the very fact that it is the subject of a science

Oh you challenge that rusty part of my brain labeled "Post Structuralism" curse you.  My response is this--Foucault's critique is based on the constantly diminishing sense of the "real" as opposed to the "self referential."  The sciences, as subject of a science, are in danger of becoming self-referential and thus the slippage which results in things like historians of biology in biology departments and philosophers of science in physics departments.  Science is becoming its own set of referants.  In Magic we have no such danger.  The shift of the best decks is not because of meaningless self reference or solipsistic self reference, but truly evolutionary tensions.  That is, whereas science becomes self referencing for reasons of completeness or other "meaningful" reasons (who cares if biology can account for itself and its form of knowledge from an epistemic point of view so long as it does good biological work?  or at least that is what a biologist SHOULD say), the tier one decks are in an actual arms race.  They are moving against each other for an appreciable advantage within the scheme of Magic as a whole.  Part of the reason the shifts are not meaninglessly self referential is because there is an objective goal in Magic deck building--i.e. the fucking winning.  [end aside]

@ Steve:

I am not sure if I follow your analysis.  First it seems like you are saying, correctly so, that Vintage's cardpool has the widest disparity in card power, correctly citing Sorrow's Path as the worst card ever, btw.  But how does this give rise to the splintering of deck types?  If anything this unbalanced cardpool should produce the exact opposite effect--namely we all just play the "best" cards.  But obviously that is not happening.  We have at least three Fish variants, three GAT variants, a whole host of Aggro Workshop decks, and so on.  One of these versions, or one not yet discovered, has to be just better, if as you correctly state, there are cards that are just better.

The only thing that I think can follow from your premise--unbalanced cardpool--and lead to the conclusion of a splintered metagame is this argument.  If there are cards that are hideously broken like Will, Memory Jar, Bargain and the like, it is possible to run decks with inefficiencies that because of the gross overpowered nature of the cards above and a few others, the inefficiencies won't make a difference that much.  So this allows people to run cards that are worse or in some cases strictly inferior to other cards but still have winning decks.  For example, Keeper can run cards like Morphling, a merely above average creature, instead of the truly best finisher in the deck, Decree of Justice, because most of the time the difference in power between these two cards is never an issue because the cards that actually win the game, things like Will are just SO broken.  But in situations like this, where underpowered cards are compensated for by busted cards, on the PT there are enough games played that those little differences make a difference overall.  Furthermore, as the power level gets more homogenous, the ability to compensate lessens.  So if we truly played tons and tons and tons of games, we would see that while suboptimal builds can win thanks to brokenness, there IS one best version of any given deck.  

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I could not follow your analysis without postulating this "gap filler" argument.  I believe this argument independent of any desire to correct what you are saying, so I felt it was worth putting out there, but if this is not what you meant, tell me.

@PTW:

I apologize for overstating the point.  What I should have said was that because fish and its variants are easier to build and play in tournaments more people are likely to spend more time with them, resulting in a marginally higher number of tweaks put out over a month.  Over time, this slightly higher number of players providing a few more tweaks adds up.  I cannot remember the last time I saw a Vintage event without a good number of fish decks.  It is a great deck--powerful, fun to play, and easy to build.  That is my point.  Sorry for overstating the issue.

GREAT TOPIC, btw.

[walkingdude]

The key factor to realize (from a game theory standpoint) is that decks don’t just have good or bad match ups with other decks, they have expected percentage wins. Now, we have no real clue what these exact percentages are since I don’t think anyone has done anywhere near the tens of thousands of games to really pin down exact numbers controlling for play and other factors. We are forced to approximate the percentages with good or bad and we don’t know them, but they do exist.

With these percentages you could build a matrix of all the possible matches and apply game theory. I strongly suspect there is no strictly dominant or even weakly dominant deck. The result in cases like that is you get a mixed equilibrium where the optimal choice before each event is to randomly choose among a number of options according to probabilities produced by solving the system of equations you get from the matrix.

When everyone’s optimal choice necessarily involves some randomness sometimes weird things will happen. If you flip enough coins you will eventually get ten heads in a row. So even if everyone owed the whole card pool, tested every match an infinite amount of time, and was perfectly rational, you would still sometimes get lots of people showing up with some whack version of WW.

Now I don’t mean to say that’s what is causing the weirdness, I personally suspect its lack of access to a full card pool. But, what I am trying to say is the purists overstate the amount of stability that would exist in a perfect world.

[Saucemaster]

The key factor to realize (from a game theory standpoint) is that decks don?t just have good or bad match ups with other decks, they have expected percentage wins. Now, we have no real clue what these exact percentages are since I don?t think anyone has done anywhere near the tens of thousands of games to really pin down exact numbers controlling for play and other factors. We are forced to approximate the percentages with good or bad and we don?t know them, but they do exist.

One of my points, however, was that this will only get you to the first stage of the metagame--determining the naturally best decks.  You'd have to do this all over again as soon as counterstrategies arose, once the format shifted to incorporate them.  The format is never a stationary target, which is as big a barrier to this approach as the tremendous amounts of playtesting involved.

With these percentages you could build a matrix of all the possible matches and apply game theory. I strongly suspect there is no strictly dominant or even weakly dominant deck.

Why?  Certainly not that many decks are going to be over, say, 60%.  Again, there may not be one best deck in the format (though I think there probably is), but logically, certain decks and strategies will be more inherently powerful than others, and have a better win percentage against the field.  Maybe we're using the term "dominant" differently here?

When everyone?s optimal choice necessarily involves some randomness sometimes weird things will happen. If you flip enough coins you will eventually get ten heads in a row. So even if everyone owed the whole card pool, tested every match an infinite amount of time, and was perfectly rational, you would still sometimes get lots of people showing up with some whack version of WW.

Why do you believe there's any randomness in the process?  Given access to every card, infinite testing experience, and a matrix of accurate matchup numbers, it seems to me that someone who was perfectly rational (and people aren't, which I think is the real problem) would pick exactly one deck, that being the deck demonstrating the best results.  Even if it only edged out another deck by, say, 0.001%, it would still be better and therefore preferable.  Given the scenario you describe above, NO ONE should show up with some weird WW.  Otherwise they could hardly be considered "perfectly rational" actors.  At any rate, as economics has learned to its chagrin, pretty much no one acts rationally, at least not all the time, which is why there actually are things like WW in poor Dr. S's results.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I'm going to try to simplify the argument even further.

What is more important to success, the cards you play (best deck), or the cards your opponent plays (metagame)?

The purists would argue that (mostly) regardless of local metagames, the strongest strategies will prevail given a large enough sample.

In Saucemaster's 2 cents, I want to focus on the first two parts.  In part 1 the entire card pool is explored and each strategy tested relative to all others.

The results of this procedure could vary widely depending on whether you hold the frequency of given strategies equal or not.  I'm assuming frequencies are constant.

I believe its in the second part where the dominant strategy comes up against the other successful strategies and anti-strategies that we learn the most.  This is where we find out if a strategy is still better than the anti-strategy in a semi-diverse field as opposed to a completely random field.

I'd have to think if any archetype has won C&Js three weeks in a row since the GroTog days

If the field keeps adapting to the 'best' decks, shouldn't the best deck change?  Would even purists argue that the best deck should consistently put up the highest win percentage regardless of what it plays against?

edit-sorry, I posted the same time as SMaster.  We're on the same page.

[Rick James]

What is more important to success, the cards you play (best deck), or the cards your opponent plays (metagame)?

This question depends on two things, the format and the metagame.

Yes, the answer to the question "which is more important, best deck or metagame?" depends on the metagame itself.

But first let's look at how the format relates to this question.

Suppose we have a hypothetical format called "Type Academy". In this format there is a deck called Academy, and a number of other viable decks. The win percentages of Type Academy are:

Academy beats everything else 90% of the time
Everything else beats everything else 50% of the time

In this format the answer to the question is clearly "playing the best deck is most important to your success".

Now let's suppose another hypothetical format called "Type RPS". In this format there are three viable decks: Rock, Paper, and Scissors. The win percentages for Type RPS are:

Rock beats Scissors 90% of the time
Scissors beats Paper 90% of the time
Paper beats Rock 90% of the time

In this format the answer to the question is "considering the metagame is most important to your success".

Finally, let's suppose a third hypothetical format called "Type Balanced". In this format, there are dozens of viable decks. The win percentages of Type Balanced are:

Everything beats everything else 50% of the time

In this format the question is completely irrelevant, success is purely determined by luck and skill.

These are of course extreme examples, but they do demonstrate how the format impacts the question's answer:

1. The more dominant a single deck is, the more playing the best deck becomes important.
2. The more extreme win percentages there are, the more the metagame becomes important. This means lots of 80/20 or 90/10 matchups.
3. The less of (1) and (2) you have, the less the question matters and the more luck and skill matter.

(1) and (2) are not mutually exclusive. You could have a format with an academy-like deck, but another deck that beats it all the time but loses to everything that isn't academy. In this case both playing the best deck and the metagame will be highly relevant to your success. How much each factor matters, and which one matters more, depends on the particular format's win percentages.

Now let's look at type 1. Our format is fairly balanced (the BBS's and long's and gat's quickly get restricted back into obedience). Hulk and slaver might be the best decks right now, but not by a huge margin. The nigh-unwinnable 90/10 or 80/20 matchups are few and far between, but we do have plenty of 70/30 or 60/40 matchups. Therefore I think the answer is that both are equally important in type 1. I think you have decks that are good enough to do well most of the time, but at the same time you can have metagames which just totally hate you out. Personally I think that's a great thing, it means the format is balanced. More balance = more play skill matters (also more luck matters, but it's a good trade).

[walkingdude]

With these percentages you could build a matrix of all the possible matches and apply game theory. I strongly suspect there is no strictly dominant or even weakly dominant deck.

Why? Certainly not that many decks are going to be over, say, 60%. Again, there may not be one best deck in the format (though I think there probably is), but logically, certain decks and strategies will be more inherently powerful than others, and have a better win percentage against the field. Maybe we're using the term "dominant" differently here?

whops, sorry I slipped from magic jargon into math/econ jargon without even thinking about it. That’s what being in too many nerdy groups will do to you…
In game theory the idea for of a dominant strategy means that in no possible case no matter what the other person does would it be a good idea for you to change plans. An example of this is the prisoner’s dilemma where weather the other person cooperates or rats you out you are still better off ratting them out. This is clearly not the case in magic, which is what I meant when I said there was probably no single dominant strategy.

Why do you believe there's any randomness in the process? Given access to every card, infinite testing experience, and a matrix of accurate matchup numbers, it seems to me that someone who was perfectly rational (and people aren't, which I think is the real problem) would pick exactly one deck, that being the deck demonstrating the best results. Even if it only edged out another deck by, say, 0.001%, it would still be better and therefore preferable.

Every strategy has a counter strategy. If you just picked a deck you thought was best you would lose a lot because people would play the counter strategy. Imagine the following game.
Rock, paper, scissors, really big rock.
Standard rules for rock, paper, and scissors. Really big rock beats rock and scissors but loses to paper. Clearly really big rock is the best choice, but if you played it every time you would lose every time because other people would play paper. You need to throw in scissors every now and then to prevent others from using paper every time. So the optimal strategy is to randomize between really big rock, scissors and paper. (you never play rock because it is dominated by really big rock, you would never be better off with rock. You have to randomize because if you use a pattern people can out guess you.
In this case if you work out the probabilities you will probably throw really big rock more frequently than other things, but you have to throw other things sometimes to be playing optimally. The analogy to magic is that when you work out probabilities, the perfectly rational choice is to play the best decks with the highest probabilities, but to randomly play other decks sometimes just so that people can’t reliably fall onto counter strategies.

Just a note, this doesn’t men every deck will/should get played and perhaps my WW example was a bad example. Even with built in randomness there will be some decks that are like rock in that it will never be sensible to play them since there will be other decks that do better in every possible match up. Example tog v 60island.dec.

[Milton]

There is a very simple answer to the basic question.  That answer is social conflict.  

Really, this isn't a question about best deck design, best cards, best metagame, best decision making or best anything.  This isn't a question about rational self interest (as is the case in economics), this is a question about PERCEPTION.  Perception of superiority.  Perception of best.  Perception of best decks, best designs, best metagames.

This is a political question, more than anything else.  Social Conflict is the basic idea that reasonable, rational individuals will disagree on the nature of society.  A very rational person could be pro-choice and another very rational person could be pro-life.  There really isn't a right or wrong.  Magic happens to be much the same way.

Remember when Chapin said that Gush was better than Ancesteral, and we all made fun of him.  At the time he was on to something, but it was dismissed because of preconcieved notions of superority.  

Rational people disagree on deck design, and even tournament results fail to provide evidence to dent the perception of someone who has a strong opinion.  

JP recently made some very interesting remarks about Standstill.  Yet, six months ago I stated that I thought Standstill was highly under-rated and that it could become a card like Gush, a card that was ignored for a long time by the community.  We could argue at length about who is right, who is wrong.  Instead, I read his comments and I just choose to disagree.  It's that simple.  

Magic is not math.  There are few right or wrong answers and there certianly isn't a neat equation that you can design that defines such a complex interaction of cards, play style, human error and dumb luck.  People searching for absolute right or wrong in regards to a game that has so many variables are really missing the point.  Magic is more like politics.  No right or wrong.  No absolutes, but many answers that are right at the time.  And reasonable people will disagree.

[Saucemaster]

whops, sorry I slipped from magic jargon into math/econ jargon without even thinking about it. That�s what being in too many nerdy groups will do to you�
In game theory the idea for of a dominant strategy means that in no possible case no matter what the other person does would it be a good idea for you to change plans. An example of this is the prisoner�s dilemma where weather the other person cooperates or rats you out you are still better off ratting them out. This is clearly not the case in magic, which is what I meant when I said there was probably no single dominant strategy.

Okay, I suspected as much.  Yeah, in this case I agree.  In such a case, the "dominant" strategy would probably be restriction worthy.

Every strategy has a counter strategy. If you just picked a deck you thought was best you would lose a lot because people would play the counter strategy. Imagine the following game.
Rock, paper, scissors, really big rock.
Standard rules for rock, paper, and scissors. Really big rock beats rock and scissors but loses to paper. Clearly really big rock is the best choice, but if you played it every time you would lose every time because other people would play paper. You need to throw in scissors every now and then to prevent others from using paper every time. So the optimal strategy is to randomize between really big rock, scissors and paper. (you never play rock because it is dominated by really big rock, you would never be better off with rock. You have to randomize because if you use a pattern people can out guess you.
In this case if you work out the probabilities you will probably throw really big rock more frequently than other things, but you have to throw other things sometimes to be playing optimally. The analogy to magic is that when you work out probabilities, the perfectly rational choice is to play the best decks with the highest probabilities, but to randomly play other decks sometimes just so that people can�t reliably fall onto counter strategies.

This I am prepared to agree with.  It may be the games-theoretical best decision to randomize your choice of strategy among various different more or less equally powerful strategies, assuming that they exist.  But that still doesn't explain why we see so many versions of so many decks showing up, and it certainly doesn't explain why we'd ever see White Weenie (again, assuming everyone is acting in a manner that maximizes their chances of winning).

Just a note, this doesn�t men every deck will/should get played and perhaps my WW example was a bad example. Even with built in randomness there will be some decks that are like rock in that it will never be sensible to play them since there will be other decks that do better in every possible match up. Example tog v 60island.dec.

Yeah, I think the WW thing threw me off.  Point taken.

This is a political question, more than anything else. Social Conflict is the basic idea that reasonable, rational individuals will disagree on the nature of society. A very rational person could be pro-choice and another very rational person could be pro-life. There really isn't a right or wrong. Magic happens to be much the same way.

I both agree and disagree with this.  I agree that in practice, in any given locale, the metagame represented at that locale is undoubtedly subject to political description.  Perhaps even that it is primarily a result of action that is best described as political.  However, I *don't* agree that in something with entirely fixed, known, knowable, measurable quantities--a fully-defined game, in this case--that:

Magic is not math. There are few right or wrong answers and there certianly isn't a neat equation that you can design that defines such a complex interaction of cards, play style, human error and dumb luck.  People searching for absolute right or wrong in regards to a game that has so many variables are really missing the point. Magic is more like politics. No right or wrong. No absolutes, but many answers that are right at the time. And reasonable people will disagree.

On the contrary, while values, ethics, society, etc. may be described as you have--and I would almost certainly agree with your characterization--Magic as a game is exactly like Math.  There are right and wrong answers to the question "given metagame A, is card X or Y going to give me a greater win percentage?", or to any other question we care to ask.  Magic is a fully defined set of logical statements, exactly like Math, like any other fully determinate game.  It's a math of probabilities because of the randomness, but it's still math.

The political aspect comes into play when people begin to frontload the whole system with values that are extrinsic to the game.  Whether you "like playing control" or "hate card X" or whatever should have no bearing on what you play, but in reality, it will.  People don't behave entirely rationally, they behave according to emotion/etc.  So yes, it becomes political, but the point is that there is still a fully describable game underneath it all.  It's just that most people choose to partially ignore it.

[Milton]

So yes, it becomes political, but the point is that there is still a fully describable game underneath it all. It's just that most people choose to partially ignore it.

I don't think most people ignore, I think they just disagree about the best approach to the "fully describable game" and how best to play that game.  Very rational people disagree.  

How many Intuitions in your Hulk deck?  Shouldn't this be a simple question to answer?  There must be a correct answer, right?  How many Cunning Wish?  Should I splash red?  

In truth there isn't even a consensus on Tog, which has been the most dominant deck of the past eight months.  There isn't a "best option" for anything.  Just more disagreements.  That, of course, is to ceede the point that there is a "better" option most of the time, but when it comes down to card for card selection of even a defined deck there is a ton of disagreement as to what is best, or even better, when filling those last couple of slots.  Now, compare radically different meta's, with their own tendencies, good players, card pools, defining decks...  and you have two completely different Tog decks (by as many as 10 or 12 cards).  Both decks are equally good.  Switch metagames and both decks might scrub out without winning a game.

That's why Magic is so awesome.

[Jacob Orlove]

Every strategy has a counter strategy. If you just picked a deck you thought was best you would lose a lot because people would play the counter strategy. Imagine the following game.
Rock, paper, scissors, really big rock.
Standard rules for rock, paper, and scissors. Really big rock beats rock and scissors but loses to paper. Clearly really big rock is the best choice, but if you played it every time you would lose every time because other people would play paper. You need to throw in scissors every now and then to prevent others from using paper every time. So the optimal strategy is to randomize between really big rock, scissors and paper. (you never play rock because it is dominated by really big rock, you would never be better off with rock. You have to randomize because if you use a pattern people can out guess you.
In this case if you work out the probabilities you will probably throw really big rock more frequently than other things, but you have to throw other things sometimes to be playing optimally. The analogy to magic is that when you work out probabilities, the perfectly rational choice is to play the best decks with the highest probabilities, but to randomly play other decks sometimes just so that people can�t reliably fall onto counter strategies.

This I am prepared to agree with.  It may be the games-theoretical best decision to randomize your choice of strategy among various different more or less equally powerful strategies, assuming that they exist.  But that still doesn't explain why we see so many versions of so many decks showing up, and it certainly doesn't explain why we'd ever see White Weenie (again, assuming everyone is acting in a manner that maximizes their chances of winning).

But could't different versions of the same deck constitute "various different more or less equally powerful strategies"? It seems that by running slighly different builds, players can both adapt to the metagame, and present their opponents with a relatively large challenge in determining their deck's contents. In fact, if everyone played "optimal" versions of a given deck, they would likely lose, as all the other players could much more easily prepare for that deck. As it is now, preparing for tog means being ready to face the 4-color version if you're playing slaver, and the 3-color version if you're playing tog. If only one version was played, some decks would be able to get a significant advantage in that matchup, by preparing for the build they know about.

In fact, even if one particular deck was even weakly dominant, playing variants would still be important (some might say that variants are especially important in that case).

In much the same way, running a few variable spots in the SB seems to be "optimal" even if you don't expect the meta to change, just because randomizing your strategy is the "dominant" alternative.

[jpmeyer]

So yes, it becomes political, but the point is that there is still a fully describable game underneath it all. It's just that most people choose to partially ignore it.

I don't think most people ignore, I think they just disagree about the best approach to the "fully describable game" and how best to play that game.  Very rational people disagree.  

How many Intuitions in your Hulk deck?  Shouldn't this be a simple question to answer?  There must be a correct answer, right?  How many Cunning Wish?  Should I splash red?  

In truth there isn't even a consensus on Tog, which has been the most dominant deck of the past eight months.  There isn't a "best option" for anything.  Just more disagreements.  That, of course, is to ceede the point that there is a "better" option most of the time, but when it comes down to card for card selection of even a defined deck there is a ton of disagreement as to what is best, or even better, when filling those last couple of slots.  Now, compare radically different meta's, with their own tendencies, good players, card pools, defining decks...  and you have two completely different Tog decks (by as many as 10 or 12 cards).  Both decks are equally good.  Switch metagames and both decks might scrub out without winning a game.

That's why Magic is so awesome.

While I don't think that Tog is really the best choice for this (it seems to me that the only place they differ is in the sideboard,) when I wanted to test against something like say, Fish I had absolutely no idea what sort of "standard" build I should've put together so that I could test.  And don't get me started on R/G.  I have no idea what's in that deck other than Taiga.  That's the sort of thing that's maddening.

One thing that I've noticed (and this is by no means concrete or exact or anything,) is that it seems that like the higher up a deck is on a theoretical tier listing, it seems like the more concrete it is.  If you looked at say, GAT it seemed like the only way those decks were differing was like over the choice of cantrips.  Long was more or less the same way.  Even going all the way back to mono-blue, there was really like just one almost set in stone way to build that.

Whether that's something that's unique to "better" decks or if other decks just need to be tuned and tightened up more is something that I can't answer, though.

[PucktheCat]

Whether that's something that's unique to "better" decks or if other decks just need to be tuned and tightened up more is something that I can't answer, though.

It fits with the generally understood structure of the metagame that this would be the case.  Decks like Hulk, Long and GAT are usually thought to be very good because of the power of their own strategy - they aren't metagame decks.  It makes sense for these decks to focus on optimizing the execution of that strategy rather than the particular decks they expect to face.  The idea is to make their opponent's deck irrelevant.  If this is the plan then there isn't much room to change a decklist.  One card is just going to be better than another.

Most of the other decks in the format, on the other hand, have a less powerful strategy on their own, so they have to react to their opponent's strategy.  That requires a much more flexible decklist - some cards are good against one strategy but not against others.

For an example of how this works, look at Hulk's progression.  When the deck was first posted it had Wastes, Strip and B2B - disruption.  As it was played more and people (you JP?) realized that it should be more concerned about playing its own strategy and less concerned about its opponent those elements gradually disappeared in favor of more fast mana and tutoring.  Carl's GenCon (is that right, GenCon?) deck was basically the natural progression of that trend, having only 4 Force and 3 Duress as pure disruption (Mana Drain and Cunning Wish serve other purposes).  Then combo reentered the metagame in a big way along with Chalice Keeper, etc.  Hulk wasn't (or was thought not to be, anyway) as dominant in that environment so the deck disappeared for a while and when it reappeared it was packing disruption in the form of Wastelands, Stifle, etc.  With the combo killing restrictions it began to look once again like Hulk was the best deck, so the disruption has once again began to disappear - Hulk is now very tight again because it is optimized to execute its own strategy as well as possible regardless of what its opponent does.  The debates are things like Gush vs. Intuition and Sol Ring vs. other mana sources - questions about its engine, not its answers.

When Hulk is dominant it becomes very focused on how it can be as dominant as possible.  When it is not, the list opens up to include disruption and metagame elements.

There was an interesting article linked to on the old site that laid out the metagame in terms of a marketplace theory - I don't remember the author's terminology, but it fits in nicely here.  Some decks are made to do well in a vaccum, some are made to do well against those decks, and so on.  Of course, it started a big fight about 'Tiers' and stuff, but thats the internet for you.  This also ties in with the strategy superiority concept.

Leo

[Rico Suave]

For an example of how this works, look at Hulk's progression.  When the deck was first posted it had Wastes, Strip and B2B - disruption.  As it was played more and people (you JP?) realized that it should be more concerned about playing its own strategy and less concerned about its opponent those elements gradually disappeared in favor of more fast mana and tutoring.  Carl's GenCon (is that right, GenCon?) deck was basically the natural progression of that trend, having only 4 Force and 3 Duress as pure disruption (Mana Drain and Cunning Wish serve other purposes).

I think you need a better example, because the first Tog decks didn't have Wastelands at all.

[Phantom Tape Worm]

While I don't think that Tog is really the best choice for this (it seems to me that the only place they differ is in the sideboard,) when I wanted to test against something like say, Fish I had absolutely no idea what sort of "standard" build I should've put together so that I could test. And don't get me started on R/G. I have no idea what's in that deck other than Taiga. That's the sort of thing that's maddening.

One thing that I've noticed (and this is by no means concrete or exact or anything,) is that it seems that like the higher up a deck is on a theoretical tier listing, it seems like the more concrete it is.  If you looked at say, GAT it seemed like the only way those decks were differing was like over the choice of cantrips.  Long was more or less the same way.  Even going all the way back to mono-blue, there was really like just one almost set in stone way to build that.

Whether that's something that's unique to "better" decks or if other decks just need to be tuned and tightened up more is something that I can't answer, though.

This seems to me like more a function of hype and deck publicity than anything else.  It may be the case that concrete lists for decks like long and tog are so uniform because their advocates are very vocal about pushing their particular builds.  I might even go so far as to say, that many of the "better decks" are considered good because their advocates are very vocal about pushing them.

For example, you mentioned fish in particular as having no "standard" build.  I could argue that variance in gay/r lists is so great because I do not aggressively push my list as optimal for every metagame.  If you notice, I barely respond to the numerous gay/r threads that have been popping up of late even though I probably could reign in some of the more deviant builds by pushing my own.  Additionally, I have NEVER hyped fish as being a "good deck", certainly not on the same playing field as decks like meandeck slavery, draw7, u/g madness, etc.  and so it is not universally considered a "good deck".  I'm sure if I actively campaigned long enough, I could convince the community.

I really do have to hand it to milton, I believe he nailed it dead on when he drew the comparison between the metagame and politics.  So much of navigating the metagame is just a matter of having your finger on the pulse of popular opinion, which is, of course, a function of hype.

[PucktheCat]

For an example of how this works, look at Hulk's progression.  When the deck was first posted it had Wastes, Strip and B2B - disruption.  As it was played more and people (you JP?) realized that it should be more concerned about playing its own strategy and less concerned about its opponent those elements gradually disappeared in favor of more fast mana and tutoring.  Carl's GenCon (is that right, GenCon?) deck was basically the natural progression of that trend, having only 4 Force and 3 Duress as pure disruption (Mana Drain and Cunning Wish serve other purposes).

I think you need a better example, because the first Tog decks didn't have Wastelands at all.

Oops.  Oh well.  I think the argument still holds together.  The really important thing is what happened to the deck to when it looked like it wasn't dominant for a while.

Another example of this process is Keeper, which fragmented rapidly and became a metagame deck when it fell the position of dominant deck.

Leo

[Saucemaster]

I don't think most people ignore, I think they just disagree about the best approach to the "fully describable game" and how best to play that game.  Very rational people disagree.

That is true.  The point I was trying to make was just that there is actually a "correct" answer sitting around somewhere, though it may take more time and effort than is realistically feasible in order to arrive at it, and there's always the danger of human error or miscalculation in the process used to find the answer.  Nevertheless, there is a "correct" answer that's worth keeping in mind as at least a theoretical goal.  That's what I meant when I said that I both agree and disagree.  As a practical matter, "political" concerns are paramount when deciphering a region's metagame, etc.  They overshadow the rest.  As a theoretical matter, it shouldn't matter.  So I guess my answer to the question--why is the metagame less coherent than it seems it should be--is the same as yours, viz. politics.  It's just that I think it's important to recognize that that's actually only the case because the players of the format have a theoretically inferior understanding of the game.  I read your original post as disagreeing with this, and quite possibly you do.  For my part, I certainly have an understanding of the game that is inferior from a theoretical standpoint, because I *haven't* sat down and tested every matchup and come up with a win-% grid, etc.  My team and I test plenty, but not anywhere nearly exhaustively enough to come up with anything but solid assumptions and guesses.  Anything else would require thousands and millions of games of playtesting and the invention of an entire methodology.  And this is a fucking hobby, for Chrissakes.  So it will probably always be the case that the 'actual' metagame is subject to political pressures, until someone finds a way to get a computer to play optimal magic against itself and lets it crunch matchups for weeks on end.

But could't different versions of the same deck constitute "various different more or less equally powerful strategies"? It seems that by running slighly different builds, players can both adapt to the metagame, and present their opponents with a relatively large challenge in determining their deck's contents. In fact, if everyone played "optimal" versions of a given deck, they would likely lose, as all the other players could much more easily prepare for that deck. As it is now, preparing for tog means being ready to face the 4-color version if you're playing slaver, and the 3-color version if you're playing tog. If only one version was played, some decks would be able to get a significant advantage in that matchup, by preparing for the build they know about.

I quote this mostly to head off a possible misunderstanding of my original post.  This is why you simply can't ignore the "time" element of the metagame.  I do NOT believe that the "best decks" are or should remain static in any way.  What I DO believe is that within any given metagame, there is one and precisely one "best" version of the deck.  If you are taking a Tog list into Columbus, your maindeck, or at the very least your sideboard, had certainly better be different than if you took that same deck into Hadley.

You're also saying, assuming I'm reading you correctly, that slight variances in decklists introduce an element of the unknown that alter how other decks can potentially react to a given strategy.  Two responses:

1) Every card in a (good) deck fulfills a certain function.  If what we're talking about is varying which cards are used to fulfill those functions, then unless the text on the cards is functionally identical, one card should honestly just be better at that job than the other.  Brainstorm vs. Opt, for example.  In most such cases, the advantage gained from the element of uncertainty the potential variance introduces has to be tremendous in order to overcome the actual power difference between the two cards.  And remember, my fundamental claim is that the power difference between any two cards always already (there's a phrase I haven't used since college) takes into account the metagame.  The metagame actually alters the environment in which your deck is performing--the metagame actually IS just the alteration of the environment in which your deck is performing.  

2) If the card difference is enough that it will drastically change how your opponent can prepare for your deck--take as an example Wastelands in Tog vs. no Wastelands, where your opponent will need to alter playstyle and potentially more in each case--then pretty much by definition you have decided to eschew following one potential sub-strategy in order to capitalize on another.  The differing cards aren't functionally identical anymore, and your deck can no longer perform precisely the same functions as well as it previously did, and hopefully performs others more effectively.  This is the situation in which I read your comments to apply.  It's important to note, however, that if your opponent knew which variant to expect, one variant would be objectively more effective than the other.  So what you're saying in this case, again if I read you correctly, can be rephrased as: it can sometimes be a correct strategy to play a technically inferior version of a deck simply because the variance introduced by the possibility of different decklists may affect the metagame in such a way as to overall increase the TOTAL win percentages of the general strategy--of both decklists--in a way that will offset the disadvantage of playing the inferior strategy.

That is a truly interesting point, and I can't decide whether I agree or not.  I will say this: it seems to me at first glance to overestimate the effects of decklist variance on the metagame, and in any case, that only works if people are actually playing multiple variants.  If they ARE playing multiple versions, then you always want to be the one playing the theoretically best version of the potential variants, since that will give you the technical advantage and you get to reap the benefits of others losing that technical advantage but still giving you the "uncertainty advantage".

[Milton]

That is true. The point I was trying to make was just that there is actually a "correct" answer sitting around somewhere, though it may take more time and effort than is realistically feasible in order to arrive at it, and there's always the danger of human error or miscalculation in the process used to find the answer. Nevertheless, there is a "correct" answer that's worth keeping in mind as at least a theoretical goal.

OK.  Consider this, then.  In math you can easily prove that 1 + 1 = 2.  There really isn't an argument.  In Magic there is no proof of anything, really.  That's why we argue.  To convince or prove a point, something you really don't a have to do in math.  So, there really isn't a "correct" answer somewhere so much as there is a "potentially best" answer somewhere.  That's the point I'm trying to make.  That's where we disagree.  That's why the meta is so fucked up right now.  People all over the world are comming to very different conclusions about good deck design.