[Discussion] Black Lotus or Mox Sapphire in U/R Fish?

[MasterIth]

the welder argument is stronger than you may think at first glance. I have been in this situation many tiumes: I cast a first turn lotus, and sac it for null rod and something else, then my opponent plays a welder, and next turn, my null rod is gone.

[Dozer]

Whether or not the appropriate number of mana sources is 23 or 24 I am not qualified to pass judgement on. However, given any deck, I believe there is always a definitive number of sources that constitutes an optimal manabase. If this is true, then even a slight change (1 mana source) can be extremely significant.

If this is true, then its certainly difficult to demonstrate in practice.

It is certainly difficult to demonstrate in practice, however, I believe this is a point where you have to trust your own feelings, after a sufficient number of games with different configuratons.  I kow many players believe in the number's crunch - but this is so blurred an area that feelings are actually important.

However:

I think the Welder argument is insignificant, because you can always side out the Lotus for games 2 & 3 if you decide to play it anyway. Also, if you drop a first-turn Null Rod via Lotus, you still have a full turn to burn the Welder or counter it in the first place. The decision if you play Lotus or not should be a principal one, not a Welder-induced one.

Dozer

[OPColby]

Dozer wrote:  "I think the Welder argument is insignificant, because you can always side out the Lotus for games 2 & 3 if you decide to play it anyway. Also, if you drop a first-turn Null Rod via Lotus, you still have a full turn to burn the Welder or counter it in the first place. The decision if you play Lotus or not should be a principal one, not a Welder-induced one."

I agree and disagree.

Although, even though I'm a big proponent for running Lotus, I do feel the Welder argument is somewhat significant.

Now, chances are that you're not going to be playing EVERY deck running a welder.  Lotus will most likely help you every single time against every single deck with it in your opening hand, except for ones that run Welder, AND, that you get the Lotus out first turn, AND they get a welder out first turn, AND you also play a null rod WITH that Lotus - First turn.

Now, as deck, turn, and hand specific as that is, it still has...

Wait a minute.  No, screw you guys who give the welder argument.

I completely agree, Dozer.  It should be out of principle.

[dicemanx]

And let me add one point to the Welder argument: if you have the situation that OPColby described (1st turn Lotus, Null Rod, vs their 1st turn Welder), you might have the option of either holding off on the Null Rod until turn 2, or it might be possible that you also have a pinger and drop that 1st turn too. The 1st turn Lotus + Rod play is more critical in match-ups against combo decks, especially if you're going 2nd.

[OPColby]

The Lotus + Null Rod first turn versus first turn goblin welder:

Absolutely always assumes that you won the flip, because who would play a null rod with a lotus after seeing a Goblin Welder?  This is common sense.  That being said, it also assumes the following:

That you didn't also play a mox sapphire, that you used before you cast the null rod to get you a cloud of faeries, then played a razorfin hunter (if you're playing him).

That's the broken scenario.  It assumes that you didn't have a Mox Sapphire in your hand as well, (as you would use the mana from the Mox Sapphire to obviously cast the Null Rod,) and then use the extra three mana you had (after laying down a land) to lay down any number of cloud of faeries and then whatever else you had in your hand.

It assumes that you also don't have a force of will in your hand that you can counter the Goblin Welder with, or even just a freakin' daze.

It assumes that you don't have both a pinger AND a stifle in your hand, so you can play the pinger, pass the turn, stifle the welder, then kill the welder as well.

It assumes that this is game 1, and you didn't sideboard in any burn spells like fire/ice.

It assumes that you didn't play a freaking Spiketail Hatchling which forces the Welder Player to also have a mox in his hand.

There are so many assumptions in that argument.

"I'm not going to play Black Lotus because what about when you win the toss for your first turn first game Null Rod off Lotus and you don't play anything aside a standstill (which nets you no nothing to your advantage like a FoW or daze) or cloud of faeries double curiousitied which doesn't get you any burn or any pingers or any stifles when it attacks next turn, OR you played a standstill off the extra two mana which equally doesn't get you a FoW, daze, pinger + time walk, burn or stifles, or maybe it's a weird scenario where you have a lotus and five lands with a null rod in your hand, and you would totally keep that hand, wait...FIRST GAME."

Also, it's pretty stupid for a person to play a NULL ROD the FIRST GAME without knowing what the opponent has to begin with.  Wouldn't you rather play a cloud of faeries, curiousity it, and play a spiketail hatchling rather than playing a cloud of faeries, curiousity it, then playing a null rod?  or a null rod and spiketail hatchling?

It's even STUPIDER to play a null rod off a Lotus the SECOND GAME without having any answers to them playing a Goblin Welder when you know exactly what they're playing.

It ALSO assumes that you either don't have anything better to play, can't play anything else, or you're just a bad player to begin with and would rather play the null rod, (which might be absolute CRAP against your opponent) rather than playing creatures and/or curiousities and/or standstills.

So you're not going to play Black Lotus because of a FREAKISHLY UNCOMMON occurance in which millions of coincidences need to happen in order for you to be screwed?

Not playing Oshawa Stompy because your opponents MIGHT have Circle Of Protection: Green in the sideboard is more logical.

[PucktheCat]

The difference between getting Curiosity going turn two and turn 3 is exactly one card. Lotus is exactly one card as well. That is why it is a wash. Whatever you draw with the Curiosity turn two simply replaces the Lotus.

1 card is not insignificant. It can be the equivalent of one whole turn. And the card drawn doesn't just "replace" the Lotus. It starts the process of digging through your deck, except that, as I stated, you might be a tad mana light at the start.

As I said in my first post on this issue, I don't think Lotus doesn't help Curiosity at all.  I think the improvement isn't very large.  Basically, you get to start the game with a 59 card deck and you opponent with 19 life.  That is not nothing, but it also isn't much.

Don't forget disruption. If I have a very disruptive hand without draw I will sometimes keep it. A hand with Lotus is a hand with one less random card - that card might be the disruption or draw spell that makes the 1/1s playable.

If the Lotus replaced a land, this point is moot. If it replaced a business spell, then only include cards that the Lotus would substitute - so a card draw spell is out.

If it replaces a land then I still say you could easily replace that same land with another spell.  As a practical matter it would have to go in place of either a creature or disruption spell - Daze, Stifle or Misdirection seems like a strong possibility.

This isn't a hypothetical. Either you will mulligan a hand with only Lotus for blue mana or you won't. If it is the former then it is taking the place of a spell, the later it is taking the place of a U-source. I don't think the later is a real option, myself.

To say that you will get hypothetical starting hands with only the Lotus for blue mana with any appreciable frequency is what I had a problem with. We can quite easily calculate the odds of this happening.

The point is the card is either being put in place of a land, in which case you don't think the extra land is necessary, or in place of a spell, in which case it must have a greater imact on the game than the spell that was cut.

Basically, I think the statement that you are replacing a blue source with Lotus is a mirage.  It may be literally true, you may have physically removed an Island from the deck to put in the Lotus, but conceptually it is false.  The reason for the number blue sources in this deck is to reliably get an opening hand with at least one blue source.  Unless you are keeping hands with Lotus and no other source of blue mana then Lotus is not acting as a blue source in this deck.

The issue isn't 23 or 24 mana sources. Whichever number is correct, I simply think Lotus has insufficient impact of the game when it is casting the spells in this deck.

But if we're replacing a 24th permanent source with the Lotus, then it *is* the issue. Whether a Lotus in your starting hand has a sufficient impact on the game is a separate issue altogether, one that can hardly be answered so conclusively through goldfishing or testing against one deck.

No, it isn't the issue.  Whatever number of mana sources is correct, whether it is 23, 24, 30, or 12 the issue is always whether Lotus has enough impact to be played over another spell.  If you are right, if the deck only needs 23 mana sources, then I could just as easily add a Daze, Stifle, Fire/Ice, Gorilla Shaman, or any number of other things the deck might want as a Black Lotus.

Also, I think it is a bit unfair to critisize my testing considering the fact that I am the only person in this thread that has actually stated the testing basis of my conclusions.

I don't think its unfair to criticize any form of testing.

You're right, it isn't unfair.  I guess what I meant is that it is unwise.  Mote, eye, stones, glass houses, etc.

To bring back up a point that has been dropped for a while, Lotus isn't going to appear only in your opening hand.  Even if it is a net benefit to a starting hand (I think it probably is, given Standstill, Null Rod, etc.) it isn't a huge one and when it is drawn turn two and later and it is pretty much without exception the worst card in the deck.

That was why my testing didn't go on longer.  I intended to test Lotus thoroughly in the opening hand to get an idea of what I would be gaining, then test in when drawn later by seeding it in the top few cards to gauge its strength when drawn later.  After testing it in the opening hand a bit I found it so mediocre - weak even when it was a benefit and a detriment far more often than I expected - that I simply didn't feel the need to test how bad it was when drawn later.

Leo

[OPColby]

I think the best argument is just that:  "Is a spell, lategame, more useful than Black Lotus, early-game?"

That's what we have to weigh.  Obviously you would want to get Black Lotus in your hand rather than a stifle when you have a hand of Mishra's Factory, Volc Island, Cloud of Faeries, Standstill, Curiousity (Black Lotus or Stifle).

However, you would almost always want to draw the stifle lategame moreso than a black lotus.

That's the real question.  It's both one card either way.

I'd personally rather have the Black Lotus early game, because it speeds up my hand so drastically that I could essentially force my opponent to play defensively.

Black Lotus, in general, is not the best card to draw, at all, in any deck in the lategame.  (Exceptions are of course decks that run Yawgmoth's Will, are mana-dependant, combo decks, etc.)

So why do people play Black Lotus at all?  Because of it's opening hand ability to make your opponent play defensively.

It's one card that basically says:  "I just increased my chances of winning this game by 10-15%" if you draw it in your opening hand.

The chances of topdecking it are 1.32%, and the chance of getting it in your opening hand is 8.1666%.

This is why it's the best card in magic.  Even though it sucks lategame, who cares?  So you forfeit a turn.  With it in your opening hand, you practically win the game.  And the chances of getting it in your opening hand are equal to roughly topdecking 8 times.

[PucktheCat]

The chances of topdecking it are 1.32%, and the chance of getting it in your opening hand is 8.1666%.

Your use of percentages there is incredibly deceptive.  What you mean to say is that your chance of topdecking it each draw is 1.32%.  Gay/r probably draws between 7-14 cards a game beyond its opening seven.  That means that roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of the time you see Lotus it won't be in your opening hand.

Black Lotus, in general, is not the best card to draw, at all, in any deck in the lategame. (Exceptions are of course decks that run Yawgmoth's Will, are mana-dependant, combo decks, etc.)

These exceptions apply to virtually every deck in the format more than Gay/r.  Virtually every other deck is more mana hungry than Gay/r.

Basically you are right that it comes down to weighing the late game weakness vs the early game strength of Lotus.  If you look at my psuedo-math on the first page of this thread:

1/3 (strongness of Lotus in opening hand) + 2/3 (strongness of Lotus drawn later) = Total strongness of Lotus*

My testing showed the first part of the equation to be positive, but fairly small.  The second part is clearly negative.  Therefore, I psuedo-mathematically determine that I won't play Lotus.**

Leo

*The coefficents here might be better 1/2 and 1/2 because often when Gay/r draws many cards the game is effectively over before it does so.  Psuedo-math avoids actual calculation I don't have to show how this affects my results.  Suffice it to say that even weighing it that way I think Lotus is a net loss to the deck.

**Please don't take this too seriously.  I understand that I haven't "proven" anything with my formula.  I am just laying out what I see to be the ruberic (sp?) for decision making in this case.

[OPColby]

Actually, those percentages are wrong.

Actual percentages are:

Topdecking is 1.88% if you go first, 1.92% if you go second and it increases although not much (about .04-.08) everytime you don't topdeck the lotus.  If you play a standstill, when the standstill breaks, you have about a 6% chance of getting the Lotus off the Standstill, for instance.  

A good integer to use is 2% when topdecking in the earlygame and 3%midgame.  In the late game, the percentage becomes closer to 5 percent.  (obviously if you have 20 cards left in your library.)

You have an 11.666% chance of getting the Lotus in your hand if you go first, and 13.333% chance if you go second.

That being said, the only way Lotus is going to be bad is if you draw it in the mid-game, as late-game cards you rarely get to.

Therefore, for Lotus to be bad, it needs to be within the 10 card-40 card section of your deck.  (Only 30 cards.)

This cuts in half Lotus's uselessness.

While you might not get it in your opening hand, the chance is even greater that you won't get it in the game at all.  (as your opening hand is only 7-8 cards, and you certainly usually have more than 7-8 cards in your library when you win or lose.)

The next time you win or lose, count how many cards you have in your library.  With Fish, I'd say somewhere around 20.  (and I'm shooting low.  It's honestly PROBABLY around 30.)

Lotus is PROBABLY as in 53%, drawn in that game.  If you win before that, the percentage goes down.  If you win after that, the percentage goes up.

However, when you draw 33 cards in a game...I'm pretty sure you won it with all the curiousities/standstills, and perhaps an ancestral.  Pretty hard to lose a game when you draw 33 cards beyond your opening hand.

So Lotus, in all actuality, is more likely NOT to be drawn or in your opening hand than you are to draw it.  How many times have you played a LIMITED GAME?  (40 cards) and not seen a single card in your deck?

I played over 12 games last limited tourney (last Friday) and did not see my single Juggernaut ONCE, while the first time I went there, played 10 games, and saw my Reiver Demon every time except for 1.  (the one game that I lost.)  I saw it in my hand every time except for 3, too, and I kept each of those hands.

Now, again, this is a 40 card deck - but it didn't have any card drawing, so it's probably a good example to use.

Do you always see your time walk, ancestral, lotus, and sapphire?  Sure, if you're Tog, but probably not if you're Fish.

[dicemanx]

As I said in my first post on this issue, I don't think Lotus doesn't help Curiosity at all. I think the improvement isn't very large. Basically, you get to start the game with a 59 card deck and you opponent with 19 life. That is not nothing, but it also isn't much.

The earlier you get Curiosity running, the faster you start to cycle through your deck, the more cards you see. The difference in starting to cycle through your deck turn 1 vs turn 2 is huge. It's like getting an extra turn!

If it replaces a land then I still say you could easily replace that same land with another spell. As a practical matter it would have to go in place of either a creature or disruption spell - Daze, Stifle or Misdirection seems like a strong possibility.

Not exactly, because the Lotus is *still* a mana producer, albeit a temporary one. It trades temporary acceleration for the opportunity to draw more cards early, which will make it easier for you to draw into your permanent sources.

You're right, it isn't unfair. I guess what I meant is that it is unwise. Mote, eye, stones, glass houses, etc.

Unwise? Now pride is getting in the way of seeking truth. I am not "casting stones" because I'm "without sin" or "living in a glass house" or "seeing the mote in your eye" but missing the "beam" in mine. Those are the wrong analogies; I do not criticize or scrutinize because I think I'm perfect. Only Azhrei did that . Do you seek the truth or a pat on the back on this site?

To bring back up a point that has been dropped for a while, Lotus isn't going to appear only in your opening hand. Even if it is a net benefit to a starting hand (I think it probably is, given Standstill, Null Rod, etc.) it isn't a huge one and when it is drawn turn two and later and it is pretty much without exception the worst card in the deck.

OPColby gave a good response to this issue, but I will add one thing: the Lotus is never a useless mid-game draw when you are running FoW or Misdirection. It also feeds the graveyard for Lavamancer, and can leave UU mana up for the Voidmage if you wish to press with your Factories or Conclaves. There are also intangibles such as intimidation or bluffing that can also be a factor - some people play differently when the opponent has a Lotus on the table. The statement  "without exception the worst card in the deck" later in the game is way too strong because not only are there exceptions, there's quite a few of them.

1/3 (strongness of Lotus in opening hand) + 2/3 (strongness of Lotus drawn later) = Total strongness of Lotus

OK perhaps this is where the problem lies, because it's completely off the mark. You are not weighing in the effectiveness of the Lotus early (opening hand) versus its effectiveness in the late game. This is more accurate:

Effectiveness of the Lotus in starting hand + How frequently drawing the lotus mid/late game is *detrimental* compared to the card it replaced = net effectiveness (ie, is it a worthy MD inclusion?)

The first part might have a small positive value, but the second part is negligible; its not a large negative value. Conclusion? Lotus is a worthy inclusion if those assessments are correct. I think your "rubric" is flawed .

[OPColby]

I didn't even think about the Lotus with Misdirection or Force of Will.

Lotus essentially makes FoW a colorless counterspell if you don't have a Null Rod out.

[PucktheCat]

The earlier you get Curiosity running, the faster you start to cycle through your deck, the more cards you see. The difference in starting to cycle through your deck turn 1 vs turn 2 is huge. It's like getting an extra turn!

Look this is really, really basic stuff.  If you didn't have the Lotus you would have another card in its place.  The card you draw replaces the Lotus.  It may be a bit better to get a random card from your deck than what you would replace Lotus with, but it is not card advantage and it certainly isn't another turn.

Not exactly, because the Lotus is *still* a mana producer, albeit a temporary one. It trades temporary acceleration for the opportunity to draw more cards early, which will make it easier for you to draw into your permanent sources.

But it isn't a blue source in the most important sense.  The factor that places a floor on the number of blue mana sources you run is the need to see at least one in your opening hand.  Lotus doesn't count for that.  Therefore, if I could run Lotus in place of a mana source I could also run a spell in place of a mana source.

Unwise? Now pride is getting in the way of seeking truth. I am not "casting stones" because I'm "without sin" or "living in a glass house" or "seeing the mote in your eye" but missing the "beam" in mine. Those are the wrong analogies; I do not criticize or scrutinize because I think I'm perfect. Only Azhrei did that . Do you seek the truth or a pat on the back on this site?

As I understand the metaphores I am alluding to, they don't refer to the problems with thinking one is perfect, they refer to the problem of pointing out the flaws in others when you have a greater flaw yourself.  Let me be explicit: you are pointing out flaws in my testing when you yourself have made only the most passing reference to your own testing.

the Lotus is never a useless mid-game draw when you are running FoW or Misdirection.

Oh come on!  Lotus is basically strictly inferior to any blue card for casting FoW.

The statement "without exception the worst card in the deck" later in the game is way too strong because not only are there exceptions, there's quite a few of them.

I don't mean there are no circumstances that are an exception, I mean there are no cards that are an exception.  There are (rare) circumstances when Lance is a good card midgame, but if it were in the deck it would be, without exception, the worst card in the deck.

OK perhaps this is where the problem lies, because it's completely off the mark. You are not weighing in the effectiveness of the Lotus early (opening hand) versus its effectiveness in the late game. This is more accurate:

Effectiveness of the Lotus in starting hand + How frequently drawing the lotus mid/late game is *detrimental* compared to the card it replaced = net effectiveness (ie, is it a worthy MD inclusion?)

Huh?  You have me confused here?  Are both of the first terms in your equation supposed to be positive?  Wouldn't that make net effectiveness . . . always positive, regardless of how bad the Lotus was?

Also, aren't you adding two unlike terms, effectiveness + frequency?

This is just a general statement of strength, but your psuedo-formula makes no sense to me.

Here is mine, with some number plugged in so you can see how it works.

Lets measure strongness on a scale of -100 - 100 where 100 means you win if you draw it -100 means you lose if you draw it.  0 is the average card in your deck.  Then lets say that Lotus is really good in your opening hand (80) and just OK later (0):

1/3 (80) + 2/3 (0) = 26.6666666666

That's a postive number, sounds good to me.

However, if Lotus was really bad late game (lets say it said "if you draw this other than in your opening hand lose the game", so -100) and only OK early (30):

1/3 (30) + 2/3 (-100) = -56.666666

That's not so good.

Personally, I think it is something like

1/3 (20) + 2/3 (-20) = -6.66666666

Leo

[dicemanx]

Look this is really, really basic stuff. If you didn't have the Lotus you would have another card in its place. The card you draw replaces the Lotus. It may be a bit better to get a random card from your deck than what you would replace Lotus with, but it is not card advantage and it certainly isn't another turn.

Yes, it really is basic stuff. I'm not speaking about net card advantage, I'm talking about seeing more cards in the course of a game. There's a difference between the two. And no, it's not as simple as claiming that the Lotus is replacing a disruption/creature spell (which it isn't, its replacing a land), because cycling through your deck early gives you an increased opportunity to find the *right* solutions or threats or more card drawing. When searching in this fashion, each card you draw that isn't what you need IS a wasted turn; it is a very fair comparison to make between a top-decked card and a turn.

But it isn't a blue source in the most important sense. The factor that places a floor on the number of blue mana sources you run is the need to see at least one in your opening hand. Lotus doesn't count for that. Therefore, if I could run Lotus in place of a mana source I could also run a spell in place of a mana source.

I'm not sure why you are connecting the deck's need for a U source early to a Lotus. I feel the floor is perfectly fine at 13 permanent sources, which is why I can substitute the 14th one (which is usually the 4th Conclave, a slow U producer unless it comes down turn 1) for a Lotus. However, ifthe Lotus succeeds in helpingme bring out a quick creature and Curiosity/Standstill, then my requirement for an early U source is diminished, because I have a very good shot at burning through my library that much faster to locate a U source. So the Lotus is still a mana source, and it replaced a permanent source for the opportunity to get your card drawing established asap and *find* your permanent U source. To say that the Lotus is merely replacing a business spell is much too simple.

As I understand the metaphores I am alluding to, they don't refer to the problems with thinking one is perfect, they refer to the problem of pointing out the flaws in others when you have a greater flaw yourself. Let me be explicit: you are pointing out flaws in my testing when you yourself have made only the most passing reference to your own testing.

I have a greater flaw myself, so this is why I shouldn't scrutinize? I already thought I made it clear that I am operating on the principle that one should run broken tempo breaking cards unless there is a very good reason not to, and that validity of not running something as powerful as the Lotus should be established through proper testing procedures. The burden of proof, therefore, is not on me. I run the Lotus in Fish and it doesn't have any appreciable detrimental effects for me, but it does give me the occasional benefit of early acceleration. My anecdotal evidence suggests that the basic premise of playing broken cards in T1 if they are available to you seems to hold up.

Oh come on! Lotus is basically strictly inferior to any blue card for casting FoW.

Straw man. I'm not debating that a Lotus is as good or better than a blue spell in support of FoW or Misd. I'm responding to your contention that the Lotus is "without exception" the worst card you can draw mid-game, which appears to be blatantly false. Plus the Lotus could have other uses apart from the pitch-counter issue; it doesn't matter how stong of an effect it has, the point is it still *does* have its uses.

Huh? You have me confused here? Are both of the first terms in your equation supposed to be positive? Wouldn't that make net effectiveness . . . always positive, regardless of how bad the Lotus was?

The first term is always positive, the second term is always negative. Therefore, they are to be added. Don't feign confusion when you know very well what I was trying to say .

Also, aren't you adding two unlike terms, effectiveness + frequency?

You're picking at words which I elected not to define. I didn't qualify the term "effectiveness", so there is nothing to criticize. "Effectiveness" can be easily translated to a probability term.

This is just a general statement of strength, but your psuedo-formula makes no sense to me.

Which part didn't make sense? I'm examining the upside of the card (early acceleration) versus the downside (does it have a detrimental effect when top-decking Lotus in the late game).

Your definition of mid-game down-side appears to me as being something along the lines of "Lotus isn't theoretically as good when I top-deck it instead of this Conclave or Daze or Misdirection or 1/1 etc". My question is, was drawing the Lotus instead of that business spell/land *detrimental*? If it wasn't, then you CANNOT assign a negative value for such a sample game. If you do, then trust me, Lotus would not be included in many, many decks. This is precisely where our two analyses differ - I'm claiming that top-decking a Lotus instead of whatever its replacing is fairly insignificant mid/late game, and any downside is easily offset by the explosiveness it gives you if you see it early.

[PucktheCat]

Look this is really, really basic stuff. If you didn't have the Lotus you would have another card in its place. The card you draw replaces the Lotus. It may be a bit better to get a random card from your deck than what you would replace Lotus with, but it is not card advantage and it certainly isn't another turn.

 
Yes, it really is basic stuff. I'm not speaking about net card advantage, I'm talking about seeing more cards in the course of a game. There's a difference between the two. And no, it's not as simple as claiming that the Lotus is replacing a disruption/creature spell (which it isn't, its replacing a land), because cycling through your deck early gives you an increased opportunity to find the *right* solutions or threats or more card drawing. When searching in this fashion, each card you draw that isn't what you need IS a wasted turn; it is a very fair comparison to make between a top-decked card and a turn.

Do you see where I say it may be a bit better to get a random card off the top of your library than the card you are replacing Lotus with?  That is what you are talking about, right?  The random card off the top is better than what you would replace Lotus with - I get it.  It is like cycling Time Walk any other 0cc Cantrip - strong, but not game breaking.

To say that the Lotus is merely replacing a business spell is much too simple.

I understand that Lotus may provide you with the mana to power out a draw spell a bit earlier, to find a second U source.  That doesn't change the fact that it can't replace a blue source in the opening hand.  

Look, the first blue mana source is by far the most important for this deck - the mana ratio is tuned based on getting that first blue source.  The fact that Lotus might help you find a second blue source is not irrelevant, but it does mean Lotus is taking the place of a business spell.

The burden of proof, therefore, is not on me.

That is fine if you are only arguing to satisfy yourself.  I imagine others who come to this thread looking for answers might want something other than a slight rephrase of "Black Lotus is broken in other decks, therefore Black Lotus is broken in this deck."

Oh come on! Lotus is basically strictly inferior to any blue card for casting FoW.

Straw man.

hmmm . . .

the Lotus is never a useless mid-game draw when you are running FoW or Misdirection.

Wait a minute . . .

Straw man.

That's what I thought . . . how odd.

I'm responding to your contention that the Lotus is "without exception" the worst card you can draw mid-game, which appears to be blatantly false.

Here is what I said above:

I don't mean there are no circumstances that are an exception, I mean there are no cards that are an exception. There are (rare) circumstances when Lance is a good card midgame, but if it were in the deck it would be, without exception, the worst card in the deck.

Your definition of mid-game down-side appears to me as being something along the lines of "Lotus isn't theoretically as good when I top-deck it instead of this Conclave or Daze or Misdirection or 1/1 etc". My question is, was drawing the Lotus instead of that business spell/land *detrimental*? If it wasn't, then you CANNOT assign a negative value for such a sample game. If you do, then trust me, Lotus would not be included in many, many decks. This is precisely where our two analyses differ - I'm claiming that top-decking a Lotus instead of whatever its replacing is fairly insignificant mid/late game, and any downside is easily offset by the explosiveness it gives you if you see it early.

I honestly don't see the difference here.  I am going on in game criteria for both opening hand and the card being drawn later.  I understand sometimes both may be irrelevant, but sometimes, well, they aren't.

I disagree that my criteria would exclude Lotus from many decks.  I can't think of another deck that has NO spells over 2cc and 32 cards that Lotus isn't much good at all to cast.  In fact, every other deck in the format has at least one CRITICAL 3cc or greater spell and most only run 24 land + 4 FoW that can't be helped by Lotus.  Many of them also run Yawgmoth's Will.

At any rate, I think this argument is starting to go in circles a bit.  Perhaps we can come to some conclusions:

Lotus is very good for accelerating out Null Rod.  This isn't to be underestimated in certain matchups/metagames.

Lotus may be affected somewhat by the Gay/r build you are using.  A factor to consider in this regard is off color casting costs and gold cards.

Lotus is probably generally a good card to draw in your opening hand, although specific, high disruption, hands may be weakened by it.

Lotus is probably generally weaker than an Island when drawn later, although circumstances may make that untrue.

Leo

Edit: With Vegeta's post below I think I am going to let this lie.

[Vegeta2711]

I believe we've hit one of those 'Agree to disagree' walls here. Unless someone is going to make some new persuasive arguement either way, it doesn't look like anyone will be changing their minds on the issue.

Basically the pro lotus side mantains that the extra early game speed is a must-have.

The no lotus side argues it's not worth giving up a more efficent and permenant mana base, as well as the fact that you really don't have much you'd want to accelerate out.

Both sides argue different sides of the tempo arguement, which comes down to how you evalutate tempo as a whole. If it's maximizing your mana every turn, the permenant mana source is superior. If you consider tempo as including board position, then lotus is sometimes superior.

I think that pretty much sums it up, though I'm sure I cut out some stuff.

I personally side with the no lotus side, but that's mainly because I just listen to PTW when it comes to this deck. And I'm sure a LOT of others do as well, so basically have fun trying to convince people of this change. ^^

EDIT: Posted at the same time as Puck, I have good timing.  

[dicemanx]

I agree, the points have been made, so there is no point in going around in circles. Let others judge the merits ofthe arguments. However, I don't advocate following advice blindly and solely on faith only because someone has played the deck a lot or even popularized it.

The bottom line is, test it, and see what works best for you.

I do want to address one thing:

"The burden of proof, therefore, is not on me."

That is fine if you are only arguing to satisfy yourself. I imagine others who come to this thread looking for answers might want something other than a slight rephrase of "Black Lotus is broken in other decks, therefore Black Lotus is broken in this deck."

I can accept if someone doesn't buy into this argument completely. However, it's a very good starting point - use a broken card like the Lotus until you see compelling reasons not to when testing or in tournament play.  It's far better than the alternate approach which is a refusal to use Lotus unless it is demonstrated that it brings a net positive effect. Without hard data, the former starting point appears more reasonable than the latter, does it not?



Oh, and I can't resist:

Oh come on! Lotus is basically strictly inferior to any blue card for casting FoW.

Straw man.


hmmm . . .

the Lotus is never a useless mid-game draw when you are running FoW or Misdirection.  

Wait a minute . . .

Straw man.

That's what I thought . . . how odd.

Your straw man was stating that the Lotus was strictly inferior to a blue spell with respect to FoW/Misd, which you stated in a manner (the "oh, come on!") as if I was trying to suggest otherwise. I never argued against this. In fact, I agree with you. My argument was that the Lotus can support the casting of FoW (among other uses), so it's not an entirely useless midgame top-deck and therefore not automatically the worst top-deck "without exception".


And furthermore:

I don't mean there are no circumstances that are an exception, I mean there are no cards that are an exception. There are (rare) circumstances when Lance is a good card midgame, but if it were in the deck it would be, without exception, the worst card in the deck.

I didn't confuse your meaning of "worst without exception". How good or bad a card is is a function of the circumstance you find yourself in. For instance, a Misd is the worst top-deck, hands down without exception, if you face a field of decks that don't pack misdirectable spells. Daze is another hideous top-deck if you didn't establish your early game mana denial. I could also easily envision cases where it would be far better to top-deck a Lotus than it would be to top deck a Library, or a Stifle, or a Cloud of Faeries, or a Conclave. In fact, if we're going to single out a card in general as the "worst without exception", my vote would be for either Cloud of Faeries or Flying Men. There . I'm sure many other fish players identify the Daze as being the "worst card without exception", because it's purpose is mainly to establish early game tempo and sacrifices the stength of your mid/late game top-decks. That's shockingly very much like our friend the Lotus!

Is identifying a card as the worst without exception in gay/r a useful thing to do? Not remotely. Does it establish the fact that Lotus doesn't belong in gay/r? Nope.

[nataz]

I’m going to agree with Vegeta, Puck, and PTW on this one.
Don't get me wrong I heart the Lotus, but I don’t think it belongs in this deck.

I refuse to go above 60 cards (it makes babies cry), and therefore something has to be cut for the lotus to go in.

I don’t want to cut disruption, and I most certainly don't want to cut a perm mana source. (Anyone who would suggest cutting a perm mana source in this deck for acceleration in my view is out of their mind and needs to go test some more.)

This leaves creatures, and considering I only have 15 non-manland, I really don’t want to do that either because of possible lack of curiosity targets. (Which, by the way, is the main draw engine of the deck)

Nothing in this thread has convinced me to run the deck otherwise.
The points for and against lotus are pretty clear, the argument is on who’s points are more valid. I don’t think anyone here will disagree with the fact that the lotus can make larger first turns, and that GayRed has a rough manabase. The only way to find the answer is to test.

My own fairly extensive personal testing has shown that a more stable mana-base > then first turn brokenness. (Especially when that brokenness is a standstill and cloud of faeries :-p)

My testing is backed up by different people, in multiple top 8's, and power taken home in prizes, by people all over the country.

The testing for pro-lotus has resulted in a dead end.

If someone starts doing stupid good with a lotus in the place of a land or something, I'll go back and take another look, but for now, for me, this argument was dead on the first page.  
[/quote]

[dicemanx]

Just make sure that when you say this:

My testing is backed up by different people, in multiple top 8's, and power taken home in prizes, by people all over the country.

That you keep in mind this:

It is difficult to tell, but there is a real possibility that this deck is misbuilt. The deck's success may have reinforced design errors that might have been caught had the deck not been so successful. In other words, when a deck works, why fix it? While that saying is mostly true, in that there may be nothing to "fix" per se, there is nothing wrong with trying to make something great even better.

As a comparison, I think that every single Dragon deck that has done exceptionally well in tournaments in the past half a year has been misbuilt to some extent. Success can come as a result of many factors (play strength,match-ups, luck), and furthermore being off by 1 or 2 cards from an ideal build won't automatically change the success a deck might experience. Not a single tourney-successful gay/r deck has used a Lotus. Does that mean the Lotus is suboptimal? Did all of these people test a Lotus rigorously? Did they even *have* a Lotus available to them, or did they select gay/r out of budget considerations?

[Vegeta2711]

However, I don't advocate following advice blindly and solely on faith only because someone has played the deck a lot or even popularized it.

Obviously, though I value that persons opinion higher than others. I simply meant when people are on the fence about something, they tend to default to the person they consider with most experince, success, (add your own term here) with said deck.

[dicemanx]

Obviously, though I value that persons opinion higher than others. I simply meant when people are on the fence about something, they tend to default to the person they consider with most experince, success, (add your own term here) with said deck.

No question, but when discussing the merits of a card in a TMD thread in pursuit of an optimal build, there is no value in just saying that one is going to accept what people with a lot of experience with gay/r are advocating. That defeats the purpose of this thread.

[PucktheCat]

Just going to rise to one little bit of bait  

Is identifying a card as the worst without exception in gay/r a useful thing to do? Not remotely.

I still think we must be crossing signals here.  I think identifying the worst card in the deck without exception is exactly what we are trying to do.  The way I see it we have 61 cards we want to play and one must go.  For me there is no exception to the statement "Black Lotus is the worst card in the deck."  Presumably you would say "Black Lotus is the worst card in the deck except for the 14th blue source, (and maybe other cards)."  Someone else might say "Black Lotus is the worst card in the deck except for Daze."  So for you the 14th mana source is the weakest card in the deck without exception - no card is weaker.

When I say Black Lotus is the worst card to topdeck in the midgame I simply mean that looking at the generalized state of this deck's midgame it is the weakest card.  I realize there are circumstances that are exceptions, but building deck's is based on the strengths of cards taken as a whole.

Leo

[dicemanx]

OK

I think identifying the worst card in the deck without exception is exactly what we are trying to do.

Well yes, but I was trying to highlight that this cannot be done based on general considerations alone, so this becomes a pointless excercise. This is why, when it comes to a number of archetypes, there are a *pool* of cards available for consideration that have their strengths or weaknesses depending on the meta. I challenge you or anyone else to come up with a general *ideal* build of gay/r - it does not exist in my opinion!

When assembling a deck together, there will always be a weakest card in the bunch, but that is usually dependent on the match-ups we expect to face. For example, some have identified Dazes as scraping the bottom of the barrel and discarded them. Some people don't like to run that many Misdirections. Some elect not to run Library. Some elect to go with radically different creature bases. How a Lotus compares to the weakest of business spells and/or lands is not that easy of an assessment to make. Furthermore, we may choose to gambit and accept the inclusion of a weaker card in the hope that the early game tempo it will provide will overcome its drawback.

So its not as simple as merely trying to identify the "worst card in the deck without exception" with respect to something like a Lotus.


EDIT:

Incidentally, when testing what belongs in the final few spots of a deck, I rarely add cards beyond 60 and then trim down based on the deck's performance. What I do is I add candidates in the final few spots of a sixty card deck, then mark those cards with their potential alternate. So in the case of gay/r and the Lotus, I personally included the Lotus instead of a Conclave, and I saw how often that Lotus would rather be a Conclave during testing or even during *tournament* play. However, I also classified to the best of my ability how critical it was for the Lotus to be a Conclave with respect to the eventual outcome of the game. This led me to the conclusion that despite the fact that there were quite a few instances where a Conclave was strictly superior to a top-decked Lotus, few of those instances had any bearing on the outcome of the game using my best judgement. During tournament play I also quite frequently asked myself how often I would want a Lotus to be in my starting hand (even though I was running one in the deck), especially against some of the faster decks like combo or Workshop. The answer, "quite often", did not surprise me .

Out of curiosity, do people keep stuff like this in mind when they test or play in tournaments?

[PucktheCat]

Actually, that is usually how I test as well.  I only tested with 61 cards this time because I wasn't sure what was the right card to cut.  Most of the time when I am testing a card I know exactly what my least favorite card in the deck is (or at least the bottom few).

I rarely think about that stuff in tournament play, though.  I get pretty focused on what I actually have in my hand in those situations.

I agree that the bottom card is often not very clear-cut.  I feel fairly confident that the Lotus is near the bottom in midgame strength in this deck in virtually every matchup, though.

One valuable thing you learn when you post a lot on forums is how careful you have to be with your language when you only have the words on a page, without emphasis or gestures.  I think we got a good bit substantive debate done in this thread, but I know that we got crossed-up several times as well.

Leo

[OPColby]

I'm going to start a thread on how to test, asking for suggestions, etc, but I do the exact same things in play, (asking myself "which of these cards in my hand would I rather trade in for a Lotus, or Mox?")

I usually take the most played build, (a build that just won a recent tourney,) cut the sideboard immediately (as I always know exactly what I want in my sideboard,) and try to figure out what power or broken cards they aren't running.  Of course Lotus came up with this build.

Then I add them in and see what numbers they have.  I don't like misdirections, personally.  They sit in my hand way too long.  So if the tourney build ran 3, I might consider trimming it down to 2.  Same thing with dazes.  I really don't like daze hardly at all, so I might consider taking them out completely.

I run the tournament build 21 times against every major archetype as is (that is, 21 times for Dragon, 21 for Landstill, 21 for Tog, etc...), and see what is really subpar versus what I expect to play.  I take out what I think is crap and add in what I think would be better.

(for the cards that just sit in my hand, I think to myself:  "What would be PERFECT in this situation?)

When I topdeck a Lotus, I usually don't say, "This Lotus would be perfect as..."  I just take cards like Lotus or Ancestral as givens.

But, of course, an exception would have to be made in this build.

When it's time to cut cards, I usually have anywhere from 2 to 4 cards that I have to cut.  It's not all that hard for me to think what to cut.

[wuaffiliate]

* wu looks at all the dead horses

it seems as though they were all flogged to death, then flogged after death, then revived and flogged again, then flogged while dead again.