Ongoing SCG Results

[BigChuck]

PTW playing Sex is 0-2 losing to a teammate and Stax
Jacob Orlove playing Meandeck SX is 0-2
TheCapn playing Meandeck SX is 1-1
Smennen playing Meandeck SX is 1-1
Thorme is 1-1

Will continue to post as I get new info.

[rvs]

How many people are participating?

[Katzby]

How many people are participating?

http://www.starcitygames.com/coverage.php?Event=SCGP92005

58, apparently (?!?).

Is the prize still a full set of power 9?  What the hell was the entry fee?  What kind of entry fee should SCG be charging when about 1/7th of the tournament participants will be leaving with a +$100 prize?

I see SCG losing a lot of money on this one.  I hope this doesn't cause them to rethink the power 9 tournaments in general.

Katzby

[jpmeyer]

How many people are participating?

http://www.starcitygames.com/coverage.php?Event=SCGP92005

58, apparently (?!?).

Is the prize still a full set of power 9?  What the hell was the entry fee?  What kind of entry fee should SCG be charging when about 1/7th of the tournament participates will be leaving with a +$100 prize?

I see SCG losing a lot of money on this one.  I hope this doesn't cause them to rethink the power 9 tournaments in general.

Katzby

I'd blame that more on the weather massively fucking everyone.  I know that I wouldn't want to drive 5-6 hours to a tournament Friday night and then not be able to get home Saturday or Sunday because of the 2 feet of snow that the north is currently getting.

[hulk3rules]

Why are they all playing that deck after only like 1/10 was able to make top sixteen

[Mr. Fantazy]

Why are they all playing that deck after only like 1/10 was able to make top sixteen

Because, despite all real time evidence, this top secret deck has a 75% first turn kill rate?!

Secret Tech, Team Testing, and Posting Win Percentages...... not just for scrubs anymore.

[The Atog Lord]

Update from Kowal:

Kowal in top 4 w/ Dragon

Eric Miller in top 4 w/ Trinisphere Mask (???)

The other top 8'ers are fighting it out.

[BigChuck]

Eric Miller beats Kowal to advance to finals. Meandeck guys ended up not doing too well. I'll post results as soon as PTW gives them to me.

[Azhrei]

Go Eric! Pilot that pile to win after win after win! w00t w00t!

[Grand Inquisitor]

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Eric Miller, and how does he dominate everything south of DC?

On a predictable note:

Meandeck guys ended up not doing too well

...can't wait for that SX primer.

[Smmenen]

I'm glad you found that so predictable - and it' called Meandeck Tendrils.

[MuzzonoAmi]

Regardless....it still sucks Steeviekins.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I only found it predictable once I found out you were playing "meandeck tendrills" again, not because I think you're bad players...Mr. Grumpy-pants.  Muzzonami has the right idea.

[hulk3rules]

I'm pretty sure that Eric Miller is the guy that played "the man show" in the first SCG tournament

Yes the new tendrills combo deck blows.  Saucemaster admitted he got very lucky all day long to make the t16 in CT (Although he's definitely an excellent player.)

Did anyone play Rector?


Congrats on the high finish Ben

[Phantom Tape Worm]

Ben fucking rodcks i have eric miller on all your face

they both are win the game


and i  am kill lyou

[Vegeta2711]

Clearly this T8 shows that FCG and Dragon still rule.  :lol: Gogo combo decks that use creatures.

[Machinus]

Does anyone else think that this tournament is a really important piece of data in the debate about trinisphere? The amount of turbo-3sphering is really unpleasant, and if SCG thinks that 58 is low, what is going to happen if this kind of junk continues?

[rvs]

Does anyone else think that this tournament is a really important piece of data in the debate about trinisphere? The amount of turbo-3sphering is really unpleasant, and if SCG thinks that 58 is low, what is going to happen if this kind of junk continues?

Um, the low turnout is due to the weather, not Trinisphere. However, I support any cause that would lead to its restriction.

[Machinus]

Yes, I understand about the weather. I am implying that people won't want to play in big tournaments where the way to win is by going first and playing shop, sphere. That blows. It means that you are forced to play against a really strong prison deck, which means that you have to play with forces and wastelands, draw them, (losing tempo with wasteland and card advantage with FoW, in case anyone still talks about magic like that), play well enough to break the lock, AND hope that your opponent doesn't draw any of the piles of brokenness left in their deck, or even crucible or just another workshop. The other thing it means is that anyone who can play shop->sphere is going to, because the deck can dominate with redundandy, like tombs, and really aggressive mulliganing. All you have to do is swing four times or tinker out some gigantic beast after you get out your sphere.

[thorme]

I did get a chance to talk with Pete (of Starcity) for awhile, and he was pretty optimistic about turnout at the next 2 Richmond events.  He knew of a ton of people who didn't come purely for weather reasons, and expects well over 100 at the next couple.   (for those who were asking, it was $30 entry).

Also, the 2 Trinisphere decks in the finals was more a function of the number of 3Spheres in the field than the raw power of the card.  As expected in Richmond, there were a TON of 3Sphere decks...myself included  (I was running a vanilla Stax build).  If you looked at the final standings of all 58 players, you'd see 3Spheres all the way down to the 0-2-drop folks....and I wasn't much higher at 1-2-1-drop.  It still holds true that playing a 3Sphere deck is inherently inconsistent for a couple reasons, and that you can easily build a deck that is highly 3Sphere resistant.

[Azhrei]

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Eric Miller, and how does he dominate everything south of DC?

Eric was my roommate for a couple years when we both rented from SliverKing. Suffice to say, lots of playtesting was done.

[jpmeyer]

Looking at the stats, about a quarter of the field were Trinisphere decks, so it is natural that there would be a few Trinisphere decks in the T8.  If I were a person that is worried about Trinisphere, what would be more depressing to me would be the invention of another deck that uses Trinisphere and tries to really capitalize on getting those two free turns.

[Saucemaster]

Yes the new tendrills combo deck blows.  Saucemaster admitted he got very lucky all day long to make the t16 in CT (Although he's definitely an excellent player.)

Thanks for the props, huk3rules.  For anyone interested in how I got where I was at Waterbury, I've posted a report.

@ everyone: On my team's behalf, I'll just say this: I'm proud that we took the shot.  We have a deck that is hands down the fastest deck in Type 1, and may actually be the fastest deck in the history of Magic.  I am not joking when I say that the deck goldfishes at somewhere between 65-70% on turn 1.  That changes depending on the skill of the player, obviously, but we have hundreds of games logged with it.  I would have been incredibly disappointed if we hadn't given it at least one last shot, to confirm or disconfirm the Waterbury results.  We had the most broken deck in the format, and no one else did.  We took a risk, but I don't see how we could have done anything else.  We didn't run home with our tails between our legs.  We stuck with it and gave it one last shot, because we had to prove to ourselves what the deck was and wasn't capable of.  It didn't work, but at least we tried.

[Methuselahn]

@ Saucy No offense intended, but it's really hard to swallow alot of this.

I find it hard to believe that the deck lives up to the hype.  First, you claim it's the most broken deck ever.  Then, you give us percentages on how the deck performs.  Of course, these percentages don't really mean much because the deck is heavily dependent on the skill level of the pilot, right?   Plus, where's the decklist?  I thought all these types of things were frowned upon at TMD, Meandeck being no exception.   I think the team has taken alot of flak (especially because of withholding) over this deck and I just don't see it as undeserving.  This was probably obvious to Team Meandeck beforehand as one can see the split in opinion by the community in the link below.

I suppose I could rehash what others have said in the monstrous 8 page thread regarding decklist withholding.   In short, I believe that if a decklist is successful in an open forum, (a tournament) then withholding isn't an option.  A winning deck defines the meta and as such, should be public information..  

Godspeed and goodluck in all your tournamenting and innovating.

[CHA1N5]

I find it hard to believe that the deck lives up to the hype.  First, you claim it's the most broken deck ever.  Then, you give us percentages on how the deck performs.

The claim of "brokenness" is a direct result of our observations of its goldfish.  As a team, we have pushed the deck to ~65% turn 1 wins.  Any and all claims of ridiculousness are based entirely on this goldfish rate, which ranks amongst the fastest in the history of the game.

Of course, these percentages don't really mean much because the deck is heavily dependent on the skill level of the pilot, right?

You seem to understand perfectly; why don't the percentages mean much, then?

  Plus, where's the decklist?

On StarCity, since yesterday.

 I thought all these types of things were frowned upon at TMD, Meandeck being no exception.

I'm not sure how we have violated TMD policy here.  Others have posted (frequently different) lists and made claims to disparage our claims of the deck's performance.  We have defended our assertions.  Team MeanDeck has not prepared a primer on the deck and is not yet prepared to discuss it to that degree in this forum.  

In short, I believe that if a decklist is successful in an open forum, (a tournament) then withholding isn't an option.  

According to Ray, it is.  It's ironic, this was the shortest deck withholding in the history of ever: <24 hours!

Godspeed and goodluck in all your tournamenting and innovating.

Thanks, you too.

[Saucemaster]

I claimed that the deck may be among the most broken decks ever, and I specifically clarified that its brokenness was its incredible speed.  Not its win percentage.

The performance of any deck is "heavily dependent on the skill of the pilot", sometimes more and sometimes less.  I don't believe I once mentioned playskill in my post, however.  I did mention our turn-1 goldfish rate.  Some people seem to be misunderstanding the goldfish rate as a win-% rate, when the two are clearly distinct things.  In fact, I'd say one of the problems our team had in playing this deck was assuming too frequently that the sheer brokennes of the deck, its blazing speed, would result in more wins than it actually does.

But regardless, the decklist is up.  I have NO doubt that anyone who actually takes the time to learn the deck well can easily duplicate our 65-70% turn-1 goldfish rate.  None at all.  This means more than slapping the decklist together and playing 20 games with it, so I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people will be frustrated that they can't duplicate it and claim we're lying, but I'd expect the competent players and teams--even if they're among the deck's detractors--to be able to duplicate our findings.  What we're NOT doing is claiming any particular win rates in any matchups, and that is what so many rookie players with new ("rogue") creations do so often, and what we all frown upon here at TMD.  

As for withholding the list, that's a different issue, and it's been talked to death elsewhere, as you're aware.

[Methuselahn]

First, let me say that I'm not here to say that the deck sucks.  Heck, I may toy with it and bring it to a local tourny.  I obviously haven't had time to fully test it or run it against any kind of extensive gauntlet.  I'm going to wait for the primer, I believe Hi-Val said one was in the works, right?.

Ok, apparently I should have searched for the decklist a bit more thoroughly.  However, I don't recall seeing the list <24 hours after Waterbury.  According to Ray's T16 post, he edited in the Meandeck Tendrils list on Sunday, January 23rd.  (After SCG had started)  When I get some more time, I'll have to search for this public list that was released <24 hours after Waterbury.

Of course, these percentages don't really mean much because the deck is heavily dependent on the skill level of the pilot, right?

You seem to understand perfectly; why don't the percentages mean much, then?

Well, if the deck requires months of practice to play because it is extremely difficult, then how do you defend consistant goldfishing percentages of 65%-70%?  People would have to take your word for it, master the deck, and then maybe come up with those results.  Surely you can't use "you have to play it alot to get those results" as a response to people with lower fishing rates.  "Just playtest it" is generally frowned upon, right?

I did mention our turn-1 goldfish rate. Some people seem to be misunderstanding the goldfish rate as a win-% rate, when the two are clearly distinct things. In fact, I'd say one of the problems our team had in playing this deck was assuming too frequently that the sheer brokennes of the deck, its blazing speed, would result in more wins than it actually does.
...
What we're NOT doing is claiming any particular win rates in any matchups, and that is what so many rookie players with new ("rogue") creations do so often, and what we all frown upon here at TMD.

True, you are not giving win rates.  However, goldfishing percentages have been used as a testament to how well the deck performs. Goldfishing is completely irrelevant at a tournament, as it doesn't take into account of who's going first, tournament day stress, and turn 1 hate.  When there is no list to go off, then there is no real way to dispute your claims.  Frown. (I'll eat these words if I find a posted list <24 hours after Waterbury) Basically, why are you defending/promoting the deck's power with goldfishing percentages if you believe the fishing rates and win rates have different values and meaning?  

I'm not sure how we have violated TMD policy here...

You're right, you didn't break TMD policy.  However, I didn't claim that you did.  Maybe I just expect too much from the team that not only owns this website but is the model for the rest of the community.  I thought that giving percentages while not posting a list was *frowned* upon.  Also, defending with "just test it" falls under this catagory.  Claiming a deck might be the fastest deck in the history of Magic and that "We had the most broken deck in the format, and no one else did." is something that is frowned upon, I would think.  This could all be about me though as these ethics really don't affect tournament outcomes.

For example:

@ Everyone, seriously, there are valid criticisms of the deck and its role in the metagame, but the maindeck is incredibly tight and we spent months on it. There may be things we're wrong about, but PLEASE for the love of God learn the deck and PLAY with it for a while before making suggestions.

Yes, I know this thread has diverted from SCG ongoing results, but I figure ongoing results are about done with.  :/

[Saucemaster]

Well, if the deck requires months of practice to play because it is extremely difficult, then how do you defend consistant goldfishing percentages of 65%-70%?  People would have to take your word for it, master the deck, and then maybe come up with those results.  Surely you can't use "you have to play it alot to get those results" as a response to people with lower fishing rates.  "Just playtest it" is generally frowned upon, right?

How else would you like us to respond?  We can't walk people through the deck over the forums, and we have literally hundreds and hundreds of games logged with this that gave us our goldfish rate.  And frankly it's just plain TRUE that you have to play with this deck for a while before you can hit the upper goldfish rate of 65-70%.  So what else are we supposed to say?  If anything, as a general rule we look down on people talking out of their ass with no playtesting or even goldfishing experience here at TMD.  If someone posted in a thread about Dragon and said "This thing just can't win before turn 6 and Bazaar totally sucks, you should cut them for an Entomb and 3 Buried Alive", how in the world would you respond?  We're getting people telling us that Land Grant sucks in the deck, for chrissakes.  If this deck started winning Land Grant would probably be *restrictable*.  If there was some easy fix or suggestion to make to people about how to play the deck that hadn't been already made, I would do so, but I really don't think there is.

Basically, why are you defending/promoting the deck's power with goldfishing percentages if you believe the fishing rates and win rates have different values and meaning?

I think you misunderstood my reasons for posting the goldfish percentages.  My argument for why we played the deck was this:

1) The deck is broken, and ridiculously fast.

2) Because of that, we thought that despite its fragility and difficult of play, it may perform very well.

3) We were wrong.

The deck's goldfish rate goes to (1).  Our ERROR lies in the transition from (1) to (2).  All my argument was ever meant to demonstrate was why we played the deck in the first place and why I'm proud we did, not that we made the correct decision in doing so.  It's obvious that, for a few different reasons, we didn't make the correct decision in playing the deck.

[CHA1N5]

Ok, apparently I should have searched for the decklist a bit more thoroughly.  However, I don't recall seeing the list <24 hours after Waterbury.  According to Ray's T16 post, he edited in the Meandeck Tendrils list on Sunday, January 23rd.  (After SCG had started)  When I get some more time, I'll have to search for this public list that was released <24 hours after Waterbury.

It's not about 24 hours after Waterbury, it's about 24 hours after the rest of the Waterbury decks went up.  Ray didn't post the other decks until Friday @ 3:00, and the SCG article went up the following morning.  Our deck was only withheld (by the responsible TO) for that amount of time.  We knew when we made the request of Ray that what we were asking for was just that he wait his normal ~week to post Waterbury decklists.

Well, if the deck requires months of practice to play because it is extremely difficult, then how do you defend consistant goldfishing percentages of 65%-70%?

Because we have said months of practice.

Surely you can't use "you have to play it alot to get those results" as a response to people with lower fishing rates.  "Just playtest it" is generally frowned upon, right?

It's true, our collective response does bear a striking grammatical and logical similarity to many defenses of poor decks in the past.  However, the sort of arguments that you are referring to in the Newbie forum are usually made by an individual or a very few people with which you are often not familiar.  In this case, a dozen members of our team (most of which have earned a bit of credibility in this arena) have toiled and tested for months and independantly verified the results.  If that is not good enough for you, so be it.
 

Basically, why are you defending/promoting the deck's power with goldfishing percentages if you believe the fishing rates and win rates have different values and meaning?  

Because the goldfish speaks to entirely different issues than does tournament success.  Saucy has already addressed this, but I'll paraphrase:

Goldfish speaks to:
- general brokenness/power
- the reason we were attracted to the deck in the first place
- the reason we played the deck

We are simply not advocating this as a good tournament deck.  It has many complex meta-mechanical issues in addition to being very difficult to master.

I thought that giving percentages while not posting a list was *frowned* upon.

The goldfish percentages were given in response to others' inquiries, because they were the single most important feature of the deck.  They are the most succinct way to summarize the deck's strategy and we cited them (in several places) in an effort to quickly explain our deck choice.  

It's not like MeanDeck started a thread titled "OMG w3 pwn j00 T3nd1r75"; rather, we have been bombarded with requests for information and the deck's raw power is the simplest place to start.

[Methuselahn]

All my argument was ever meant to demonstrate was why we played the deck in the first place and why I'm proud we did, not that we made the correct decision in doing so. It's obvious that, for a few different reasons, we didn't make the correct decision in playing the deck.

I really wasn't debating and responding just to your post of why you chose to play the deck, if you made the right choice, or whether or not you should be proud that you did.

How else would you like us to respond?

I don't know.  "Just test it" isn't a rule that I came up with.

How about not responding at all?  How about with a primer or at least decklist immediately following the tourny? (with all the others)  Responding without decklists, with goldfish percentages, with "just-trust-us-we've-played-this-deck lots" is sub-standard.  None of these things tells me how to play the deck or gives me advice on match analysis.

As a general rule we look down on people talking out of their ass with no decklist or evidence of their claims here at TMD.

EDIT:  After hitting enter then reading CHA1N5 response,  it really seems to me that the team isn't as guilty as they appear.  That being said, they may not be totally innocent but I doubt any mal-intent was intended.  I will also have to give the team the benefit of the doubt, apparently.  Perhaps I'll just wait for a primer of sorts.