The Fundamental Flaw in Vintage (Random Musings about Tournaments Luck ect.)

[JACO]

Part of the problem with all arguments about 'lucksacking' is that they ignore defining what luck is in the game of Magic. Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. By this, I mean that a player has prepared himself or the situation for the opportunity that was viewed as 'lucky.' 'Oh man, he top-decked Yawgmoth's Will and won,' or 'Oh man, he top-decked Mystical, tutored for Tinker, and then smashed me,' or simply 'he drew 3 Wastelands' are some of the lame excuses I often hear or read when people are lamenting their losses in a a Type 1 setting.

If you construct your deck with broken cards such as Yawgmoth's Will, Tinker, Ancestral Recall, Burning Wish, Mishra's Workshop, Goblin Welder, or any other of a host of powerful cards, it will always seem like a great top-deck when you draw great cards. Getting the game to a game state where they can resolve (ala emptying hands over counter wars, or locking your opponent down with nasty artifacts) is part of the preparation of getting to a point where you can be lucky. When the opportunity presents itself for you to do something broken, you must be prepared to do something with it, or you can't really be considered lucky.

One of the most challenging skills in Type 1 is consructing the correct deck to play and tuning it to control the game state to where you can execute your plan of action to win the match. I guess what I find funny about the whole 'lucksack' view of Magic is that if you aren't playing a deck that puts you in the position to get lucky (or gives you the opportunity), or one that denies your opponent those opportunities, then you probably aren't even playing a competitive deck, and from an outsider's perspective, you should not have any reason to complain, because you won't realistically have a chance of winning on a consistent basis against matchup xyz.

[jpmeyer]

I've frequently said that Type 1 is the most and least skill-intensive format.  I think one of the better ways to demonstrate this is the difference between turn 1 Tinker and turn 1 Balance, Tinker.

[forests failed you]

If you attend twenty person Vintage tournaments and you consider yourself a good player, you should be in the top eight at least eight out of every ten times you play.

[Lunar]

I think that that is slightly relative to area and other player skill though...

If im playing in sacramento in 20 player tournies I will probably top 8 every one (at least 9 of 10)....

If im playing in Bay Area tournies of similar size against top quality players then Im only expecting myself to make top 8 every other time (50% eh, which is in fact the amount I top 8 here.)

This is because in a 20 person tourny in SF Im probably going to be playing with all T1 players around my skill level and at least a handful that are probably better than me or have meta gamed better...

In Sacramento the T1 scene is new and I will be able to top 8 regardless more often than not due to poor play and deck choices out of newbie players...

Of course some of this is relative since the bay area ones average over 25 (closer to 30 a tourney) so what should I look for there as a top 8 percentage to shoot for?

At our last tourney here (eudemonia 9 Black Lotus tourney, 43 people) I placed 5th out of 43 and EVERY round I played against a player who has made top 8 at previous Eudemonia tournies at least twice out of 8 previous tournies...

Rd1 bye
Rd 2  2 top 8s w
Rd 3 2 top 8s w
Rd 4 2-3 top 8s w
Rd 5 2 top 8s L
Rd 6 6 top 8s w
Rd 7 6-7 top 8s (2 of them wins) w
Top 8 7 Top 8s (5 of them wins) L

In a 15-20 person tourney I know im playing against the truly dedicated players in our area and I can expect to play only top notch players all day long...

In sacramento I can add up 2 tournies and make 8 rounds and show # of top 8 quality players im playing against

1- 0 top 8s w
2- 0 top 8s w
3- 0 top 8s w
4- 0 top 8s w
5- 1 top 8 L
6- 1 top 8 w
7- 0 top 8s w
8- 1-2 top 8s (maybe 3-4 if erick brown plays) some times good some bad...

In sacramento maybe one or two players I see somewhat regularly has as good or better tourney success than me, and one of those 2 is my teammate kevin...the only other close ones have never done more than 1 maybe two top 8s at bay area tournies...

I think that saying 80% top 8 results in sacramento is a good stat doesnt mean a damn thing about how good at T1 you really are

Id be much happier with 50-60% in the bay area....

just some examples..

What if meandeck/shortbus/insert other T1 team here all played regular 20 person tourneys together...would that mean that anybody not making top 8 80% of the time wasnt really a good player?  Obviously not...

Just be careful with your arguments.

[forests failed you]

Top eight out of twenty is just a little better than 50% of the field.  If you make top eight five times out of ten that means that you are in the top half of the field half of the time.  Being in the top half, one half of the time is not all that impressive.  In order for me to consider someone to be good, (better than average)  they would need to be in the top half of the field 75-80% of the time. 

I think that it is realatively easy to be in the top half of a field at any given tournament; so in order for me to consider somebody to be noteworthy they would need to make top eight at least eight times out of ten.

[Lunar]

I still think your ideas are flawed...and you completely missed my point

Your argument is completely worthless without context...we need to know more about where youre playing and who you are playing against...

Ill try to say it again...

You say that you are only a noteworthy player if you make top 8 80% of the time....

What if you make top 8 80% of the time and play against complete idiots (say 5 year old handicapped children ie T2 players) Are you still considered a noteworthy player?

What if you make top 8 60% of the time against top notch opponents who all are also shooting towards that number?

Your argument only makes any logical sense in a hypothetical 20 person tourney that is the exact average skill level of the whole sample of T1 magic...

Your statistical data might be solid for the entire vintage community, but it doesnt take into consideration important bits of data like player skill in certain areas, deck types played against and with, and a number of other variables...ie magic has metas that are drastically different from one another and cannot always be directly compared.

Ill use myself again...I consider myself a pretty decent T1 player...

In sacramento I would expect almost 90-100% top 8 percentages...(barring any bad meta swings that werent forseen or something)

In SF Bay Area I would expect to top 8 about 50% of the time in an area where maybe 3 or 4 players out of 30 top 8 at a rate equal to your fictional statistic.  These players I dont just consider good...I consider them great...In your world though that means there are only 3 or 4 good T1 players in the area...if you actually knew anything about the area you would know better...

Ill state my second example again to you to see if you get it...

If you take a sample of a certain group of players....lets say team meandeck, team shortbus, and we can throw in some other team like GWS or Hadley or whatever to get to our 20 players...this is going to be a list of 20 guys like Steve, Kevin, Rich Shay, Eric Miller etc etc etc etc etc....

Are you really going to tell me that only the guys that make top 8 80% of the time are good at T1?

But if you are only talking about making top 8 80% of the time against say a random sampling of players on magic workstation then thats a whole different story...

Maybe my criteria for a "good" "noteworthy" T1 player is just a lot different from yours though.

[forests failed you]

My name is Brian DeMars, I'm ranked 40th in the world for Vintage.  My twenty person metagame includes the Vintage Champ Mark Biller, Onelovemachine, everythingitouchesdies, and Reviek, among others.  Our metagame is proxy and everyone can play any deck in the format.  So obviously my metagame is filled with incompetent five year old retards, and we are nowhere as advance and amazing basic user 'Lunar.' 

My argument wasn't that a person needs to be able to make top eight eighty percent of the time to be good, it was that they need to be in the top forty to fifty percentile of the tournaments they play in eighty percent of the time to good.  The argument is based on making top eight in a twenty person field.  And furthermore, if a metagame is filled with bad players, in order to be considered good, you should make top eight 100% of the time.

In a twenty person event a player who is good (better than average) should be able to make top eight at least eight out of every ten times they play.  Perhaps if you could learn to read better, and / or more thouroughly, we wouldn't be having this discussion again.  My argument is that a good player should be able to be in the top half of any given field at least 75% of the time.  Being a 'good' player means that you are better than all of the bad players, and all of the average players.  If you disagree or have lower standards thats fine, but for me personally, I only respect and acknowledge excellence; not mediocrity.

Also, I don't see the point in creating an imaginary metagame of twenty good players with no bad players, because no such metagame exists.  Good players, Average players, and bad players exist within metagames proportionately.  However, even theoretically if you created that metagame certain players are better and would win more than others. In fact, having played with almost every player on your list, I believe that there are two or three that would make the top eights with a consistency of three out of every four times (Cron and Rich), because they are just more fundamentally as playskill is concerned.

However, in order to be anything better than an average player I think a player needs to be at least in the top half of the field at least 75% of the time.

[Lunar]

so just to be clear steve menendian is average out of that group, kevin chron and rich shay are "good"...

I read just fine...bye the way.

I fully understand what you are saying...

I simply find your logic flawed.

The fictional meta of 20 bad players is non-fiction...it happens...brouse more than just the open and members forums on here, and browse SCG a little and you will see this. I see people talking about fields of 4cc, goblins, sui-black, RG Zoo and sligh as their meta, they are asking about help with their 9-land stompy deck...because they have played a bit more and consistantly top 8 with said stompy deck (this is wild I know) according to you they are good and "noteworthy" because there isnt a fictional bad meta of 20 players...

The difference in our opinions is stemming from one thing...you matter of factly say you can only be good if you top 8 80% of the time in said 20 person tournies...I think that this is your bad point...I think there are a number of very good players that have a number of factors contributing to not making top 8 all the time...

I never said you or your meta was bad...I never claimed to be in with that list of players I mentioned...I do consider myself above average and at least in my area I consider myself "good"...I dont know you, you dont know me. 

Ill try another one...

Lets look at the bay area meta again

lets say there are between 25-30 players who show up on average.

Out of those 25-30 players there are the following

2 players who have won more than 1 and have top 8ed at 80% of the Eudemonia tourneys...
1 Player who has not won but still made 80%
3-5 players who have made more than 3-6Top 8s (2 of which have won events here)
10 players who have made top 8 2 times (1 of which won an event)
5-10 who have made top 8 once
the other 5-10 have never made top 8

This is a little skewed since most of these tourneys were between 25-35 players and not 20, but its all I have to work with.

By your reasoning there are only 3 players who are to be considered good...

The 3-5 with between 3-6 top 8s are only average because they fall between 45-70% for top 8s..

everybody else is obviously a bad player...by your reasoning correct?

I think the contention I have with your argument is that I see most of the people with 2 or more top 8s here as good players...certainly not people to underestimate...

Obviously there are 2 or 3 people up there that are noteworthy players, all three who have made 6-9 top 8s up there are amazing players...2 of them are also pro tour players.

Of the group that is right below them (3-6 top 8s) there are 2 even winners and some other players like myself who consistantly make top 8 at other events locally.  One of them plays a number of formats (he won T2 regionals for example in our area) and won the lotus event...by your criteria though he is just average...and just because I have no extra time at work to take a test right now and am still a basic user doesnt mean I have no place to be here and it doesnt give you a right to talk down to me...another of the players in that group is a full member here in fact...almost forgot LotusHead is in this range of players...so your full member idea is shot.

Like I said we have different criteria...yours is unrealistic and short sighted. Mine might be as well but on the opposite side (kinda like democrates vs republicans) Its probably a middle of the road thing...

Ill leave it with this, we shouldnt underestimate the so called average 50% of the time top 8 players...

[kirdape3]

My Internet-Magic penis is far bigger than both of yours.  Viva la Meandeck!

In any case.  Manipulating the stack as well as Type 1 requires hasn't been relevant in Standard since oh I don't know they took Affinity out.  That was... six months ago?  YOU figure out exactly how to kill someone with Disciple on both sides and AEther Vials and and and...  Or, figure out an Ironworks stack during same.  These interactions are as incremental as any Type 1 combo deck. 

Extended Mind's Desire from the last season had a lot of tricky stacking manipulations, as did Goblins.  To say that Standard or Extended do not have the complexity of modern Vintage is probably a minor difference if any.  Plus they have to calculate combat math.  So saying that there's even a difference between the skillset required is probably erroneous.

[Lunar]

oh, just to continue the little contest for a second...im curious as to this particular statement...

My name is Brian DeMars, I'm ranked 40th in the world for Vintage

are you talking about your eternal rating??? or is there another system im missing? (maybe stantons in his meta breakdown?)

This is more out of curiosity than anything...

If its eternal then

43  Brian m Demars   1930  Canton, MI , United States

not bad

One of our just "average" players though has this

22  Brent T Peterson   1955  Fremon, CA , United States

Of course one of our good players has this

14  David A Ochoa   1965  Hayward, CA , United States

Just to give a little perspective and to try and legitimize things very very slightly more in your superior eyes..

Of course though eternal ratings really dont mean much for proxy vintage...certainly it shows you are good at magic though...but our best player in the area at T1 only has like a 1737 rating or something like that for eternal...

[Kerz]

Not to pick on Mister Leith, but this statement just affirms the ignornace that runs rampant throughout the majority of Vintage players. Assuming you are an average, competent Vintage player,I HIGHLY DOUBT you know the combat phase as well as someone who has strictly played Limited or Standard for just one year. The facts are, this format totally ignores (arguably) one of the most important assets of Magic. Don't try to dispute that.

Not to pick on Mister Kerzner, but Limited and Standard Players don't always see the inherent value in responding to an opponent cracking a fetchland with a big spell, such as Fact or Fiction or Gifts Ungiven.  Assuming you are an average, competent Standard or Limited player, I HIGHLY DOUBT you know how to manipulate the stack as well as someone who has strictly played Vintage for just one year.  The facts are, other formats totally ignore (arguably) one of the most important assets of Magic.  Don't try to dispute that.

The formats are different.  Different skills are important.  Remember that.

This is almost the exact point I was trying to prove- while the format doesn't require the knowlege of the attack phase as much as Standard does, Standard in turn doesn't require as extensive knowlege and experience with certen facets of the game which are important to vintage. Ideally, all formats would use the entire game to it's maximum- thus creating the most skill intensive enviornment possible.

[forests failed you]

I never said that a bad player, who plays in a metagame full of worse players and is in the top half eighty percent of the time is good.  However, he would be good comparatively to the worse players in his metagame.  What I was alluding to was that if a particular player cannot be among the top half of his peers at least three quarters of the time that player is probably average or worse than the rest of the players in that field. 

However, I think that the majority of the time it is probably safe to say that if a player isn't among the top half of the players at least three quarters of the time, then they probably aren't that stellar of a player.  In the past year there has only been one time I've played Magic and not been in the top half of the registered players, and that was at a limited PTQ where I went 2-4 drop, with an awful deck.  However, every other time I've been able to be in the top half of the players.  Good, or rather, better than average players find a way to win and are usually in the hunt for the top eight most of the time.  Look at any of the players on your list that you consider to be good, and then check their stats at all of the big events they have played in the past year.  I think that you will find they finished in the top half at least 75% of the time. 

Of course there are factors that can detract from this; IE playing fun or casual decks at local tourneys, or whatever; but on the whole good players, just by the pure fact that they are better than average or bad players win more often.  I know this sounds harsh and that a lot of the time average players like to think of themselves as being good, but the harsh fact of the matter is that there are a lot of average players out there.  In order to be good, I think that you have to be better than the majority of the player pool, and win consistently.  If one can't consistently be in the hunt for a top eight slot, or rather, be among the top half of his or her peers 75% of the time; I believe there is a lot of room for personal improvement, either in deck construction, metagaming, or in pure playskill.  And then, and only then, when I player can consistently hunt for the top eight, is that player better than average.

And FYI, I never said that Steve was a bad player or anything.  I think that if you check it out he is definately in the top half of the players 75% of the time.  In fact, in every event I've played him in he's always been in the hunt, he is the quientessential good/great player.  However, I've played with Cron and he is a SAVAGE player, which is a class of player altogether different.
 

[Smmenen]

oh, just to continue the little contest for a second...im curious as to this particular statement...

My name is Brian DeMars, I'm ranked 40th in the world for Vintage

are you talking about your eternal rating??? or is there another system im missing? (maybe stantons in his meta breakdown?)

This is more out of curiosity than anything...

If its eternal then

43  Brian m Demars   1930  Canton, MI , United States

not bad

One of our just "average" players though has this

22  Brent T Peterson   1955  Fremon, CA , United States

Of course one of our good players has this

14  David A Ochoa   1965  Hayward, CA , United States

Just to give a little perspective and to try and legitimize things very very slightly more in your superior eyes..

Of course though eternal ratings really dont mean much for proxy vintage...certainly it shows you are good at magic though...but our best player in the area at T1 only has like a 1737 rating or something like that for eternal...

You missed me!

24  Stephen M Menendian   1952  Columbus, OH , United States

[Komatteru]

You missed me!

24  Stephen M Menendian   1952  Columbus, OH , United States

I think he was only looking at players in CA and Michigan to do a comparison -- another way to say something like "Your metagame sucks."  Maybe in this case, it was more "My metagame is just as good if not better than yours."

[Lunar]

yeh jdizzle...

Brian was claiming that he was in super ultra meta that is obviously way better than mine since he was 43rd for eternal ratings...I simply wanted to point out that brent peterson who by brian's definition is simply an average player in my meta  is ranked over 20 spots higher than he is...

But steve I did notice you on there, but didnt really want to bother with throwing a whole list of ratings on there...

for reference though to make you feel better jon finkels eternal rating is only 1919 so you got the best there steve...

But @ Brian

Your last post was put forward much better...you actually explained some of your thoughts rather than just outright claiming your statement...

I like the half way point you seemed to reach by tossing steve into the good pile and keving into the "savage" pile

that would seem to fit an average 20 player group in my area (not that im saying im as good as steve and luis and david are as good as keving..that I dont know, I dont think any of us have played any of them) Where we have 2 or 3 "savage" players and probably around 3-5 or 6 "good" players (which I would put myself into here)

One of the points I was trying to get accross was simply that there are different levels of good...good in sacramento means little if you are terrible in the bay area...

Ill use a teammate and good friend as a last example...

My friend Tony is generally an amazing player in sacramento...he recently won a 20 person tourney in Sac and generally finishes well in the area...Hes a good if not "savage" player in the sacramento area...........his nickname in sacramento is even "T1 Tony"....

He has never made top 8 in a 20 or more person tourney in the bay area (9th was his best I think at a 28-32 person event) He finishes near the middle though usually, but sometimes not so hot...so he would be average there I guess or do you consider that bad?

What level of a player is he really?  Id say average probably...what would you rank him at?

[forests failed you]

I don't really know him.  Big events are usually the best way to gague how good someone really is.  Something like a PTQ, Grand Prix, or for Vintage the GenCon events, Origens events, or even the SCG events.  My whole point was that if somebody can't even win half of the time in their own personal metagame, then they probably aren't all that great of a player. I think that you can use the concept to discuss players within the same metagame, however it is difficult to use this to compare players in seperate metagames; kind of like comparing apples and oranges or something.  However, if you look  at  a particular players stats at the big events where multiple metagames become mingled together, I think it is a very fair way of comparing a particular players skill against the rest of the field. 

Also, Eternal rating does prove that a person can win consistently, however there are a lot of bad players who own power and simply play against other bad players without power.  (Sanctioned means zero proxy).  There is a guy like that in Michigan who owns all of the cards and plays in a seperage Metagame away from all of the good players and just ranks up points.  However, though he tears it up in his metagame where he is powered and everyone else is unpowered, he rarely comes out to Pandimonium to play against the good players (we all play ten proxy), because he gets anhilated.  However, to use a better indicator of being a consistent player, GenCon Worlds, GenCon side event, SCG Chicago (the past three of them), and SCG Virginia I was definately in the top half of the players, and for all but one of those I was among the top 80-90% after the swiss.  I realize that there are a lot of decent players out there who don't win for whatever reason, and that doesn't mean that I don't think they are great people or whatever;  but for me it is as simple as putting up some numbers and then I'll admit that so and so is a good player.

[Lunar]

I think that you can use the concept to discuss players within the same metagame, however it is difficult to use this to compare players in seperate metagames; kind of like comparing apples and oranges or something. 

this was the whole point I was trying to make summed up nicely by yourself...

I have no idea where the bay area meta stands since we never really get a chance to play against any of you guys from the other side of the rockies...

Joshua Silvestri and Jacob Orlove have both had chances to play in our area, but they have never shown up (for various reasons) so ive never been able to compare myself or others here to their level...

I would love to be rich and take a group of our players to a SCG (maybe somebody can sponser us lol) to see how we stack up....but when and if that will ever happen I dont know...(probably not, unless david and luis get interested and decide to travel...since they already travel for pro tour events...)

[Revvik]

why is it so hard to understand that in a 20-person environment, if you top8 80% of the time then you're considered a good player there?  It's not an insulting statement - it says "here's a decent defining line", and it encourages everyone below those lines to achieve a goal.  We're not even talking about a truly difficult goal.

The Fundamental Flaw in Vintage:
I used to think how much I hated Tinker.  Here's why I was wrong.
Last Tuesday, I had a match with Control Slaver turn out like this:

Game One: Turn One Tinker into Pentavus, I lose
Game Two: I resolve spells, he can't keep up with my speed
Game Three: Much closer and hard fought.  He won in the end.

Looking back on this, it fits the formula of "win one due to brokenness, lose one to brokenness, and scrap it out in the third."  It doesn't matter how many times I get Tinker'd out turn one, because I've had equal times leading with "Black Lotus, Mana Crypt, you don't have Force of Will?  Here's how I'll win..."  Thus we have some twisted semblance of Balance here.
There's nothing wrong with Vintage.  I love how I can tweak my deck for Monday up in Pandemonium, and have to change it drastically to compete in Kalamazoo the very next day.  I love this comment my friend made last Sunday:
"Are you sure I can run this list (referencing a CS list)?  I mean, it won, ok, but that was like a month ago."

Did ya catch that?  He was worried about a Control Slaver list that was ran a month ago, and how it could potentially be obsolete - and his fears were well-founded.

Brian was claiming that he was in super ultra meta that is obviously way better than mine since he was 43rd for eternal ratings...I simply wanted to point out that brent peterson who by brian's definition is simply an average player in my meta  is ranked over 20 spots higher than he is...
Your last post was put forward much better...you actually explained some of your thoughts rather than just outright claiming your statement...

a) no he wasn't, why are you taking that as a personal attack?  He was saying that in order to be considered a good player in his area, he has to be better than those around him.  And he happens to play with a group of skilled players - Josh Franklin, JDizzle, and Ben Perry are all excellent examples.  If you put up consistent results in an area of skilled players as well, then instead of thinking "OMG demars what a jerk" you should be thinking "I kick ass."
b) He really shouldn't have to explain it - I read his post just fine and came to the conclusion without having to have a bunch of arguments, misunderstandings, etc.  It's his opinion of how to estimate skill level.

And I think this can go a lot more smoothly if we stop trying to prove other people wrong with incredibly hypothetical / exception-to-the-rule situations.

What if meandeck/shortbus/insert other T1 team here all played regular 20 person tourneys together...would that mean that anybody not making top 8 80% of the time wasnt really a good player?  Obviously not...

It's a rating scale.  To answer your hypothetical situation with another one: if Steven Menendian were to fail to make top8 80% of the time in that field, then no he would not be as good as someone in that field who does.

[forests failed you]

Hey! you forgot to put WIndfall on the list!!!  I'm bringing him up there tommorrow!!!

Anyways I'm glad that somebody understood what I was talking about, thanks!

[Lunar]

Yay, lets get all of your buddies to hassle me over a simple disagrement...

My initial posts were never once saying "demars what a jerk" in fact the later ones werent either...

In fact if you want to quote brian on what got me to post the ultra meta thing then you can read what started it and whom...

My name is Brian DeMars, I'm ranked 40th in the world for Vintage.  My twenty person metagame includes the Vintage Champ Mark Biller, Onelovemachine, everythingitouchesdies, and Reviek, among others.  Our metagame is proxy and everyone can play any deck in the format.  So obviously my metagame is filled with incompetent five year old retards, and we are nowhere as advance and amazing basic user 'Lunar.' 

The retard line was him taking me out of context from a previous argument that was never once claiming he WAS in a meta filled with 5 year olds...

EDIT: The above section is regarding what I felt to be a personal attack, I realize it is slightly off topic  , but I hate being made out to be the asshole when other people are putting words in my mouth...Brian thinks I should delete it so I dont get a warning or banned...whateve, if a mod wants to ban me or warn me or even delete this top part then fine, but I would expect similar things to happen to the others, and I would expect all the flames to be deleted as well...

Now a little more on topic again. END EDIT:


I disagree with his comment about you must top 8 80% to be good...simple as that, if you disagree with me then fine, but you dont need to flame me to proove your point.

the problem occured when both of us were looking at it from different perspectives...

We both seemed to have come to a decent agreement then you (revikk) came in and stirred shit up again...

Brian was talking strickly about good in your meta...I was trying to determine good at T1 in general...

Yes if steve only made top 8 10% of the time in that hypothetical meta then he would no longer be considered good in that group of players....would he still be good at T1 overall though? Certainly he would still be good compared to 80% of the entire community even if he wasnt in the top 80% of his team...

My whole contention was that the "good" rating from brian is not quite so simple...it can rate you out of those exact 20 players, but it has nothing to do with your ability for the overall world of T1...

Now if you take a sampling of the SCG tourneys and figure out who is placing consistantly in the top 75-80% there then we get to see who is "good" in a little more accurate light (although since not every tourney has every T1 player its still not 100% accurate)

But the sample is better than a 20 person sample...

From a statisitcal standpoint I think 20 is too small to be accurate....

how about this compromise...

if you consistantly place in the top 25% of any given field 80% of the time or better then you are good...and "noteworthy." Your number was something like the top 40% of the field (my math isnt super hot.. top 8 out of 20 is around top 40% right?) so we could even say as long as you at least make top 40% of the field 80% of the time you play you are good...
 

[Revvik]

We both seemed to have come to a decent agreement then you (revikk) came in and stirred shit up again...

Second time in this thread.  It's easy, five letters.  Two of them are even the same.
I didn't have a beef to begin with except with you doing what you just did - overreact.  And I posted what I did of my own volition - DeMars had nothing to do with what I said.

My whole contention was that the "good" rating from brian is not quite so simple...it can rate you out of those exact 20 players, but it has nothing to do with your ability for the overall world of T1...

THIS is the challenge though, and the drawback of the unsanctioned tournament system.  We don't have the DCI to monitor such a thing when most if not all of us play in strictly proxy environments (though I would kill to go to GenCon to do something other than work).
I think there are two decent ways to go about this - one satisfies only the United States eastern half, and the other takes care of the world, but would involve nonprofit assistance from a noteworthy website (like the one we're posting on).

a) StarCity could use a pointbased ranking system for their Power 9 series.  This could also allow for benefits - x points = certain round byes, etc.
b) TheManaDrain could start accepting tournament data and create a pointbased ranking system, creating a Vintage rating worldwide for unsanctioned tournaments.

This is probably more of a task than anyone wants to undertake though.  For instance, the tournament would first have to be posted in the forums to be eligible for points, and then there would have to be some ID system or other, I don't know the particulars.

[Whatever Works]

oh, just to continue the little contest for a second...im curious as to this particular statement...

My name is Brian DeMars, I'm ranked 40th in the world for Vintage

are you talking about your eternal rating??? or is there another system im missing? (maybe stantons in his meta breakdown?)

This is more out of curiosity than anything...

If its eternal then

43  Brian m Demars   1930  Canton, MI , United States

not bad

One of our just "average" players though has this

22  Brent T Peterson   1955  Fremon, CA , United States

Of course one of our good players has this

14  David A Ochoa   1965  Hayward, CA , United States

Just to give a little perspective and to try and legitimize things very very slightly more in your superior eyes..

Of course though eternal ratings really dont mean much for proxy vintage...certainly it shows you are good at magic though...but our best player in the area at T1 only has like a 1737 rating or something like that for eternal...

You missed me!

24  Stephen M Menendian   1952  Columbus, OH , United States

My eternal rating is almost 1900... which would mean 2 byes (almost 3) at a legacy grand prix... OH!! WAIT!!! it doesnt!!! Eternal rating means absolutely nothing sadly, and the rating itself is scewed on the basis that sanctioned fields are usually weaker due to no proxies being permitted.

Not taking away anything from your high ratings, because it isnt easy to get high (hell I had a draw with a 1780 eternal rated player and lost points), but the general fact is that eternal ratings are not a fair judgement of your overall status, because alot of great players never play sanctioned, or dont have the cards availible to compete.

Either way congrats to myself and all the other high eternal ranked players for being on a list that I like to call "Mr. Irrelevent"Irrelevant

[forests failed you]

High Eternal Ratings should get byes at GenCon Legacy Worlds, as well as GenCon Vintage Worlds.  It would make having a high rating relevent, even if it would only be in tournaments with menial prize payouts.

[NastyNate]

The only sanctioned eternal format in my area is a really scrubby legacy meta. If I go clean house there every week, my rating will sky rocket, but do I deserve byes for the vintage world championship, because I can crush zombie and bad goblin decks with landstill? I do not see how this is relevant to vintage at all.

The last time I went there just to watch, and B.S. I saw a five color (all gold spell) invasion block constructed deck battling it out for a spot in the top 4; Wizards.dec won for crying out loud. These two people have 1800+ ratings! Do they deserve byes for Gencon?

It is environments such as this that spawn unrealistic eternal ratings. Sure some people with good eternal ratings, may have earned it against formidable opponents and decks, but there are certainly those who have not. Anyone remember Roy of ICT notoriety; he used to have a 1900+ DCI rating for vintage.

Yes eternal ratings are worthless under the current circumstances, but let's get real here. 75%+ of all worthwhile vintage events are unsanctioned; 100% of the big ones.

I live in Worcester MA. almost every weekend there is a large tournament within an hour from my home, and not one of them is sanctioned. I could play against Ben Kowal, Rich Shay, Ray Robillard, and Andy Probasco in a four round tournament, defeat them all (theoretically of course) and earn zero DCI points!


Yet if I drove ten minutes and played in a four round Legacy tournie this Sunday, against crap decks with mediocre players I would rake in the points. How can we use this system to determine byes?

[forests failed you]

How is that any different than people who play Standard decks against scrubby people at FNM and build up high ratings in order to get byes at Grand Prix events?  If a player accumulates a high rating from beating up on bad players, chances are that even with two byes they wouldn't be able to top eight in a large scale event against really good players.  However, rating based byes would give the good players who consistently put up good stats at GenCon and Origens to not have to metagame against the scrubby decks that float around for the first few rounds.

[Revvik]

Do they deserve byes for Gencon?

Tell me how they don't.  They put in the time and effort - and it's no different from FNMs and Standard, as forcefieldyou put it.  If you're not willing to stack up the points then you don't want the bye.
I know I don't - I pay entry fees to play.

[Whatever Works]

High Eternal Ratings should get byes at GenCon Legacy Worlds, as well as GenCon Vintage Worlds.  It would make having a high rating relevent, even if it would only be in tournaments with menial prize payouts.

they should... but they dont... again eternal rating = mr. irrelevent

[Webster]

My eternal rating is almost 1900... which would mean 2 byes (almost 3) at a legacy grand prix.

A person entering a grand prix with a rating of "almost 1900" (less than 1900) would receive one (1) bye.

Eternal rating means absolutely nothing sadly, and the rating itself is scewed on the basis that sanctioned fields are usually weaker due to no proxies being permitted.

True, eternal rating has no _Real_ applications right now and also true that sanctioned environments should be, by definition, weaker than proxy environments. However, sanctioned environments are not as weak as people may believe. When the sanctioned type-1 tournaments in my area were at their height, a considerable percent of the roughly 50 person metagame was fully powered including shops, bazaars, drains, and masks. A few other recent tournaments to support my statement are the vintage tournaments that took place at PT Philadelphia and PT London. Granted, at any sanctioned vintage event, there will be some people who are playing a deck which may have not been their primary choice due to the fact that they could not acquire all the cards to make the deck that they wanted to play which causes the power level to decrease. The majority of decks in all three of these metagames were fully powered "good" decks with the next power-level of decks being mainstream decks with a bit of homebrew innovation to make up missing pieces as it were.

Sure some people with good eternal ratings may have earned it against formidable opponents and decks, but there are certainly those who have not. Anyone remember Roy of ICT notoriety; he used to have a 1900+ DCI rating for vintage.

Roy Spires is a fine example of the "homebrew innovation" that I touched upon. Going way back to last year at the vintage tournament held at Worlds 2004 in San Francisco. Roy's deck was not mainstream, being defined as a true netdeck, explored archetype, a deck where there is very little difference in card choices in all of its variants. Roy's deck, ICT (Invincible Counter Troll) was a Control Slaver shell with isochron scepter, nevinyrral's disk, sedge troll. While some of the card choices in this deck are odd, it still made it to the finals of a 100-person field.

A good portion of any sanctioned vintage field will be composed by decks that are similar to Roy's, decks that have cards included them because of the no-proxy restriction or by choice. A higher percent of decks will be mainstream fully powered decks whose list will not differ much more than a single card from decklists that are played by most people at proxy events. Then there is the portion of the field that plays budget decks like suicide black, Ankh sligh, un-powered fish, R/G beatz, et al.

While most people can agree that had an event been proxy instead of non-proxy, the percent of people playing budget decks would be less, what some people don't realize is that if the event were non-proxy, the field would not be very much different. Speaking on a level of competitiveness, the budget decks do represent to some extent a bye for the people that play against them, however, no one can say that a metagame is scrubby just because it's sanctioned.


Web

[Smmenen]

.

Yes eternal ratings are worthless under the current circumstances, but let's get real here. 75%+ of all worthwhile vintage events are unsanctioned; 100% of the big ones.

They might be worthless, but I don't think they are meaningless.

I play in only TWO sanctioned events a YEAR: Origins and Gencon - which is about 4 sanctioned Vintage events a YEAR compared with my participation in most of the SCG events (although I haven't participated in the last three).

So while its true that they make up a very small fraction of the number of tournaments I play in, it just goes to show that even if you barely play any sanctioned, they can still tell you something. 

[The M.E.T.H.O.D]

How many fucking times does it have to be repeated and argued over.

There is not one format that requires more or less skill then another but the fact of the matter is it requires A LOT of skill to be consistantly good at any format.

Vintage requires a certain kind of skill while the other formats require another kind of skill.

If you have played this format enough its blatantly obvious what skill that it is.

A good card will completley swing the game no matter what format it is. Tinker in t1 like grab the reins in md5 limited to celestial kirin in cbs block mirror matches.