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

[JamesPr]

I planned on writing this into a magic theory article for a website but I'm posting it here.  So, it probably doesn't sound like a normal post in the wording that I use.  Some things I state as facts, are probably more opinions, but obviously writing an article saying "I think this"  "I think that"  "This might be true" ect, doesn't make a good article, you have to sound like you know what you're talking about ect.  Anyway, tell me if you think my post makes sense, and if this idea has merit.

The Fundamental Flaw in Vintage

Vintage is the most skill intensive format, but at the same time the least skill intensive format

Ahh, paradoxes.  Vintage is an enigma format of Magic, it is widely known as the most swingy format where one mistake can drastically destroy your chances of winning.  On top of that, the term "luck sacking" is used full force in this format to describe events that happen to destroy your chances of tournament success.  However, Vintage is also the most difficult format to play correctly.  There are so many card interactions, that in large tournament events judges often make serious game altering decisions that are determined to be wrong later.  But, we are all humans, and as humans we all make mistakes.  This is a fact of life.

Back to my point, logic tells us two things.

1. Vintage has the most card interactions, thus making it theoretically the most skill intensive to take advantage of these card interactions through proper deck building, design theory, and actual playskill.

2.  Vintage is the most swingy format where even a player that's been making countless upon countless mistakes throughout a match can pull the random Tinker and bust out a Darksteel Colossus.  This makes vintage less skill intensive in this area than other formats.

Now, looking with these two viewpoints at the way a Vintage tournament is structured, you reach this fundamental flaw.

The eight players with the best records enter into the top eight.  This is all good and well, and definitely the way that has been the most successful way for time constraints, and general fun.  I don't know about you, but, I don't want to play a two/three/four day tournament just for a chance to win a Mana Drain.  (A one day tournament is okay though)  A night at a hotel probably costs more than that, assuming you're looking for one that's clean. 

Looking from a realistic viewpoint, a top notch player could be 6-0-0 entering into the seventh round of an eight round tournament.  He is in a match and he through all attempts and purposes is totally pulling away from his opponent from his opponent's glaring mistakes.  However, down to the wire he is out of counters and has a soon to be lethal Akroma, Angel of Wrath on the table with a Spirit of the Night removed from the games via swords.  Then, his opponent topdecks Yawgmoth's Will and wins.  Second game, the same situation, the top notch player is ahead from his great playskill, but, all of a sudden his opponent manages another lucky topdeck and the match is lost.  Next round, the top notch player is a little deflated, but still plays very well, but still manages to lose 0-2.  Thus, he is knocked out of contention for the top eight, even though he had a flawless tournament.  (Flawless tournaments probably don't exist even for the best player, but bear with me for this example.) 

So, what did we learn from that?  Vintage is extremely swingy, and rewards playskill immensely, but it also rewards dumb luck probably to just about the same degree.  Sort of like a bi-polar format in a way.

In a perfect world of magic there would be a record or score for correct playskill, but the world isn't perfect.  The best player doesn't always win the match, whereas the luckiest player doesn't always win a match.  It is sort of a blend of both.

[onelovemachine]

I disagree completely.  Since my venture into the world of professional formats I have learned one thing:  Vintage is terrible as far as consistency.  Think about it;  our whole world is based on a list of narrow one of's that pop up and take the gamestate in a completely different direction.  Aside from that it doesn't take any skill to cast tinker first turn or oath of druids with force of will back up.  In other formats tight play and good deckbuilding is rewarded more than in type one.  Vintage is not even close to the most skill intensive format.  Enter a serious draft or regionals; those are skill intensive formats.  How many type one players understand the combat step?.........

The most broken and powerful decks all play the same cards.  How is black lotus remotely fair?  Good players can be beat by bad players with better draws.  Good play will reward you with consistent finishes in type one but not necessarily win you games the way it will in draft, type two or extended. 

[Whatever Works]

The fact that type 1 is broken is odvious. Its also odvious that sometimes a person topdecks yawgs will and wins the game. However, it is incredibly important to note that good players, and good decks, put themselves into the position to achieve the broken or "lucky" plays more often.

It's basically all a giant math equation similar to texas holdem... And the better player or the player with the superior deck goes all in with a pair of jacks... While the lesser skilled player has a suited 5/7... The Jacks are clearly the favorite (better then 3 to 1), but that doesnt mean that it isnt statistically possibly for the underdog to get a straight draw "stealing" the pot, or even a flush...

I think its a fair analogy for people who know poker... General message is that it isnt as much luck as it is having that 1 in 4 chance of something happening... actually happening... AND, usually the odds hold true to what they are, but because everybody remembers the great topdeck, and forgets the other 20 times in the exact same situation in different games where you dont get what you need (because those games are just not all that memorable).

@onelovemachine   ---   Maybe its just me, but it seems like your entire post was spent bashing type 1 playskill, and basically said that vintage isnt competitive, because it isnt consistent... What planet are you from??? Type 1 playskill is extremely high at the top tables of major events... Sure there are the lower skilled players, but those are the same people who you will find in the 1-2 bracket at regionals, or in a draft etc...

Oh, and saying that type 1 players dont know the combat phase??? Well, I do, and to be honest... It isnt that important... If we are going to talk stereotypes (or reality imho) how many type 2 players understand a complicated spell stack. Most of the time a simple counter series takes 10 minutes to explain if the stack has more then 1-2 affects... Explaining how misdirection works in complicated stax is almost hopeless.

Kyle L

[JamesPr]

I disagree completely.  Since my venture into the world of professional formats I have learned one thing:  Vintage is terrible as far as consistency.

Aka Lucksacking, I mentioned it in my post.  (If someone doesn't understand this short answer, read his entire post first)

Think about it;  our whole world is based on a list of narrow one of's that pop up and take the gamestate in a completely different direction.  Aside from that it doesn't take any skill to cast tinker first turn or oath of druids with force of will back up.

Sure it doesn't that's why vintage is swingy.  How about if the situation isn't perfect, and you only have a first turn oath without FOW backup, or Tinker while an opponent is playing Welder.  Then you need to think.

In other formats tight play and good deckbuilding is rewarded more than in type one.  Vintage is not even close to the most skill intensive format.  Enter a serious draft or regionals; those are skill intensive formats.  How many type one players understand the combat step?.........

So, you're saying it's easier building decks for other formats than vintage considering in vintage the card pool is larger than any other format, and there are so many decks you have to metagame against, more than any other format by the way.  Also, I'm sure the good vintage players understand the combat step.

The most broken and powerful decks all play the same cards.  How is black lotus remotely fair?  Good players can be beat by bad players with better draws.  Good play will reward you with consistent finishes in type one but not necessarily win you games the way it will in draft, type two or extended. 

They do all play some of the same cards, but, that is because they are so heads and tails above everything else in magic in power levels.  Have you ever thought of the idea that the broknenness evens out?  Sure, Black Lotus isn't fair, but, if everyone plays it it's not like anyone has a card power advantage over another person.

[JamesPr]

The fact that type 1 is broken is odvious. Its also odvious that sometimes a person topdecks yawgs will and wins the game. However, it is incredibly important to note that good players, and good decks, put themselves into the position to achieve the broken or "lucky" plays more often.

Definitely, I 100% agree with that.  My post is about many things such as how these two opposites can exist in the same format.  It is also about if vintage is really more skillful overall which is extremely debatable, considering all the complexities of it compared to other formats.  I do think though it isn't an accurate comparison to compare vintage skill requirements as a total package with any other format based on how swingy it is.  Also, it's about if our tournament settings are the best possible, which due to complexities such as time constraints and these already discussed factors, which they obviously are not.  As a rule of thumb the more a good player plays the more his skill will be shown based on his records.  In a tournament setting according to chance just like your poker example the better player will win, but the worse player does have that chance to steal the pot.

Basically this is all really hypothetical, and I just thought it was interesting, and would make a decent topic.  This is sort of my own study and thinking of philosphy in magic terms in a way. 

[forests failed you]

I'm not sure that it is fair to say that Vintage players are worse than standard players;  however I have noticed from playing and watching matches that many Vintage players don't understand exactly how their deck works, or even many of the interactions of cards within the format.  However, to state that most Standard or Limited players know how banding, phasing or even all of the ins and outs of the Upkeep is completely unfair.  Many times mediocre Vintage players make mistakes (and look like idiots) because there is simply so much information to know.

For instance, even some of the judges even made wrong calls at last years GenCon event; there is just so much to learn and comprehend.

[Webster]

So, what did we learn from that? Vintage is extremely swingy, and rewards playskill immensely, but it also rewards dumb luck probably to just about the same degree. Sort of like a bi-polar format in a way.

In a perfect world of magic there would be a record or score for correct playskill, but the world isn't perfect. The best player doesn't always win the match, whereas the luckiest player doesn't always win a match. It is sort of a blend of both.

This is true with magic in general; the best player won't always win. Magic is a game based upon a pile of face down cards. There is randomness to the game. Magic is not chess, a game where all the options are public information. There is luck in magic to a certain degree. However, while there is some luck, there is also a lot of skill required to suceed constantly which is why you see a lot of the same people placing high at tournaments regardless of the format.

As a side note, if someone had a record of 6-0-0 in an eight round tournament, what will most likely happen is that the person will double draw into the top-8 due to the fact of how swiss pairings work and that X-0-2 is guaranteed to make top8 the vast majority of the time.


Web

[BigMac]

For those of you that think type 2 or drafting or sealeds are more skill intensive than vintage as vintage has way more luck than those other types, i whole hearted disagree.

As far as i know at the moment there are three type 2 decks with a definite rock paper scissor layout. If you play a certain deck with say jitte and your opponent does it to, it pretty much plays out as who has the first Jitte, or who has the first second Jitte wins. That is a lot of skill right. Topdecking a Jitte.

As for sealed and draft this pretty much is the same thing. The person that has the Jitte or Uyo, Silent profet as first pick will probably have a way better chance of winning than any other person. And believe me, taking a first pick or just opening a booster or sealed deck is not really skill required.

As for deckbuilding. I think vintage deckbuilding is way harder than other formats if only due to the many possible cards. Next to that there are way more viable decks than in any other format. Type 2 has only a few viable decks and most "good" players will go on the net and pick up a deck there and possibly change a couple of cards. That to me has nothing to do with deckbuilding. Let's face it, there are only a few real deckbuilders in the world in any format. That probably is because deckbuilding is hard, needs testing, which needs a team or at least an active magic community.

Do not get me wrong. I think net decking is a good thing and testing to hone your playing skills with a deck is probably just as important. I just think in a match of three games there most of the times is only a contest in one of the three games and that is where playskill is tested and those are the matches that bring you in the higher zones or the lower zones. This is the same for all formats. In vintage it is just a little bit different because there are more game swinging cards than in other formats. (think yawgmoth will, and all the tutors that can find it, draw sevens, necropotence, yawgmoth bargain, ancestral recall and anything else that can win you a game when in topdeckmode)

I do think vintage is less forgiving when you make mistakes due to the fact other people can topdeck a win just as easily as you. So when you make a mistake your opponent will just swoop in for the win. This off course depends on the deck but it is true most of the time, which means, when your window of opportunity is squandered, the possibility of you losing is very big.

[ROLAND]

I think that comparing these two formats is like apples to oranges. This is just my opinion so take it for what it's worth.

To say that Vintage is "Swingy" is correct. The fact that all of the most powerful decks run the same cards (most of the appear on the restricted list) is correct.  It seems to me that this comes down to the whole purpose of the restricted list in vintage. If you don't have one, the games are basically based on the role of the dice to see who goes first. If you have a bunch of cards that can only play as one per deck, you make the chances of seeing those cards  random or "swingy". Yet alot less "swingy" than who gets to play first.

What hurts vintage is that if you want to eliminate this, you need to change restricted list to banned list. Which is going to piss off alot of people! Or you need to create a format like Legacy and back it with a Grand Prix or Pro Tour (can't remember which one it is at the moment).

The other thing that hurts Vintage is once you have a problem it's harder to fix because the card pool is so diverse.  Which is why things get restricted.

This leads to type two. As far as skill intensive goes, it could be considered just as skill intensive because of the card pool. It's smaller so you have to pick and choose you  "tech". But you could also argue it's less skill intensive because you don't have as many cards. When talking about net decking, I have played people in both formats that don't completely understand the deck they are playing. This worked out in my favor. Just because you own the cards doesn't mean you know how to play the deck. If one of my friends picked up magic and started playing, I tell him to get as many cards from the restricted list  as he can afford. Simply because we all know they are powerful. Using this logic, is Type 1 really more skill intensive than type 2? It really comes down to which format you favor.

You could also say that type 2 is a little bit more controllable than vintage. For example,  some one said getting the first jitte means you most likely win and requires more luck than skill.  However, in saviors they printed Manriki- Gusari  aka "Jitte Killer". It isn't legendary, and  I think it requires less mana  to equip.  This should neutralize the effect of jitte on the format.

The cardpool issue is a can of worms. Because you have to consider prices and popularity of the format.  Depending on your point of view this gets messy, and could go in favor of either format.

I think what we need to keep in mind is that to a certain degree, the game of magic is "Swingy". It depends on what you draw and when you draw it. For example, when you do/don't draw mana for 5 turns this has an effect on you game (this has more to do with shuffling than it does play skill).

In my opinion, comparing type1 to type 2 is a toss up. At the end of the debate it comes down to personal preference.

Once again, I'm not a professional magic player so take my thoughts for what they are worth.

Roland

[Methuselahn]

Vintage is an enigma format of Magic, it is widely known as the most swingy format where one mistake can drastically destroy your chances of winning.  On top of that, the term "luck sacking" is used full force in this format to describe events that happen to destroy your chances of tournament success.  However, Vintage is also the most difficult format to play correctly.

I wouldn't call it a fundamental flaw.  You have to choose to play Vintage, thus you openly embrace the random broken crap that goes on.  If you like small wars of attrition, maybe Limited is a better choice, for example.

Oh, and deck selection is probably one of the most important things to playing Vintage.

[cssamerican]

It's basically all a giant math equation similar to texas holdem... And the better player or the player with the superior deck goes all in with a pair of jacks... While the lesser skilled player has a suited 5/7... The Jacks are clearly the favorite (better then 3 to 1), but that doesnt mean that it isnt statistically possibly for the underdog to get a straight draw "stealing" the pot, or even a flush...

I think its a fair analogy for people who know poker... General message is that it isnt as much luck as it is having that 1 in 4 chance of something happening... actually happening... AND, usually the odds hold true to what they are, but because everybody remembers the great topdeck, and forgets the other 20 times in the exact same situation in different games where you dont get what you need (because those games are just not all that memorable).

This to me is the best way to look at Magic. In Texas Hold'em if no one folds their hand then the winner is decided by the cards, which of course is pure luck. So, in poker your play skill is equal to your ability to reduce luck's influence on your chip stack. This means, the better your are at the game the less luck will play a factor in your results. This is the reason why players like Chris Ferguson, Howard Lederer, and Dan Harrington are millionaires and I play in five-dollar buy-in tournaments at my house. Luck, mainly bad luck, factors much more into my results than it does in theirs.

In Magic the same thing is true, whether its Type 1 or Type 2, the difference is it’s just harder to see it. The better player has reduced his luck factor by his choice of cards in his maindeck, his better-prepared sideboard, and his superior understanding of the rules of the game. So, over the long haul players like Rich Shay, Kevin Chron, and Marc Perez win Power while other players complain about how unlucky they are.

The difference between Type 1 and Type 2 is how easy is to see luck play its part in the game. In Vintage when you play a card like Yawgmoth's Will and your opponent can't do anything about it everyone says you were lucky. Most people can see that the game just changed to a point where you are now the clear favorite to win. However, the same things happen in Standard, it is just more difficult to see, but it is still there none the less. When a player plays Sakura-Tribe Elder which gains him an extra land drop on his opponent, the game has changes to a point were he is now the clear favorite to win because he will likely resolve his Tooth and Nail a turn earlier than his opponent. However, most players didn’t see this dramatic swing in the game. They refer to stuff like this as small wars of attrition, so they don’t attribute the Sakura-Tribe Elder as a lucky play. To me the only difference in the luck between formats is our ability to see it.

Does luck play a big factor in Poker and in Magic? You bet! Can someone win a Magic tournament by beating much better players than themselves by getting lucky? Sure, but it is also possible that I could sit down and take all of Dan Harrington’s money at a poker table, and I just can't see that happening anytime soon.

[PucktheCat]

Theoretically, T1 should be the most random of formats.  Whoever topdecks a bomb wins, right?  It doesn't play out that way though.  Good T1 decks are so complicated that I would hazard to guess that over half of all T1 games, even those played by pretty good players, has at least one clear play error that affects the course of the game.  The error may not always be noticed (many errors are never noticed, obviously), and it may not always lose the game for the player who makes it, but I think they are there.  I know that I make an error almost every game when I play Meandeck Gifts.  That may not be representative -- I am a somewhat sloppy player -- but I don't think it is all that atypical.  These errors affect the results of a lot of games.

In a recent tournament I had 5 losses (I was playing CS).

1 to Dragon with a turn 2 kill with Force backup - luck of the draw.
1 to Gifts when I waited to Fact or Fiction until his first turn end step, giving him a chance to Brainstorm up a Force.  My error.
1 to Gifts when I Tinkered away my Tormod's Crypt in a misguided attempt to play aggressive against him while he was tapped out.  My error.
1 to U/W control when I missed a play while he was Slavered (it involved Welding in a Phyrexian Furnace so I could use his Mystical Tutor to get a card to wreck him with).  My error.
1 to U/W control when I tapped out to play a desperation Pentavus and he had the Swords.  Hard to say whether there was an error here or not.

In fact, I can't remember the last time I was eliminated from a tournament where I didn't make at least one critical misplay in doing so.

That being said, I do think that T1 and draft emphasize different skills.  T1 emphasizes calculation skills and detailed knowledge of your own and your opponent's strategy.  Draft emphasizes reading your opponent, bluffing, and, generally, the interpersonal aspects of the game.  The other format, I think, fall somewhere in between.

Leo

[Johnni86]

I totally disagree with someone who says that T1 is the most skill intensive format because deck construction is fairly easy.  The reason for this is because within an archtype there are much more set cards than in ext and std for example when building aggro workshop say UR, your only real card choices are like 10-15 slots that are the creature base and maybe a few other things besides that if you change the core deck to much it will eather become horrible or simply sub par.  If you feel that drafting is easier than t1 your nuts.  I do agree taht if someone sees jitte or some other bomb rare you obviously take it but when it comes to picks 3 and onward in most situations you actally have to make some difficult desitions expecially in pack 1 when your not set into a color.  As far as arguing that since you have a larger card pool and there for it takes more skill to build that is BS because you really only play stuff from a few blocks - the early stuff and then like URza's and mirroden and some tempest but in general you dismiss sets like the dark or homeland or mirage or ons so you really don't have as large of playable card pool as one would think.  As far as actually playing there normally is one clear cut play which is correct, except with TPS, but in other formats like block which is the better play you went t1 top and you have 3 lands in hand do you top during your upkeep or play sakura t2 when you are playing gifts or heartbeat.  I will say this in all formats there is a large aspect of luck but in non t1 formats it is earsier to deal with the nutty draws

[orgcandman]

This is a slightly interesting topic, and I think I'll throw my own thoughts into the ring.

I feel that this format is both the most and the least skill intensive format of any. The reason is that a vintage game is terribly complex. That turn 1 brainstorm/mystical/black lotus can make or break the game. However, once the game has progressed, the choices afterwards are fairly simple. "Oh, resolved will? Ok, let me replay tinker, 'cause that card's good. I'll play a land. lotus, ancestral, time walk were all great cards when I first resolved them..." etc.

The skill isn't in using the broken cards like ancestral, drain, will, workshop, etc.. Any idiot can drain a spell, get some mana and resolve their win condition. The skill is knowing correct timing for things. Do you break your fetchland now? Do you fact or fiction in response to playing their lotus? When do you force them to drain?

All skill based questions that only can be answered through lots of experience and thought. All competitive games of magic are DEEPLY rooted in knowing timing, and tight plays. Just because Type 1 has more bombs, and thus, more ways of recovering from a play mistake, doesn't mean those mistakes cost the game any less.

[LotusHead]

T1 is extremely skill intensive. (obviously, other formats are also skill intensive) but since T1 has a relatively solid card base (Moxen, Fow, Shops, Chalice, etc) it is up to the "Skill Intensive Player" to know the interactions/gamestate/metagame involving all of those cards. (T2 and Block and to an Extent extended have to re-think everything from year to year)./

Of course any T1 deck can bust out with turn 1 Oath with Force of Will backup.  Can your deck deal with that game 1? How about game 2 or 3? Mulliganing? all is skill intensive.

To the experienced T1 Tourney freak (and the West Coast of USA has FAR few T1 tourneys than East Coast), broken plays are the norm, and the norm is expected.

Can your build (or netdeck build) deal with turn 1 Force? turn 1 Chalice? Turn 1 Oath? T1 is all about skill and planning and (yes) luck. 

Yeah, we play swingy cards. But the skill in T1 is dealing with those swingy cards.

Who can't deal with turn 1 Colossus? I know Oath Salvagers has a shot, Fish has a shot, Slaver has a shot, Gifts has a shot, Almost everyone has a shot!

Knowledge of the staples of T1, current decks, and rules interactions = skill.

The same can be said of T2. They just don't have Tinker or Force of Will.

So, what did we learn from that?  Vintage is extremely swingy, and rewards playskill immensely, but it also rewards dumb luck probably to just about the same degree.  Sort of like a bi-polar format in a way.

Yeah, dumb luck happens, if your deck is broken enough, built by someone competent enough and has a really unlucky opponent who not only doesn't will the die roll, but also doesn't play with Force of Will, Swords to Plowshares, Chalice of the Void or any other numbers of hosers.

It's a game, randomness happens, and sucky decks usually get demolished.

Welcome to Vintage.

[Prometheon]

If you get wrecked by Will it's your fault for not saving (or not running) an answer. You have to be aware of potential topdecks, because in that situation, it isn't just Will that can steal a game, it can also be Demonic Tutor, Brainstorm, Tinker, Ancestral...

You have to have very good "threat level assessment" in T1. A stupid term I just made up, but if you only have one counter left, maybe you should let them plow one of your 2 oathed up creatures so that the threat of them topdecking something broken is eliminated. Maybe you should run Phrexian Furnace or Tormod's Crypt so Will isn't so disastrous to your game plan.

You have to be prepared in T1. Yes, broken things happen, and people steal games but you have to eliminate this aspect as much as possible. I honestly hate to say it, but the average T1 game comes down to a battle of 2 things: the die roll and the opening hands.

Think about it: In any given matchup, if you know who's going first and you can see both player's opening hands (after mulliganing) you can predict who will win and be right a very high percentage of the time. Part of this has to do with specific matchups, and part of it is just the nature of T1. I love the format dearly, but it is NOT as skill intensive as Limited (which I play) or T2 (which I don't.)

That's why I think the best T1 decks are those that can both capitalize the most on the die-roll advantage and also deal with other decks as efficiently as possible, while not losing too much if they are forced to go second.

[JamesPr]

Yeah, dumb luck happens, if your deck is broken enough, built by someone competent enough and has a really unlucky opponent who not only doesn't will the die roll, but also doesn't play with Force of Will, Swords to Plowshares, Chalice of the Void or any other numbers of hosers.

It's a game, randomness happens, and sucky decks usually get demolished.

Welcome to Vintage.

If it sounded like I was complaining, I wasn't.  I was just stating facts as best as I see them.  I'm certainly not implying vintage is a bad format, I love vintage.  I've made about 120+ posts about vintage (Some were legacy).  Although I won't get into it too much, the part of vintage that I love for me is having a hobby and making money in the process through good trades, things of that nature.  You certainly can't say that to as large of a degree as other formats, and you certainly can't say that about a game like Chess in a typical sense.  

Also, could anyone please explain to me how large tournaments work?  Like, I believe they use very complex statistics to determine the top eight, I'm just wondering if anyone can validate this. 

[Jacob Orlove]

Also, could anyone please explain to me how large tournaments work?  Like, I believe they use very complex statistics to determine the top eight, I'm just wondering if anyone can validate this. 

It's very simple. Every win is 3 points, every draw is 1 point. You use swiss pairings for every round, so players are matched up against someone with the same or a similar win-loss record (12 might have to play against 10, but 15 isn't going to play against 9). This continues for a predetermined number of rounds: 5 for 17-32 people, 6 for 33-64, 7 for 65-128, etc. Players are allowed to intentionally draw the match, if they both agree.

After all the rounds are finished, the eight players with the highest point totals advance to the top 8. For an 8 round tournament*, there are often more players at  19 points, or 6-1-1, than remaining spaces in t8, so in the case of a tie, you go to tiebreakers. First tiebreaker is your opponents' match win percentage--how many matches all your opponents won versus how many they played. Usually, that's enough, otherwise you go to the game win tiebreakers.

*20 points, or 6-0-2, always makes t8 in an 8 round tournament, as does everyone above 20

[Moxlotus]

I feel that this format is both the most and the least skill intensive format of any. 

I definitely believe this.

Least skill intensive: Hey dudes, I cast Turn 1 Tinker Time Walk-I'm good.

Most skill intensive:

Scenario---Type 2: 8 round tournament.  6-1-1 makes top 8.  You can lose 1 match to being outplayed and make it.

Scenario---Type 1: 8 round tournament.  6-1-1 makes top 8.  You randomly win a match due to brokeness.  You will also lose a match due to brokeness.  You have to go 5-0-1 now.  You can't lose a match to being outplayed.

The fact that you will likely lose a match to brokeness means that you can't afford to be off your game at any other point of the tournament.  You simply cannot lose 1 close match because that your tournament life at stake.  Each small decision could mean the game, and the whole tournament.  1 mistake in 1 game could cost you the top 8.  Type 2 doesn't have this.  At the least, Type 2 is 2 mistakes in 2 games to cost you a top 8.

[JamesPr]

Ok, hmm, what might be something very interesting that would be extremely hard to set up is a vintage power rating number, sort of like a dci number.  With something similar to a college tournament bracket only you play more than one game if you lose.  To determine the rating they take a complex form of statistics including past tournament results, match win %, and turn that into a numeric value.  Different tournaments could seed different people differently based on their past experiences there.  This is all hypothetical, and difficult to set up, but not overly difficult.  I imagine they probably have tournament software avaliable that isn't too expensive for things of this nature.  Basically the goal of something like this would be to determine who the best player from past results entering a tournament is compared to the player that isn't the best, which in turn gives the best player the greatest chance to be successful.  Which rewards people for their skill to a higher degree than what we have in place now.

This is all hypothetical though, and is based on the assumption that a complex score/seeding system is avaliable, and that people who run large tournaments would actually want to put something like this in place.  Also, more importantly is if the players actually want it.  It would certainly reward the superior player more, which, in the end is the goal of any athletic event.  (Yes, MTG is an athletic event)

I also understand nobody has been complaining about the tournament setting, which would make this entire post including the points extremely mute.  It just seems that with vintage might want something like this more than any other format because of the amount of skill+luck involved which keeps the best player from winning.

Also, to make this post even more simple and summarize it in entirety, more in depth detailed statistics more better players doing better which = good.

[Ivantheterrible]

Most skill intensive:

Scenario---Type 2: 8 round tournament.  6-1-1 makes top 8.  You can lose 1 match to being outplayed and make it.

Scenario---Type 1: 8 round tournament.  6-1-1 makes top 8.  You randomly win a match due to brokeness.  You will also lose a match due to brokeness.  You have to go 5-0-1 now.  You can't lose a match to being outplayed.

This example is flawed. In the type 2 scenario you lose one match to being out played whereas in the type one scenario you lose it to "luck". 

In both scenario's you win 6 matches but in type 1 you say one of those will be due to brokenness. Wheras in your type 2 scenario all 6 wins come from skill. If one was to go solely on your example it would leave us with a 6-1 record in type 2 where every match was skill based whereas the type 1 example only has 5 skill based matches.

I am not saying that i believe type 1 is less skill intensive then type 2 i am mearly proving your scenarios are rather misguided. 

[Ahab1248]

Luck is not the fundamental flaw in Vintage. It is the the format's, and the gamess saving grace.Without luck Magic would not have such a large following. Luck allows everyone to have a shot at having a succussful tournement. Its the luck that attracts large followings to gaming stores to take a shot at the prize.

But like everyone who reads this site knows Magic is extremely skill intensive. This allows the players who spend the most time preparing and practicing consistantly rise to the top of the standings. Without the luck factor we would be sitting around waiting to see who Budde,  Nassif, et al, beats next.

Luck should not be critizized for wrecking a great players tournement. Great players should thank luck for giving them a great community. Because in the long run the best players DO WIN the most, but without the luck not many people would waste their time giving them the game to win.

[Kerz]

Oh, and saying that type 1 players dont know the combat phase??? Well, I do, and to be honest... It isnt that important...

-Peeks head in-

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.

[Komatteru]

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.

[Moxlotus]

This example is flawed. In the type 2 scenario you lose one match to being out played whereas in the type one scenario you lose it to "luck". 

In both scenario's you win 6 matches but in type 1 you say one of those will be due to brokenness. Wheras in your type 2 scenario all 6 wins come from skill. If one was to go solely on your example it would leave us with a 6-1 record in type 2 where every match was skill based whereas the type 1 example only has 5 skill based matches.

I am not saying that i believe type 1 is less skill intensive then type 2 i am mearly proving your scenarios are rather misguided. 

I would think going 6-1-1 is easier than going 5-0-1. 

I would say that in the 8 round T2 tournament all 8 rounds are skill based and in a 8 round Type 1 tournament only 6 rounds are.  The difference is you can't screw up any of those Type 1 rounds and make top 8.  You can still afford to screw up a Type 2 match.  There is no room for error in Type 1, speaking from a match perspective.

[Vegeta2711]

This example is flawed. In the type 2 scenario you lose one match to being out played whereas in the type one scenario you lose it to "luck". 

In both scenario's you win 6 matches but in type 1 you say one of those will be due to brokenness. Wheras in your type 2 scenario all 6 wins come from skill. If one was to go solely on your example it would leave us with a 6-1 record in type 2 where every match was skill based whereas the type 1 example only has 5 skill based matches.

I am not saying that i believe type 1 is less skill intensive then type 2 i am mearly proving your scenarios are rather misguided. 

I would think going 6-1-1 is easier than going 5-0-1. 

I would say that in the 8 round T2 tournament all 8 rounds are skill based and in a 8 round Type 1 tournament only 6 rounds are.  The difference is you can't screw up any of those Type 1 rounds and make top 8.  You can still afford to screw up a Type 2 match.  There is no room for error in Type 1, speaking from a match perspective.

Way too simplistic a system you have.

I started my T2 Regionals (9 rounds) by going 1-1. I got an unwinnable match round 2 and that was why I dropped to 1-1 so early. Match-up's are just as important (In EVERY format) as how broken you can be against the other guy. Saying that all 8 rounds of a T2 Tourney is skill based is basically bullshit. It may not be as blantantly obvious as Vintage, but here's a few things.

1. The bad matches are FAR worse than Vintage decks 'bad matches' typically.
2. A great hand has just as much chance as busting you as T1.

[Komatteru]

Saying that all 8 rounds of a T2 Tourney is skill based is basically bullshit.

Agreed.  You need to have some luck on your side if you want to do well in 8 rounds of constructed Magic.  There's no getting around that.  In Extended last season, at a given PTQ, there were likely 20 players (assuming 100+ show up) who stood the best chances of making T8 based on skill.  The ones who did were the ones who got some luck to draw good matchups and good hands (i.e., didn't mulligan half their games).

[Methuselahn]

but this statement just affirms the -ignornace- that runs rampant throughout the majority of Vintage players.

 Â  ha ha Kerz!

[verduran]

People might get lucksacked out of one or several individual tournaments, but in the long run they'll win if their playskills are better.

Besides, I enjoy losing.

[Komatteru]

People might get lucksacked out of one or several individual tournaments, but in the long run they'll win if their playskills are better.

Just because you're one of those 20 people I mentioned at every tournament you go to doesn't mean you necessarily make a lot of T8s.  It is likely that in 10 tournaments, you go to, you're always in contention at every one of them, but one make one or two T8s and finish 9-12th in all the others because you had one too many bad matchups or you had a couple opponents early in the tournament who scrubbed out hardcore after you beat them.