Performance of Stax at Waterbury

[Grand Inquisitor]

I know there's more specific data on the way, but it shouldn't change the arguments much:

Archetype breakdown

Stax 25
Fish 20
Oath 17
Gifts 13
Tendrils 10
FCG 10 (includes non-foodchain lists)
CS 9
Dragon 5

and

Other 60

Top 16

uba stax

U/W Fish
UGw Threshold

Oath

gifts belcher
Flame Vault
Drain/AK TPS
Tendrils/Colossus togless Tog
Gifts w/Oath SB
Tog
Gifts
GAT*

IGG Mono-B tendrils

rg hate
arti-hate Goblins

dragon

*I put all of the blue-based (non-oath) decks together, but this isn't a significant part of the argument.


I wanted to generate some discussion about the results of the most recent Waterbury tournament, and why only one of the 25 people playing Stax (most common archetype) made it into the elimination round?

My first reason for doing this is because my own testing lead me to believe that Stax was the most powerful deck in the format, and that a properly metagamed build would have the best chance against the field.  If I were a competent Stax player, I would have played it on Saturday.

Next, there's (in my opinion) a historical truth, and a current misconception, that the Northeast metagame shuns workshops.  Granted, metagames are different.  However, I think things have come a long way from when local personalities and preferences wouldn't just shape, but would dominate the top 8 results.  While we'll never have the data to do a good statistical analysis of the T1 field, I think information, card availability, and playskill have evened out enough so that a large tournament like Waterbury is fairly representative.  What do people think of these results which seem to lay empty the claim that NE'ers cling to their drains?



Here are some arguments that may fit, and while they're not my stance exactly, hopefully they'll get the ball rolling:

Is stax as good as we thought?

Yes, stax is good

*Looking at results this way is not conducive to evaluating the strength of an archetype.  This T16 could just be a fluke.

*It's not just the frequency of the deck, it's who is piloting it.  The talent of workshop players at this event didn't rival the talent of those playing other archetypes (or the builds were sub-optimal).

*While the T16 is a good sample, it's misleading since many other stax players performed well.  Travis was #17, and results to be posted later will show that many stax players barely missed the cut, or mirrors took them out of contention.

*The 'other 60' lists would line up almost exclusively as variations of blue-based control, aggro control, and combo archetypes, meaning that the existing outline overestimates the relative frequency of Stax decks.

No, stax is overestimated

*Mana drains (or FoW, pick your poison) are really that good (or at least better), even if they have to be powered by basic islands.  They've been the bread and butter of this format almost since its inception, and they will remain so.

*Now that pithing needle has been added as an efficient hate card along with the regulars like R&R, Energy Flux, and Heretic, well prepared players can out-hate workshops in the back games (or they can MD them).

*Although we are a more mature community, much of the success of stax has come at the hands of extremely strong players such as Vroman, Chang, Travis, and Cron, and while competitive, it doesn't have the playability of other archetypes.

*While recent evolutions of the deck have strengthened its position in the field, no card choice can negate the deck's inherent inconsistency.  At large events this strategy is more likely to putter out for a round or two relative to other choices.


Obviously, this is just the tip of the iceberg, and I'm very curious to see what comes of this.  Given that I've already pointed out how regional perspectives differ, let's keep that in mind, and be civil.

[Jacob Orlove]

*The 'other 60' lists would line up almost exclusively as variations of blue-based control, aggro control, and combo archetypes, meaning that the existing outline overestimates the relative frequency of Stax decks.

We'll have the full lists on SCG in the next few days, but I can confirm this part right now. There were almost no Shop decks in the "other" category, in part because it takes a whole lot for a shop list to immediately stand out as "not stax" when you're just taking a quick glance at each deck reg sheet.

One interesting note, though, is that many people brought printed decklists to the event, instead of writing the list out once they arrived. Many of these lists had identical formatting and card orders, as though they'd all been copy/pasted off the same list online. I don't know how many other people were netdecking, but I can confirm that many of the Ubastax and GWS Oath lists had these distinctive identical printed lists, with Ubastax in particular being netdecked in huge numbers.

[ChemEng]

Thats an interesting observation...

Please don't make useless one-liners.  If you think it's interesting, explain why!
-Kowal[/color]

[Whatever Works]

I was suprised that more stax players didnt make it farther in the tournement. I know several just missed the top 16. Overall, I personally attribute this to the fact that I saw a LOT of hate decks in the field especially in the early rounds of the tournement. These decks perhaps nocked off a couple of the stax players, and then when walking around I saw multiple Stax Mirror Matchups (that are Random as hell, and the stax player who is on the play has a very distinct advantage)... These factors along with perhaps a lack of general playskill in some cases with stax could have been the decks downfall.

Waterbury is perhaps the largest T1 tournement in T1 where you can almost guarantee that your not going to predict the metagame correctly. There is always new decks, variations, and hate decks that make it extremely tough to top 16. Especially for stax lists that unlike most blue decks cant just say... Oh, thats a neat deck Idea... umm... FoW or Mana Drain... Um... Next turn I gifts... GG...

Its also difficult to judge stax to much atm, because of probably a record level of hate toward the deck (which might come down due to its generally poor finish), and the new set comes out soooo soon that we now have a whole new set of cards to figure out how they will impact the metagame, or in this topic stax. From what I have seen there are no real auto-fit cards for stax decks. However, there are 2 cards (tin street hooligan & Shattering Spree) that will make stax a much more difficult deck to choose knowing the prepared hate for it... Unless your going to decide to play multiple Hanna's Custody which in many matchups is just begging to be drained into gg...

Guess we will have to just wait and see.

Kyle L.

[Polynomial P]

One interesting note, though, is that many people brought printed decklists to the event, instead of writing the list out once they arrived. Many of these lists had identical formatting and card orders, as though they'd all been copy/pasted off the same list online. I don't know how many other people were netdecking, but I can confirm that many of the Ubastax and GWS Oath lists had these distinctive identical printed lists, with Ubastax in particular being netdecked in huge numbers.

I think this is the story right there. Stax decks are inheriently difficult to play, since they are very unforgiving to play-mistakes. UbaStax is riddled with complex decisions that can make or break the game: When to bazaar, what land to play, how to ramp smokestack, etc. 5c stax is just as complicated since it must tutor for answers. The pilot of 5c stax has to identify the most relevant threat and what threats the opponent is likely to play next, tutor for the correct answer and manage to get it into play.

Compared to your blue based decks, Stax cannot escape from poor mulligan decisions and it cannot afford to lose valuable spells to counters because Stax cannot keep up with the draw power of the control decks. Brainstorm can often smooth over a poor mulligan decision in blue based decks. If welder or an important spell in slaver gets countered, thats fine...just play a thirst or gifts and find a new one.

Finally, Stax is so much better on the play that losing the coin flip can cause problems for inexperienced stax players.

I would like to know how many really experienced stax players were at waterbury. I know Travis finished 17th, but were there other familiar names piloting stax?

[MadManiac21]

I don't think I would be considered a familiar name, but I was the one Stax player to make top 16/top8.

As for experience with stax, I played it for roughly 4-5 months last year during the spring/summer type one tournament explosion.

In my course of walking around during the day I saw plenty of people who were playing (Uba) Stax that were simply trying to rely on the fact that uba+bazaar wins the game. Because of this, you could see them make play errors and literally shrug it off thinking that "oh well, I can make it up later", which is most definately not the case.

I think stax, as an archetype, is definately as good as we believe it to be. However, type one players on the whole do not do extensive playtesting with any deck in particular; They usually pick up whats hot at the time and will most likely lend itself to "crushing the opponent".

Stax can do that, but because of its lock nature and game plan, it requires meticulous play for it to function correctly. That's why the names Houdlette listed (Vroman, Chang, Travis, and Cron) are able to put up the showings they do, because they know this and are willing to take the time to think about the direction they want to point the game in.

You can't ever allow yourself to get in a hole while playing with Stax, because that one mistake/opportunity for your opponent can (more often then not) just lose you the game.

[JACO]

I too was surprised at the relatively poor performance of the Stax decks when reading the 'live' Waterbury updates.

I think there are a few reasons for the end result though.
1) The first would be that Oath (which was everywhere) has a really good match against Stax decks, especially if people are siding in Woodripper. While it seems janky, there is pretty much nothing the Stax player can do to win once the game gets to a state where Oath can get Woodripper going.
2) The second reason for the relatively poor performance can be traced to the fact that there were at least 10 Tendrils decks, and with that comes the natural presence of Rebuild. Rebuild is so insane against Workshop decks, every TPS player should be playing at least 2 main (and probably another in the sideboard).
3) I think there were a lot of Katakis in the environment (Fish was everywhere it seems), which, while isn't backbreaking against Workshop decks, it does put a decent crimp in their plans, and is just another big obstacle to overcome. The maindecking of Stifle is also pretty good right now, and helps Fish combat the permanent advantage of Workshop decks.

I think by now that most people have identified that the best or most played decks in the format will be UbaStax, Gifts Variants, some UW Fish variants, and Oath (whether this is correct or not I won't say). With this branding of the 'best decks' comes hate in all forms, because people are starting to be prepared. While playskill and familiarity with the deck probably contributed some to the outcome, I think that the biggest reason why the surprisingly prevalent Workshops didn't perform as well as they could have was because of the preparation. Stax and Gifts are the most bandied about decks right now, so they have the biggest targets on their backs. 

[Smmenen]

This is important:

Last year I had Ray go through the decklists and count up the number of Stax decks.  This was the Jan Waterbury 2004.  This was the tournament with 8 control slavers in the top 8.

Guess what? 

Waterbury Jan 2005 had 25+ Workshop decks.  I was very surprised to discover that. 

I have never claimed that people aren't playing Workshops at the Waterbury or in the NE.  My claim is qualitatively different: GOOD players aren't playing them relatively to the good players in other metagames. 

The best players in the NE tend to play Drains whereas the best players in Richmond tend to play Workshops and the best players in the midwest tend to play a mix of workshops and drains. 

WHO played Workshops is as important as how many showed up. 

However, Travis and Roland both missed top 16....

I mean think about it: At Richmond all of the big Short Bus players usually played Workshops: Jed, Eric Miller, David Allen, etc, etc.  Invariably, Workshops did well.  Same with Chicago and Vroman and Roland.  But in the NE, the name players tend not to play Shops.

One thing that DID happen at the Waterbury was a huge shift away from Drains - but I don't think there was a shift towards workshops - based upon the data I already cited.  I don't know why people abandoned C Slaver in droves and why so few played Gifts. 

It sounds like the NE metagame is just getting really random in many respects. 

[Whatever Works]

I reallly dont think the New England Metagame is changing at all. The same New England players all played the same decks. Probasco/Outlaw/etc... Played omg gifts (as always)... Travis played a poorly designed workshop pile as always... and all the usuals played what they generally play... HOWEVER, it appears that the metagame is shifting not in the term of what decks are winning, but which players are winning. Me, Andy, Outlaw, Nate, etc... Only new 1-2 of the people who made the top 16 (Grand Inquisitor), and that was basically it... Besides that 1 GAT list that lucksacked its way past workshop matchups and somehow snuck into top 16... Deck wise there was no real shock with the acception of Hulk... Which wasnt even really that much of shock considering how amazing duress is right now.

Kyle L.

[Juggernaut GO]

So many people that were playing workshops that I saw, never seemed to play them before.  I got paired against 1 uba deck during the day in  Round 2, the deck never even put up a fight.  It was just completely over powered by 5c.  I think all I had to do was pithing needle a bazaar and uba stax couldn't win.   And round 4 I got paired with Roland in the feature match and game 1 was super close involving a top deck pithing needle on triskelion and game 2 he got stuck off colored mana.  I didn't see many workshop decks near the top tables after that, only Caleb.  You could attribute stax not being more in the top 16 to all the hate decks going around, but even those matches are still favorable.  Their decks are so focused to playing narrow cards against you, that you just win the game with overall domination.  I think the only card I would actually lose to pre board is maindeck Kataki.

Mana drain remains the only threat to a stax deck, and even then it's not always good enough.  Some of the luck I've had against drain decks hasn't been so hot.  One of the guys from michigan owned me pretty hardcore in round 7 but really my deck just beat itself because I drew nothing.  In the round that was the most important, I drew nothing to interrupt his deck.  He got to goldfish 2 games in a round that determines who goes to top 16.

And another point was stated that there were alot of oath decks in the tournament, I got paired against 1 oath deck in round 8.  I lost game 1, but game 2 and 3 were not even close because my sideboard still runs ray of revelation and swords.  I do not follow how the statement can be made that stax has a bad matchup to oath.  I think the last time I lost a match to oath was in may 2005 in richmond, and I wasn't even playing stax.

Travis played a poorly designed workshop pile as always...

There was nothing poorly designed about it this round, and this was the problem.  I only used 2 bad cards, I couldn't possibly win without using at least 5.  And the fact that I stopped playing tinker, which has turned into a useless card in stax.  But monkey cage did own at least 2 people that day.  3 tendo ice bridge has come in for 3 city of brass, I no longer lose stupid close games to fish and RG beats(I beat myself instead and lose a game because I don't pay attention to my opponent cheating)  Cutting city of brass was the best thing going, expecially because of the low amount of colored spells in my deck.  Tendo worked just fine, and I don't recall a time all day when I wished I had a colored mana open.

Also Pithing Needle came in, null rod came out.  I was tired of losing to random crap like bazaar of baghdad and time vault and opposing welders or shaman and even withered wretch.  Pithing needle stops all of those, null rod stops 1.  People can look at null rod as another lock piece, but I stopped attributing it as that and realized that stax already runs too many lock pieces, lets add a more narrow card that will win more games on its own and not sometimes screw you over in the process.


I Don't think that anyone besides me and Roland played 5c stax without bazaar.  I think everyone picked up ubastax, and I cheer for caleb for making it to top 8, but I think Uba stax will always be inferior to 5c.  I can remember losing only 1 game ever to uba stax, and its because I lost a mana crypt roll.  That would explain why more workshops didn't make it in.  People who weren't fully familiar with stax picking up the deck and running with it.

[Grand Inquisitor]

people were netdecking

-Jacob Orlove

lack of general playskill

-Whatever Works

inheriently difficult to play, since they are very unforgiving to play-mistakes

-Polynomial P

you could see them make play errors

-Mad Maniac

GOOD players aren't playing them relatively to the good players in other metagames

-Smennen

So many people that were playing workshops that I saw, never seemed to play them before

-JuggernautGO



I'm a little surprised at the overwhelming consensus that New England stax players are bad.  I lose to them all the time!

More seriously, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence, but what are the reasons why people think this?  Is it because evolutions of Stax are developed by people outside NE?  I don't think the argument can be made on the basis that Chang, Vroman, Miller and the like do well at tournaments outside of NE.  The opposition could just as easily say that the drain players in all of those locales suck, except when Kowal and Probasco show up.  I don't feel like digging through the archives, but I can't remember Cron or Miller doing well at Waterburys they attended, Chang missed at this last one, and I don't think Vroman or Allen have ever made it up here.  Cron and Allen dominated a GenCon, but that was when trinisphere was running amok (same with Cron's Syracuse).  Mostly, I'm trying to show that using past tournament success is a tough case to prove how the people playing the deck in New England are necessarily worse than elsewhere or ( allowing for certain star-power) that they aren't representing the archetype sufficiently.  While people may be netdecking, as Smennen said, this sizable turnout for workshops isn't new.  They've been playing them here for a while, and it's only the inability to reach elimination rounds that hasn't caught up.  Why is this?

I'm not saying that I don't understand the propensity for really talented players to perform consistently because of specific play choices, metagame modifications, etc., however, at a broader level, usually the numbers shake out.  For example, slaver was so good that people other than Rich Shay started winning lots of tournaments with it.  This hasn't really happened with Stax, it seems.

I'm more inclined to go with some of the other statements about the high degree of hate, bad matchups, and the inherent volatility of the deck, especially when mulliganing, or on the draw.  Especially the last two are issues that I would guess can be overcome with mastery of a deck, but not necessarily just solid play.

(for Waterbury) your not going to predict the metagame correctly

I don't find this.  I did an experiment on the Hadley boards a couple Waterburys ago where I predicted archetypes almost to within the margin of error.  I wasn't surprised by the most recent turnout, and I especially anticipated red-based hate decks.

It sounds like the NE metagame is just getting really random in many respects

Can you elaborate?  I really don't see this, and, neither, it seems, does Jaco:

by now that most people have identified that the best or most played decks in the format will be UbaStax, Gifts Variants, some UW Fish variants, and Oath

Stax 25
Fish 20
Oath 17
Gifts 13

[Eastman]

A lot of potentially fruitful discussions on this site have been run down the dead-end 'but the players were bad' street. Pick another copout smmenen, please.

I think the results speak to something we already knew: Drain decks with 4 E. Flux post board are dominant against stax.

[Komatteru]

I don't think the argument can be made on the basis that Chang, Vroman, Miller and the like do well at tournaments outside of NE.  The opposition could just as easily say that the drain players in all of those locales suck, except when Kowal and Probasco show up.

That's really not the point.  It's not really the case that Stax does well because everyone who plays Mana Drain outside the NE is bad (which is also not true, but whatever).  Oath is a bad match for Stax, much worse than any Mana Drain match, with even incompetant Oath players being able to best the best Stax players on a regular basis (i.e., the big lucksack who drops turn 1 Oath 2 of 3 games -- what is even the best Stax player supposed to do if he doesn't have the right cards to deal?).  GWS has done great work on Oath, and the Midwest boasts probably as many top teir Oath players as the NE has Drain players.  Yet we still see players like Vroman winning in fields stuffed full of Oath piloted by talented players.  The point is that the name players -- the ones who regularly test, make new decks, etc. aren't playing Stax, and it's not doing so well.  A good question is: why aren't the named players playing Stax?  Do they not find it rewarding to their skill, or just don't they have the interest in playing something that doesn't require tapping UU?

[Smmenen]

Whoa, whoa whoa - eastman I have no clue what you are talking about.  I'm not copping out for ANYONE. 

My entire purpose in posting in this thread is to refute the point that there was suddenly a spike in Workshops being played.   Based upon the data I saw, the number of workshops this Waterbury was identical to the number of shops a year ago Waterbury.  To repeat - the number of workshops is the same.   

The point of this thread is the suggestion that
a) wow look at all the shops
b) wow look how bad they did

My point is that point "a" is actually false. 

The Stax results have basically remained constant over that time period. 

Moreover, you misunderstood the impact of that statement.

It's not that the Stax players are bad.  That's NOT what I was saying.

What I was saying is that RELATIVELY speaking - the stax players in the NE are bad.  In other words, the best players in other environments play Stax.  That is not true in the NE. 

There is a critical difference between these two statements:

1) Stax loss can partly be explained becuase the stax players are bad

and

2) Stax loss can partly be explained becuase the best players play other decks 

As long as the "name" players play non-Workshop decks, then Workshop are ALWAYS going to perform more poorly than in environments where a much higher proprotion of the format's very best players play it.

Let me put it this way.

Let's pretend that Wizards held two Vintage Grand Prixs

At the first Vintage Grand Prix, every single pro played Stax.  Do you think Stax would do well?  Hell yes.  That's what SCG Richmond is like.

Now at the second Vintage Grand Prix, every single pro played Mana Drains.  Now, how well would Stax do?  That's what Waterbury is like. 

Get my drift.  It's not that the Stax players suck - it's that YOU, eastman, and your friends, and teammates continue to perfer Drains.  How many times does Brassman, Houdlette, etc play Stax? 

It's got almost nothing to do with the objective quality of the Stax players and much more to do with the relatively quality of the Stax player. 

I think that Stax definately got legitimately beat at Waterbury though.  A number of strong players played it and lost.  I think that Stax was definately not the deck to play at Waterbury.   Stax did as badly as its always done and in the same proportions that its always done.  The only difference was Octo where the one stax deck that made top 16 won.

Instead of focusing on Stax, I think you guys shoudl be focusing on why people moved away from Control Slaver to terrible.dec.

[Smmenen]

GI:

you said:
I don't find this.  I did an experiment on the Hadley boards a couple Waterburys ago where I predicted archetypes almost to within the margin of error.  I wasn't surprised by the most recent turnout, and I especially anticipated red-based hate decks.


Do you think you coud have predicted this metagame for this waterbury?  I think the metagame was extremely suprising in how few people played Control Slaver.  Did you see that coming?

It looks to me, an outsider, like the NE metagame is collapsing - like completely.  People are playing just whatever anymore. And everything and anything can and will win.  I would have predicted a metagame that was probably 40-50% mana drain decks - Control Slaver and Gifts, a bit of dragon, alot of Fish, and a touch of Shops.  If I had built a deck based upon that metagame I would have gotten destroyed by the randomness.  I would have lost to workshop aggro, Oath, and weird red decks. 

Like, with a metagame so incredibly fragmented, it is really hard to predict the waterbury and metagame.  I'm not sure how anyone can make intelligent metagame decisions without a really close understanding of how the NE works at the local level now.  If you can predict the waterbury, I'm very imprressed.  I know I couldn't - at least not what I saw. 

[Kowal]

A good question is: why aren't the named players playing Stax?  Do they not find it rewarding to their skill, or just don't they have the interest in playing something that doesn't require tapping UU?

Speaking strictly for my own decision, I saw three major decks leading in to this event.

Gifts Ungiven fueled combo-control
Control Slaver which we all know and love
and Uba Stax

In my testing leading up to the event, I discovered that in general, pre sideboard Gifts would beat CS, CS would beat Uba, and Uba would beat Gifts.  I saw Uba as the simplest of the three to hate effectively, and as such went with Gifts.  It was the right call, as I beat Stax every time I bumped in to it, and only took losses from an aggro-control deck (which was just me losing to myself really) and a pair of Oath hands that are pretty much unbeatable for any blue-based control deck.

[Grand Inquisitor]

everyone who plays Mana Drain outside the NE is bad

For the record, I really hope my post didn't come across this way.  I mentioned that as an incredible argument, implying that the line of reasoning makes it equally incredible that you can say the same for NE stax players; that is, you can't.

I'm a little confused:

Oath is a bad match for Stax, much worse than any Mana Drain match, with even incompetant Oath players being able to best the best Stax players on a regular basis (i.e., the big lucksack who drops turn 1 Oath 2 of 3 games -- what is even the best Stax player supposed to do if he doesn't have the right cards to deal?).  GWS has done great work on Oath, and the Midwest boasts probably as many top teir Oath players as the NE has Drain players.  Yet we still see players like Vroman winning in fields stuffed full of Oath piloted by talented players.

Is oath a bad matchup for stax or not (is it just early oath sackery)?  Does individual player talent out-muscle the reality of matchups?  Is the answer to my post that the NE doesn't have really good stax players, but the midwest does, and that's why they can beat really good oath players?  I would think that if oath was really a bad matchup for stax, than GWS heavyweights would take down Vroman and Chang.  I'm sort of making light here, but my argument is sincere, hopefully people don't take the labels personally.

I think that Stax was definately not the deck to play at Waterbury

The point is that the name players -- the ones who regularly test, make new decks, etc. aren't playing Stax, and it's not doing so well.  A good question is: why aren't the named players playing Stax?  Do they not find it rewarding to their skill, or just don't they have the interest in playing something that doesn't require tapping UU?

@JDizzle, did you mean this for NE, or for T1 in general?

@both, was it common knowledge that Stax was passe?  I know it's prominence makes it an easy target, but I've always felt that, especially with trinisphere, stax has the ability to pre-empt hate.  What factors make it a weak deck, or at least a weak choice for this event?  I also thought it was a strong deck, albeit perhaps not for this event in particular (however our reasons are different).

Perhaps I should revise my interpretation of people's responses.  It seems that you're not saying that NE stax players are bad, it's just that the top players don't play it (which, as smennen points out, really isn't the same).  My counter to this, is that lots of people who aren't very well known do well with blue-based decks around here, not just Shay, Eastman, Carl, Probasco, etc.  No offense to those who did well at this most recent waterbury, but I looked around during my T16 match, and didn't recognize a lot of the people playing.  This isn't the only time that this has happened, and I think it's the consistency and raw power of drain decks that do it, while shop and other archetypes are more nuanced, and require a greater set of skills to succeed.  This may sound like I'm saying shop decks are better, but I'm not.  I believe the less skill intensive a deck, the better, provided it can still beat good decks.

Do you think you coud have predicted this metagame for this waterbury?

I'm not saying I've got this down perfect, but I did predict a lot of the trends you seem to find surprising (hate decks, not much slaver).  I think that's probably a discussion for PM's, but some of the guts of it are in Kowal's post.

[yespuhyren]

A lot of people playing Uba is also a reason that I feel that the shops didn't perform as well.  Its not that Uba is a bad deck, far from it, as I play it myself.  The fact is I've been playing some version of Uba or another since I saw a European list, then Vroman T8'ed at a SCG.  I've been tinkering with Uba+Bazaar and other combinations since then.  

The problem, however, is that although I can't guarantee anything, its is more than likely that most of the players who picked up Uba Stax ONLY played the deck because it just won 2 SCG P9 tournaments, and it has been putting up many good results.  

Stax is not an easy deck to play, regardless of whether you are playing 5c, uba, or some other varient.  It NEVER will be an easy deck to play, as it is very unforgiving.  This also means that Stax is not a deck that you can just pick up with minimal to no testing and hope to do well with.  It just doesn't happen.  Without a lot of familiarity to the deck, you will fail miserably at your attempts most of the time.

This would definitely coincide with what Smennen was saying, as I do not believe that the majority of the players playing some version of stax were not at the comfort level that you have to be with Stax to run it well.  Obviously Chang and Travis do not fall into this category, but lets face it, no matter how good you are, you can't ALWAYS win, and I don't believe that they missed out of T16 by much, though I'm not 100% sure.

To sum it up, I basically think that if the shop players would play with the deck for a long period of time and get a higher level of understanding of the deck, then they would place better.  It is almost never the smart thing to do if you find yourself picking up one of the more difficult decks in the format blindly, and then running it with minimal testing because "It does well for other people, so it will do well for me"

That is a false statement, and it is foolish to believe that the deck will play for you like it does for someone who tests it for weeks and months.

[Moxlotus]

I would think that if oath was really a bad matchup for stax, than GWS heavyweights would take down Vroman and Chang.  I'm sort of making light here, but my argument is sincere, hopefully people don't take the labels personally.

This is completely off topic-but I will respond to this one to clear up any misconceptions.  I beat Chang in the prelims at GenCon.  I don't believe anyone else on the team (that didn't randomly pick up the deck the day of the tournament) has played either Chang, Vroman, or Cron somehow.  I do know that Vroman's only loss at SCG-October was against Oath-however it wasn't a teammate nor my build so I don't know specifics about that match.  Besides that, there really isn't a lot of hard data between matches of "Stax master" vs. "Oath master."

/end side discussion.  Carry on.

[Harlequin]

from the "net deck" observation by Jacob, it seems that oath and stax got the heavy end of the net deck.  also out of all the oath decks out there my deck (the only pure oath deck to make top 16) my deck had almost nothing more than oath and orchard in common with typical oath deck.  In fact, it is extremely difficult for the deck I played to go turn 1 oath because I dont run off color moxed (and for my deck green is off color).  the deck was basically mono-blue oath.  I have been play testing this deck and fine tuning each card for months and it has evolved completely indipendantly from the standard Black/5c oath. 
Now i'll get to my point, I admit that oath is extremely easy to play, especially when compaired to stax.  If you took two players who know how to play magic, but maybe have never been to a tourny of over 100 ppl, gave one net deck oath, and one net deck stax ... I'm willing to bet that the stax player would loose. T'is the nature of the beast.  I think that can account for alot of the "data" on both stax and oath.  both decks were at waterbury in force and neither deck did particularly well.

I will also take this moment to go slightly off topic here with a bit of rant... I'm really sick of hearing that oath is just a luck sack, Even more so from stax players.  Remember it has bearly  been a year since Shop-> trinisphere - Go.  won more games than basically all other plays combined.  I admitted for you that oath is a simpiler deck to play but just because someone drops 2 oaths on turn one in 3 games doesnt mean they are always some noob with a lucky deck. ok </rant>

[Smmenen]

Perhaps I should revise my interpretation of people's responses.  It seems that you're not saying that NE stax players are bad, it's just that the top players don't play it (which, as smennen points out, really isn't the same).  My counter to this, is that lots of people who aren't very well known do well with blue-based decks around here, not just Shay, Eastman, Carl, Probasco, etc.  No offense to those who did well at this most recent waterbury, but I looked around during my T16 match, and didn't recognize a lot of the people playing. This isn't the only time that this has happened, and I think it's the consistency and raw power of drain decks that do it, while shop and other archetypes are more nuanced, and require a greater set of skills to succeed.  This may sound like I'm saying shop decks are better, but I'm not.  I believe the less skill intensive a deck, the better, provided it can still beat good decks.

GI, that's not a counter to my point at all.  Just becuase no-name players did well with Drain decks doesn't negate the fact that the "pro" players by and large play Drains in the NE and not Shops.

Do you think you coud have predicted this metagame for this waterbury?

I'm not saying I've got this down perfect, but I did predict a lot of the trends you seem to find surprising (hate decks, not much slaver).  I think that's probably a discussion for PM's, but some of the guts of it are in Kowal's post.

I'm very curious.  I don't really have time to engage this at the moment, but I will say that this incoherence is a HUGE disincentive for outsiders to participate.

Looking at the results of this waterbury makes me never want to play in a waterbury.

Why?  Simple.

You want to be rewarded for your skill.  And metagaming is a skill.    If you tell me, and I believe you when you say this, that you could predict that metagame [/i] then there is no way I can possible compete with you at a waterbury as a person from Ohio.  My metagame predictions will always be wildly off base compared to yours.  And I will be at a huge competitive disadvantage.  Witness the Michigan crew and how well they did.  Witness others. 

I would never have seen that top 16 in a million years. 

To me, a Red hate deck is completely absurd.  Etc Etc.

[Tin_Mox5831]

@ Stephen:

You've made many insightful statements here as always, and I agree with 99% of them, but I have to defend my position on one particular issue. Stax is clearly a good choice for this metagame, especially to an outsider with somewhat less meta knowledge. The fact of the matter is that if someone like Outlaw or BrassMan and I played one another with identical Drain decks, I'd likely be crushed due to his superior knowledge of Mana Drain decks and their innate complexities. If I were to play Stax, I may still lose, but I can use the inherent advantage Stax holds over Drain decks to attempt to shorten the gap in this matchup. There are too many cards in Stax that neuter Mana Drain for the Drain player to deal with them all. That's why your deck choice can serve you well and can make unfavorable matches much better in terms of playskill. For instance, I played in a tourney for a Mox a couple of months back. I planned on playing Stax, which is by far my best 10-proxy deck. I then realized that the field contained at least three Stax players with similar lists and superior knowledge of the deck, so I audibled into Meandeck Tendrils, a deck I normally don't play. I did pretty well that day mainly because I used my deck's inherent advantage (pure, raw speed) rather than playing the same deck as the better players and losing due to my lesser skill.

Just a thought,
Dave

[dicemanx]

You want to be rewarded for your skill.  And metagaming is a skill.    If you tell me, and I believe you when you say this, that you could predict that metagame  then there is no way I can possible compete with you at a waterbury as a person from Ohio.  My metagame predictions will always be wildly off base compared to yours.  And I will be at a huge competitive disadvantage.  Witness the Michigan crew and how well they did.  Witness others.

So let me get this straight. You want the "weaker" players to be more predictable and play cookie cutter decks so you can properly metagame against them and beat them.

And this is supposed to be an INCENTIVE for "weaker" players to play, and ultimately contribute to your coffers?

I'm going to add a contentious statement. I don't believe that there are any truly good players in T1, ouside of perhaps a handful of people, and this comes after years of playing and observing. The fact that the "big names" don't perform consistently shouldn't point the blame at "lack of coherence". T1 players in my mind lack technical skill, they lack the necessary endurance and ability to focus, and they lack sufficent playtesting AND objectivity/understanding when it comes to interpreting results. Now this might sound like a harsh criticism, but it isn't meant to be. T1 simply doesn't offer the same kind of return on an investment as other formats or other hobbies might offer. It makes much more sense to spend countless days preparing for an event in the hopes of ultimately winning $30,000 than to slave for the year in an attempt to snag $300 here and there. The fact that power levels of established archetypes have escalated dramatically and the skill gaps have been bridged (because people have in general stopped being terrible and have stopped playing terrible decks) simply exacerbates the problem that ultimately this game and this format is much too luck based to take seriously. I might pride myself in maximizing my oportunities via good technical play and via a little research into new and surprising ideas, but ultimately I have to resign myself to an understanding that any good poker player has - the short term guarantees nothing, but you must put your faith in the fact that you will come out ahead in the long term if you have the skills. There's the problem however: the "long term" is largely meaningless in T1. That is, I don't know of any top T1 players who are in the game for long term financial gains.

However, the notion of "metagame coherence" and its importance is akin to simply jumping two or three hurdles ahead and ignoring what I said above. I think before the majority of players start worrying about being able to "meta properly" and not being able to do so in chaotic metagames, they need to examine their own prowess when it comes to the technical side of the game, and their ability to focus in long events. How many times for instance have I seen players undermine themselves by saying how tired they were, or how little sleep they got the night before, or how they didn't eat the whole day? If you want to start making excuses during the tournament, you will undoubtedly be be engaging in a self fulfilling prophecy. Focus is tied to strong technical play, but to be a strong technical player you also have to have the know-how. For instance, a player who plays his seventh card with an untapped LoA in play has commited an error due to lack of focus. That same player lacks the technical knowledge when immediately playing any lands or Moxes for no reason when they have Brainstorms or TfKs in their deck. I see these types of mistakes committed all the time at the highest tables in T1 events.   


This might seem like an off-topic rant, but this is exactly what I start thinking about when people are so "shocked" that name players didn't perform well, or that the t16 was unpredictable, or that X number of Stax decks played at Waterbury but only 1 made t16. We will continue to have these chaotic messes and unpredictable results if we fail to have the necessary inmprovement in our top T1 players WHILE educating the newcomers as far as what the optimal decks are to play and how to play them. We as a comminity wilfully engage in training our fellow T1 players and we ourselves through these actions bridge the skill gap.

this incoherence is a HUGE disincentive for outsiders to participate.

It seems to me that availablility and distance are overwhelmingly bigger factors affecting participation, rather than some notion of "lack of coherence". Up to now, I honestly have never heard anyone else say that they were going to refrain from participating in a T1 event because they would be unable to predict the meta and thus wouldn't have a sufficiently sizeable advantage to make the trip "worthwhile".

I'm about as competitive as they come when in comes to T1, but I on the other hand love unpredictable, chaotic metas. While I might not have the advantage of adjusting my deck to defeat a predictable meta, I have other advantages that I can count on - if other players are pulling away from "optimal" lists or playing radically new archetypes, then unless they have struck gold they are likely at a disadvantage in terms of their deck's raw strength, and really only have the advantage of surprise on their side. To outplay such players I have to ensure two things: to try and play technically perfect games, and to try to be exhaustive (whenever the situation dictates) in considering what options are available to my opponent even if they might not be standard so that I minimize the surprise value of his deck.

Bottom line: I couldn't care less if the meta is unpredictable. I suspect that a great majority of strong players are in the same boat. I'd like to be proven wrong.

[Smmenen]

Diceman, 

You have confused the subjective for the objective. I never stated that the Waterbury was unpredictable. You are conflating my subjective assessment for an objective one.  I said that *I* was unable to predict the metagame.

[/i]I have NO problem with a completely unpredictable metagame. I have a problem when GI can very accurately predict a metagame because of his local knowledge that I find to be completely incoherent.    [/i]  Moreover, I never said I would refrain - I said it makes me want to refrain - I phrased it in terms of a disincentive, not a barrier. 

The point is simple and I'll illustrate it for you:

Suppose you have players A and player B.  Both are of equal skill.

Player A has an intimate knowledge of the metagame.  Player B does not.  Player B metagames based upon what they think the good decks are.  Player A metagames based upon what he sees at the local metagame and the local, touranmetns with unreported results.

Player B, although of equal skill, is at a huge competitive disadvantage compared to player A.

now, that doesn't mean that Player B can't win.  It's just a disadvantage. 

You want the "weaker" players to be more predictable and play cookie cutter decks so you can properly metagame against them and beat them.

That's why this statement doesn't make any sense given what I said.  I thought I was being perfectly clear.  Evidently even when I am being clear, people miss the point. 

It has nothing to do with what being predictable.  This statement confuses objective and subjective understanding of a metagame.  TO ME, the metagame was a surprise.  To GI and presumably to others who are more familiar witht he local scene, it was not.   I couldn't care less what locals play so long as I have a similar capacity to anticipate the metagame to the strong players in the field. 

It's also a matter of degree.  I am not concerned if the locals have a small advantage when it comes to metagame knowledge - but this tournament reflects a huge disparity in that regard.  I was completely flabbergasted.  GI was not surprised at all.  At some point that divide becomes so large that it overwhelms other advnatages.  I contend that has occured here. 

Honestly I have no idea why you failed to understand that relatively simple point.

[Smmenen]

Diceman has dramatically edited his post and I have more thoughts on his new content:

Peter, you make a huge mistake in your argumentation.  You talk about Skill as if the primary or even sole skill is technical skill.

That is true in poker and chess, etc, etc.

But I would argue and have argued that the most important skill in Vintage is deck construction and deck choice.  Period.

I can prove this logically.

You can play nine land stompy PERFECTLY in Vintage and you willl still lose to Gifts 100% of the time, even if the Gifts player plays poorly. 

Oh, do not mistake me - I agree completely with what you said about focus and endurance.  I see top vintage players flub up in these areas all the time.  But your entire discussion about the state of the metagame as irrelelvant because of the overriding importance of technically skill is crucially flawed becuase of the way that magic works: that is, you choose a deck to compete.  If everyone had the same weapon, then I would agree.  But in Vintage, the quality of the weapon is a far more important than in any other format in a game where weapon choice matters.

EDITS:

I have the capacity to play almost any deck in the format with a high level of techincal proficiency.  I have made top 8 with Combo, Stax, Aggro Control, and Control decks and designed all metagame defining and affecting variants of all four archetypes. 

The threshold inquiry for any tournament is always: What deck to play?  The second inquiry is: what adjustments am I going to make to it?  Both of those questions are almost completely dependent upon some sort of metagame assessment  To claim otherwise is patently ridiculous.

Moreover, and this is a point likely to trip many people up - those questions must be answered even in a completely random metagame.  For instance, in a completely incoherent metagame, the threshold question: What deck to play? becomes answered by an analysis of objective power and similar considerations.  Thus, if I anticipated a perfect chaotic metagame, I would be more inclined to play Grim Long, than, say, Dragon. 

[dicemanx]

Your point is contingent on two assumptions:

1) The "good NE players" were correctly able deduce that whats played at the microlevel in a particular region can be projected onto a major event in that region. In other words, the metagame is "coherent", but unknown to outsiders.

2) People are static in their ways, and adhere to either specific archetypes or they tend not to waver from either Drain, Shop, or Ritual-based archetypes, thereby contributing to the idea of coherence, which you as an outsider again have no knowledge of.


I would challenge the validity of both statements, especially given that proxy events have opened up the possibilities of just about any archetype to most, AND the fact that so much has been written about every major archetype (particuarly highlighting that the archetypes are so close in power levels). I've come to realize over the past year that its almost impossible to tell what's going to show up at any given event, even if I know what people are playing in smaller events in the local area. This is also highlighted in many tournament reports where it seems that the players don't even decide on a deck to play until the night before or the morning of. I'm sure that GI will clarify, but I took his lack of surprise concerning the metagame at Waterbury as being par for the course given where T1 is right now, rather than having some sort of secret prior knowledge about what decks were going to explode onto the scene at the event.

You see, I simply think that you are grossly overestimating the importance of metagame coherence (from your subjective perspective), and I read it as some sort of conspiracy theory that you as an outsider are flabberghasted by not being able to make the proper predictions as the local strong players conspire to maintain an edge over you because they have knowledge of the meta at the micro level that they are apparently not willing to share.   

[PucktheCat]

Steve, you're point about play skill vs. deck building skill is far from proven by that example.  The fact is, no one (and I do mean no one) is going to show up with 9 land stompy and any serious thought of winning.  Most people are playing decks where 45-55 cards are clearly mapped out by the card pool or existing lists.  Deck building skill has to operate in that relatively narrow 5-15 card window because most of the work has already been done by the community at large.  But no one can do play your games for you, you have to do that yourself.  Deck building affects between 25% and 10% of the plays in a game.  Playskill can realistically affect nearly 100%.

Leo

[Smmenen]

Your point is contingent on two assumptions:

1) The "good NE players" were correctly able deduce that whats played at the microlevel in a particular region can be projected onto a major event in that region. In other words, the metagame is "coherent", but unknown to outsiders.

2) People are static in their ways, and adhere to either specific archetypes or they tend not to waver from either Drain, Shop, or Ritual-based archetypes, thereby contributing to the idea of coherence, which you as an outsider again have no knowledge of.


I would challenge the validity of both statements, especially given that proxy events have opened up the possibilities of just about any archetype to most, AND the fact that so much has been written about every major archetype (particuarly highlighting that the archetypes are so close in power levels). I've come to realize over the past year that its almost impossible to tell what's going to show up at any given event, even if I know what people are playing in smaller events in the local area. This is also highlighted in many tournament reports where it seems that the players don't even decide on a deck to play until the night before or the morning of. I'm sure that GI will clarify, but I took his lack of surprise concerning the metagame at Waterbury as being par for the course given where T1 is right now, rather than having some sort of secret prior knowledge about what decks were going to explode onto the scene at the event.

You see, I simply think that you are grossly overestimating the importance of metagame coherence (from your subjective perspective), and I read it as some sort of conspiracy theory that you as an outsider are flabberghasted by not being able to make the proper predictions as the local strong players conspire to maintain an edge over you because they have knowledge of the meta at the micro level that they are apparently not willing to share.   

Dealing with so called "assumptions."

Your first assumption: it is not about whether a person correctly deduces so much as whether they have a greater degree of accuracy in their predictions.

Pre-Waterbury I might have said

40% of Deck A
25% of Deck B
15 % of Deck C
8% Deck D
etc etc

The quesotin isn't whether I'm correct but the degree of accuracy.  So being "correct" does not matter.  What matters is the degree of accuracy.  I may have been 50% off base, whereas GI is probalby only 15% off base.  At some point that divide becomes a disincntive to participate. 

As for your second assumption, by now you can see that it is irrellevant to my argument.  There will ALWAYS be variation from a prediction.  No prediction will be perfect. 

For instance, let's take SCG Chicagos.  Before each SCG Chicago I look at the previous SCG Chicago metagame breakdown.  Post tournaent, I compare the two events and see how things shifted.   There is ALWAYS going to be shifts.  OBVIOUSLY people aren't completely static - but the question is one of degree.  Most of the metagame remains static.  That is, some nontrivial proprotion of the decks are the same as the previous tournament.

My argument doesn't depend upon that assumption at all because my argument was one of relative competitive disadvantages - not, as you original percieved, one of whether the metagame is coherent or not.  YOu still do not seem to be able to escape the point that I am not criticizing incoherence, per se, here.  I'm talking about a relatively ability to predict a metagame as it relates to competitive disadvantage.  For some reason, you are filtering my arguments through the prism of metagame coherence and missing the forest for the trees. 

Also, you will notice that your entire discussion of metagame coherence being unimportant was dealt with in my post above discussing the important skills in VIntage.  I think you are grossly mistaken in your assessment because of the absolutely central importance of deck construction and deck choice as articulated above. 

GI Flat out said that he could predict the local metagame with a pretty good degree of accuracy.  I never would be able to.  That's the bottom line. 

[dicemanx]

I can prove this logically.

You can play nine land stompy PERFECTLY in Vintage and you willl still lose to Gifts 100% of the time, even if the Gifts player plays poorly.

Perhaps you might like to read over a critical point that I keep reiterating in many threads, because it is extremely important to the argument I attempted to craft here and in other threads.

I will concede your straw man that deck choice becomes highly critical and almost entirely overshadows technical play and focus when we are discussing archetypes that are weak or low tier to the point that they don't stand a chance against the top level decks in T1.

But, you see, we no longer see many such decks like 9LStompy at events. I'd like to see you make the same argument with decks that are actually played at events, because they comprise the majority:

Gifts
CS
UbaStax
5CStax
Oath
Tendrils-combo (TPS, Grimlong)
Belcher
U/W Fish
Tog (no such thing really - its just "I draw cards and win.dec")
WGD
etc

These archetypes have evolved to the point where its near impossible to have better than 55% percent odds with any given archetype against any other archetype. Sure, we will always have players coming on these boards and asserting how "Oath crushes CS" or how "UbaStax crushes combo". However, I think the more cautious, skilled T1 players would say that its gotten to the point where deck choice is far less important, and WHAT IS IMPORTANT is your ability to play your deck optimally, whatever that archetype might be (ie, play what you know!). This means understanding the match-ups and your deck (the technical knowledge that I spoke of), and ensuring that you maintain focus so that you're not tossing games due to stupidity.

Have a look at the tourney forums, or watch other people's games, and see just HOW MANY games are decided NOT becuase of the match-up, but because of sound technical skill and maintaining focus to give a player every opportunity to win, even if the odds don't favor him because of someone else's "testing".   

So my contention, which you obviously disagree with, is that you can make great strides in improving your game *before* you start worrying about match-ups and metagaming to give you tiny extra percentages *if* you're lucky to face the match-ups that you anticipated.

[Smmenen]

Steve, you're point about play skill vs. deck building skill is far from proven by that example.  The fact is, no one (and I do mean no one) is going to show up with 9 land stompy and any serious thought of winning.  Most people are playing decks where 45-55 cards are clearly mapped out by the card pool or existing lists.  Deck building skill has to operate in that relatively narrow 5-15 card window because most of the work has already been done by the community at large.  But no one can do play your games for you, you have to do that yourself.  Deck building affects between 25% and 10% of the plays in a game.  Playskill can realistically affect nearly 100%.

Leo

Two points to be made here
 First, in regards to Leo’s point.  The “Plays of the gameâ€? are not the relevant question.  The only relevant question is: who wins?  Deck choice and deck construction affects 100% affects your ability to win.  Technical play affects less than 100% of your ability to win and therefore is logically less important.

Second, Diceman and Leo missed a subtle nuance to my argument.  I used the phrase “Deck choice and deck constructionâ€? NOT the phrase “deck choice.â€?  Why?  Because deck construction is larger than deck choice but encompasses or takes into account the point that Diceman seeks to raise to counter my argument.  If I were arguing that deck choice was all that is at issue, then my argument would lose some force.  But go back to my post two posts above – I said that my threshold inquiry is two steps:

1) Deck choice
2) Deck adjustments

Deck construction takes both of those into account.  BECAUSE of the narrow win percentages, metagaming those decks becomes critically important.  The inclusion of the last few cards in Gifts, Slaver, Stax can make the difference between a win and a loss.

As you can see, you both missed my argument by shortening the phrase “deck choice and deck constructionâ€? into “deck choiceâ€? and also failed to see, as a consequence, that I have already considered the point you are raising – which is the narrow win percentages found in the top tier archetypes. 

Deck construction is more important than ever in a field where win percentages are narrow. 

Sorry boys. 

I do not disagree that technical skill matters.  But that isn't part of my threshold inquiry.  It certainly does matter - but it matters less than deck construction.  Some decks, esp, those in type one, can forgive poor play. 

Dont' set me up as saying I disagree with a point with which I agree Peter.