Luck in Magic

[Komatteru]

a) Play a different deck
b) play different card choices
c) play a different sb
d) sb differently
e) mulligan different
f) tutor for different cards
g) make different, earlier, in game decisions

Each one of these things can still be foiled.
a) As an extreme example, you pick a deck that is a bomb in the current metagame and beats everything 70% of the time, except this one deck that like no one ever plays, since it loses to pretty much everything else.  You go to the tournament and of 140 people, 2 are playing that one deck, and you draw them in rounds 1 and 2.  You go 0-2 drop.

b) You don't draw those cards.

c) You don't draw the sideboard cards.

d) You don't ever draw the sideboard cards.

e) You mulligan bad hands that you cannot keep and end up having to take 4 or 5 cards in the end.  Do you keep an unplayable hand of 7 that has land in fear that you will draw a 6 card hand with no mana, and have to go to 5?

f) and g) are really the only ones you can control here.

[dicemanx]

The validity of Steve's contention simply depends on the definition of "luck". However, what I see here is that he's trying to operate with a definition that has some practical applications, while others are challenging his statements for the sake of demonstrating that they can be invalidated by altering the definition.

Simply put, the way I'm understanding this is that skill (whether playskill, deck construction skill, ability to predict metagames, analyze test results properly, utilizing efficient methods of testing to maximize the amount of pertinent information that can be extracted etc) can go a very long way in minimizing the luck component in matches. "Luck" is an inherent part of this game and is inescapable; however, many players are not quite at the level yet where they are able to minimize its impact. The fact some top players can perform consistently supports this contention. Furthermore, weaker players have great difficulty in discerning when they lost due to "luck", or when they lost because of their play error. For instance, the fact that they needlessly played a mana source on turn 6, thereby critically weakening their Brainstorm on turn 8, thereby not stopping their opponent's "lucky topdeck" of a game winning YWill on turn 10, can cause a serious misasessment of the impact luck contributed to that game, and propagate this myth that T1 has a very significant luck component.

[Mr. Nightmare]

The validity of Steve's contention simply depends on the definition of "luck". However, what I see here is that he's trying to operate with a definition that has some practical applications, while others are challenging his statements for the sake of demonstrating that they can be invalidated by altering the definition.

Simply put, the way I'm understanding this is that skill (whether playskill, deck construction skill, ability to predict metagames, analyze test results properly, utilizing efficient methods of testing to maximize the amount of pertinent information that can be extracted etc) can go a very long way in minimizing the luck component in matches. "Luck" is an inherent part of this game and is inescapable; however, many players are not quite at the level yet where they are able to minimize its impact. The fact some top players can perform consistently supports this contention. Furthermore, weaker players have great difficulty in discerning when they lost due to "luck", or when they lost because of their play error. For instance, the fact that they needlessly played a mana source on turn 6, thereby critically weakening their Brainstorm on turn 8, thereby not stopping their opponent's "lucky topdeck" of a game winning YWill on turn 10, can cause a serious misassesment of the impact luck contributed to that game, and propagate this myth that T1 has a very significant luck component.

I am not attempting in any way to downplay the importance of proper play, or to chalk things up to luck.  I'm stating that it is a factor, and to dismiss it as one seems as faulty as to dismiss any other factor.  Yes, you can minimize its impact, but it is always there.  In my experience, the longer the game goes on, the more of a factor playskill becomes.  On the other hand, winning on turn 1 has much more luck involved, be it hitting the right cards in your opening 7, or the right cards in your Draw 7.  Sometimes, it's just ripping Will off the top when you're on the draw.  Is deck construction part of this?  Yes, it is.  But to say it has more of an impact than the luck of the draw in even this situation is flawed reasoning. 

Steven's points, as I said previously, are not incorrect.  They are, from the perspective he has taken, accurate.  I merely contend that this is not necessarily the best perspective from which you can look at the situation.  Your claim is that his view is from a practical standpoint.  Where is the practicality in questioning your deck choice as a function of your opponent winning on turn one?  Really, what difference would there be between playing Oath or Gifts in that situation?  Both decks run the same number of Force of Will and enough blue cards to support them, and in this *practical* situation, are functionally identical in all relevant ways.  Why should that choice, which I would contend is largely irrelevant when discussing the luck factor, be included at all, when the issue becomes much more clear by excluding it?

[dicemanx]

Steven's points, as I said previously, are not incorrect.  They are, from the perspective he has taken, accurate.  I merely contend that this is not necessarily the best perspective from which you can look at the situation.  Your claim is that his view is from a practical standpoint.  Where is the practicality in questioning your deck choice as a function of your opponent winning on turn one?  Really, what difference would there be between playing Oath or Gifts in that situation?  Both decks run the same number of Force of Will and enough blue cards to support them, and in this *practical* situation, are exactly the same in all relevant ways.  Why should that choice, which I would contend is largely irrelevant when discussing the luck factor, be included at all, when the issue becomes much more clear by excluding it?

The practical viewpoint discounts the fringe cases where you do lose because of pure luck. We can only worry about what we can control, and we do recognize that at times there will be cases where you watch helpessly as your opponent has his way with you.

However, aside from rare, extreme cases, minimization of luck is a much more significant component to games in T1 than most are willing to admit or are even aware of. That to me is the heart of Steve's contention - it is much, much rarer to actually lose matches due to pure luck, despite the fact that it appears to be such a major determinant in the eyes of many.   

[Harlequin]

Sometimes, it's just ripping Will off the top when you're on the draw.  Is deck construction part of this?  Yes, it is.  But to say it has more of an impact than the luck of the draw in even this situation is flawed reasoning.  

Even this is not really "Luck."  Sure its a randomized event that resulted in a favorable (and game wining) outcome.  But so long as the occurance of the event is comperable to the probably (and expectation) of the even, how can you call that "Luck?"  Luck would be ripping Yawg on your 8th card on the play in 3+ games out of any given tournement.  Thats you haveing a statistically unbalanced event.  It wasn't likely, therefore I would call it lucky.  Because it happened once durring the course of a tournement its not Luck... its: Statistically Satisfying.  You opted to run a 60 card deck to maximize your chances of drawing your best cards.  this is the payoff for that decision.  By no means do I consider you more lucky than anyone else.

[Moxlotus]

Is luck apart of Magic.  Well, is luck a part of poker?

Sure it is.  Is it the only thing?  No.  Is it even the defining part of the game?  No.  This can be proven by looking at the players that consistantly do good.  Over the long run, luck is even and therefore skill is what sets people a part...IN THE LONG RUN.

In the short run, luck is huge.  You have pocket kings.  The flop is K,K,2.  Your opponent moves all in.  You call.  He has pocket Aces and hits running aces.  Tell me there's no luck in that.  

Your opponent killing you turn 1 through force of will.  You had bad luck.  There was nothing you could do.  Nothing.  Your opponent going turn Lotus, crypt, mox, trinisphere, crucible, strip is bad luck for you.  There was nothing you could do.

Luck evens out in the long run, but it can be the sole factor in individual games and even matches.

[dicemanx]

Over the long run, luck is even and therefore skill is what sets people a part...IN THE LONG RUN.

In the short run, luck is huge.  You have pocket kings.  The flop is K,K,2.  Your opponent moves all in.  You call.  He has pocket Aces and hits running aces.  Tell me there's no luck in that. 

Your analogy is more apt in describing the Grimlong mirror than the average match-up in Magic .

[Mr. Nightmare]

The practical viewpoint discounts the fringe cases where you do lose because of pure luck. We can only worry about what we can control, and we do recognize that at times there will be cases where you watch helpessly as your opponent has his way with you.

However, aside from rare, extreme cases, minimization of luck is a much more significant component to games in T1 than most are willing to admit or are even aware of. That to me is the heart of Steve's contention - it is much, much rarer to actually lose matches due to pure luck, despite the fact that it appears to be such a major determinant in the eyes of many.   

If the viewpoint is that with the exception of a few extreme situations where luck is a factor, that minimization of luck is much more important (which, btw, I agree with), then why would we adopt this viewpoint when discussing the instances where luck is a factor?  This discussion is going in circles, because we're arguing two separate things.  You contend that luck can be mitigated by playskill, but that it is a factor, and that part of that mitigation is macro-abilities (deckbuilding, etc.).  I contend that when luck is a significant factor, playskill and macro-abilities are largely irrelevant, and that looking at them is wasted effort.  Do you see how the two are mutually inclusive?

Even this is not really "Luck."  Sure its a randomized event that resulted in a favorable (and game wining) outcome.  But so long as the occurance of the event is comperable to the probably (and expectation) of the even, how can you call that "Luck?"  Luck would be ripping Yawg on your 8th card on the play in 3+ games out of any given tournement.  Thats you haveing a statistically unbalanced event.  It wasn't likely, therefore I would call it lucky.  Because it happened once durring the course of a tournement its not Luck... its: Statistically Satisfying.  You opted to run a 60 card deck to maximize your chances of drawing your best cards.  this is the payoff for that decision.  By no means do I consider you more lucky than anyone else.

I'm not disagreeing here.  However, just as with Peter and Steve, we're taking different perspectives into account.  If taken at a broad enough view, nothing can be defined as luck.  In the scope of my discussion, which was one game (or one match, if you prefer), there was a factor of luck involved in that draw.  Or 7 draws.  Or 14 draws.  Statistically, you have a greatly larger chance of not drawing Will than you do of drawing Will.  Beating the odds is a definition of luck.  Drawing that statistic out to a view over a tournament, or a year of tournaments may say otherwise, but captured in that one draw, you were lucky to get Will.

[Harlequin]

If taken at a broad enough view, nothing can be defined as luck.

I almost agree with you on this. 

The more deep you go into probability theory the less you believe in "Luck."   Infact its almost provable that there is no such thing as luck.
 
Lets say I said "Dude I won the lottery on Friday, It was for $125 million, Isn't that Lucky?!"  Of course it is, no one would argue that winning the lottery is not something you can do without luck on your side.  Now you find out that for the past 10 years I have bought $10,000 worth of lottery tickets, every week, in every State in the US ... and this is the FIRST and ONLY time I've ever won a dime.  Now would you consider me lucky?  Infact if you add it up, I've spent $250 Million on tickets over the years... a loss of $125 mil most people would not consider me highly un-lucky.

The fact that most large tournaments use X rounds of Swiss followed by top 8 single elimination is testament to this aggregate theory of Probability.  They are attempting to "forgive" un-lucky matches, and minimize the impact of Lucky ones.  Its nearly impossibly to luck-sac every hand into the t8 and then luc-sac 3 more rounds of Single-Elimination to get the prize.  The point is attributing a single card or a single dice roll to winning or loosing is nearly irrelevant when it comes to Matches, Tournaments, and to the greatest extent Lifetime Achievement.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Part of the problem is that those of you who disagree are not thinking broadly enough. 

You are thinking about luck, ceteris peribus.  From that perspective OF COURSE luck will seem to control.  If your deck choice, card choices, sb, sbing decisions, and in game decisions are all constant, luck is the ONLY remaining variable and it will ALWAYS appear to determine the outcome of a game.

The problem is that this is the ass backwards way of looking at things.

When I think about all the possible things I could have done:

a) Play a different deck
b) play different card choices
c) play a different sb
d) sb differently
e) mulligan different
f) tutor for different cards
g) make different, earlier, in game decisions

When you put all those things in the mix, how important is luck really?  Pretty damned marginal.   I acknowledged that it's there, but not determinative.

That’s why I say luck is a factor, but never controls.  If you disagree with what I just posted, that’s pretty bold.  You're saying that all of your decisions were perfect and that you played the perfect deck with the perfect sb. 

I'll disagree with that *very* boldy.  I'll bet your win ratio (determined over, say, 1000 matches) is never above 80%. EVER EVER EVER.  There will be bell curve distribution of tournament outcomes, and sometimes you'll end up at the very bottom, sometimes at the very top, but mostly you'll top 8 if your ratio is actually that high.

I'd feel very safe betting that your (you personally) win ratio is no higher than 65%.  Which obviously means that consistent t8's would be due to luck.

[Smmenen]

Part of the problem is that those of you who disagree are not thinking broadly enough. 

You are thinking about luck, ceteris peribus.  From that perspective OF COURSE luck will seem to control.  If your deck choice, card choices, sb, sbing decisions, and in game decisions are all constant, luck is the ONLY remaining variable and it will ALWAYS appear to determine the outcome of a game.

The problem is that this is the ass backwards way of looking at things.

When I think about all the possible things I could have done:

a) Play a different deck
b) play different card choices
c) play a different sb
d) sb differently
e) mulligan different
f) tutor for different cards
g) make different, earlier, in game decisions

When you put all those things in the mix, how important is luck really?  Pretty damned marginal.   I acknowledged that it's there, but not determinative.

That’s why I say luck is a factor, but never controls.  If you disagree with what I just posted, that’s pretty bold.  You're saying that all of your decisions were perfect and that you played the perfect deck with the perfect sb. 

I'll disagree with that *very* boldy.  I'll bet your win ratio (determined over, say, 1000 matches) is never above 80%. EVER EVER EVER.  There will be bell curve distribution of tournament outcomes, and sometimes you'll end up at the very bottom, sometimes at the very top, but mostly you'll top 8 if your ratio is actually that high.

I'd feel very safe betting that your (you personally) win ratio is no higher than 65%.  Which obviously means that consistent t8's would be due to luck.

yeah, kai budde and jon finkel made top 8s consistently due to luck. 

[The Atog Lord]

Luck is a dangerous concept, and my game has certainly improved since I started to disbelieve in luck. Luck is the excuse we use to make ourselves feel better after a loss. Luck is the excuse we allow our friends when they lose their match. Luck, the concept, is that which stops us from improving.

Short of lucky charms or rituals, we ourselves do not influence luck. Therefore, to ascribe to luck victory and defeat in Magic is to ascribe victory and defeat to that which is beyond our control. When we declare ourselves to have lost on account of a lack of luck, then we see nothing in our match or preparation which we could have changed. To lose to luck is to lose to a force beyond our control, and therefore is to lose to a force against which we cannot better prepare.

Rather, if we instead dig deeper, we may find that some flaw or shortcoming in our preparation or our play is in fact responsible for our loss. The salient distinction between this and the former scenario is that while we are powerless to sway luck, better preparation and play are by all means within our grasp. Therefore, oftentimes we may in fact take action which has positive impact on our perfomance if we are willing to acknowledge the unpleasent fact that our loss may be our fault and not that of fate.

Is there luck in this game? Luck is part of any game involving chance. It would be foolish to believe that no luck is involved. However, the danger lies in the perception of luck's power -- if we attribute to luck more than its share of power, we miss opportunities to become better at this game through self-examination. In other words, it is too easy to blame bad luck for a defeat when the fault may lie with our own doing. And while we can correct those things which are our fault, luck may not be improved, and so we miss opportunities to become better at this game.

[Smmenen]

i agree wholeheartedly with what Rich just said.

Please go read my first post in this thread - I said luck is a factor, but said it is not determinative.

Even if we are wrong, what rich said applies full force.  It is so easy to simply say: i got unlucky instead of doing the hard work and finding what we did wrong.

[AmbivalentDuck]

yeah, kai budde and jon finkel made top 8s consistently due to luck. 

Yes.  I guess I should let this argument get technical because I can't win it otherwise.  Let's pretend that all tournaments are 8 matches, they need 2/3 to win a match, they need to win 7 matches to top 8, and they win 80% of the time (even against other pros).  Now, I'll write that into computer code (code available upon serious request) and have it play 100000 tournaments so there's no whining about which approximation I choose:

They top 8 about 80% of the time.

Let's change that to what I guessed for you, about 65%: you should top 8 only 30% of the time.

In a series of completely even matches, you against your clone army: you should top 8 only 4% of the time.

Running again assuming you only need 6 matches:
97%, 60%, and 15% respectively.

SOOOOO....if we take stalling into draws into account, and take my 65% guess, you should only be top 8ing between 40-55% of the time.  So, yes I call that luck.  

[AJFirst]

i agree wholeheartedly with what Rich just said.

Please go read my first post in this thread - I said luck is a factor, but said it is not determinative.

Even if we are wrong, what rich said applies full force.  It is so easy to simply say: i got unlucky instead of doing the hard work and finding what we did wrong.

Ouch, my pride.
-AJ, (last post of the first page, the one everyone ignored).

[Mr. Nightmare]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I don't disagree with Rich, Steve, Harlequin, or Peter.  I'm just pointing out another facet of the discussion.  The sum of my points:

~ You can control the luck factor, some percentage of the time that approaches, but does not equal, 100% over the course of a tournament.  This can be attributed to those things as Steve pointed out, such as Decbuilding/Sideboarding, Correct play choices, proper preparation, knowledge of the metagame, proper mulliganing, etc.

~ That small window of time between the large percentage and 100% consists of times when luck plays a significant role in a game or match's outcome.  These are situations such as "Do you have the Force?" where common playskill breaks down.  In these situations, what deck you picked, how you mulliganed(to some extent), the metagame, etc. are irrelevant.

Note that I am not excusing poor play as "luck," nor am I claiming that luck is a driving characteristic of gameplay.  I'm simply saying that a view that dismisses a particular factor is not the best one to use in order to study said factor.

Pre-post edit - these rebuttals may not even have been made in my direction, but I still figure it's worth stating my whole position on the matter.

[The Atog Lord]

You can control the luck factor...Decbuilding/Sideboarding, Correct play choices, proper preparation, knowledge of the metagame, proper mulliganing, etc.

These things are not luck. They are skillful and proper preparation and play. When you talk about "controlling luck" you are actually talking about "controlling winning." Properly mulliganning has nothing whatsoever to do with luck, and everything to do with skill.

These are situations such as "Do you have the Force?" where common playskill breaks down.

Is "having the force" a matter only of luck? Perhaps at first glance; however, there are so many other factors that go into it that I'd hardly call it luck. If you play Steve's Gifts deck, you have Merchant Scroll to actually make sure that you have Force of Will, and Misdirection to act as Forces five through seven. Perhaps if you had maindecked a Tormod's Crypt you wouldn't even need to Force the Yawgmoth's Will at all. Or if you played a deck that won quickly, you wouldn't need to bother Forcing the Tinker for a Colossus. If you played more than a single win condition you wouldn't need to Force of Will the Extract. If you had played a Null Rod or Choke or Chalice of the Void, your opponent might not have been able to cast the spell in the first place.

In other words, "having the force" is a perfect example of something that looks a lot like luck until you really delve into the details -- and that delving is a fine way to get better at Magic.

[kombat]

yeah, kai budde and jon finkel made top 8s consistently due to luck. 

Did they make the top-8 in every single tournament they entered?  No.  They certainly did better than other players (due to skill), but the reality is that occassionally, bad luck (through bad matchups, bad draws by them or God-draws by their opponents, manascrew/manaflood, whatever) caused them to lose some matches, and thus prevented them from making the top-8 consistently (and by "consistent," I mean 100% of the time).

Luck is a factor in Magic; why are people so averse to accepting this?  Admitting that sometimes the outcome of a game comes down to luck does not demean your skills as a player.  It is simply accepting reality.  Even the best players lose sometimes due to luck.

[Mr. Nightmare]

You can control the luck factor...Decbuilding/Sideboarding, Correct play choices, proper preparation, knowledge of the metagame, proper mulliganing, etc.

These things are not luck. They are skillful and proper preparation and play. When you talk about "controlling luck" you are actually talking about "controlling winning." Properly mulliganning has nothing whatsoever to do with luck, and everything to do with skill.

I know.  That was my point.  I have consistently said that in every post I've made before this.  Call it a poor wording choice if you will, but I'm saying exactly what you said.  You can (to a point) control the amount luck comes into play through utilizing the skills we both listed.  They are contrary to luck, not a part of it.

These are situations such as "Do you have the Force?" where common playskill breaks down.

Is "having the force" a matter only of luck? Perhaps at first glance; however, there are so many other factors that go into it that I'd hardly call it luck. If you play Steve's Gifts deck, you have Merchant Scroll to actually make sure that you have Force of Will, and Misdirection to act as Forces five through seven. Perhaps if you had maindecked a Tormod's Crypt you wouldn't even need to Force the Yawgmoth's Will at all. Or if you played a deck that won quickly, you wouldn't need to bother Forcing the Tinker for a Colossus. If you played more than a single win condition you wouldn't need to Force of Will the Extract. If you had played a Null Rod or Choke or Chalice of the Void, your opponent might not have been able to cast the spell in the first place.

In other words, "having the force" is a perfect example of something that looks a lot like luck until you really delve into the details -- and that delving is a fine way to get better at Magic.

Rich, you've totally missed what I was trying to say.  If you had read my earlier posts in this thread, you would better understand my point.  In all your examples, you've had mainphases, you've had opportunities, and therefore, some sort of skill has been utilized.  I understand that in those scenarios there are factors of much greater importance than luck.  I really don't want to keep posting the same things over and over again, so here's the relevant parts of the post.

In my experience, the longer the game goes on, the more of a factor playskill becomes.  On the other hand, winning on turn 1 has much more luck involved, be it hitting the right cards in your opening 7, or the right cards in your Draw 7.  Sometimes, it's just ripping Will off the top when you're on the draw.  Is deck construction part of this?  Yes, it is.  But to say it has more of an impact than the luck of the draw in even this situation is flawed reasoning.  
...
Where is the practicality in questioning your deck choice as a function of your opponent winning on turn one?  Really, what difference would there be between playing Oath or Gifts in that situation?  Both decks run the same number of Force of Will and enough blue cards to support them, and in this *practical* situation, are functionally identical in all relevant ways.  Why should that choice, which I would contend is largely irrelevant when discussing the luck factor, be included at all, when the issue becomes much more clear by excluding it?

[Jacob Orlove]

Okay, if people are having trouble with the statement: "I have never lost a match to luck", what about a statement I consider equivalent: "I have never lost a game (much less a match) in which I did not make a mistake that was big enough to cause the loss on its own". I would even go so far as to say I have probably never won a game in which I made no mistakes.

That includes turn 1 kills--I've experienced quite a few while playing decks without Force, and the remainder were mostly my fault for letting it get to game 3, not Forcing the right card, or similar.

[Hi-Val]

You keep using that word, I'm not sure it means what you think it means...

"Luck" is a subjective word that can be good or bad; luck is in the eye of the beholder. Luck is unmeasurable. I don't want to sound semantic here, but aren't we instead talking about randomness, chance or probability?

[ErkBek]

Okay, if people are having trouble with the statement: "I have never lost a match to luck", what about a statement I consider equivalent: "I have never lost a game (much less a match) in which I did not make a mistake that was big enough to cause the loss on its own". I would even go so far as to say I have probably never won a game in which I made no mistakes.

So has meandeck never lost a game to being combo'd out before you could do anything?

How about being locked out by stax and never really having a decision other than when to scoop?

[Jacob Orlove]

I can't speak for my whole team, but don't think I have ever had a completely unavoidable loss.

[kirdape3]

Even under the Trinisphere days I've never had a loss where I never had a shot.  I've managed to get comboed out on turn 1 a couple of times in testing, but that's what I got for trying decks that didn't have Force of Will or other active measures to defend myself.

Most games that are decided by 'luck' are actually decided by you giving your opponent an extra topdeck or untap to get themselves out of the mess they're in.

[ErkBek]

I can't speak for my whole team, but don't think I have ever had a completely unavoidable loss.

Do you mean match or game?

[PipOC]

I can't speak for my whole team, but don't think I have ever had a completely unavoidable loss.

Are you including situations in which you made the correct decision to keep a hand, but your opponent kept a hand that is statistically unlikely but foiled yours?

For example: It's game 1 and your opponent is playing dragon on the play.  You're playing say MDG.

You keep a hand of

Force of Will
Ancestral Recall
Chain of Vapor
Mox Pearl
Brainstorm
Fetchland
Fetchland

Your opponent goes

Mox Jet - Duress
Black Lotus
Bazaar
Pitch Dragon
Animate

Even though you kept a great hand, one that is unlikely that you are going to duplicate in power by mulliganing, you still lost despite any action you may have taken once the game began.

Are you saying that these situations haven't ocurred to you, or are you saying that if you mulliganed you may have gotten a hand that could foil this, which would constitute action you could have taken to prevent your loss?

[Jacob Orlove]

I can't speak for my whole team, but don't think I have ever had a completely unavoidable loss.

Do you mean match or game?

Honestly, game. But I know that people will want to argue that point, so if we can all just compromise on match, let's do that instead.

Pip: that's basically a nonissue if we're talking about the match as a whole, but the number of games I have lost without having a main phase is just very small, and most of them were when I was playing Shops, not decks with Forces. Plus, most of my unfortunate pairings only happened after I made mistakes in earlier rounds and was thus in a lower bracket than I could have been in.

[ErkBek]

This weekend at one point I won a game on what I call luck. Here's the situation

I'm playing vs. Ravager Aggro Stax (which BTW I think was a very good deck, I'm looking forward to a list). I've necro'd down to a very low life total and had to FoW a opposing threat (he then resolved a Chalice for 0). Basically I could play a will at 1 life and then have 8 Black and 1 Blue in pool afterwards. I had Vamp in my yard for tutoring, but that was it. I did have an ancestral however which I played since it was my only out. I calculated my odds of hitting a tendrils or DT and it was about 20% as I had just under 40 cards left in my deck. I hit tendrils and won the game.

Was that luck? I'd say so.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

In response to what Rich and Steve were saying about people incorrectly BLAMING losses on bad luck, I totally agree with it.  I see horrible players make mistakes that cost them matches all the time and blame it on luck.  I used to do so quite often myself, in fact.  Learning to recognize and accept one's own mistakes is difficult, and it is in fact much easier and more pleasent to one's ego to attribute one's loses to factors outside of one's control, making it almost impossible to improve as a player.

However, that said, I can say that there are recent examples that I can point to in which luck most certainly WAS a factor, not in my defeat, but in my victory.  In a local tournament, I was playing IT against GAT in the first round of the top 8.  In game 1, I win the die roll.  I play black lotus, mox saphire, mox jet, a land, chain of vapor on my saphire off the land, tapping it in response and then saccing my land to chain my jet.  I replay the moxes and sac the lotus to desire for 7.  Off the desire I reveal a demonic, grim, sol ring, and I end up tutoring for lotus petal and using my saphire and the sol ring to cast intuition from my hand for rituals, then tutor for will, play it, and kill him.  I happened to reveal a duress of the desire and when I duressed him I saw a good hand involving dryad, lotus, drain, mis-d, another blue card, land, etc.  He lost the die roll and had a good hand without force that I honestly see no mistake with him having kept.  I would say that in that game I won because of luck.  Did I do all the right stuff to combo out?  Yes, but it wasn't really that difficult.  Was I playing a good deck?  I would say so, but I didn't design it myself; I got the exact list from a friend and copied it card for card (with the deck originally being created by GWS, of course).  No doubt that these factors contributed to my victory, but drawing a hand of lotus, land, mox, mox, chain, intuition, desire, and desiring into good stuff?  I didn't have any control over any of that, so I deem it lucky. 

In another match with a blue-based control deck against 5 colour stax, my opponent plays a welder in response to my tinker-->colossus.  I have 1 card in my hand and topdeck timewalk ftw.  Pure luck.  Oh wait, I'm sorry, running timewalk in my blue mana drain deck was tech, right?

I testing IT against my friend's Grim Long deck, out of 4 games we each took 2 winning with ridiculous first turn kills.

If we want to talk about whether luck really exists, or not, etc, we would have to end up discussing Determinism vs Free Will, etc.  I don't really think that that is what this is about (nor do we really want to get into that).  I think that in magic luck is simply whatever factors we deem to be outside of our control.  Pairings, the die roll, to a certain extent cards drawn, all of this I would consider 'luck.'  And I have lost and won a fair share of games because of factors outside of my control.  That doesn't stop me from doing everything I can to maximize my chances of success or victory, and it doesn't mean that I havn't won and lost MANY more games because of playskill, deck design, etc; It merely means that I accept the fact that there is only so much one can do before surrendering to chance.

[Jacob Orlove]

It merely means that I accept the fact that there is only so much one can do before surrendering to chance.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't think there has ever been a player who did not make mistakes, and as long as you are making mistakes, luck is not the determining factor in any game, much less match.