Sideboarding In Type 1

[Whatever Works]

I recently had an interesting conversation with Andy Probasco about the common misconceptions of type 1. The discussion quickly turned to Type 1 Sideboards, and a few funny things we noticed about the views of many (not all) type 1 players.

Everyone ALWAYS believes that there deck matchups improve because of the sideboard games 2 and game 3. However, this is clearly impossible. Only 1 player in a match can gain an advantage postboard, or the match up stays relatively the same. But, if you ask almost any player regardless they will almost always say oh I am boarding in card X and card Y. Forgetting that the opponent is doing the same exact thing. This is just one funny thing that I have ALWAYS noticed, and I find honestly pretty funny. Have you noticed this?

Sideboarding is different for type 1 then in any of the other formats so its hard to really compare them. Almost every type 1 deck that is control runs the same 38-42 must have control cards (brainstorm, FoW, Drain, power, etc.) and then the remaining 18 or so cards define the deck. This makes sideboarding a true challenge because of the following questions that 1 must account for:

1.) How many cards can I bring in before I am destroying the deck synergy.
2.) Are the cards I am bringing in better then the cards I am taking out (exp. is pithing needle better then a vamp postboard for gifts vs. stax/dragon?)
3.) Is this card actually useful? (exp. why do people bring in rack and ruin vs. Control Slaver?)

These questions sound very very basic but I find that they are constantly ignored.

The biggest thing I have noticed is that sideboards are generally ignored, and often go heavily untested. When a new deck is presented on the TMD very rarely is a sideboard ever listed, and if it is... well its generally ignored. Players feel generally much more compelled to debate if the 60th card of a deck should be a chain of vapor or an echoing truth, but I have NEVER seen a debate on the # of Red Elemental Blasts and Pyroblasts is optimal in Control Slaver (even though it ranges easily from 2 to 5).

Type 1 provides so many powerful sideboard cards that I don't believe it is possibly for any deck in the format to have any chance of top 8'ing at a major event without a sideboard.

Rich Shay I think put it best that 2 of 3 games are played with a sideboard. Yet, 90% of testing games most people play are w/o sideboards.

That being said I feel that SB'ing in general for type 1 should be discussed. Here are a few questions that I feel should create some conversation.

1.) Do curtain archtypes lend themselves to better Sideboards? Control decks generally have stronger sideboards then tendrils combo for example.

2.) Are decks with maindeck hate such as UW fish and Ichorid less likely to improve matchups, because they have essentially sideboarded game 1 to a predicted metagame?

3.) When you build a Sideboard do you focus on a few particular matchups, or try to have cards available for whatever you might play?

4.) How much time and effort do you put into your sideboard & what percentage of games do you test your deck postboard?

[LotusHead]

1.) How many cards can I bring in before I am destroying the deck synergy.
2.) Are the cards I am bringing in better then the cards I am taking out (exp. is pithing needle better then a vamp postboard for gifts vs. stax/dragon?)
3.) Is this card actually useful? (exp. why do people bring in rack and ruin vs. Control Slaver?)

While playing The Gilded Claw (for about 10 tournies), I would regularly side in about 10 cards (4 Sphere of Resistance, 0-1 Dupe, 0-1 Trike, -1 Jester's Cap, 0-3 Seal of Resistance, 4 Leyline of the Void, 0-1 Aura Fracture).  This was mostly due to a Tendrils infested meta, and also due to the fact the Gilded Claw ran so many threads/Tutors that it was easy to side out 5 Tutors/Intuitions, 0-4 Welders/Ancestral, 0-2 Crucibles).

The Claw was all about winning game one by having crazy mad options (Intuition/Welder/Gilded Lotus for example) and Game 2 having fat TPS hate (chalice/Sphere).

Sure, rebuild ruins my whole day (or just sets me back a turn if I don't die), but in testing against locals, I ALWAYS prefer SB g2/3 unless I am seriously trying to figure out how the deck works game 1 (for new decks like Izzet Control/Combo)

[UniversalSnip]

I can tell you from experience the rest of the magic players on the planet have the same problems. By and large they do not have sideboards, test without sideboards, do not consider the opponent's sideboards, do not have detailed boarding plans (or can't remember them), sideboard into cards instead of strategies (this is huge), and waste space with terrible wishboards.

Sideboarding is different for type 1 then in any of the other formats so its hard to really compare them. Almost every type 1 deck that is control runs the same 38-42 must have control cards (brainstorm, FoW, Drain, power, etc.) and then the remaining 18 or so cards define the deck. This makes sideboarding a true challenge because of the following questions that 1 must account for:

I completely disagree. All these issues exist in other formats, and to the same degree... but in other formats the deck core varies more widely than it does in type one. That doesn't mean it isn't as large or as essential.

[ErkBek]

1.) Do curtain archtypes lend themselves to better Sideboards? Control decks generally have stronger sideboards then tendrils combo for example.

From my experience I think Tendrils decks lend themselves to excellent sideboards. If you have an understanding of what cards your opponents will be bringing in then you can plan accordingly. For example, with IT, against mana drain decks I would board out Forces and usually about 5 other blue cards for some discard spells and dark confidants to help deal with common sideboard cards brought in vs. "slower" tendrils combo like Red Blast and Tormod's Crypt. Also, tendrils combo can also devote a considerable amount of space to one macthup, since it usually doesn't have to devote space to other matchups, ie Pitch Long brings in about 10 cards vs. stax since it doesn't devote any sideboard cards to the drain matchup.

2.) Are decks with maindeck hate such as UW fish and Ichorid less likely to improve matchups, because they have essentially sideboarded game 1 to a predicted metagame?

UW fish and ichorid both become worse post board, no matter how you look at it. For the most part, now matter what they bring in can trump their opponent's plan, whether it be Old man of the sea, Pyroclasm, Tcrypt, or Planar Void.

3.) When you build a Sideboard do you focus on a few particular matchups, or try to have cards available for whatever you might play?

This really depends on the deck. If your deck already has a great game vs. another deck, then there is no need to overkill the matchup, when your sideboard slots could be used to help out worse matchups.

4.) How much time and effort do you put into your sideboard & what percentage of games do you test your deck postboard?

I put a great deal of thought into all of my sideboard choices. I consider what cards I can take out, and how their absense as well as the added cards will change the deck's stratigy. I probably only test about 30% of my games post sideboard however.

[Moxlotus]

4.) How much time and effort do you put into your sideboard & what percentage of games do you test your deck postboard?

I spend more time figuring out the SB than I do the maindeck.  That is what I do best.  My teammates build the deck (They're much better than me at deck construction) and I'll improve the SB.  I can usually figure out the perfect sideboard and it will have the exact number of cards to bring in against every match that you actually want to remove so you are not removing good stuff.

People need to stop throwing cards in a sideboard thinking "this is good against X--I want 4."  What I do is I make a list of cards I want to take out against each deck, then I figure out what number of cards I should run.  Sometimes I need to sacrifice a nutty spell (energy flux for example is insane against Stax) for a more general spell so it can be used in more matchups (oxidize can come in against Stax, CS, and fish if you have worse cards in the MD).

When you build a Sideboard do you focus on a few particular matchups, or try to have cards available for whatever you might play?

When you make a list of cards you want to take out, it becomes really easy.  Pitch Long didn't really want to board out any cards since they were all good, so the Drain matchup didn't take up any SB slots.

1.) Do curtain archtypes lend themselves to better Sideboards? Control decks generally have stronger sideboards then tendrils combo for example.

I think aggro-control decks must lend themselves to terrible sideboards.  Their cards can't interfere with their strategy of quick beats and mild disruption.  It can be a challenge to find stuff to take out, so you don't improve your game 2 that much while your opponent gets to board something insane like Pyroclasm.

I think that Tendrils decks have great sideboards because some matches you don't want to take out much, but others you want to change 10 cards.  This works out great since you you can just board cards that are insane against a matchup (ESG+Hurkyl's against Stax) instead of something more versatile like if you wanted to take out 6 cards in every match.  If you build with anticipation of hate, then building a combo SB is pretty simple--its why Confidants were great in the SB of IT.

[vroman]

sideboarding for ubastax is different than other archetypes.
first it has narrow range of possible cards it can play: artifacts, lands and cheap red cards.
second, the deck plays no tutors, so requires redundancy to consistently hit sideboard cards when filtering w bazaar; implying the sideboard should be made up of 3-4 copies each of dependable general answers, not 10+ silver bullets.
third, ubastax is a prison deck, so the primary strategy is achieving a lock, thus the sideboard would be strongest playing cards that reinforce the lock against certain matchups that circumvent the maindeck lock pieces. cards that are objectively good in the matchup, but for some reason complicate or undermine developing a lock, should not be played.
my current sideboard is:
4 granite shard
3 visheretic
3 orb dreams
3 jester cap
2 duplicant (with 1 more main)

[Harlequin]

I think developeing a good sideboard is the most important part of a sucessful deck.  I never trust netdeck Sideboards.  So I always end-up rebuilding the sideboards of my deck, and of Jer and Eric's deck too =P.  In hate oriented decks, its almost purely a numbers game.  I am constantly running deck diagnostics, because the first key to building a good deck, is haveing what I call a "Statistically satifying deck."  What is your mulligan ratio, what is your expected mana on turn 1, 2, and 3... etc all go into a building a good "fish" consistancy deck.

To build a sideboard, first I write down the top 10 decklists that I can think of.  Then for each deck, I look at my maindeck, and roughly estimate how many cards I think I will side out.  basically look for dead-spots, and generally rank the cards in my maindeck from Worst -> bad -> could potentially go out.  After that I look at a pool of about 30ish cards for the board, and make a guess at what I think would be a good 15 card sideboard.  Now the mathematitican in me comes out full force.
1)For each of the 10 match ups I write down my side outs, and side ins.
2)For each card In my sideboard I award 2 points for each time I side that card into a top 6 deck, and 1 point for each time I side that card into a top7-10 deck.
3)Now each card has a point value.  Now sum up all the points over all the cards.
4)Each card gets rated based on this formula: 15 x [This cards points] / [Total points]
6)Now each card has a rateing.  The Rateing should be somewhere in the ballpark of how many of that card you run. 

Here is a numeric Example:
Deck: SS.
Top 6 decks: Mirror, Grim, Gifts, Slaver, Oath, Stax
Top 10 decks: W/U Fish, Ichorid, Dragon, Shop Agro

Sideboard:
3   Diabolic Edict
3   Energy Flux
3   Planar Void
2   Old Man of the Sea
2   Shadow of doubt
1   Sword of F/I
1   Umezawa's Jitte

Points:
Diabolic Edict   34
Energy Flux   16
Planar Void   70
Old Man    12
Shadow of doubt   16
Sword of F/I   18
Umezawa's Jitte   22
Total: 188

Diabolic Edict   2.71   3
Energy Flux   1.28   3
Planar Void   5.59   3
Old Man    0.96   2
Shadow of doubt   1.28   2
Sword of F/I   1.44   1
Umezawa's Jitte   1.76   1

What this shows:
Planar Void is the highest power card in the sideboard.  It has a 5.59 Rateing and I only run 3.  This means that the other numbers are going to be skewed negatively.  Because we can't run 5 planar voids, and because planar void does not stack with itself, lets assume that we decide that 3 is the right number of planar voids.  That means we can remove Planar void as an outlier and remove him form the data set we get.  We get:

Diabolic Edict   4.32   3
Energy Flux   2.03   3
Old Man    1.53   2
Shadow of doubt   2.03   2
Sword of F/I   2.29   1
Umezawa's Jitte   2.8   1

Over a total of 118.  So that looks a bit more natural (without the all mighty planarvoid lording over the rest of the board).  You can see where the weakest 2 cards in the sideboard are.   Those cards are Energy Flux and Old man of the Sea.  This suggests that we might consider only running 2 energy flux, and maybe 1 old man of the sea.  And possibly increase our Diabolic Edict count to 4.  And potentially up the equipment count by 1. What the numbers say is that, Diabolic Edict is a more generally good card, at least In comparison to Old man.  The numbers dictate that Edict gets a higher rateing because it improves your top matches like Oath and Dragon, where oldman only improves the mirror and w/U fish.  However.

You could also use the numbers to justify a -1 Oldman -> +1 SoFI or Jitte.  Becuase again, SoFI will also be useful against Ichorid, and Shop Agro, where your oldman is not going to make the cut.  This will help even out the rateing to reflect the numbers you put in the deck.

However, I personally think that the board is just fine that way.  Heres why, Old man has value outside of this list.  Hes good against The Mountain Wins again and goblins (accept for the whole, REB thing ofcourse). Hes also good aginst RandomWeenie.dec that you might see in the early rounds.  Also he is great in the mirror match.  Diabolic Edict is strong, but not strong enough to warrent 4.  Energy Flux I don't mind being "over valued" by my sideboard.  Even thought the calculated value of the card is bad, it is essentially the only sollution the deck has against shop.  And seeing as how Shop is a bad matchup, it is a nessisary card to have the board overvalue at the 3 level.

So as you can see, you can use these ratios to pin-point weaknesses in your sideboard.  Also the fact that planar void's rateing is so high, might suggest that it could warent some maindeck slots.  This method really shows how running high numbers of "blanket" cards like Diabolic Edict and Planarvoid, can be stronger than running lots of singlton Silver Bullet type cards.

[Khahan]

I think another important question is:
At what point does sideboard card have to get maindeck consideration?

This obviously does not happen often. But we saw it in the last few months with  Tormod's Crypt and to an extent Jester's cap.   By Harlequin's example, it seems planar void may be a MD consideration for him (unless of course those are completely made up numbers just to illustrate his point).

[Harlequin]

100% NOT made up.  I have the In/Out list.  And infact my brother played this deck with this sideboard yesterday at the exchange.  I didn't post the in/out list becasue I didn't want this forum to become a thread about "Why do you side X agianst Y in Sullivan's Sollution??"

[Khahan]

So do you find yourself siding in Planar void so much that you feel it should be maindeck?  If not, how far away from that option are you?

[Purple Hat]

I think another important question is:
At what point does sideboard card have to get maindeck consideration?

This obviously does not happen often. But we saw it in the last few months with  Tormod's Crypt and to an extent Jester's cap.   By Harlequin's example, it seems planar void may be a MD consideration for him (unless of course those are completely made up numbers just to illustrate his point).

I play sideboard cards MD under the following rough guidelines:
1) I have free metagame slots
2) I expect to side them in against >40% of the field
3) they're not completely dead in the matchups where I wouldn't be siding them in

if you look at the cards you  mentioned Jester's cap is good vs everything but fish, and tormond's crypt is good vs gifts, dragon, tendrils, CS and ichorid and not horrible vs oath (screws up their recursion plan) it's pretty dead vs most fish decks though.  Rack and Ruin is another example that makes it into maindecks a lot because at worst you blow up some moxen and at best you win the game by destroying some key artifact.

[Harlequin]

I have considered it, but ultimatly decided against it.  Even though P-Void is amazing for more than half my match-ups it is a very narrow card.  The maindeck meta-slots are researved for "Jack of All Trade" cards.  Bounce and discard is what I have currently.  Running 1 Repeal, 1 E-Truth, 1 Rushing River, 1 Darkblast, 1 EExplosives, and 2 Hymn to Tourach.  Cards like Repeal and EE are great for tailoring themselves to your opponents deck.  Even in a match up where Repeal is offensively worthless, It can be used to gravefully cantrip and flip Erayo.  

To broaden this back to an ontopic descussion:  
Haveing a card that you always side in DOES NOT replace a card you always side out.  

Nearly every matchup I side out Repeal and Darkblast and I side in PVoid.  Does that mean I should swap those card and Maindeck the PVoid and SB the Repeal and Darkblast.  I would say no.  haveing a repeal or Darkblast in the board is going the wrong way.    

Darkblast is the narrowest card in my maindeck.  It helps me only marginally, If there is any card I would consider getting rid of, it would probably be darkblast.  But I would change it for a more broadly useful card, pottentially an Engineered Explosives.  

I know it sounds like I'm talking about a spesfic deck, and therefore glideing dangerously off topic.  But I only do it so my arguments have Real Life examples to back them.  This argument would be difficult If I was used "Card A, B, and C" terminology, then It would just get confusing.  

[Pitlord]

In stax, especailly 5-color, main-boarding a few sideboard cards is often a good play. Examples include cards like Swords, Darkblast, Choke, In the eye, Pyrostatic pillar, and ray of revalation. Usually those cards are used more to shore up specific matches and, being singletons that you tutor for, don't really bother your already favorable mathcups.

As for the questions posed in the original post...
1. I think anything can sideboard well, as long as thought is put in. Control, aggro-control, and workshop decks have relativly easy sideboard changes, taking out some utility for other pieces of utility, or in stax's case, even some lock components that seem weak int eh specific match. Decks like oath and storm combo also don't sideboard too badly either because they can take out general protection for specific cards designed to protect the combo in any given match.

2. Yes, I feel that post-board decks like ichorid and to an extent fish lose something post-board. I may seem to be contradicting myself because I said fish can exchange hate, but usually the opponent will ahve more/better hate for you than whatever you exchange. Ichorid and other aggro decks tend to sideboard somewhat poorly because they have very limited disruption that can be taken out for other cards, because you can certainly not exhcange too many actual beat cards for board cards.

3. Usually how I build a sideboard is much more meta-dependent and based on what deck I am playing. If I am playing something with identafiable weaknesses that are easy to hate out, I will often focus on simply beating the other hate. If I know the meta, usually the cards that wreck the people I expect to see the most of get sideboarded in multiples to help wreck most other players there. If the meta is unknown, or I am playing something with a robust draw engine, general sideboard cards in lower numbers are usually good enough.

4. I put a lot of work into my sideboard, but only after I have a good feel of how the mainboard plays out. If I can't see the bad matches pre-board, then building a sideboard could be practically useless because I won't always know what I need to beat out. After lots of pre-board testing, I build the board and play most of my matches post-board for a while. After that, my test group will usually finalize sidebaords and play about 50/50 pre/post board.

[BigMac]

I am wondering how many people will take into account when sideboarding what cards the opponent will most likely sideboard. This means, what possible strategies you need to disrupt and what strategies you need to play to disrupt them.

The point that one of the two decks is better after sideboarding is absolutely true. Sideboarding is very important as you need to read your opponent and keep in mind what he will be doing. Surprising opponents by a change of plans actually works pretty well. He will have sided in some cards that may become utterly useless when you change tactics. For that reason the transformational sideboard can work pretty well.

Knowing how many cards you can side in without compromising your own deck is very important as well. If you want to keep you original tactic you need to understand how many and which cards you actually can take out without compromising that plan.

I do think that whatever format you are using that this applies btw. You need to understand the format and the decks and you need to know what your deck does before and after siding.

[Mantis]

Only under a few specific circumstances can you run sideboard cards in the maindeck. A very good example of this is a singleton Tormod's Crypt in CS. Tormod's Crypt is very strong against Dragon, Long, Slaver, Stax, Gifts and Ichorid but completely dead against Fish, SS and other aggro. But even when CS is facing Fish their Tormod's Crypt will never be dead as you can always make good use of it. It pitches to TfK and Tinker, provides storm with Tendrills and can be used with Academy. Only if your deck meets the criteria of making good use for the card even in matchups where it's dead you can play it in almost every metagame.
Same goes for mass bounce in Gifts and Long, as it can generate storm or wreck Stax/Fish.
At least run Brainstorm or Bazaar so you can always shuffle/pitch it, but I seriously don't think you can afford to run silver bullets without being able to do something with them in certain matchups.

Another requirement to be able to run silver bullets is to have the ability to tutor for them. That said, decks that don't run tutors such as Fish shouldn't run silver bullets like Planar Void.

Anyway back on topic:
I actually rarely test with sideboards which is a very bad thing and I will have to do more in the future. That said, I think W/e Works is right when he states that there should be more discussion on sideboards. The problem is, we have tons of people on TMD coming from different metagames so what might be a good sideboard for one can be really bad for another. Perhaps some more general discussion on sideboard cards would be useful. I think we should all follow the way Ray Robillard did in the Staxless Stax thread, showing what he put in and took out for every matchup to generate some discussion.

Interesting and useful thread, nice job Whatever Works!

[Whatever Works]

BigMac brought up another important question in my opinion. That is: Do you consider what your opponent is sideboarding in vs. you, and how does that alter your sideboard plans?

An example would be your playing 5c stax, and your now on the draw vs. CS... Expectations are from whatever knowlege you have heard... They will likely be bringing in 3 copies of Rack and Ruin. and the rest you just arent sure of.

Knowing this it would be much more likely for you to bring in a card such as hanna's custody in place of your own welders (if you run them), because they will have there 4 welders and there 3 rack and ruins. By doing this trade off your sideboard is not just mutually shutting down both players welders creating no true advantage, but instead taking there welders offline, and also hurting there ability to affectively use there sideboard. The removal of your own welders at the same time could also counteract even more of there hate if they brought in darkblast or lava dart creating another virtual card efficiency advantage.

@Mantis

You bring up a very good point about it being hard to perfect a sideboard because of metagame differences. Since maindecks are made for maximum efficiency they dont have to be as heavily concerned about the metagame as much do to the intential lack of hate cards maindeck opted for a greater chance of winning game 1 vs. all matchups. You can argue efficiency of a deck vs. an uknown field, but you cant argue the effectiveness of a sideboard vs. an uknown field. So it all comes down to what you expect to see in your metagame.

Suprisingly, metagames are still extremely different today even though the format has become so filled with information. You do not see metagame shifts from area to area with type 2 with the acception that maybe 1 local card shop here or there plays more urzatron decks then most etc... If type 1 continues to grow i think this will in time likely cure itself so we wont see more oath in the midwest. More stax in the south. More Drains in the NE. And more donuts/fish in canada.

Kyle L

[Harlequin]

The only card I really consider about my opponent's sideboard is Chalice of the Void.  The question becomes: "is my opponent sideing in or out chalice of the void, right now."  That often effects how I board.  If I susspect chalices comming in, then I try and make sure I have diverse answers (as fars as cc is concerned) and I will leave in something repeal or EE eventhough it doesn't help me outside of chalice.  So many decks can potentially have chalice in the board.  Slaver, Fish, Oath.  If they weren't MD, it is a strong possiblity they will be in the board.  Its all guess work when it comes do #1 do they have chalices in thier board or not, and #2 are they sideing them in against my deck on the P/D. 

[Mr. Type 4]

Do you consider what your opponent is sideboarding in vs. you, and how does that alter your sideboard plans?

Now this is the subject I have agonized about the most in actual gameplay.  Depending on what deck you play, there are usually a few cards that just destroy you.  If you play Ichorid and your opponent starts out with Leyline of the Void, you're going to get owned unless your counter-strategy comes online quickly.  The problem is, no matter how many lists you look at, no matter how many games you test, you just don't know what your opponent will be sideing in.  ALSO, you REALLY don't know what your opponent is siding out a lot of the time. 

Suppose you're playing Vial Fish and your opponent is playing Null Rod Fish.  If I side out my Vials because of his Null Rods that seems like a good idea, but what if he sides out his Null Rods thinking I'm siding out the Vials?  Both players are going to have a good time guessing what the other person is thinking here, and if one of them guesses wrong, he might lose the game over it. 

Sideboards are often better kept secrets as well.  I make a point of changing up my sideboard all the time because it is one of the easiest ways to roll with this slowly evolving format.  You can't just hack up your maindeck all the time, you have to play that in every game 1, but you can alter your sideboard with a lower amount of consequence.  Also, while your opponent may get a chance to look through your deck at some point in the match, no one ever gets to look through your sideboard unless you let them see it for some reason.   You can keep sideboard information classified into Top 8 if you're careful. 

Because of these reasons it is very difficult to accurately test sideboard games.  Sure I can run the gauntlet and my test partner can make the sideboard changes we think a smart player will make, but in real life the situation could be completely different. 

In the end you can only be perpared for so much.  You really just have to trust your gut and hope that you're making a smart decision.

[1kajko]

Hello

First of all I would like to say that this thread is really useful. I am playing non power oath for a long time, since i started to play i found some cases where you sideboarding simply win the game.


   For example: In game two against fish the smart fish player will know that you will remove those two nice stp targets and add simic sperm swallower in two pieces or i. angel and p. angel. so they will side out stp and add hate that wont let you oath at all, in meantime i am adding a SSS and blazing archon which will ruin him after he side out stp/or left one which i can take care of/.

  Yes you can never exactly know what is your opponent siding in, but you can consider what it will be,

In game 3: you approximately know what does you opponent side in so you can swift to another version, in our example is simply, he will probably add stp in two pieces  but i would add another SSS and let the 3 creatures in my deck and his anti ench. hate will swift into average creature-ench hate.

    I also met myself dealing with Worse than wish in game 3 simply adding Platinum angel and two cranial extraction for his only card he has got against- naturalize. the game looks good i have  oathed for p. angel, played c. extraction for naturalize and he packed his deck.
 
   

   

[DoubleDrain]

How does everybody PHYSICALLY sideboard?

For example, do you place the cards you are sideboarding on the table (face down presumably) and then go through your deck to try and find what you are going to side out, or do you take cards out first and then try to side in cards?

Do you shuffle your whole SB into your deck first (including cards you know you will not use) and then take cards out?

How often will you pretend to sideboard cards in game 3 (side in and then out the same cards), just to try and confuse your opponent?

[FlamingCloud]

Do you consider what your opponent is sideboarding in vs. you, and how does that alter your sideboard plans?

Now this is the subject I have agonized about the most in actual gameplay.  Depending on what deck you play, there are usually a few cards that just destroy you. 

It really does depend on what deck you are playing.  If you are playing CS for example, you nearly never care what your opponent is bringing in.  The matchups where you care what your opponent brings in are probably the matchups that it wouldn't change what you do (ie fish brings in old man of the sea.. you still bring in your REBs/Pyroblast regardless)  The only card I can see CS caring ahead of time about is something along the lines of leyline of the void, but realistically I can't see any CS board having anything it in aside from maybe an extra bounce spell that could do anything anyways.  Maybe if you thought you opponent was going to dillute his deck with welder hate you might take a welder or two out.

Even 5 stax for example, you almost always bring in any rebs you have against a blue deck, so it doesn't really matter if they bring in eflux.  However do you bring in seal of clensing/ray of revelation against a deck playing white?  Sacred Ground is a serious killer if you fail to anticipate it.

Oath is alittle different.  You often bring your creature count up to 4 against decks you think might be packing jester's cap.  Now that simic skyswallower is around people don't even bother to board in creature hate against oath anymore so you don't really even need to board the SSS in unless they were running hate main in which case you could probably expect some of it will stay maindeck.  If you think your opponent in running oath hate you probably want to bring in the tinker/colosses etc.

Some decks react because they have to, and other decks are basically hate proof.  CS matchup is rarely going to be affected by more then 10% either way after the board.

I think more important than adjusting your own sideboarding to your opponents, is adjusting how you play the game based on what your opponents deck has become.  If you think they brought in 3-4 chalice of the void, it probably won't affect your sideboarding decisions but it damn well will affect whether you keep a mox loaded hand on the draw or not.  Or if your playing UW fish, for example, game 2 and 3 you will probably need to slow play it abit so you don't overcommit and run into a pyroclasm/massacre, which is almost never a problem in game 1.

How does everybody PHYSICALLY sideboard?

For example, do you place the cards you are sideboarding on the table (face down presumably) and then go through your deck to try and find what you are going to side out, or do you take cards out first and then try to side in cards?

Do you shuffle your whole SB into your deck first (including cards you know you will not use) and then take cards out?

How often will you pretend to sideboard cards in game 3 (side in and then out the same cards), just to try and confuse your opponent?

I like to tell my opponent that like 12 cards are coming in against his deck.  Might make him sideboard incorrectly in anticipation that my deck is going to fill itself with hate cards.  For example if someone told me 12 cards were coming in against me playing CS, I would be thinking that REBs, Darkblasts, Darts, Crypt, Duress, Chalice and maybe more was coming in, might make be board all but 1 welder out or something, which would be a mistake if they only actually only brought one in.

[Lou]

How does everybody PHYSICALLY sideboard?

For example, do you place the cards you are sideboarding on the table (face down presumably) and then go through your deck to try and find what you are going to side out, or do you take cards out first and then try to side in cards?

Do you shuffle your whole SB into your deck first (including cards you know you will not use) and then take cards out?

How often will you pretend to sideboard cards in game 3 (side in and then out the same cards), just to try and confuse your opponent?

I, like you Travis, have been doing the 15 in 15 out routine, unless I put my opponent on newbie status, then I just hurriedly sideboard.  I think it was Flores who suggested this a long while ago?  Anyway, the reason I do the whole sideboard in whole sideboard out trick is because most of the time, in my opinion, it confuses your opponent.  Did he use a transformational sideboard?  Does he have tech I don't know about?  These are the questions your opponent will now ask, and this should not be understated as a useful tool.  Confusing your opponent is hot!

I think game three, even if you are only pretending, you should sideboard.  Again, it at least makes your opponent think you are doing something, and they may fuck up because of this.

[Mr. Type 4]

I always shuffle in the fuill 15 and then take 15 cards out.  Honestly, I've done it this way so many times that it's actually easier, in my opinion.  I jus roll through the deck and rip out cards i don't want and then I see how many I pulled out, then I usually agonize over the last card or two (I typically end up with a pile of 14 cards and have to decide what the last card is to side out.  It's useful to have a plan going in).

[ErkBek]

I always shuffle in the fuill 15 and then take 15 cards out.  Honestly, I've done it this way so many times that it's actually easier, in my opinion.  I jus roll through the deck and rip out cards i don't want and then I see how many I pulled out, then I usually agonize over the last card or two (I typically end up with a pile of 14 cards and have to decide what the last card is to side out.  It's useful to have a plan going in).

I normally don't do this because of time restraints. My opponent usually has to wait for me to pile shuffle all 3 times already. How long does it usually take for you to do this?

[FlamingCloud]

15 in 15 out, is not confusing an opponent at all.  It is just giving them absolutely no information.  Transformational sideboards are so rare still that you shouldn't put an opponent who does this on one, you should just assume you know knowing, because it is the truth. 

It comes down to three ways of sideboarding really.

A.  Nothing special, take some out, put some in.

B.  Giving the opponent no information by doing the 15 in 15 out.

C.  Giving the opponent false information.

In poker after a hand you can not show, you can show 1 card, you can lie about what you had, or tell the truth assuming they won't believe anything you said anyways.  Comes down to whether your mind games and bluffing skills are better then their interpretation of your mind games, on what the correct call to do is.

[Moxlotus]

I'll do the 15/15 sometimes.  Other times I'll just add in an extra 3 cards or something.  Or if there is a standard plan and you are deviating from it, board as many as the standard plan would show.

Ex:  I played Sligh against Phantom Tape Worm with a blue deck 4 years ago at gencon.  My board contained 4 Scald.  The usual plan was 8 REBS.  I boarded in 8 cards and made sure that my opponent noticed it was 8.  It took him until the end of the game to figure out that I didn't have REBs.  He played around them the entire time.

[UR]

I always shuffle in the fuill 15 and then take 15 cards out.  Honestly, I've done it this way so many times that it's actually easier, in my opinion.  I jus roll through the deck and rip out cards i don't want and then I see how many I pulled out, then I usually agonize over the last card or two (I typically end up with a pile of 14 cards and have to decide what the last card is to side out.  It's useful to have a plan going in).

I normally don't do this because of time restraints. My opponent usually has to wait for me to pile shuffle all 3 times already. How long does it usually take for you to do this?

You have three minutes for the 'in between game'-procedure and that does not include mulligans. Take your time to do it properly, your opponent will just have to wait a bit.

[Harlequin]

Every time I do the 15 in 15 out thing, I just end up confusing myself.  For those of us who find that method hard to wrap your brains around... you can try my method.   Basically its ment to be confuseing.  First I split my sideboard into 3 piles.  useual 1 pile I'm putting in and 2 piles I'm not.  Then you start splitting your deck into a few random piles as well.  So now you have say... 6 to 7 piles on the table and they are all either "in deck" piles or "Sideboard piles."  Now scoop up all the piles that make up your new sideboard and your new deck and start shuffling.  If your opponent was watching you intently, and tracking your piles - they could figure out how many cards you side in and out.  But remember they are sideboarding too, so when they look back at you and you have 7+ piles of cards in front of you, they basically have no idea how many you actually sided in.

Also It makes you look like a really bad/confused player - And that can definatly give you an edge.

[warwizard87]

I think you guys may be overthinking the whole "how to sideboard" thing. Honestly its pretty OBV what your opponent is going to bring in. I can usually name all or most of the cards they brought in and most of what they took out. If i can do that i am sure most players can as well. I gave up on the 15 in 15 out awhile back, it just felt like i was underestimating my opponent. He knows what deck i am playing, i should assume he has a TMD.com or a scgs.com account and knows the top decks and if i have some freaky tech the only information he can glean is i boarded in some cards.

As for testing sideboards, thats a must. You can't expect to go to a event not knowing/remembering a sideboard plan, you will just lose 1/3 of your games that way. That not how to top 8.

[DoubleDrain]

I think you guys may be overthinking the whole "how to sideboard" thing. Honestly its pretty OBV what your opponent is going to bring in. I can usually name all or most of the cards they brought in and most of what they took out. If i can do that i am sure most players can as well. I gave up on the 15 in 15 out awhile back, it just felt like i was underestimating my opponent. He knows what deck i am playing, i should assume he has a TMD.com or a scgs.com account and knows the top decks and if i have some freaky tech the only information he can glean is i boarded in some cards.

As for testing sideboards, thats a must. You can't expect to go to a event not knowing/remembering a sideboard plan, you will just lose 1/3 of your games that way. That not how to top 8.

While it's true that there may be some "obvious" cards that decks board against other decks, there are often new/tech/obscure cards that some people use, and like someone mentioned earlier, if you can cause your opponent to think you are borading in cards when infact you are not, you have gained an advantage.