[Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays: Improving Ichorid

[Smmenen]

Here's some illustrative numbers. Let's assume that Ichorid wins 80% of game 1s, 28% of SB games on the draw, and 55% of SB games on the play, without Caverns, and that Caverns shifts that to 80/40/54, respectively (80/54/40 if you lose game 1). These numbers were, incidentally, at least somewhat close to reality, but let's not get into a debate on them here.

Without Caverns, you have a 68% chance to win the match if you win game 1, and 15% chance if you lose game 1, for a total match win % of about 57%.

With Caverns, you have a 72% chance to win if you win game 1, and a 22% chance if you lose game 1, for a net total of 62% match wins. Caverns provides about a 5% boost in total wins.

Now, let's drop your game 1 to 50%, and see how much Caverns boosts you up.

Without Caverns, you still have a 68% chance to win the match if you win game 1, and 15% chance if you lose game 1, but the total is now 42% match wins, because far more games will be under the latter case.

With Caverns, you still have a 72% chance to win if you win game 1, and a 22% chance if you lose game 1, but the net total is now 47%.

Even with a dramatically lower game 1 win %, Caverns still provides exactly the same boost to your overall match win chances. You can put in different numbers and see basically the same thing happen; the boost from Caverns is independent of your game 1 win percentage.

This isn't quite correct.
Label your game 1 win % as W (this is independent of whether or not Caverns is in your board).
Label your match win% without Caverns as M1.
Label your match win% with Caverns as M2.

The quantity we're interested in is M2 - M1.

By your numbers, we have:

M1 = 0.68W + 0.15(1-W)
     = 0.53W + 0.15

You lost me here.  Where is this coming from? 

M2 = 0.72W + 0.22(1-W)
     = 0.5W + 0.22

M2 - M1 = (0.5W + 0.22) - (0.53W + 0.15)
            = -0.03W + 0.07

For W = 0.8 (80%), M2 - M1 = 0.046 (4.6%)
For W = 0.5 (50%), M2 - M1 = 0.055 (5.5%)

The boost to your match win % from using Caverns absolutely depends on your game 1 win %.

Can you explain what you are doing here?  What are the implications of this? Which way does your math cut?

[Jacob Orlove]

Allow me to explain, although I will use my numbers as I go, since they're slightly more precise:

First, we look at our match win % without Caverns, calling it M1:
M1 = 0.676W + 0.154(1-W)
     = 0.522W + 0.154
We win 67.6% of the time when we win game 1, and 15.4% of the time when we lose game 1.

We're using W to represent the % chance of winning game 1, so if it were 100%, we would win 67.6% of all games, and if it were 0%, we would win 15.4% of all games. If it is somewhere in the middle, we win W% of 67.6% and (1-W)% of 15.4%.

When we represent that numerically, we can multiply out the 1-W, and then combine like terms (.676W-0.154W). That gives us the formula for match wins shown in the last line.

Now, with Caverns, calling it M2:
M2 = 0.724W + 0.216(1-W)
     = 0.508W + 0.216
Same approach, different numbers. Now, we win 72.4% of the time when we win game 1, and 21.6% of the time when we lose game 1.

We're using W to represent the % chance of winning game 1, so if it were 100%, we would win 72.4% of all games, and if it were 0%, we would win 21.6% of all games. If it is somewhere in the middle, we win W% of 72.4% and (1-W)% of 21.6%.

When we represent that numerically, we can multiply out the 1-W, and then combine like terms (.724W-0.216W). That gives us the formula for match wins shown in the last line.


This is where it gets interesting! We can compare the two numbers, because we have the formula for both:

M2 - M1 = -0.014W + 0.062

Caverns provides a significant boost (up to 6.2% if we win no game 1s), but winning more game 1s mutes that boost (a higher W makes the first term more negative), as Caverns is more important when we have to win both games 2 and 3.

For W = 1.0 (100%), M2 - M1 = 0.048 (4.8%)
For W = 0.8 (80%), M2 - M1 = 0.0508 (5.1%)
For W = 0.5 (50%), M2 - M1 = 0.055 (5.5%)
For W = 0.3 (30%), M2 - M1 = 0.0578 (5.8%)
For W = 0.0 (0%), M2 - M1 = 0.062 (6.2%)

The key is that, in addition to a fixed difference between the two match win percentages, we also get a variable difference. This seems to be because we're ameliorating, rather than exacerbating, the skew of games 2+3. Less skew is better with a lower game 1 win %, and worse with a higher game 1 win %, in this case changing things by up to 1.4% total.

[diopter]

Essentially, it boils down to this:

Assumptions:
1.) Ichorid is winning more game 1s than it is losing
2.) Ichorid's odds to win its post-board game on the draw (OTD) are less than its odds to win its post-board game on the play (OTP).

If you are playing a deck like Ichorid, with its amazing game 1 %, you win the match by winning one post-board game. Under the second assumption above (you have better odds of winning OTP than OTD), then a 1% increase in your OTP win% is better than a 1% increase in your OTD win% - "better" meaning that the resulting increase to your match win% is higher.

That's why Gemstone Caverns is fundamentally weak - you are increasing your OTD win%, when it is better to increase your OTP win%. Caverns is taking up four cards in your sideboard that could "potentially" instead be occupied by OTP win% increasing cards.

But wait! The operative word in that last sentence is "potentially" - and therein lies the caveat. Caverns carries an opportunity cost with it, but this cost is defined by the card we would replace Caverns with. That card's OTP win% increase needs to be better than Caverns' OTD win% increase - again, "better" meaning that the resulting increase to your match win% is higher, not that the OTP win% increase is higher than the OTD win% increase. If such a card can't be found, then it may indeed be correct to run Caverns.

[dicemanx]

There is a further assumption that OND it is better to have Caverns than it is to have GSM/other 5C lands. I'm suspicious of this, because you're banking so much more on your opening phand when there's already pressure to produce at least a bonafide threat (Bazaar) in your opening hand. For instance, post SB, with 4 Caverns in your deck, what is the mulliganing decision if you fan open a hand with Bazaar? If you keep it, you just lost 4 potentially critical colored mana producers. If you mull, what are you trying to mull into? Bazaar and Caverns? Good luck with that.

Maybe there's a more fundamental flaw in the approach - maybe the better way to address hate is to be more aggressive with the Ichorid build rather than regress into this defensive shell and hope your deck produces the mana AND right answers. Running Imps and Ashen Ghouls allows for a better opportunity to fight against cards like Crypt, Extirpate, or Pithing Needle/Wasteland.

[policehq]

I'm surprised to see also that the mana discussion has comprised of a sensitivity to turn 2 plays and hate, and the possibility of Putrid Imp/Brainstorm has not been mentioned. Brainstorm ignores Pithing Needle/Wasteland and nearly guarantees a turn 3 win. Putrid Imp adds to your creature count and helps against Pithing Needle/Wasteland, and it can beat. Plus the mana requirements to play the deck are made so that you have already pre-sideboarded in mana sources required to play Chain of Vapor and Ancient Grudge effectively. Here is a sample (note: untested) list:

4 bazaar
4 serum powder
4 city of brass
1 mox jet
1 lotus petal
1 black lotus
2 gemstone mine

4 ichorid
4 nether shadow
4 putrid imp

4 cabal therapy
4 chalice of the void

2 sutured ghoul
2 dread return
2 dragon breath
1 devouring strossus

4 golgari grave troll
4 stinkweed imp
4 shambling shell

4 brainstorm

-hq

[Smmenen]

Maybe there's a more fundamental flaw in the approach - maybe the better way to address hate is to be more aggressive with the Ichorid build rather than regress into this defensive shell and hope your deck produces the mana AND right answers. Running Imps and Ashen Ghouls allows for a better opportunity to fight against cards like Crypt, Extirpate, or Pithing Needle/Wasteland.

But you are further assuming that Imps and Ghouls produce a more aggressive ichorid build.   If your starting premise is that the best way to address hate is to be more aggressive rather than regress into a defensie shell, it isn't clear that Pimp and A Ghoul do that.   Running those cards may actually slow you down because you cut valuable combo components and dredgers.   

[policehq]

I'm not sure I'm understanding some of the arguments against Dicemanx and Harlequin and the Cookie Monster build, Steve.

They have both offered suggestions for the deck to function, provide alternative means of winning, and fighting hates, and your argument is that their builds are 'too slow' or 'defensive.'

After this list of cards:
4 serum powder
4 bazaar of baghdad

2 dread return
2 sutured ghoul
2 dragon breath

4 ichorid
4 nether shadow

12 dredgers

The decks are operating at the same speed as any posted, with a potential turn 3 kill. Those cards are the valuable components for achieving competitive speed.

Manaless Ichorid's means of achieving a turn three kill is mulling into a Bazaar of Baghdad, discarding dredgers and reanimating creatures, Dredging turn 2 upkeep and draw step and dredging turn 3 draw step and upkeep (or vice versa).

Any list containing the 34 cards above is capable of dredging sufficient means to activate 3 creatures by your third upkeep and Dread Returning a lethal Sutured Ghoul. If a list with 7-10 mana sources, 3 Duress, Ancient Grudges, Chain of Vapors, Pithing Needles, etc. can do this and also be able to win on turn 4 with significant disruption, then it is performing well.

Harlequin already posted a tournament report where he performed well, so the deck cannot be defined as 'too slow to compete.'

The extra 26 cards beyond the ones posted are flexible slots that improve your position, but not your speed. Only adding 8 Baubles and 4 Mishra's Factories/Blinkmoth Nexuses/Ornithopters/Shield Spheres/etc. can provide a turn 2 kill by the deck's own means, but these faster additions do not make the deck inherently more offensive, just aggressive.

The most offensive list in the future will be the most competitive list, and the ones posted with Putrid Imps and Ashen Ghouls can still achieve the turn 3 "manaless" win; this happens all the time even with mana builds I playtest and do not draw a mana source.

The most competitive list can also be reached by the alternate sideboard plan with Doomsday or Phyrexian Dreadnought. Turning your opponents' hate cards into wasted deck slots, and changing their mulligan decisions based on whether or not they have Leyline of the Void and/or Tormod's Crypt is a very offensive move.

-hq

[Smmenen]

I thought this was pretty ridiculous, so I'll let you all see it and respond as you may:

Hey Steve, My name is Flux or Jim, I am one of the five members of team ogre. 

A few thoughts on the manaless ichorid deck.

1. I really don't think that the deck has a problem with combo (leyline, chalice, unmask, cabal therapy, a very fast clock).

2. The main problem with the deck is that is looses to leyline and tormod's crypt.  I think that like dragon or kobald clamp, manaless ichorid is a deck that should only be played if you know the metagame.  The first tournament that I played manaless ichorid, I was one of the only two people playing leyline, and suprise, I made it to the top eight and lost due to a missplay and a broken hand by Dan "the luckiest" Carp. If I expected a large percentage of the field to be playing leyline and tormod's crypt, then I would play something else. 

3. I think that manaless ichorid is what it is, and if you add mana, then just play ichorid.

If I absolutely have to play manaless ichorid, because it one of the most fun decks I have ever played, and I expect a ton of leylines and tormod's crypts, then I will play the sideboard of:

4 savannah
3 temple garden
4 emerald charm
4 abbolish

and I will hope that I get paired against no leylines or crypts.

Just for a refference the deck I am currently playing is:

4 Leyline
4 Chalice
4 Unmask
4 Cabal therapy
3 Dread Return
2 Yoseii
4 Golgari Grave Troll
4 Golgari Thug
4 Stinkweed Imp
4 Shambling Shell (will probably change to phantasmagorian once legal)
4 Ichorid
4 Neather Shadow
4 Serum Powder
4 Bazaar of Bahgdad
4 Petrified Fields
3 Sickening Shoal/Riftstone Portal/Ancient Grudge/Pithing Needle/Stripmine/Maze of Ith/Factories or if I just don't care, I will play the forth dread return and two other animate targets.

I guess what I am saying is that the deck just is what it is, and it should only be played if you know the metagame.  People underestimate the metagame in type one, and i think that vintage players just play what they want when they want.  Unless you are Vroman, if you want to be successful in vintage you have to play other decks and bring the right one to the tournaments.  Besides, Ubastax is the best deck ever made, why would you want to play anything else?   

Flux

[Flux]

Did someone close to you die?  Did I upset you in some way that I don't know about?  How is this ridiculous?

[dicemanx]

Maybe there's a more fundamental flaw in the approach - maybe the better way to address hate is to be more aggressive with the Ichorid build rather than regress into this defensive shell and hope your deck produces the mana AND right answers. Running Imps and Ashen Ghouls allows for a better opportunity to fight against cards like Crypt, Extirpate, or Pithing Needle/Wasteland.

But you are further assuming that Imps and Ghouls produce a more aggressive ichorid build.   If your starting premise is that the best way to address hate is to be more aggressive rather than regress into a defensie shell, it isn't clear that Pimp and A Ghoul do that.   Running those cards may actually slow you down because you cut valuable combo components and dredgers.   

I was speaking about post SB games - using Imps and Ghouls is certainly a more aggressive way of addressing cards like Needle or Tormod's Crypt, or Extirpate for that matter. Whether such cards can be brought in from the SB, or whether it is worthwhile to run them main even at the expense of some speed, is another matter. You might sacrifice some of that game 1 edge (which is still very much in Ichorid's favor) to get a much better game 2/3.

Testing and some tourney performances have validated this approach. Whether it is best is another question, but one that not many are addressing right now.

[nataz]

I just took 5th at myirad using putrid imps in the SB to help combat extripate/pithing needle. I've been a proponent of that strategy for a while now.

[misslehead3]

I just took 5th at myirad using putrid imps in the SB to help combat extripate/pithing needle. I've been a proponent of that strategy for a while now.

Can you explain how imps help stop extirpate, i see how they stop your problems with needle on bazaar, but extirpate RFG's all your ichorids, and imp sits by smelling bad. The reason i could see that you think they combat it is because they are 2/2's for 1, but i don't think that would be  a fast enough clock to race something like Gifts, where they can combo out on any given turn.

[nataz]

Can you explain how imps help stop extirpate

Sure thing. My MD had 4 ichorids, 4 shadow, and 3 mishra's factory. My Sb had 3 imps and 4 duress. The idea is to do the following if you expect/know extirpate is coming. Force early discard before there are relevent targets in the gy with the extra duress effects. Then provide more creatures to dread return, lowering your reliance on ichorid and nether shadow. Mishra's factory and Imp both feed the flashback cost on dread return just as well as ichords and shadows do.

If the extripate targets your ghouls, thats fine, you just win normally. If the extirpate targets your ichorids, you still have 10 creatures, same deal with shadows. If 2 extirpates get fired off, it does obv. become more of a problem.

That’s the plan at least. However, I did play Andy in round 5 g2 where I had no idea he had extirpates. I won g1. G2 I put him on crypt and SB'd accordingly (3 grudge, 2 chain). I powdered away 2 ichorids, and on turn 2-3 he hit me with extirpate on nether shadow. Since I had no imps in the deck it was pretty much GG. Turn 3 I won without ever seeing extirpate (although I did SB in the imps). So in theory it feels like a good plan, but there really isn't significant experience to back it up.