Why are Fish decks not winning tournaments?

[Dxfiler]

I think I might be able to shed some light on this topic :p

Fish traditionally cannot win t1 tourneys because of power level in comparison to other decks.  That's really all there is to it.

I feel fish was in its prime the past 8 months or so, having even to favorable matchups with the majority of the major archtypes...

and it still couldn't win.  It could however, top 8 a whole hell of alot.  It wasn't just me doing it, either.  71 combined top 8's (from diceman's data, which i trust) over the past year at major events is nothing to scoff at.  It may not be as high as numbers for other archtypes, but it's still a hell of an accomplishment for a deck that in almost every form is at it's core, a weenie swarm deck.

Now with empty the warrens, fish has a much harder uphill battle then ever before.  The deck is pretty much at the point where it needs to rapidly evolve once again if it wants to stay truly competitive.  Where it has to evolve I'm not totally sure at this point because I've spent the past month focusing on limited (see you at gp mass ), but I'm pretty sure fish in current forms, both rod and vial, are NOT the way to go.  As stated by myself and many others, fish is a metagame deck.  The metagame has shifted enough at this point that it's time fish do the same.

I suspect that new fish will revolve around trinket mage.  That one creature is a very handy answer to many problems right now, but it causes a completely different skeleton of the deck. Still, my testing (albeit not much right now) has shown that's the place to look.  Here is my rough list of the new fish-style deck I'll personally be focusing on:


4 Trinket mage
4 Dark Confidant
4 Meddling Mage
3 Jotun Grunt

5 mox
1 lotus
1 engineered explosives
1 chalice of the void
1 tormod's crypt

4 force of will
4 brainstorm
3 Duress
1 swords to plowshares
1 demonic tutor
1 mystical tutor
1 echoing truth
1 ancestral recall
1 time walk
1 misdirection

2 Island
3 Flooded Strand
3 Polluted Delta
1 Strip Mine
3 Tundra
3 Underground Sea
3 Wasteland

Sideboard:
3 Chalice Of The Void
1 Pithing Needle
1 Tormod's Crypt
2 Energy Flux
1 Darkblast
2 Swords To Plowshares
3 Kataki, War's Wage
1 extirpate
1 aether spellbomb


I'm not sure a deck like this can win big tourneys because it's still a fish deck at heart, and I'm a firm believer that fish decks generally won't win big tourneys due to the nature of the deck.  That's personally fine in my book.  I'll take a deck that can get me top 8's consistently over a deck that might win me one big tourney but not consistently place well. 

I'm not even sure the sky is really falling on current fish builds, like URB, UBW, or UW... all those decks are totally fine and will consistently still do well in the hands of competent players.  The problem is those decks won't improve in the current environment hence they won't truly shine.  I'm personally looking for that next version of fish that will consistently do well in large fields, and I believe the only real issue as to why we aren't there yet is because people aren't looking hard enough.

Fish will never, ever die... it just has to evolve.  Darwin is calling.

- Dave Feinstein

[dicemanx]

Something that you might want to include in the Data Set would be SS.

Right, forgot about this archetype. I'll edit my post.

I'm not even sure the sky is really falling on current fish builds, like URB, UBW, or UW... all those decks are totally fine and will consistently still do well in the hands of competent players.

Apart from you piloting UW in major events, these decks haven't performed at all. Maybe they are not totally fine?

It could however, top 8 a whole hell of alot.  It wasn't just me doing it, either.  71 combined top 8's (from diceman's data, which i trust) over the past year at major events is nothing to scoff at.

The "71" refers to the total number of UW Fish played, not to the number that made top 8. All Fish archetypes have a paltry combined eight top 8s, five of which belong to you alone. So when you say it wasn't just you doing it, you're right - it was three additional people: Eric with URBana, and Matthew Bailey and Nathan Harrison with UW Rod Fish. That's it for all major NAm events in 2006 and 2007.

[brianpk80]

(Snip) "disparaging"

No one is seriously offended and the mods suggested we drop that sub-topic, so nothing further to add.

Results from major US events 2006/01/01 to present day (SCGP9, Waterbury, Vintage Champs)

Fish archetypes
(snip)
Remove Feinstein from the equation, and the results for the past 15 months are nothing short of PATHETIC. Even so, no top2s - Fish does not win major events.

I suppose it could be framed as pathetic if someone willfully omits Sullivan Solution and Worse-than-Gro from the Fish line-up and then decides to hypothesize about removing the continent's premeire UW Fish player.  I think these outcome-determinative omissions show a very sad subjective component to your proffered objective "evidence."  The research you did was somewhat helpful, so thank you, but your selective definition of what constitutes Fish leaves you with a serious credibility issue.     

Keep in mind also that Feinstein plays Null Rod Fish, while Vial Fish is nowhere to be seen in t8s. Maybe Vials just suck and belong in Legacy, not T1.

*scratches head*  Well then...

I have no evidence to back me up but heck, these forums aren't about evidence, right?

Wrong, and having explored this tangent with you several times, I am well aware that you have a very narrow and restrictive view of what qualifies as evidence.  I think you should start a thread on the quantum of evidence necessary to substantiate a claim and attempt to justify your opinion there.  It might be helpful for contributors since the evidence issue intersects pretty much every thread we have in this forum.  I'm looking forward to seeing what you can generate.

-BPK

[Phele]

@ Dave: As far I like your new Fish version, but isn't this just a few cards away from Bob-Bomberman. You could easily exchange a Meddling Mage and a Grunt with two Salvagers, play Vampiric over Mystical and Aether Spellbomb over lets say Chalice, which you could still run in the sideboard, or Swords. And tada: You have almost the same deck but a beast that can win on the point. That's an issue - and I might overlook something - I don't understand with these many UWB Fish decks people are toying around in the forums. With a full set of Trinkets paired with the black tutors I would always a least think about Salvagers as an option. It's not just the combo kill, but an Salvagers with Explosives or Crypt in the grave can be pretty anoying for cerrtain decks.

In general: UW Bomberman already runs a pretty tough disrupion package with Engineered Explosives and Tormods Crypt and can easily play other critters beside Trinket and Salvagers and so strengthen the aggro control route. Doesn't this lead to the question: Is Bomberman the better Fish?

[Meddling Mike]

I agree with Dave on this one, but I'd like to add a small point of my own.

I really feel like most fish style decks sacrifice power for consistency and are designed to punish decks that do the opposite. As such I think Fish excels at beating poorly tuned decks, poor players and poor draws. If an opponent lacks some convenient removal for a bunch of measly 1 or 2 toughness creatures the beats and the control the beats provide can easily get out of hand and lock up a game. Fish also forces players to adjust their gameplans to properly deal with the disruption being placed before them to allow them to win, this is what separates the good players from the mediocre players IMO as some people cannot do this properly. Also, if an opponent's hand isn't well balanced it can easily be destroyed by fish. Keeping a mana light hand? A waste/strip might cost you the game if you don't topdeck some more land. Really banking on those moxen? The null rod is really going to hurt. Tons of countermagic? OH NO you countered my Meddling Mage! YA GOT ME.

So my impression of what happens is that Fish can beat a player/deck that misses a beat no problem, but when you get up to the top tables and typically play against more competent players with more well-tuned decks who make intelligent decisions regarding mulligans and fish will typically get out-powered even with the most competent of players playing it.

[Dxfiler]

Apart from you piloting UW in major events, these decks haven't performed at all. Maybe they are not totally fine?

Alright, I misread your data and am disappointed 71 fish did not top 8 this past year :p

However, looking back I don't really 100% endorse your data anymore either.  As pointed out by others, you did omit SS (which I completely count as fish) and also disregarded some 3 color confidant builds that are pretty much fish decks.  Jesse Pinchot and Kevin Sigman have top 8'd multiple times with decks such as these, which aren't really controlling enough to be considered EBA in my opinion.  They have a good amount of creatures and usually very close counter/draw/removal suites as other fish decks.

Furthermore, you did not look at grow decks, which to me are glorified fish decks.

So yes diceman, while I did misinterpret your data, it appears that you left out many fish-style decks (whether intentionally or not I don't know and that isn't really the point), so I'll stick to my earlier statement that fish in general appeared to do totally fine.

No, fish didn't match top 8 numbers of archtypes like gifts or stax...

and it isn't supposed to. 

Fish is there for a certain crowd, who contrary to popular belief are not all 'bad budget players'.  Plenty of good players play the archtype.  Fish, while underpowered in general, can certainly reward those who constantly practice with the deck and adapt to it.

Again, the sky is not falling.  The deck needs to simply adapt.  Personally speaking, I like trinket mage to fill that role.

@Phele, the deck is certainly similar to BOBerman, and I did flat out test versions of that deck, but it wasn't doing enough for me.  It couldn't combo off consistently and had way too many high drops to flip off a bob.  That isn't to say the deck isn't any good, I actually think it's pretty solid.  I just don't personally feel comfy with the deck.

- Dave Feinstein

[zeus-online]

Again, the sky is not falling.  The deck needs to simply adapt.  Personally speaking, I like trinket mage to fill that role.

- Dave Feinstein

Hmmm...seem to remember Zherbus writing the same thing about keeper some years ago? 

Honestly, i don't find fish decks to be bad - I actually find them to be just about the most annoying thing ever..When playing against a player of equal or greater skill piloting fish, it's always a struggle regardless if i'm playing WGD, Gifts, T1T etc. (Although i'd like to point out that i think a good build of CS butchers fish to no end)

/Zeus

[dicemanx]

I suppose it could be framed as pathetic if someone willfully omits Sullivan Solution and Worse-than-Gro from the Fish line-up and then decides to hypothesize about removing the continent's premeire UW Fish player.  I think these outcome-determinative omissions show a very sad subjective component to your proffered objective "evidence."  The research you did was somewhat helpful, so thank you, but your selective definition of what constitutes Fish leaves you with a serious credibility issue.     

I guess nothing will satisfy you. How about we include SS, Bomberman, every deck with Confidant that doesn't have Drains, Worse than Gro, Burn, RG beatz, Stax, and Shop Aggro as "Fish". That way we can support your point that Fish is "competitive". Each of those decks has disruption and can beat down with small men. Some people even consider ICBM Oath as a "Fish" deck in disguise (lots of disruption and mana denial backed by a decent clock). Let's add that too to really pad the numbers.

I glazed over archetypes that generated very few total played and I thus missed some of them - I am not going to fish out every miniscule archetype, including others like Birdshit and Gro. I missed WTG in this manner, but if you want the numbers (God forbid you actually produce them for us here, because it is far better to insult someone that does):

WTG
Total=5 top8s=1 top2s=1

If you want to tally every other miniscule archetype and stretch your definition of Fish, be my guest.   

Furthermore, you did not look at grow decks, which to me are glorified fish decks.

OK, because you can't be bothered to post it yourself:

Gro
total=8 top8s=0

As pointed out by others, you did omit SS

I totally forgot about SS initially because I don't associate it with Fish as closely - to me its a unique archetype much like Bomberman is a unique archetype (both have a slow unique "combo" component for instance). If you call SS a Fish deck, then I would include ICBM Oath, Shop Aggro, and Bomberman as Fish (which I don't consider to be Fish decks).

Jesse Pinchot and Kevin Sigman have top 8'd multiple times with decks such as these, which aren't really controlling enough to be considered EBA in my opinion.  They have a good amount of creatures and usually very close counter/draw/removal suites as other fish decks.

They don't have "multiple t8's" in major events in 2006-2007 - they have one t8 each - note that when you don't cite evidence, it is too easy to exaggerate your claims. I missed these because it turned out that they were improperly labeled as EBA rather than BUW Fish. This changes the data for BUW Fish to:

BUW Fish
total=25 top8s=2 top2s=0

So now we are up to ten top 8s total spread over 3 Fish builds with 5 Feinstein top8s, and still no top2s or tourney victories.


To anyone else that has a problem with the dataset: If you don't trust the data or feel that there are omissions, GENERATE DATA YOURSELF and make yourself actually useful around here instead of attacking my credibility or slandering me by saying that that I willfully ommitted SS and WTG or any other archetype.   

No matter what you do or what little tidbits you add, Gifts, CS, and Tendrils have still put up overwhelming numbers in terms of top 8s, tourneys won, and ratios of total:top8s. They outshine Fish in every category, so you are still left with addressing a key question: if you want to maximize your chances of making top 8, why play Fish over a Drain or Tendrils archetype?

[Implacable]

Diceman, while I actually agree with your point, you have a funny way of proving it.  SS is not a Fish deck?  Nor is RG or WtG?  Those are definitely Fish decks.  Fish beats down with small creatures backed up by disruption and hate.  SS, RG, and WtG all do that.  Therefore, they are Fish decks. 

[dicemanx]

Diceman, while I actually agree with your point, you have a funny way of proving it.  SS is not a Fish deck?  Nor is RG or WtG?  Those are definitely Fish decks.  Fish beats down with small creatures backed up by disruption and hate.  SS, RG, and WtG all do that.  Therefore, they are Fish decks. 

Well, let me put it to you this way. Next time you play UW Null Rod Fish or BUW Fish at an event when trying to maximize your chances of making t8, will you be confident in your deck choice and comforted by the fact that 1 person managed to t8 with URBana and 4 people managed to t8 with SS in 2006-2007 in major events? Even if I didn't see any tourney results, I would not be playing any version of Fish in the current environment if I wanted to win. As I said before, playing Fish is like playing with an unnecessarily self-imposed handicap. But for the success of one person, Feinstein, the consistent performances are just not there at major events.

Plus, I don't see how I haven't proved my point even if you do as you please and add SS, RG and WTG to the total number of Fish decks. Have you seen the sole WTG list that made it into a t8? Does it actually qualify as a Fish deck? RG beats by the way was only played 3 times total and produced terrible results in 2006-2007. Like I said before, I wasn't going to track down every archetype with very small total numbers played. I'm also not going to pore over lists to see if any decks have been mislabeled in the database.

Even with SS, RG beats, and WTG added, the Fish results for 2006-2007 are anemic in comparison to Gifts, Tendrils, and CS (which we likewise have to pad with offshoots like Drain Tendrils or IT if we're going to get so broad in our definition of Fish). Let's not get lost in details, because even if I make such concessions as to include SS, RG beats and WTG the assertion I initially made will not change. 

[Grand Inquisitor]

I layed out a definition for fish in my thread in the improvement forum that I thought was pretty defensible.  I'm going to post my data from 1st and 3rd quarter 2006 on deck types that make the top 8:

23   Gifts Thirst
19   Drain Con
26   Slaver
12   Drain Intuition
14   Gifts MD
10   Bomberman
7   NW Slaver
5   Drain Vault
8   EBA
3   Gifts Oath
3   Hulk Dredge
3   Hulk Ubg
3   Izzet Control
2   GAT
2   Hulk Ubr
3   Sensei
1   3cc
1   Controlicore
1   Dark Tog
1   Intuition Slaver
1   Mono U
1   Ubr Control

6   Shop Staff Combo
22   Stax 5c
5   Shop Aggro
5   Stax 5cub
5   Stax Rub
3   Shop Brown
3   Staxless
2   Aggro WS
2   Stax UR
1   Turbo Land
1   Dark Shop
1   Shop Intuition
1   Shop Slaver
1   Shop Aggro RG
1   Stax R
1   Stax Rgub
1   Stax Vault

13   Fish UW
9   SS
5   UWB Fish
3   Fish Threshold
2   Fish Gro
2   Fish Mono U
2   Fish UB
2   Fish UG
2   Fish UR
1   WTGro

6   IT
12   Long Grim
12   TPS Con
8   Pitchlong
6   TPSr
4   TPS
2   Long Man
1   Belcher
1   Doomsday
1   Long Conf
1   Long Khobold
1   Long Oath
1   TPS Grim

5   Ravager
4   Ichorid
4   Gobbos
4   TMWin
3   FCG
2   Ur Goblins
2   Masknought
1   RG Beats
1   RGW Beatz
1   3 Duece
1   BWr Mask
1   Fish RB
1   Hide/Seek Control
1   Mask Con
1   Sui Black
1   WWb

35   Oath Angel
4   Oath Tinker
1   Oath Salvager

13   Dragon
3   CA

...or to distill this some:

149 Drain based decks
61 Workshop based decks
56 Ritual based decks
41 Blue base creature decks
40 Oath based decks
33 Non-blue base creature decks
16 Bazaar based decks

Sorry for the dump, but I thought people might be interested to see it for reasons outside this forum as well.  There are some weaknesses to this data:

1) It's only 1st and 3rd quarter because I wasn't playing (and researching) T1 during the other periods.
2) This is all events I could find decklists for regardless of size or location (largely pulled from TMD reports and SCG).
3) I used my own taxonomy, and it evolved as the metagame evolved - we're all aware how challenging this is.

Why it's pertinent here is that it shows the diversity of the format.  I think this reinforces Peter's point in two ways.  First, while there are a lot of different fish and fish-esque builds in my data, when you compare with results for TMD X's and SCG events it shows that Fish performs much better at smaller, more local events.  Second, since the sheer breadth of semi-playable archetypes is so great it shows the struggle fish has in an open environment.

[Implacable]

Diceman, while I actually agree with your point, you have a funny way of proving it.  SS is not a Fish deck?  Nor is RG or WtG?  Those are definitely Fish decks.  Fish beats down with small creatures backed up by disruption and hate.  SS, RG, and WtG all do that.  Therefore, they are Fish decks. 

Well, let me put it to you this way. Next time you play UW Null Rod Fish or BUW Fish at an event when trying to maximize your chances of making t8, will you be confident in your deck choice and comforted by the fact that 1 person managed to t8 with URBana and 4 people managed to t8 with SS in 2006-2007 in major events? Even if I didn't see any tourney results, I would not be playing any version of Fish in the current environment if I wanted to win. As I said before, playing Fish is like playing with an unnecessarily self-imposed handicap. But for the success of one person, Feinstein, the consistent performances are just not there at major events.

Plus, I don't see how I haven't proved my point even if you do as you please and add SS, RG and WTG to the total number of Fish decks. Have you seen the sole WTG list that made it into a t8? Does it actually qualify as a Fish deck? RG beats by the way was only played 3 times total and produced terrible results in 2006-2007. Like I said before, I wasn't going to track down every archetype with very small total numbers played. I'm also not going to pore over lists to see if any decks have been mislabeled in the database.

Even with SS, RG beats, and WTG added, the Fish results for 2006-2007 are anemic in comparison to Gifts, Tendrils, and CS (which we likewise have to pad with offshoots like Drain Tendrils or IT if we're going to get so broad in our definition of Fish). Let's not get lost in details, because even if I make such concessions as to include SS, RG beats and WTG the assertion I initially made will not change. 

And that reasoning is exactly why I said that I agree with you.  I was just disagreeing with some of your minor assertions; the underpinnings of an intellectual case are just as important as the thrust of the case itself.

[dicemanx]

the underpinnings of an intellectual case are just as important as the thrust of the case itself.

I agree with this in general, but in this specific instance the definition of Fish can range from narrow to broad and can be more encompassing or more exclusive according to how the archetype is defined. You chose to work with a more broad definition, but your statement that "Those are definitely Fish decks" is correct only within your definition.The "underpinnings" therefore are arbitrary in this case; however, they have little impact on the thrust of the case because regardless of the definition of the Fish archetype, there is still significant evidence to support the orignal set of contentions. I will therefore concede that SS, WTG and RG beats are Fish decks in there interest of putting this tangental discussion to rest, because I'm not interested in debating definitions and the point is made regardless of how Fish decks are defined.

Incidentally, my motivation for the 2006-2007 numbers was to not only try to provide evidence for my case, but to give us all an opportunity to interpret the data as we see fit and draw our own conclusions. If people want to see something in the data that isn't very well supported or is far reaching, it is their prerogative. We might try asking Tommy K or Ian DeGraff first though if they consider SS as a Fish deck (hint: they already answered this question last year).

I'm thankful that GI has compiled further data integrating the smaller events; as he points out it would be even better if we got the complete picture by adding to that list the 2nd and 4th quarters, along with 2007 data, and also if we separated the lists according to an arbitrary cut-off in terms of either size of the event (50+ was selected arbitrarily before in such compilations) or type of event (SCGP9, Waterbury, and Champs versus anything local). There is a bit of a difference in paying $20 for a local event and investing possibly hundreds of dollars for a SCG or Waterbury event - one might predict that for the latter set of events, people will be more careful in their deck selection and deck construction processes and strive to bring what they feel give them the best chances to win. This is less true for local events, where you're more likely to see experimentation and playing non-top tier archetypes for the sake of playing something different.

There are some archetypes that seem to have some measure of success in local metas as GI points out, which can also skew the numbers when trying to evaluate what archetypes are top tier or that maximize chances of winning. When I look at URBana or WGD, for instance, I just don't know if these decks are high tier, or if select individuals just had some good runs with them but they are not as good as the scant numbers currently indicate. This also holds true for decks like Gro or Drain Tendrils, which have had even smaller total tourney appearances but did amazingly well.

[Purple Hat]

@GI: your definition appears to include all versions of bomberman type combo.  Is that intended?

[Meddling Mike]

It seems as though Diceman's numbers have brought about a lot of controversy in this thread. Having written a vintage metagame breakdown modeled on the Dr Sylvan style of old a few months back I can tell you that it is no simple task, but when it comes to data regarding Magic it all comes with a REALLY big asterisk next to it and as such must be taken with a grain of salt. Just by showing the number of top 8 appearances of a deck is not a great means of measuring the strength or competitiveness of a deck. One has to take into account that there are hundreds of different possible builds played by hundreds of different players of varying playskill played against hundreds of different opponents in hundreds of different metagames and that's simply just not possible. I am also unsure about whether Diceman's numbers include how many fish decks were played total, if nobody plays the deck it can hardly be faulted for not producing a top 8 appearance. As was pointed out earlier in this thread Fish's unflattering reputation as a budget deck and arguments like the ones made here tends to cause many players to categorize Fish as clearly sub-optimal and pushes players towards flashier decks with more impressive win conditions like Yawgmoth's Will or Infinite Mindslavers or Worldgorger Dragon rather than swinging in with a measly 2/2 for 2 with a cute ability. Intangibles like these are really hard to compensate for. The size of the events is also important, how does one weigh a t8 at a local $20 mox tourney with under 30 people in it against a t8 at an Worlds/SCG/Waterbury where hundreds of people compete? How much more weight is given to winning the tournament rather than merely making t8? The specifics of each tournament are also an important consideration. Is the Vintage World Championships results invalid because it does not allow proxies?

Numbers are important, but I don't think they should be the definitive answer to a question like "Is fish a deck that wins?" because the data will always have to much missing data and error to give a reliable answer one way or the other.

[Harlequin]

I have a response to "Its a good deck, but Noobs play it, and therefor it doesn't top 8."  That logic doesn't work at all!  What noobs play doesn't make a lick of differance.  The real assertion is that: "Its a good deck, but good players do not choose to play it, and therefor it doesn't top 8." 

So the real question that should be investigated is, if it is a good deck, then why do the best* players typically avoid it? 

*-note that some of the "best" players do play it, and are infact sucessful with it.  So this could range somewhere from "Most" to "the vast majority"  ... I decided to leave out the vauguery entirely.

I think its a matter of how much skill can be applied to the deck.  --now-- before I catch a big ol' fish on that flame bait, allow me to point out what I did NOT say.  I did NOT say that #1) fish requires less skill to play, and #2) fish players are less skilled than non-fish players.

I say that Fish (as a deck) gives less oppertunity for its player to apply the skills they have.  -as compaired to someother deck choices.

I honestly don't agree with the "overpowered" arguements.  If I just took every "power" card and mish-mashed them together; so were talking every restricted card, 4 shops, 4 bazaars, 4 gifts... in the end I would have (Travis_Laplantte.dec [/zing]) a very high "power" deck... but it wouldn't be a good deck.  I think that "overpowered" is just a bad term with no real meaning, and no medium on which to compair it to other decks.  Lets look at what I think are the 4 basic catagories of skill in vintage.

#1) Technical Skill - How well do you know the rules (card interaction, DCI floor rules and tournement scoring all included).  But most importantly, it is how well you uses Technical play to your advantage.

Technical Skill in Fish: It's there, esp if you have vial or jitte.  But fish is not really a technically impressive deck.
Technical Skill in Gifts: again, It's there ... but not the focus of the deck.

#2) Knowledge - Well, its not really a skill... but its a header that I put on a set of skills.  This is inclusive of: knowing the card pool, knowing the meta, knowing whats in your deck, knowing how your going to side, and what your opponent is going to side.  Added into this, is Deck design.

Knowledge and Fish:  This skill that can be maximized in fish.  It is the essential focus of most fish decks really... it is the back bone of pro-active control.
Knowledge and Gifts:  I would agrue that you don't need as much knowledge to play gifts as you do to play fish.  However, options for the sideboards and meta-slots is very expansive - so knowledge in how to fill those slots will be important from dividing the men from the boys.

#3) Risk Management - I would say that in a nutshell this skill is how well you navigate down your decission tree.  Really its answering the question of "how will Play-A effect my future options vrs Play-B and C." 

Risk Management in Fish - Here is the real deficit btwn fish and gifts.  Now fish certainly has a decission tree, and navigating it correctly is like walking that proverbial edge of the knife.  So Fish must have some Risk Management skills.  However because it has a low tutor count, the choices are capped at what you see in front of you.  The cards you're dealt are the cards you can play.

Risk Management and Gifts - In the world of risk managment, any storm-based combo is big.  There are practically infinite permutations of finding the path to winning.  Then there is the whole aspect of "Gifts is more forgiving" and therefore you can make Risk management mistakes and still win - which I would agree with.  But now we're talking about two different things.  If we talk about how "forgiving" a deck is, were talking about it's Skill Floor.  I would agree that a player is required to have more risk management skill in fish than in gifts (to be minimally sucessful).  Buton the Ceiling side, a player who is very calculated and experianced with navigating a decission tree will be able to apply that skill better to Gifts than to Fish.

#4) Interactive Skill - To sum this into a slogan, its your ability to read your opponent.  This is basically how well can you sucessfully take on the 'control' role. 

Interactive Skill for Fish and Gifts - I would say that in terms of Skill Floor, fish again comes out higher.  It is definately required that a fish player know how to play control.  Gifts can get away with running away and playing a bit "goldfishy."  But I would say that when it comes to a skill ceiling, gifts is in the slight advantage over fish.  Both decks have an almost unlimited cap on how much Interactive Skill can be pured into the deck.  But gifts comes out on top because again, fish is limited to the cards it can dirrectly see.  Also I think that knowing when and what to drain is a hair more difficult to master then knowing when and what to Daze.

- I have an article completed that I am just about done with, that will be going up shortly.  It is on this exact topic: comparing decks based on skill floor and skill ceiling.

[dicemanx]

I am also unsure about whether Diceman's numbers include how many fish decks were played total

I compiled all of the totals for every SCGP9, Waterbury, and Vintage Champs event from 2006-01-01 to 2007-03-25 from the SCG database. It is possible that I missed a deck here and there because of the labels that some decks have, but the numbers I cited should be very close to the actual numbers.

Your comment about taking the results with a grain of salt are certainly warranted. However, the data does flag certain trends, but I use those trends in combination with what I have seen when I watch Fish in action, and when I've played against it in big events and local events. Other perspectives may vary. There is nevertheless a difference between arguing that Fish is a poor choice for winning or t8ing events consistently because of trends in its performance on a larger scale, versus making the assertion that Fish is competitive and top tier based on...nothing (at least not as far as any concrete evidence offered in this thread). Even Feinstein is arguing that for Fish to be competitive it needs to adapt, and suggests that Trinket mage might be the way to go. Whether such an adaption will bring Fish to the forefront again is speculative and isn't backed by any evidence.

@Harlequin:

I would take a different approach in comparing Fish versus Gifts, or any deck archetypes for that matter. Decks that have a preponderance of tutoring power, search ability, and card drawing (which maximize short run consistency), along with the ability to streal free games and/or generate immediate wins (the brokenness factor) will have a significant edge over decks that have limited drawing/search and adopt a reactionary role. Such decks are not consistent in the short term, and suffer from the "no wrong threats but wrong answers" syndrome. As I wrote earlier, when a Fish deck is "working" in the early game by drawing the right disruption, the battle still rages on and the outcome is typically still in doubt. If Fish fails to muster enough relevant disruption early, it will likely get creamed. That is not the type of deck I want to be bringing to a large event whose meta is tough to predict if I want to maximize my chances of doing well and getting into the t8 or winning.

[madmanmike25]

I think this thread just proves the old quote:

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

You can manipulate data to prove/disprove many arguments.  You can also misinterpret that data and make your point while still sounding reasonable.

It's nice to have all these statistics for reference, but let's not read too much into them as there are countless variables to be considered.  But, I do THANK those for posting the numbers, it is appreciated.

'Fish' can be a label for many decks, but usually the translation is:
1) Efficient* creatures
2) Disruption
3) Win Small

*This can be interpreted as having a high power to CC ratio, or as having a useful ability/effect.  Cards like Isamaru/Grunt and cards like Meddling Mage/Bob fall under this category.  One could argue(with supporting evidence) that Ichorid is 'efficient', and should be classified as a 'Fish' deck (not I).  

Personally, I absolutely fail to see how a deck like SS could NOT be labeled Fish.  The inclusion of Stifle/Duress is a great choice for 'Fish'.  Then again, that's what opinions are for.

In regards to 'Winning Small', haven't the 'Fish' placing results proven it's success in that area?  Fish wins small all the time.  Especially when it comes to T8'ing.

[dicemanx]

Personally, I absolutely fail to see how a deck like SS could NOT be labeled Fish.

As I mentioned previously, I will concede that SS is a Fish deck since whether it is or isn't doesn't change any previous arguments, but I will leave you with this question. If Tommy K and Ian DeGraff were to make the claim that SS is not Fish, would you reverse your opinion that SS is a Fish deck? Kindly answer that question for me.

[nataz]

@ DicemanX

There is nevertheless a difference between arguing that Fish is a poor choice for winning or t8ing events consistently because of trends in its performance on a larger scale, versus making the assertion that Fish is competitive and top tier based on...nothing (at least not as far as any concrete evidence offered in this thread).

Did you just totally ignore my posts from last night? While I *do* agree with you that UW fish isn't the best choice for a WIN at a large event, the trends from your data set (which I really have no huge issues with beyond what we can't control anyways) do not show that fish has any issues making top 8.

URbana has an 11% top 8
UW has ~ 11% top 8

Slaver has ~ 10%
Gifts has ~ 15%
Tendrils has ~ 13 %


Fair nuff saying, I'm lazy, but if anyone wants to work out the SD on these, I suspect the differences are fairly non-significant.

Any assumption on player quality is null because then you have to make that same assumption across the board, something both you and I are unwilling to do because it fragments the data to a non-significant point.

The only reasonably safe conclusion you can draw out of those numbers is the raw % top 8 pref/total entries.

When you work it out, UW fish and Urbana fish have the same chance as Gifts of making top 8.

It might not be such a positive if your name isn't Feinstein or Becker and you're looking at how everyone else is doing with the archetype.

To infer anything beyond the simple raw top 8 % is dangerous because it can't be supported all that well. You argue that Dave having all those top 8's is a negitive to the data set, but you can just as easily argue otherwise.

@ Everyone else

If you want to attack Diceman's data set, why don't you just do us all a favor and go compile something yourself instead. You can argue what the data set means, but pointing out already obvious flaws and short commings are worthless unless you have the time/way to correct them.

[madmanmike25]

Personally, I absolutely fail to see how a deck like SS could NOT be labeled Fish.

As I mentioned previously, I will concede that SS is a Fish deck since whether it is or isn't doesn't change any previous arguments, but I will leave you with this question. If Tommy K and Ian DeGraff were to make the claim that SS is not Fish, would you reverse your opinion that SS is a Fish deck? Kindly answer that question for me.

Not one bit.  If it looks like a Fish, swims like a Fish, and plays like a Fish deck, then I shall call it Fish.

It's just another version of Fish.  If you want to be original and call it a funny name, that doesn't change what it is or how it wins.  Did adding EtW change the names of any Gifts decks?

[dicemanx]

Personally, I absolutely fail to see how a deck like SS could NOT be labeled Fish.

As I mentioned previously, I will concede that SS is a Fish deck since whether it is or isn't doesn't change any previous arguments, but I will leave you with this question. If Tommy K and Ian DeGraff were to make the claim that SS is not Fish, would you reverse your opinion that SS is a Fish deck? Kindly answer that question for me.

Not one bit.  If it looks like a Fish, swims like a Fish, and plays like a Fish deck, then I shall call it Fish.

It's just another version of Fish.  If you want to be original and call it a funny name, that doesn't change what it is or how it wins.  Did adding EtW change the names of any Gifts decks?

How do you know how it plays? have you played SS before? Or do you think the actual inventors of the archetype are mistaken when they say it doesnt play like a Fish deck? Is Aggro Stax a Fish deck? It too has cheap creatures (since you have Workshop) and Wastelands, and disruption like CotV, Sphere, and Null Rod. Is Ichorid a Fish deck? It has 0-cc creatures and plays disruption. Is Bomberman a Fish deck? It's just as much Fish as is SS since it too it has the little men and a disruption package. Is ravager a Fish deck? What about aggro-burn? How about ICBM Oath? It too plays a similar disruption suite as a Fish deck, and has "cheap" men (2cc oaths are the "men"). Should that be called Fish too? As you see, you might be working with an overbroad definition.

Did you just totally ignore my posts from last night? While I *do* agree with you that UW fish isn't the best choice for a WIN at a large event, the trends from your data set (which I really have no huge issues with beyond what we can't control anyways) do not show that fish has any issues making top 8.

I already addressed this point. I'm not ignoring it. I welcomed the potential Fish players to trust such a treatment of the stats when trying to figure out if Fish is a consistent performer based on one construct (UW Rod Fish), based on only one player (Feinstein) putting up the only consistent results, AND ignroing what that individual has to say about UW Rod Fish and how it isn't as good anymore in its current incarnation.

The only reasonably safe conclusion you can draw out of those numbers is the raw % top 8 pref/total entries.

That only one Fish player has generated consistent results over the last 15 months is troubling for me. If you elect to ignore that detail, and you also elect to ignore the top2 ratio, and also ignore the possibility that ratios are not the best and only way to examine the data, then I suppose it is possible to come to the conclusion, supported even by some statisitical tests for significance, that Fish is in fact a top tier choice. What does your gut feeling tell you about this way of looking at the numbers? Is this approach misleading?

[brianpk80]

I guess nothing will satisfy you. How about we include SS, Bomberman, every deck with Confidant that doesn't have Drains, Worse than Gro, Burn, RG beatz, Stax, and Shop Aggro as "Fish".

I think this is the part where you drop the defensive debating tactics and just concede to some simple intellectual honesty (there's that article they make aspiring Full Members read these days...).  Let's analyze this.  Having discussed Fish with you several times over the past months, it's apparent you have, at best, a cursory familiarity with the archetype.  Nevertheless, you entered the thread with the bald assertion that it "just isn't a good deck" but it attracts players who crave "variety" or who simply can't afford to play better decks.  After clumsily struggling to prove this was not a "disparaging" remark, you brought up some heavily butchered statistics to support your theory that Fish's results are "PATHETIC" (your caps, not mine).  When enough people brought it to your attention that your system of defining Fish was somewhere in between negligent and dishonest, you revised your statistics and ultimately found that they disproved your original point.  Now you're grasping at straws to somehow establish that it's unfair to request a categorizing of SS and WtG as Fish decks because that would require a definition so overbroad that it would require including Oath of Druids, Confidant TPS, and Stax.  Nobody's buying it, so you're left with the complaint that I didn't copy any (ahem) "numbers" here myself.   Where are you going with all of this?

That way we can support your point that Fish is "competitive".

Well no, because I never stressed that point.  My point here was that the archetype has more dignity to it than being a poor man's budget deck or a novelty played by variety seekers who have no regard for winning.  And FYI, I'm not trying to offend you; I have no motivation to bring you down capriciously.  You speak very intelligently all over this forum, but truthfully, when you begin discussing Fish, you lose your flair. 

-BPK

[desolutionist]

I honestly don't agree with the "overpowered" arguements.  If I just took every "power" card and mish-mashed them together; so were talking every restricted card, 4 shops, 4 bazaars, 4 gifts... in the end I would have (Travis_Laplantte.dec [/zing]) a very high "power" deck... but it wouldn't be a good deck.  I think that "overpowered" is just a bad term with no real meaning, and no medium on which to compair it to other decks.

I think the reason that Fish is usually accepted as being underpowered is because it is only ever capable of, in a turn, turning a Meddling Mage sideways.  Every other archetype can generate/achieve some impressive godly state. (whether that involves broken cards or not)  

That Fish is inherently too underpowered for the current environment is obviously the prime suppressor of the modern archetype.  For Fish to remain a viable anti-metagame rather than bad aggro, it needs to disrupt the opponent faster AND/OR win faster, which probably translates to excluding bad creatures like Meddling Mage. (or possibly creatures in general)  But then again, the whole concept of winning-because-your-opponent-didn't seems kind of bad too.

[dicemanx]

I think this is the part where you drop the defensive debating tactics and just concede to some simple intellectual honesty (there's that article they make aspiring Full Members read these days...).

You need to heed your own advice.

Let's analyze this.  Having discussed Fish with you several times over the past months, it's apparent you have, at best, a cursory familiarity with the archetype.

Your personal opinions add no weight to the discussion here, and your accusation is bordering on a personal attack in an attempt to discredit an argument. Please provide your evidence when making an accusation and the relevance it has to the discussion, or STFU, thanks.

After clumsily struggling to prove this was not a "disparaging" remark

I didn't need to prove something that was a product of your imagination. I therefore didn't struggle, and it wasn't clumsy. More hyperbole.

you brought up some heavily butchered statistics to support your theory that Fish's results are "PATHETIC" (your caps, not mine)

Again, easy on the hyperbole please. I omitted SS because the original creators did not identify it as a Fish deck. I have since added it because the 'experts" (such as yourself) apparently think otherwise. Fine, it doesn't take away from my points.

When enough people brought it to your attention that your system of defining Fish was somewhere in between negligent and dishonest

Negligent and dishonest? Are we resorting to that hyperbole again? I was adhering to one possible definition, a very reasonable one I might add. What is your definition of a Fish archetype?

you revised your statistics and ultimately found that they disproved your original point.

They did? Where? Show me, because now you're going beyond hyperbole and making stuff up. I stressed how my original point remains unaffected, which is the reason I conceded that SS is a Fish deck - I really don't care how we categorize it.

Now you're grasping at straws to somehow establish that it's unfair to request a categorizing of SS and WtG as Fish decks because that would require a definition so overbroad that it would require including Oath of Druids, Confidant TPS, and Stax.

No, I'm pointing out that with a broad definition you can include a whole host of archetypes that have Fish like characteristics but might not be considered Fish. I have actually made extensive analyses in the past here and on the SCG forums putting Shop decks, Fish, and Oath in the same category because they share a lot of similarities in terms of game plan: mana/resource denial backed by a cheap clock. This is the most broad definition that a Fish archetype can have, and encompasses ICBM Oath, Ichorid, Shop Aggro, RG beats, Ravager, Bomberman and SS. What then, sets some of these archetypes from a more traditional understanding of "Fish"? You tell me, so that we can be more precise in assigning categories so that I can avoid my supposed "negligence and dishonesty" in my classifications.

Nobody's buying it, so you're left with the complaint that I didn't copy any (ahem) "numbers" here myself.

Well, thanks for coming out anyways. Your contribution is always appreciated.

And FYI, I'm not trying to offend you; I have no motivation to bring you down capriciously.

If I go my current view that you're an intelligent enough individual, then your post is specifically designed to antagonize unless you are genuinely unaware of that what you are doing is trolling or you don't grasp what tactics characterize trolling behavior (personal attacks/unsupported accusations, hyperbole and distortion, deflectionary arguments/straw-manning etc). I'll reserve my judgment but you are on thin ice.

[kirdape3]

Dave: That deck that you propose already exists in some form - it made Top 4 of the second day of Waterbury.

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=31759.0

[wethepeople]

Dave: That deck that you propose already exists in some form - it made Top 4 of the second day of Waterbury.

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=31759.0

The list you presented is Largent's Bob-Bomberman list, and it isn't exactly Fish, but yes, it is fairly similar. I recently made a list nearly-identical to the one Dave posted, and had much success in the Gifts, Combo, and Aggro matchups. Trinket Mage is a very strong card in those matchups because it gives you access to almost any threat in Vintage, one of those being the ever-popular Empty the Warrens.

On the subject of categorizing Sullivan Solution under "Fish", I personally would consider it a UB Fish deck. My reason being is that it's win condition is in creatures, like all other Fish builds, and uses similar disruption, Duress and Stifle, as would every other Fish deck. I know that Team ICBM did not originally lable it as "Fish", but neither was TMWA, and I still think people consider that yet another form of Fish, no?

[Vegeta2711]

Dave: That deck that you propose already exists in some form - it made Top 4 of the second day of Waterbury.

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=31759.0

The list you presented is Largent's Bob-Bomberman list, and it isn't exactly Fish, but yes, it is fairly similar. I recently made a list nearly-identical to the one Dave posted, and had much success in the Gifts, Combo, and Aggro matchups. Trinket Mage is a very strong card in those matchups because it gives you access to almost any threat in Vintage, one of those being the ever-popular Empty the Warrens.

On the subject of categorizing Sullivan Solution under "Fish", I personally would consider it a UB Fish deck. My reason being is that it's win condition is in creatures, like all other Fish builds, and uses similar disruption, Duress and Stifle, as would every other Fish deck. I know that Team ICBM did not originally lable it as "Fish", but neither was TMWA, and I still think people consider that yet another form of Fish, no?

The thing is SS almost plays like a real control deck in most of the forms I've seen. I think it's closer to the pure control archetype than any deck that's featured Drains in a long time.

Anyway, on-topic.

Fish decks typically don't win tournaments for three reasons.
1. You don't get any free wins
2. The value of the hands you have are based almost entirely on what the opponent's hand consists of
3. Most fish is based around a medicore semi-coherent non-linear strategy in a format full of linear strategies

Problem #1 is obvious and there's no solution too as long as you actually play Fish. The second and third problems are issues that the format creates that there are few, at best, ways to successfully combat.

[Godder]

This thread is in serious danger of degenerating into a flamewar. Brianpk80 and Dicemanx, if you have a problem with one another or each other's arguments, take it to PM.

[wethepeople]

On the subject of categorizing Sullivan Solution under "Fish", I personally would consider it a UB Fish deck. My reason being is that it's win condition is in creatures, like all other Fish builds, and uses similar disruption, Duress and Stifle, as would every other Fish deck. I know that Team ICBM did not originally lable it as "Fish", but neither was TMWA, and I still think people consider that yet another form of Fish, no?

The thing is SS almost plays like a real control deck in most of the forms I've seen. I think it's closer to the pure control archetype than any deck that's featured Drains in a long time.

I personally don't find this statement 100% realistic, because it plays the control role by using soft lock pieces, similar to those played in several Fish builds. It uses Erayo, Soratami Ascendant, as opposed to Chalice of the Void, or Null Rod. Rather than Daze, it uses Stifle, a card that comes to play at a similar time in the game. Lastly, it does have a slightly different creature base, but it still works to do the same thing as all Fish decks do, disrupt the opponent, while chip away at their life points each turn.

Now, I understand those cards are all different in their own way, but each of them play a like roll in their own decks. Yes, SS is still "Control" as opposed to the standard Fish build using Null Rods, and Savannah Lions, but even then, it is just another Fish build.