Vintage Adept Q&A #8: Psychological Warfare

[Demonic Attorney]

*3*.   ***Question I really want answered most***  Do players try to psyche other players out with phrases like "I really don't care about seeing Sadistic Sacrament as I'll just side in more win cons and play around it and blah blah BLAH BLAH *insert a million reasons why it sucks against them*" when, in point of fact, they really don't know how to deal with a resolved Sadistic Sacrament [I use this as an example, but there are many more].

Do players do this?  Yeah, with some regularity.  It probably goes without saying, but this happens more often with players who don't know each other well.  When I was first picking up the format in 2004-2005, it was probably once every other tournament that someone would say something like, "Oh man, I hope you're not running Sphere of Resistance in your sideboard like that last guy," only to be running Goblins.  Whatever.  Did it work?  Not really.

Do I do this?  Very, very rarely, and I think that's the degree of frequency that will make it pay the most dividends.  If you make a practice of trying to "trick" your opponents, people will quickly learn to be suspicious of what you're saying, and your tricks won't be as effective.  But if you establish a pattern of not trying to get involved in these little mind games, and maybe even divulging some truthful information every now and then, you'll put opponents in a position where they're not accustomed to critically examining what you tell them, and thus you'll create more of an opportunity to include misinformation.

Generally speaking though, I'd advise players to avoid this kind of strategy, both in terms of giving misinformation and in terms of trying to read an opponent for "tells."  I know several people who heavily rely on this strategy and, at least against me, I think it's only served to distract my opponents from focusing their attention on the game itself.  Look at it this way.  The human mind has a finite amount of cognitive resources; this means your attention can't focus equally on everything.  So you have a choice:  You can focus on the game state, something that can't mislead or trick you, or you can focus on your opponent, someone who has every incentive to give you bad information or otherwise throw you off to the extent permitted by the rules.  

There's no risk when you're concentrating on the former.  When you're concentrating on the latter, you're always risking being outmaneuvered by someone more practiced at mind games than you, and the better someone is, the harder they are to spot.


EDIT:  I guess I should add one more point in answer to your question.  If you're going to try to "mind trick" your opponent, be more subtle than the example used in the question.  In fact, as a general principle of human psychology, it's much easier to deceive someone by putting them in a position in which they infer what you want them to believe than if you just try to overtly convince them.

For example.  I was in the X-1 bracket at a tournament a little while ago and was playing for t8 vs. elimination in the last round.  I asked my opponent who/what he had played so far that day, and what he had trouble with.  I didn't pay attention to his answer.  The point was to get him to ask me the same thing.  I told him I'd beaten blue control, and lost my one match against Stax, which was "bad luck for me since there was only one in the room."  I hadn't actually lost to Stax; I just wanted my opponent to infer that I was playing combo and keep a hand heavy on control elements, when in fact I was running Slaver, which wanted to go to the long-game and could get around conventional control mechanisms anyway.  

Or to take an example of "reading" an opponent.  At Waterbury in the seventh round, I was paired against someone I didn't recognize, but who I needed to beat to make the cut.  I looked at his life total pad as he set up for the match, and noticed that many of his earlier games involved his opponent's life total decreasing in increments of 6, meaning he was playing Akroma/SotN Oath.  

Now, it's possible he wrote up dummy life total slips ahead of time to throw me off, but that was unlikely.  I thought this was a better way of gaining information than anything he was consciously broadcasting to me, like statements about good matchups vs. bad matchups, good draws vs. bad draws, control vs. explosiveness, etc.  And I turned out to be right.  I mulled to Duress and swiftly claimed a commanding advantage.    

[meadbert]

The goal of a psych out is to get your opponent to misplay.  In my opinion, the most common misplay is regarding mulliganing.  Many newer vintage players tend to be far too conservative with their mulliganing.  Basically they check that they have 2 mana sources and then declare that they are keeping.  To encourage this conservativeness it can help to act disappointed with your own hand.  If you look at your hand disappointedly and announce you are keeping, then your opponent may be willing to keep a fairly slow hand of 7 rather than mulliganing to a potentially more explosive hand of 6 which is exactly what they need on the draw.  This then puts you in a position to put them away with tempo before they really have a chance to get into the game.

[Rico Suave]

I can only speak about what I do personally, and not what others do.

I do not try to psyche my opponent out.  I don't speak much during a match at all, actually, unless it's regarding specific plays during the game (I pass priority, does this resolve?, untap?, etc).  As a result I don't really listen much to what my opponent says outside that context.  I've had people tell me "this card is a bomb against you" only to be surprised that I let it resolve and then counter the next card which is the one they really wanted to resolve.  This is because I prepare.

What I do is prepare before the event ever begins.  I have put in time, energy, and playtesting beforehand.  This stems mostly from my musical training where I was taught to prepare thoroughly before a performance.  Long before I ever get to the stage to play, I have already gone through the notes, chords, and other various dynamics until iit becomes second nature.  Then when it comes time to actually perform, I can focus on the performance itself and give it life as a musician.  

This idea also applies into playing cards, and almost everything else that is worth pursuing in life.  It offers two main advantages specific to MtG, which then compound into a final advantage:

1) I have the utmost confidence in my deck's ability to win

When you are confident, your opponent thinks you have Force of Will when you don't.  When you are confident, your opponent assumes you are going to win the next turn when you aren't.  When you are confident, you make every possible play that will put you into the best position to win.  You may lose game 1, but you are confident that you will win games 2 and 3.

I have had many games in the past where I was not confident and played sloppy, only to topdeck the exact card I needed and then realize that I had made a critical mistake earlier that did not allow me to win.

2) I understand how the deck operates inside and out.  

Going back to the previous example, there is a world of difference between a guitar player who focuses on playing the specific notes correctly versus a musician who already knows the notes and focuses on giving it life, giving it a heartbeat, and making it come alive - in essence making it music.

When playing a deck that you are comfortable playing and know how it plays inside and out, you will come across situations where you already know what to do.  I know what tutor targets I have, I know which cards I can let resolve, and I know not just how to sideboard but exactly what to take out and exactly how the post-SB match plays out.  Instead of focusing on the specific plays, I can focus on making those plays in the method I need to win.  There is a fine distinction between the two.

3) By having confidence in my deck and knowing how it works, I can then focus on the match at hand and what my opponent is doing.  

So many people, and I used to be one of them, spend so much time focusing on what their cards are doing and not what their opponent's cards are doing.  When the workings of your own deck are as natural as breathing and walking, you can focus entirely on what your opponent is doing and plan for the future according to that.  An inexperienced player will lose track of what his opponent is doing and make mistakes because of that.  An experienced player will foresee certain game events happen, and make preemptive plays to circumvent bad situations.  

You eliminate problems before they ever become one.  This, in my opinion, is the ultimate defining characteristic of any Magic player.  No amount of psychological warfare can compete when you do this, and ultimately the best psychology you can have during a match is to have control of yourself.  

[Smmenen]

Do people make misleading comments to create an in-game advantage?  Definitely.   However, that's a pretty narrow question. So, I'll broaden it slightly:

Psychology is a huge part of magic. The most often discussed aspect of this is bluffing, tells, and misinformation/misleading statements/questions.   I don't even think those are the most important psychological tools a Magic player can and should use, but they are the ones involved in this question.  

Misinformation can backfire unless very skillfully deployed.  Every piece of information can be used when deciding whether to keep a hand or what to tutor for on turn one.  If you can get a read on an opponent, you can really turn it back on them.   That is, misinformation becomes good information if read properly.

Another thing that I've seen before is when playing combo the combo pilot makes a remark like: "oh man, I hope you have Force of Will or you'll lose!" When in fact your hand is garbage.  You can sometimes induce an opponent to mulligan.  It's particularly powerful if you are playing a deck that has a reputation for being fast, like Ad Nauseam or Grim Long.  

[Anusien]

Everyone talks about how these kinds of plays can blow an opponent out.  From what I've seen, as stated they tend only to work on weaker players, and they have a tendency to backfire.

Let's take the Sadistic Sacrament example.  Most good players I know don't respect the card and wouldn't run it.  If you try and talk your opponent out of running it, they may not be considering flexible sideboarding plans.  For example, they might just have a static list of cards to take in and out.  But I've also seen players like to psych somebody out and forget their own game.

I just think this type of play gets exaggerated because it makes a good story.

[SpencerForHire]

Assumed plays seems like a huge part of the psychological game.  A good example is Vendillion Clique.  There have been several times when I really need to get rid of a junk card and have considered Cliquing myself (whether this is the right play or not is beyond this conversation).  What is interesting is you can play Clique and more often than not my opponent will reveal their hand (keep in mind I have no designated a target on the stack nor has my opponent even specified the Clique's resolution.  I could then respond with something along the lines of "Do you mind if I write down your hand?" followed by "Alright does Clique resolve? I'm going to target myself!"  

Nothing illegal has necessarily occurred here but the assumptions your opponents make about plays can sometimes be excellent ways to capitalize on the psychological game.  There is nothing that says your opponent can't reveal their hand and you can't notate what you see.  There is not any point where I misinterpreted the game state, I simply was very careful about my choice in words...  A very strong weapon in the MTG players arsenal.

[Anusien]

What is interesting is you can play Clique and more often than not my opponent will reveal their hand (keep in mind I have no designated a target on the stack nor has my opponent even specified the Clique's resolution.  I could then respond with something along the lines of "Do you mind if I write down your hand?" followed by "Alright does Clique resolve? I'm going to target myself!"

Nothing illegal has necessarily occurred here

Be careful with that.  It's fine to look quickly at their hand, but not immediately correcting them runs very close to Fraud.

[Yare]

Regarding whether people are intentionally deceptive (myself included), I think the obvious answer is, "yes, people do this." However, with regard to regularity, I think it depends upon the player and the context. With regard to whether a player should use deception, I think it is a "your mileage may vary" sort of thing rather than a "yes, do this all the time" or "no, don't do it at all" thing. As has been mentioned above, players have a finite amount of mental resources. If you focus too much on being deceptive, you may get thrown off from paying attention to other things. On the other hand, a little bit of deception can sometimes be the difference.

One example that comes to mind was at a SCG tournament in what I think was the next to last round of swiss. If I win the match I can draw into Top 8 and I'm in game three playing against Bomberman. He has created "infinite" mana (meaning, an indefinitely large amount of mana) via Black Lotus and Auriok Salvagers and I can't do anything to stop him. I knew for some reason that he would likely have to pass the turn in order to win the game as I didn't think he had a win condition that allowed him to kill me without passing the turn. I intentionally acted completely dejected and defeated at this point as he did one thing after another, eventually saying "everything you do resolves" or something like that. In fact, I was paying close attention and trying to get him on a roll so that he would do things so quickly that he would forget to dump the excess mana into Sensei's Divining Top and therefore burn to death from mana burn (mana burn was still around at this point). He ended up remembering and I lost the match. While I ended up not benefiting in that instance, this was one situation where I tried to convey something other than the truth, though there have been others (all of which were within the rules; there is no glory in winning by cheating).

Regarding something more on point to the question, I am personally not a big fan of intentionally giving others bad advice. I generally prefer not to give advice when directly prompted at a tournament specifically to avoid this issue. On the forum I generally don't care because I'm unlikely to face the vast majority of players on the forum (Though, yeah sure, one of my opponents might pick up on something I've said and use it against me. That's the risk you run). I just prefer not to damage my relationships with other players by intentionally misleading them outside of a tournament match setting. Moreover, if a player does it enough times, word will get around and nobody will fall for the trick anymore. On top of that, people will think he's a jerk. On the other hand, I can definitely see the argument that a potential opponent obviously accepts the risk when accepting one's advice; it would be like in World War II the Axis powers asking the Allies where the most vulnerable spot to attack would be and the Allies feeling some need to answer truthfully. Clearly they would not do this.

Finally, and I think most importantly, keep in mind that no amount of deception will change the cards on the table or the cards in your deck. Ultimately, you personally have the final say on what cards to run and what to do in each situation in a tournament. If you practice and use your own skills confidently and meticulously, no amount of deception will defeat you.

[SpencerForHire]

What is interesting is you can play Clique and more often than not my opponent will reveal their hand (keep in mind I have no designated a target on the stack nor has my opponent even specified the Clique's resolution.  I could then respond with something along the lines of "Do you mind if I write down your hand?" followed by "Alright does Clique resolve? I'm going to target myself!"

Nothing illegal has necessarily occurred here

Be careful with that.  It's fine to look quickly at their hand, but not immediately correcting them runs very close to Fraud.

This hypothetical situation has never completely occurred, I have seen several hands only to choose myself but I've never had the audacity to actually right down all their cards.  There is also a difference between psyching an opponent and performing a "dick move".

[Matt]

In fact, I was paying close attention and trying to get him on a roll so that he would do things so quickly that he would forget to dump the excess mana into Sensei's Divining Top and therefore burn to death from mana burn

Of course, he didn't even need the Top. If he has 1,000,000 black mana floating, he can just use the lotus/salvagers to make 1,000,000 white mana. Then, with the lotus in the graveyard, put 500,000 activations on Salvagers on the stack, all targeting the Lotus. Only one of those will resolve since the others will have lost their target, but he'll dump the mana.

The things you learn playing LED-Survival!

[Yare]

In fact, I was paying close attention and trying to get him on a roll so that he would do things so quickly that he would forget to dump the excess mana into Sensei's Divining Top and therefore burn to death from mana burn

Of course, he didn't even need the Top. If he has 1,000,000 black mana floating, he can just use the lotus/salvagers to make 1,000,000 white mana. Then, with the lotus in the graveyard, put 500,000 activations on Salvagers on the stack, all targeting the Lotus. Only one of those will resolve since the others will have lost their target, but he'll dump the mana.

The things you learn playing LED-Survival!

Yeah, I guess he could have done that, though the thought didn't really cross my mind at the time. It was more of a "just let him do what he's gonna do really fast so he forgets that important detail at the end, however he decides to get rid of the mana" thing.

[Stormanimagus]

@Adepts-

While you are answering my question perhaps I should elaborate a bit on what I'm getting at.

What I'm really interested in is how new cards evolve their way into common play/common tech. Obviously performance is the deciding factor. If Sadistic Sacrament wins games then it is a good card. If not, then not. But how did people decide to play it at first? Did good players simply know it was going to be good? Did GOOD players simply know that Thirst For Knowledge would be good in Vintage? What about more niche cards like Shattering Spree or Gaddock Teeg?

When I discuss the overall Vintage playability of a more 'techy' or 'niche' card with all sorts of Vintage regulars the answers I get all seem to be different. Is this intentional deception or ignorance on their parts? I find it hard to believe that it would be ignorance if these players I talk to are supposed to be the Vintage elite?

Perhaps this begs another question: Who ARE the Vintage Elite? Are there Elite players and then Elite Deck-builders and are they generally the same people?

-Storm

[Marske]

@Storm,

What I'm really interested in is how new cards evolve their way into common play/common tech. Obviously performance is the deciding factor. If Sadistic Sacrament wins games then it is a good card. If not, then not. But how did people decide to play it at first? Did good players simply know it was going to be good? Did GOOD players simply know that Thirst For Knowledge would be good in Vintage? What about more niche cards like Shattering Spree or Gaddock Teeg?

First of all I think it's just a matter of knowing what cards will be good through experience. Looking at Gaddock Teeg and looking at Vintage makes it for me a no-brainer that this guy is going to be good, he shuts down Force of Will, EE, Repeal, Tendrils and all kinds of stuff. The ability of Shattering Spree to dodge Chalice also made it standout immediately. Speaking for myself I have almost 10 years of experience in MT:G (started in late '99) and I've played almost everything (Vintage, Legacy, Extended, Standard, Drafts, Sealed, Big events in all formats and numerous PTQ's GP's etc) it's just a basic skill you develop evaluating cards through experience and looking at the meta game.

When I discuss the overall Vintage playability of a more 'techy' or 'niche' card with all sorts of Vintage regulars the answers I get all seem to be different. Is this intentional deception or ignorance on their parts? I find it hard to believe that it would be ignorance if these players I talk to are supposed to be the Vintage elite?

Could be deception or ignorance, I've found out most players that are actually playing other formats instead of exclusively Vintage tend to find the "niche" cards sooner because they've learned to evaluate cards on another level then the average Vintage player.

Perhaps this begs another question: Who ARE the Vintage Elite? Are there Elite players and then Elite Deck-builders and are they generally the same people?

This depends highly on some very personal criteria, what defines one as being elite can have different meanings for a lot of people. I think one has to have a certain set of skills to be even remotely considered part of this crowd on which we can all agree on, but for the most part people will judge it using their own criteria.

[TheBrassMan]

At the original question:

For the most part I agree with a lot of what's been said already.  I had a starcraft analogy here, but I had to scrap it for more universal appeal .  Consider a player who just learned for the first time that you can use colorless mana on an Engineered Explosives to drop it at zero, killing a Chalice at zero.  In their excitement of learning a new trick they might be very tempted to drop an EE at 0 against a board with Chalice, even if there are more relevant things to kill at other costs.  The excitement of this tricky tactic working perfectly, catching their opponent off guard, completely distracts them from the fact that it's just not the right play.  I see a lot of psychology "tricks" the same way.  You have to be very careful that when you're trying to game someone, it's actually going to help you, that you're not "missing the point."  There are lots of things you can do to gain an advantage in a match, but I've seen many players attempt to pull them when they don't.

At the follow up:

However, it seems you're talking about discussion outside of a tournament/match setting, and rather internet or casual strategy discussion.  I definitely never have (and never plan to have) tried to deceive people about my card evaluations outside of a match itself.  I have omitted my opinion, if I'm working on a deck before a relevant tournament (not that there are relevant tournaments anymore), but not outright lied (outside of obvious sarcasm/trolling on IRC).  For one, it's just against my nature, but further, I really think it provides very little actual advantage.  You're going to get a long term reputation of either lying about tech, or just being totally wrong about it, and lose opportunities because of it.

That said, public perception *is* a very strong pull on the metagame.  Cards and decks will become popular faster or slower than their actual results should indicate, because of the public opinion of them.  Especially now, when there are very few tournaments American players "look up to" for results.  Many American players discount the results of large European tournaments, a decent number discount the results of the Vintage Champs even, because of the proxy disparity.  When there *is* no success barometer telling us whats working and what isn't, tech becomes popular simply because someone says it should be.

To sum it up, I doubt there's a lot of intentional deception going on in public forums.  Different values of new cards are for the same reason people assign different values to old cards, even the most talented and self-sufficient players are operating on imperfect information.  Most players (probably all) have to add a healthy amount of assumption/choosing someone else's opinions to trust or discredit.

[voltron00x]

@Adepts-

While you are answering my question perhaps I should elaborate a bit on what I'm getting at.

What I'm really interested in is how new cards evolve their way into common play/common tech. Obviously performance is the deciding factor. If Sadistic Sacrament wins games then it is a good card. If not, then not. But how did people decide to play it at first? Did good players simply know it was going to be good? Did GOOD players simply know that Thirst For Knowledge would be good in Vintage? What about more niche cards like Shattering Spree or Gaddock Teeg?

When I discuss the overall Vintage playability of a more 'techy' or 'niche' card with all sorts of Vintage regulars the answers I get all seem to be different. Is this intentional deception or ignorance on their parts? I find it hard to believe that it would be ignorance if these players I talk to are supposed to be the Vintage elite?

Perhaps this begs another question: Who ARE the Vintage Elite? Are there Elite players and then Elite Deck-builders and are they generally the same people?

-Storm

One of the things I've found with Vintage is that more than in other formats, players specialize.  Its one of the things I love about the format - the ability to truly master a strategy because it remains viable in some form for years, instead of rotating or becoming obsolete immediately by the release of a new set, as you see in non-Eternal formats.

When Ravenous Trap was spoiled, my teammates immediately sought my opinion on it because I've played the most Ichorid out of the guys on the team; ditto Iona in Oath.  While I'm always loathe to give an opinion without testing, in the case of Trap, it was pretty obvious the card was good and a legit addition to a varied anti-Ichorid SB.  My thought was that an aggressive or combo deck with a fast clock would be more likely to want Rav Trap in multiples, while a Drain deck would probably only want one for the surprise factor and the ability to Mystical for it (just as they can already Tinker for artifact hate, it helps up the % chance of finding hate or virtual hate).  While I don't think people that were anti-trap were necessarily purposefully misleading anyone, I definitely think that an anti-Ichorid card is best evaluated by someone who has spent a lot of time playing the deck.  I also got beat up by some people for not jumping on the Iona bandwagon immediately, but I didn't want to say the card was great without testing it.  Vroman found a pretty awesome shell for the deck, but one that I think isn't long for the Vintage world because its easier to hate out than a normal Oath deck (which already is vulnerable to certain cards and strategies).   

When you discuss tech or new cards with a Vintage player, you need to ask yourself a few things when you examine their response.  First, does this person specialize in a certain deck?  For example, I thought Sacrament would be good b/c it potentially wrecks the deck I play the most in Vintage, but overall the card has been kind of a bust thus far.  My response to it was definitely skewed because of the fact that I play Oath.  It was also skewed because my Vintage experience with any type of mono-Black deck is very limited, and this is also true for Vintage TPS. 

Second, is this person open to Vintage decks or cards outside the norm as a general rule?  A player who is willing to play Meandeck Beats, B/R Stax, or Euro Storm is probably going to be able to give you a more open answer and be willing to think outside the box.  There are definitely Vintage players I respect that are unwilling to see anything outside of Tezz, TPS, or Shops as viable because that's all they know - even as this year's Blue Bells have shown that strategies like Landstill, Ichorid, Oath, and Fish are capable of winning 30-50 player events.  One of the things that impresses me the most about Stephen is that, either due to his own innate mindset or as a result of his constant data analysis, he isn't tied to any one strategy OR any one specific preconception about what exactly can succeed in Vintage.  What Vintage "is" is a Magic format like any other, but people tend to view it as a set of specific decks that overrule any other strategies.  For instance, when I saw Austin's CB/Top deck in NY in August (at the NYSE II), I thought it had the shell to be a potentially viable deck.  Chas Hinkle and I tested it pretty extensively, and he immediately split in the finals of the Oaks tournament in Sept, while Austin has made two or three more Top 8s with his version.  Despite this, most people don't think Counterbalance is a viable card based on preconceptions about what makes up Vintage.  They ignore the fact that those two players have something like an 85% Top 8 conversion percentage over the last 3 months.

Determining any kind of Vintage "elite" is always going to be difficult because the format is so regional, the tournaments aren't sanctioned, and the Champs event is at a tournament that doesn't allow proxies and that many people refuse to go to.  Its a shame that the TMD points system didn't really take off; I thought it was a great idea.  There are definitely people who are elite players and those who are elite deckbuilders, and there are a few people who are both.  More common are elite players who are excellent at adapting a deck for a given metagame.  I think these people tend to excel at Vintage, because as we see repeatedly, small changes in a list can dramatically swing match-ups.