Advice for Competitive Playing

[Soapbot]

Borderline trolling deleted.  -DA

- A stax player goes 1st, drops trini or sphere- you lose

- Delta for a Underground sea so you can duress- whoops they have a wasteland- you lose

- opponent topdecks a tinker late game after you countered every other threat -you lose

- You duress  and they have 2 fow, brainstorm, demonic tutor- you lose

- Mox and land 1st turn goyf, you cast vampric tutor, the only buisness in your hand- whoops daze- you lose

- God comes down, shuffles their deck, and personally draws 7 cards for them in their opening hand- you lose

- draw mox, after land, after sol ring, after land- you lose

-side in leyline against ichorid, but don't get it in your opening hand-you lose, mulligan still no leylin- you lose-
(Then draw it, as the game progresses, and miss your second land drop- makes you wanna flip the table over)

I've played many many games of vintage, I've won a good deal, and lost a good deal. So now from an analytical stand point
I'm trying to figure out my mistakes, although my games are usually determined in the 1st three turns. You could have a good hand but,
if you opponent has a better one, what does it matter. If his oath goes off before your mana drain is online...well -you lose.
So im ready to give up on this random format, and get rid of my cards. I've played maybe like 20 good vintage games out of many,
where both you and opponent have good hands, and the balance of power shifts. Not shuffle draw and-you lose.
I'm no expert, but i was just looking for a reason to keep playing this format. I want to get better, but it doesn't seem like a skill thing anymore.
very frustrated HELP!!
 

[Juggernaut GO]

sounds like you just suck at the game, try hello kitty adventure island, you may have more success.

[LotusHead]

I'm no expert, but i was just looking for a reason to keep playing this format. I want to get better, but it doesn't seem like a skill thing anymore.
very frustrated HELP!!

Try "Not giving up".

When a new member of Team Vacaville finally goes to a tourney, their goal is to "Win a match".

Sometimes it took them 4 or 5 tourneys before they won a match.  Then they start seeing the bigger picture.  Sure, there is a random factor to Vintage (just like every format of Magic), but Vintage is all about skill, metagaming, meta-knowledge, yes winning the die roll, and well, class.

If your experience is so miserable, try observing the games of high-level players and see how much skill is involved.  There is a reason that certain people often make top 8 and/or dominate the finals.  It's dedication, practice, experience, skill, and a bit of luck.

Magic is like chess with 1000 different pieces, skill is paramount.  Knowing when to mulligan is paramount, trusting your deckbuilding skills to give you that topdeck or out is paramount.

And lastly, welcome to TheManaDrain.

[zeus-online]

- A stax player goes 1st, drops trini or sphere- you lose

Errrh...You lost to turn 1 sphere of resistance? Sounds like you're playing combo...And in this case workshops isn't exactly the easiest match-up to start with.
If you're not playing Combo i have a hard time seeing as to how you just autolost to a turn 1 sphere.....Even a turn 1 resolved Trinisphere is beatable, although that is much rarer.

- Delta for a Underground sea so you can duress- whoops they have a wasteland- you lose

Again you somehow lost to 1 wasteland....? I hope you atleast sided your duresses/thoughtseizes out for game 2 since they're rarely good against any deck featuring wastelands.

- opponent topdecks a tinker late game after you countered every other threat -you lose

Try racing it, if he finds sphinx or inkwell you should have a turn or two to do something (Actually even DSC will likely take 2 turns to beat you)...like finding a bounce spell or going infinite with Vault/Key.

- You duress  and they have 2 fow, brainstorm, demonic tutor- you lose

If your duress resolved, just take the demonic and he's all out of gas. I'm assuming it resolved since you know the exact contends.

- Mox and land 1st turn goyf, you cast vampric tutor, the only buisness in your hand- whoops daze- you lose

Try playing around daze....? And how exactly did you loose to getting your vampiric countered in the first place? Your hand can't have been any good if your only business is vampiric turn1...Did you mull heavily?

- God comes down, shuffles their deck, and personally draws 7 cards for them in their opening hand- you lose

Divine intervention, that is very rare but indeed hard to beat...Since if god is on their side, who can be on yours?* /Sarcasm

- draw mox, after land, after sol ring, after land- you lose

Mana flood! How unique to vintage....I've never been mana flooded in any non-vintage games. /Sarcasm

-side in leyline against ichorid, but don't get it in your opening hand-you lose, mulligan still no leylin- you lose-
(Then draw it, as the game progresses, and miss your second land drop- makes you wanna flip the table over)

Try 7 SB slots against ichorid...Since you really need the hate turn 1 or 2.

And lastly, welcome to TheManaDrain.

*If God is for us, who can be against us?

[Rico Suave]

One of the steps an average player needs in order to become good is to realize how luck impacts the game.

Is there something *you* could have done, either before or during the game, to impact the result?  Let's take these situations at a glance:

- A stax player goes 1st, drops trini or sphere- you lose

If you are on the draw against Stax, and don't have Force of Will or at least 2 lands, you should probably mulligan. 

- Delta for a Underground sea so you can duress- whoops they have a wasteland- you lose

This is a direct result of your own decisions.  There are numerous things *you* can do to change the outcome of this situation:
1) Don't play Duress on the first turn
2) Don't play Duress in your deck at all
3) Don't fetch for a dual land, but instead find a basic Swamp
4) Don't keep a hand with 1 mana source that folds to Wasteland

- opponent topdecks a tinker late game after you countered every other threat -you lose

There are things *you* can do to change this situation:
1) Consider what you countered before, and realize that one of those things may have been wrong to counter
2) Win, even if your opponent plays Tinker.

So many times my opponent has cast a Tinker, only for me to continue on and win anyway because I cast something more powerful (Yawgmoth's Will).

- You duress  and they have 2 fow, brainstorm, demonic tutor- you lose

How is this even remotely close to a loss? 

- Mox and land 1st turn goyf, you cast vampric tutor, the only buisness in your hand- whoops daze- you lose

1) Play around Daze
2) Don't keep a hand with 1 Vampiric Tutor as your only business
3) Stay in the game because you still have plenty of time to win (a turn 1 goyf + daze is a 10 turn clock by itself)

- draw mox, after land, after sol ring, after land- you lose

I would be happy to draw that in many situations.  What is wrong, exactly?  Play some library manipulation like Sensei's Divining Top and you can filter away the extra/useless mana, grab the land, and fetch to reshuffle and look at 3 new and good cards.

-side in leyline against ichorid, but don't get it in your opening hand-you lose, mulligan still no leylin- you lose-
(Then draw it, as the game progresses, and miss your second land drop- makes you wanna flip the table over)

If you were playing almost anything except Leyline (say Tormod's Crypt), you would have been able to draw it and still play it.  Your card choices in deck construction must take this into account, but they are *your* choices.

- God comes down, shuffles their deck, and personally draws 7 cards for them in their opening hand- you lose

Now we get to the heart of the matter.  You feel that luck determines the winner, but this is wrong.  Do people get lucky?  Sure.  But over a long haul, luck evens out. 

Good play and smart choices determine the winner. 

I'm going to quote a sticky in the Vintage Improvement Forum:

"2. Let go of the myth of luck.
Does luck happen? Sure, sometimes. But it's rare. Most things that a player perceives as luck are in fact the results of decisions that the player has made. Did you get killed by Flash on the first turn? Well, was that luck? Or did you not pack enough Leylines in the sideboard? If there is something you could have done about it, it isn't luck."

[Mantis]

There is one thing you have to accept when you play Magic, you are going to lose games and matches as a direct result of bad matchups, bad draws or opponents luck even if you played everything 100% perfect. This is more true in Vintage due to the broken nature of the format where some cards are so much better than others. You just have to accept this fact, otherwise you will not enjoy the game. As you get better at the game, you will find that what appeared to be luck, is actually skill.

[TheShop]

It is really odd reading this guy's complaints to me.  The reason is that a few of the losses look like they are due to bad decisions, but most of the ones he listed look like he was just unlucky enough to never rip the busted stuff!  This sounds like a deck-building problem more than anything else.  I mean, if you get beat by double force + demonic tutor when you are duressing...

[JACO]

sounds like you just suck at the game, try hello kitty adventure island, you may have more success.

Go fish has a very low learning curve, as does Uno. I'd suggest trying those card games based on your complaints above (which are relevant to nearly every constructed format in Magic).

[GrandpaBelcher]

Pay no attention to Wimp Lo.  We have purposely trained him wrong... as a joke.

[Soapbot]

Wow, you guys are awesome everything you said was great to hear- even the hello kitty crack!!

let me just clarify on the things said- if you play against stax and they win the dice roll, go first dropping sphere or trini,
no you don't lose automatically, but the momentum is against you from turn one. NOW you have to hit every land drop
or you will be locked out (because next is thorn or tangle) .

Yes- sure take the demonic tutor and then he can brainstorm into more buisnes, not an auto lose no, but the duress was not as powerful
and really didn't set your opponent back


3) Stay in the game because you still have plenty of time to win (a turn 1 goyf + daze is a 10 turn clock by itself)

true stay in it, but goyf never stays flat for long, so more like a  4-6 turn clock


3) Don't fetch for a dual land, but instead find a basic Swamp
4) Don't keep a hand with 1 mana source that folds to Wasteland

true, i do get a basic swamp depending on matchup- but once wastland hits, you must get every land drop.



There is one thing you have to accept when you play Magic, you are going to lose games and matches as a direct result of bad matchups, bad draws or opponents luck even if you played everything 100% perfect. This is more true in Vintage due to the broken nature of the format where some cards are so much better than others. You just have to accept this fact, otherwise you will not enjoy the game. As you get better at the game, you will find that what appeared to be luck, is actually skill.

That's dead-on. I can understand that. Then how does one win a tournament with that X-factor? moreover how does one win Consistently?



If your experience is so miserable, try observing the games of high-level players and see how much skill is involved.  There is a reason that certain people often make top 8 and/or dominate the finals.  It's dedication, practice, experience, skill, and a bit of luck.

I do watch high level play, That is what keeps me going, the games are simply amazing!

[Tha Gunslinga]

So, the question is, why are YOUR opponents not making these complaints?

[Shean]

Just as many people have stated:  Luck is more of an illusion than anything.  It does exist, but it evens out over time.

For example:  I went to a Legacy tournament a few years ago.  I extensively playtested against what I considered to be the "tier-1" decks.  I played Goblins and went 0-2 drop.  My deck never gave me what I wanted.  One game I had to mulligan to 4 because none of my hands had any mana.  Another game I started with 2 lands in hand and didn't draw another for 10 turns.  You could call this a "deckbuilding" error or an "improper shuffling" error, but I don't believe that it was.  I simply got "unlucky."  As frustrating as it was, I just shrugged my shoulders and said to myself, "it's not your day."

Having confidence in your abilities is a very helpful way to dismiss luck.  Another example:  I was in the T8 of a tournament last year playing against Stifle-Naught.  I had already answered one Phyrexian Dreadnaught, but my opponent had another with the Stifle.  I don't remember the details, but I had one turn to get an answer.  My next draw for the turn, I ripped Rack & Ruin off the top.

Was this luck?  Yes, and no.  I boarded in my extra Rack and Ruins and also ran other ways to answer a resolved Naught.  It was luck that I ripped a Rack & Ruin at the exact moment that I needed it; however, I played a deck that had multiple options and answers to artifacts.  Keep in mind that this was in the T8 of the tournament, and I do not believe that I was simply "drawing the nuts" all day to get myself into the T8.  In Vintage, there are so many small decisions that have large impacts on the game that it is, in my mind, impossible to "draw the nuts" all day as a subpar player and still make T8.

If you want to consistently place well in tournaments, focus on these three things:

1)  Don't make play mistakes.  What you consider a correct play is very possibly a mistake.  You will learn more and more as you play more.  I rarely believe anyone who says they played an entire tournament without making a play mistake.  Many times there are two possible plays that could both be correct; however, later in the game (often times you don't realize until multiple turns later) its turns out that one would have been substantially better than the other.  Keep in mind that I judge whether a play was a mistake or not, based upon the information available when the decision was made.  However, being able to extract the most information based on your hand, your opponent's cards that you have seen, and, more difficultly, extracting any possible information from your opponent are skills that are hard to develop.

Recognizing these moments, making the best use of information available to you, and assessing the situation accurately are extremely valuable.  These skills are developed over many, many games.

2)  Play the best deck.  I do not believe that you can consistently place well in tournaments without attempting to play the best deck consistently.  For example, let's say that you are typically a Mana Drain player, but recent T8's are showing very favorable results from Stax decks.  Some argue that you should play the Mana Drain deck because you are more proficient with those cards.  I argue that to be a top-tier player, you must be proficient with all of the "top-tier" decks in the given format.

To take this example to the extreme:  Steve Menendian is known as one of the best combo-archetype players.  Do you really think that Steve doesn't know how to play very well with Mana Drains?  Rich Shay is known as an excellent Mana Drain player, but I guarantee he can pilot a combo deck extremely well.

My point is that, if there are decks in the format that you are incapable of playing, then you probably don't fully understand all of the decks in the format.  This also lends itself to the point that:  If you don't fully understand your opponent's deck archetype, then you are much more likely to make play mistakes.

3)  Playtest against people who are better than you.  If you are the one who knows more than your playtesting partner, then you are very rarely going to learn un-intuitive tricks and strategies with a given deck.  Playing with someone who is more proficient with a certain deck (or even more proficient at Magic in general) will teach you some of the tactics that successful players use much quicker than trying to learn them on your own.

I also recommend reading Rich Shay's topic, "Suggestions for Improving your Game."

[meadbert]

If you assume that both players play optimally all of the time, then all games of magic are purely games of luck.  That varies only depending on the frequency of play mistakes.
If you find that type 1 has too much luck then you are implying that neither you nor your opponents make play mistakes as often as in other formats.  I find this claim unlikely.

Regarding the claim that vintage is luck based because it is more reliant on opening hands:
This is a falacious argument.  Vintage is more reliant on opening hands, but this does not make it luck based at all. 
If you opening hand is bad or mediocre you always have the option to mulligan.  This mulliganing decision is very skill intensive and is in fact a measure of skill.
Mid game top decks (which presumably other formats are dependant on) have no such skill element.  If you do not like a top deck you are SOL.  Magic allows for no mid game mulligans.

For this reason the reliance on opening hands actually makes type 1 more skill intensive.

[TheShop]

I had another thought on this subject:

"If you can't beat em', join em'."

When I first started looking at vintage, I thought that TriniStax was the stupidest deck ever built...so I went out and purchased every card that blew up, bounced, or countered artifacts that I could get my hands on.  As it turns out, running all of these cards did not make me win because I was playing a poorly built pile of cards with no decent win condition or mana base.  Over the course of the next three years I accumulated all of the key cards for the decks in the top tiers of Vintage.  I made an attempt at putting them all together and playing with each one.  I actually ended up liking the decks that smashed my face in more than any other deck I had ever played!  Also, you will gain key insights into what makes each deck tick and how they can come back from the seemingly overwhelming tempo swings that can occur in Vintage.

Don't give up.  Adapt and learn.  Less blowouts occur when the players have similar skill levels (which means you need to always be imrpoving own skill level) and the decks are of similar power level.  

Example:

I played powered Flash at a local tournament against completely un-powered decks.  Several of the un-powered decks were actually Lorwyn block decks.  These rounds usually ended in less than 5 minutes.  But when I played against other players with similarly powerful decks:  the games took longer because the decks exhausted each other's resources and needed time to re-sculpt a hand.

[T00L]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been deleted yet. Now don't get me wrong I hate vintage right now and as a result haven't been playing which is my choice I don't bitch to other people who do chose to play the format because they like it. Also the reasons you outlined as the reasons vintage is terrible aren't anything new and aren't in fact problems related to the current format. Basically I think what I'm trying to say is it sounds like you're really terrible and need to lurk more. Have a nice day.

[Soapbot]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been deleted yet. Now don't get me wrong I hate vintage right now and as a result haven't been playing which is my choice I don't bitch to other people who do chose to play the format because they like it. Also the reasons you outlined as the reasons vintage is terrible aren't anything new and aren't in fact problems related to the current format. Basically I think what I'm trying to say is it sounds like you're really terrible and need to lurk more. Have a nice day.

thank you... but I just posted that cuz I know people would comment on their thoughts and I wanted to here other people's opinions
,like a hook.....I'm not really telling them to stop playing/// but I guess I overestimated your intelligence oh hum

[Rico Suave]

1)  Don't make play mistakes.  What you consider a correct play is very possibly a mistake.  You will learn more and more as you play more.  I rarely believe anyone who says they played an entire tournament without making a play mistake.  Many times there are two possible plays that could both be correct; however, later in the game (often times you don't realize until multiple turns later) its turns out that one would have been substantially better than the other.

I have two responses to this:

1) There's a saying that says the average PTQ player makes 3 play mistakes per turn.  I rarely believe anyone who says they played an entire game without making a play mistake.

2) While I read the entirety of the sentence, you say there are times when two possible plays could be correct, and  I just wanted to point out this is false.  There is only ever one correct play at any given point in time.  This correct play will give you the best chance of winning the game, and all other plays are less likely to lead to victory and thus they are mistakes.

[MirariKnight]

2) While I read the entirety of the sentence, you say there are times when two possible plays could be correct, and  I just wanted to point out this is false.  There is only ever one correct play at any given point in time.  This correct play will give you the best chance of winning the game, and all other plays are less likely to lead to victory and thus they are mistakes.

That is assuming you know all the hidden information. There can be two seemingly equally optimal plays (assuming no knowledge of the opponent's hand), but once can be worse in actuality depending on contents of said hand/opponent's decisions. I guess you could argue that there is only one optimal play, but that would sometimes require x-ray vision and divination.

[Smmenen]

if skill doesn't mean anything, then why do the best players always seem to win? 

[Bill Copes]

sounds like you just suck at the game, try hello kitty adventure island, you may have more success.

I'll say it for Stefan.  L O L

*Edit*

I neglected to see he already posted in the thread, but did, in fact, not LOL.  I'm somewhat sad.

[Rico Suave]

That is assuming you know all the hidden information. There can be two seemingly equally optimal plays (assuming no knowledge of the opponent's hand), but once can be worse in actuality depending on contents of said hand/opponent's decisions. I guess you could argue that there is only one optimal play, but that would sometimes require x-ray vision and divination.

Well, I could even argue that the "correct" play might even lose you the game over a sub-optimal play. 

By correct play I mean the play that gives you the best chance of winning a game.  In testing, you'll oftentimes develop trends.  One such trend is that the first player to resolve Ancestral Recall is favored to win (I don't have exact percentages).  Good players pick up on these trends and apply them.

I think we can all agree that if Ancestral Recall is in your opening hand and you can cast it, it's the correct play 9 times out of 10.  However I've lost games by going for Ancestral and having it Misdirected, but that won't stop me from going for Ancestral in the future because the odds say that it increases my chances of winning by a large margin.  You may play differently in the 2nd and 3rd games against that opponent, but in an unknown situation going for that Ancestral is the correct play - even if it will sometimes lose you the game.

[Demonic Attorney]

This thread showcases some of the best and the worst of TMD has to offer at the same time.  Soapbot's complaints aren't unique among new players to Type One.  Picking up the format often involves a period of adjustment where players are learning about the metagame, the format-defining cards, the ins-and-outs of their own deck, and the main strategies to attack other decks.  

As multiple people have helpfully noted, newer players often misunderstand just how much control they have over how their matches play out.  They overlook key opportunities to hedge against being blown out, or they neglect to make small plays that produce important incremental advantages.  It's tempting to attribute the disadvantage that comes from all those missed opportunities as bad luck.  Sometimes it is.  Sometimes it isn't.  But every time you write off a negative outcome to bad luck, you're sacrificing a chance to learn more about how the game is played, how your deck is designed, and what you can do differently next time to avoid whatever problems you had.  Those insights are how players get better.

Look at it this way.  Right now, I can probably name a dozen Vintage players that win or put up high finishes in almost every single tournament they play in.  For proof, look over the top 8 results for any given region over a 1-year period.  I guarantee you'll see the same names over and over.  Are these people just that lucky?  Or do they know something you don't?  Many of those players have posted in this thread, and the advice they're giving you will provide some of the first building blocks you can use to bring your game to the next level.  This is one of the main functions of TMD.

But as I said at the beginning, this thread provides an example of some of the best, and worst, TMD has to offer.  Soapbot didn't start things off on the best foot, insulting the format and providing poor evidence for his claim.  Some people here took this thread farther down that road by trolling him back.  Let's all agree to be a little more mature about this topic from now on and make an honest effort to be sincere and helpful in addressing what I'm sure are common frustrations for newer players.  Soapbot, it would probably also help you to read the forum rules to avoid further problems with posting.  Thanks.

[AmbivalentDuck]

if skill doesn't mean anything, then why do the best players always seem to win?

I'm not explicitly disagreeing with your implication that skill -> winning, but there's a huge sampling bias.  Tournaments attract people who 1) Own physical cards, 2) live within traveling distance of the tournament, and 3) Want to buy expensive power cards (E[tourney participation] < entry cost + travel fees + money you could have made in several hours time).  The phrase "always seem to win" itself implies regular tournament attendance discounting the relative value of skill.

Assume that you want someone to win a monthly 16 or 32 man tournament 50% of the time, their odds of a winning each individual matchup are given by:
P^3=.5, P=79% (win the top 8 50% of the time)
P^4=.5, P=84%
P^5=.5, P=87%

That's patently ridiculous barring cheating or repeated matchups against decks that don't belong in a "real" vintage meta.  Especially in the top 8, you should get stuck in the 5-8th places at least 40% of the time.

[TracerBullet]

if skill doesn't mean anything, then why do the best players always seem to win? 

For the same reason anything ever "seems" to happen - because we don't know the impact of chance.  6 years ago, people used to say the same thing about poker.




That being said, the most important thing in this situation is to realize that you control exactly one part of the "skill-chance" equation, namely the skill part.  Despair all you want about how much random chance impacts Magic, the fact of the matter is the player with more skill will have a better chance of winning, as all luck is both equal and random.  You wanna win?  Play better.  Build better.  Metagame better. Only thing YOU can do to change your luck. 

Luck favors the prepared.

[Mantis]

AmbivalentDuck: Those odds frankly aren't that far from the truth for some players. This is not the Pro Tour where everyone is at least a decent player and most are just very good. We are talking about open tournaments and some players are just miles ahead of others. If you ask me, the majority of the T1 tournament population is flatout terrible and an 80% win ration against them is actually doable.

In Vintage I believe you can gain a much bigger edge by being a better player than your opponents than by having the hot tech. In Standard the opposite appears to be true.

[AmbivalentDuck]

In Vintage I believe you can gain a much bigger edge by being a better player than your opponents than by having the hot tech. In Standard the opposite appears to be true.

You do have to be able to recognize and take advantage of "Oops I win" moments.  People also don't recognize that decks with "Oops I win" conditions are significantly easier to play than decks that attempt to contain their opponent.  At one point Vroman (well known, high level of skill) described 5C Baghbad Bob as a deck that didn't tolerate even a single mistake.  I'd say that Goblins is just as hard to pilot since the control elements are so weak that you have to use them almost perfectly and they're very situational.

I regularly beat him in the 5C bob vs UBr Doomsday matchup, but he's definitely the better player.

[zeus-online]

if skill doesn't mean anything, then why do the best players always seem to win? 

Actually, how do you define them as "best" if skill is not a factor?

If skill is not a factor at all, then there is no "best players" there's only "lucky players" and "unlucky players".

And that obviously is not true.

[AmbivalentDuck]

If skill is not a factor at all, then there is no "best players" there's only "lucky players" and "unlucky players".

Untrue.  Winning is a function of both probability of t8 AND frequency of attendance.  There's a cute argument that the most frequent tournament attendees in a skill-free world will put up the most wins...explaining the higher win *counts* of the "best players."

[Mantis]

In Vintage I believe you can gain a much bigger edge by being a better player than your opponents than by having the hot tech. In Standard the opposite appears to be true.

You do have to be able to recognize and take advantage of "Oops I win" moments.  People also don't recognize that decks with "Oops I win" conditions are significantly easier to play than decks that attempt to contain their opponent.  At one point Vroman (well known, high level of skill) described 5C Baghbad Bob as a deck that didn't tolerate even a single mistake.  I'd say that Goblins is just as hard to pilot since the control elements are so weak that you have to use them almost perfectly and they're very situational.

I regularly beat him in the 5C bob vs UBr Doomsday matchup, but he's definitely the better player.

How does random collection of anecdotes relate to the points I raised in any way? Both you and Vroman strike me as way above average player and my guess is the skill difference between you and him probably is nowhere near the skill difference between a very strong player and a random player who picks up his cards once a month to play in a tournament. I believe that skill difference allows for a staggering matchwin percentage of 80% while the skill difference between you and Vroman might cause him to eek out 5-10% over you.

[AmbivalentDuck]

In Vintage I believe you can gain a much bigger edge by being a better player than your opponents than by having the hot tech. In Standard the opposite appears to be true.

He's the way stronger player and consistently lost.  Ie. Tech mattered more than skill.

If you ask me, the majority of the T1 tournament population is flatout terrible and an 80% win ration against them is actually doable.

I failed to make this clear: that should never happen in an "ideal" meta.  "Bad players" typically fail to realize that their chances of winning starkly increase when playing fault-tolerant decks like Tez.    A mediocre player piloting Fish can put up truly terrible results, but a mediocre player piloting Tez should never fall below 35%.  It takes an experienced player on par with Vroman to correctly play Bazaar "fish" since every turn presents new opportunities to fail to keep control.  By contrast, Tez presents new opportunities every turn for a weak player to lucksack into a win.