Player Comfort vs Optimal Card Choices

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

I would like to say something related to individual card choices when making a deck before a tournament. This does not have to do with deck selection, merely the intricate last few slots that make your deck your own. The card selection process Smmenen lists here is quite possibly the most thorough deckbuilding strategy I have ever seen and it feels like heresy to question it, but I think it is missing something and would like to know what the elites of the Vintage community think about my opinion:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/18454_So_Many_Insane_Plays_The_Return_of_The_Deck.html

Step 4:
Choose a tiebreaker to select the rest of your decklist by matchup importance. In doing so, be sure to give greater weight to some decklists you expect to face in the Top 8 despite their frequency in the metagame as a whole. Also, when choosing among final cards, make sure that you give some weight to the fact that you want internal synergies.

I think it is also important to consider personal playstyle when selecting these last few slots. I think that it is damaging to the decklist to try and force your playstyle into the basic elements of a deck, but by the end of your list comfort is a strong factor. For example, let us say that you are playing Tezz with a splash of green. You desperately need an anti-artifact+enchantment card and have narrowed down your hate choices to three cards:

Naturalize
Seal of Primordium
Krosan Grip

These are all reasonably fine cards that each have their own benefits in a certain matchup. Naturalize is probably better against a hate deck that runs Null Rod but lacks countermagic, Seal is better against Stax where you can drop it before the lock pieces get down, and Krosan Grip is strongest against something like Oath that can counter back. The bottom line is that according to Smmenen's process, you should chose the card that is best for the decks you think you will face in the tournament. However, I think that one must also consider personal playstyle. Each card has weaknesses, but I would like to suggest that if the decks you expect to face do not very strongly  incline you towards one card your playstyle should be the deciding factor.

My reasoning is that if a card better fits your playstyle you will be more comfortable with it and as such will use it to the fullest potential. For example a person who is used to casting all their spells EOT may not know when the best time to cast a Seal of Primordium is. Similarly a person used to playing many sorcery speed spells may not know when to hold open the correct amount of mana for a Naturalize or Grip, thus not using their mana base to the fullest potential. Now obviously there are players capable of breaking free of their usual comfort zone, but even the best of us make mistakes. I am suggesting that when considering a card in your deck list you should not only look at whether it fills the correct role your deck needs, but also if it fits your playstyle. I'm not sure where I've heard this but I am strongly behind the line of thinking that a player who plays flawlessly with a suboptimal deck will win more games than a person who makes mistakes with a perfect deck. Keeping a player comfortable may be more important than simply picking the best card for the job.

I suppose rather than just proposing a theory and asking for opinions I should also ask a question. Have you ever run a card knowing it was suboptimal just because you felt more comfortable with it? Do you think we should in a sense try to conquer all play styles and simply forcing ourselves to accept the best possible card? Do you think that doing so leads us to be jacks of all trades but masters of none? Do you think personal playstyle should simply apply to the archetype and not specific cards?

**As a side note for extreme people I do not mean something like running Tarpan in place of Tinker, rather more subtle differences like Spell Pierce vs Mana Drain. Essentially picking a choice that is slightly worse in the metagame you expect to keep you comfortable, not one that butchers your decklist.

[MirariKnight]

You raise some very interesting points. I definitely agree, so long as the cards you are choosing between are relatively equivalent in function, like the 3 anti-artifact cards you provided. I certainly believe that it comes down to playstyle and personal preference in decisions like that, because in reality each of the cards serves the exact same function, and they work best when you use them "correctly." If you are more likely to utilize one card correctly than another (ex. Naturalize vs. Seal because of instant speed), then you should definitely play Naturalize even if Seal is better. However, if you know that there is a particular reason why one option is so much better than another (say you're expecting tons of Stax, Nature's Claim >>>>> Krosan Grip) then you should certainly play the better option. It's when it comes down to the choices where quite honestly it doesn't make more than 1% difference that I believe playstyle preference should decide card choices.

As a side note I am particularly attached to playing Mana Drain and I play it even when Spell Pierce or some mix of Pierce and Drains would be better, because I'm just more comfortable playing a deck with Drains. There is a certain way to play with Drain that doesn't work with Pierce, and vice versa. My playstyle preference is much more in line with Drains, even though quite honestly Pierces would likely be better.

[TheBrassMan]

Over on the other mana drain, a saying has come up a few times in conversation "There's another word for playstyle... 'mistake'."  While I'm a firm believe in this, I also believe that has human beings, with limited resources available to us, often the smart move is to make a concession for playstyle, to play the card or deck you're going to make less mistakes with because it's not realistic to learn a better card before the event.  I've made that decision myself, most notably recently playing Fact or Fiction over gifts since getting back into vintage from legacy, because let's face it, it's a lot easier to FoF correctly when you're out of practice.  Those decisions are always made, however, with full awareness that I'm making a conscious sacrifice because I didn't test enough. 

Despite this, I don't think that playstyle versus "optimal" card choice decisions fight in any way with the deckbuilding method menendian uses to prepare for events.  In the all-important "step 2", where you're building multiple versions of a deck to face different metagame contenders, you're already inundating the list with playstyle decisions.  In the hypothetical example of a player more comfortable casting instants than enchantments, that needs to be factored in right away, in step 2.  If a player just cant figure out when to play a Seal, why is Seal in their anti-stax list to begin with?  In step 2 you want to make the deck that you think will give you the most wins against each archetype.  If you're so much more comfortable with Naturalize that it's actually going to affect your ability to win, Naturalize should be in your anti-stax deck.  If you factor in your playstyle bias twice (once in deckbuilding step 2, once in tiebreaker step 4), then you're going to be overcompensating for it.  No matter how much you try to avoid it, even if you put that Seal of Cleansing in your anti-stax list, you're *already* biasing your decks based on playstyle... that's what deckbuilding *is*. 

If you're someone who's worried about making mistakes with one card so much that you're willing to run something worse over it, it seems a little silly to think you even know what the optimal card is to begin with?  This is definitely not an attack, I rarely feel I know what the optimal card is in a particular situation, and I've been playing this game a long, long time.  As before, we're all humans, we have very limited resources at our disposal, and lots of motivation to use less and less of those resources on magic.  A decklist is always just your best guess to begin with.  The fact that you think a green disenchant spell goes in the last slot is already a playstyle decision.  Who says Seal is better than Naturalize against stax? against Tangle Wire it isn't, against chalice 2 Krosan Grip is better.  Why not run Hurkyls Recall or Energy Flux against Stax?  Greater Gargadon or Sadistic Sacrament against Oath?  Tarmogoyf or Pyroclasm against the Null Rod deck?  I'm not saying the disenchant effects are wrong, I'm just saying you already made a huge leap of faith assuming they're not... If you think a card is good, chances are it fits your playstyle better than you think.

Is the tournament tomorrow?  Have you been losing games with Seal of Primordium that you would have won with Naturalize?  If so, you have to run that Naturalize.  That's just metagaming, and not doing it is playing suboptimally.  Do you have more time though?  How much more time?  Where does "winning" rank in your magic goals (and for the vast majority of players, it's not at the top, even if many people think it is for them).  If you have the time and someone to test with or tournaments to burn, and you think that Seal could be better than Naturalize if you just knew when to cast it, chances are you're not far off.  You can test the matchups where it's relevant, or aggressively seed the card into your opening 7,  or just make a mental note when you draw Naturalize, "What would I do here if this was a Seal, how would I play this, how would it be better or worse."  With two cards so radically close in ability, it's not hard at all to get relevant data out of a smaller number of games, to really get a feel for the strengths and weaknesses of each, and to learn in which situations you want one or the other.  This is probably worth the effort it takes, provided you have a little extra time to test with.

If your sights are a little higher though, you cant really stop there.  At some point you need to learn to play cards and strategies highly oppositional to your personal playstyle.  As humans, we just plain don't have the time or mental resources to test every plan, which means progress is slow going, with lots of work for very infrequent bursts of results.  You could test a deck for months to find out that it really isn't as good as what you were playing before, or that it's better, but not enough to win you more matches.

A "playstyle" is just a set of mistakes you consistently make, that you're comfortable not fixing.  For most people, it's not really worth what it would take to fix them.  I guess the takeaway is that you have to be realistic about your goals and your abilities.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

Despite this, I don't think that playstyle versus "optimal" card choice decisions fight in any way with the deckbuilding method menendian uses to prepare for events.  In the all-important "step 2", where you're building multiple versions of a deck to face different metagame contenders, you're already inundating the list with playstyle decisions.  In the hypothetical example of a player more comfortable casting instants than enchantments, that needs to be factored in right away, in step 2.  If a player just cant figure out when to play a Seal, why is Seal in their anti-stax list to begin with?  In step 2 you want to make the deck that you think will give you the most wins against each archetype.  If you're so much more comfortable with Naturalize that it's actually going to affect your ability to win, Naturalize should be in your anti-stax deck.  If you factor in your playstyle bias twice (once in deckbuilding step 2, once in tiebreaker step 4), then you're going to be overcompensating for it.  No matter how much you try to avoid it, even if you put that Seal of Cleansing in your anti-stax list, you're *already* biasing your decks based on playstyle... that's what deckbuilding *is*. 

I think that so far excellent points have been raised and I would like to hear more opinions before getting involved again. However, I would specifically like to adress why I suggested analyzing the cards once more in step 4 rather than directly inserting them in step 2 now because BrassMan raises a very good issue that I forgot to mention. I agree completely that if you try to apply personal comfort in both steps 2 and 4 you will be overcompensating and may hurt your decklist overall. As such I suggested that step 4 would be the correct place to apply personal bias for three reasons.

#1. This step is already crowded with bias. What you expect to face and creating internal synergies is all about personal influence on the decklist. It seemed appropriate that player comfort would be reasonable to insert as well. Tweaking the specific cards at this point is not that different from assuming you'll face a certain archetype in the top-8.
#2. I think that you have the smallest chance to hurt your decklist at this point. If you try start at step 2 you may overcompensate to make yourself feel more secure. You may cut into the core elements of the deck to run more hate cards and as such will harm the rest of the deckbuilding process. Step 4 is the last maindeck step and as such even if you go to extremes your decklist should still be solid.
#3. I think that step 2 is about creating the perfect decklist to demolish an archetype. I could very well be wrong about this step but it is my understanding that this is the more autonomous step where you take the best choice for the job regardless of other factors. As such it would seem inapropriate to directly force personal bias in. It may not be autonomous though so I could be wrong of course.