Vintage Adept Q&A #15: Not in the Stars, but in Ourselves

[Demonic Attorney]

The second one is about the mental game, and developing yourself as a better Magic player. How do you realistically account for luck ? Without going into lucky charms and four-leaves clover, there is a random element in our favorite game, and a couple bad draws one after the other can sometimes be enough to make you want to throw the towel. Those can take the form of excessive mulligans because of lack of mana with a well-built deck, successive god hands on the other side... I've noticed many people tend to remember the bad things that happen to them, but not so much the good ones (their own god hands or lucky topdecks...). Do experts take note of everything that happens in a tournament so they can realistically assess their good or bad fortune afterward ? Are their any mental tricks worth developing to cope with a perceived streak of bad luck ?

This is an excellent question.  I'd especially encourage new players, or players struggling to bring their game to the next level, to pay careful attention to this topic.

The Atog Lord posted a short note on this subject a long time ago.  This is what he said:

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.

I think he overstates the lesson, but it's still a very important one.  If I could summarize it in a sentence, it would be this.  The biggest reason players miss out on opportunities to improve their game or their decklist is because so many people attribute negative outcomes to bad luck.  Seen in terms of players' ego and self-image, this is understandable.  It's easier to believe that we lost a match because of forces beyond our control, instead of mistakes we made.  We can still look at ourselves as good players, or even great players.  We don't have to acknowledge imperfection, weakness, or flawed judgment to others, or to ourselves.

However, thinking like that misses an important point.  Good players, great players, and even the best players still make mistakes.  You don't have to convince yourself that you don't make mistakes in order to see yourself as a good player.  In fact, one tendency I've noticed among many good players is their willingness to acknowledge the mistakes they make.  That way, it's still possible for them to learn and grow as players.  So, the next time you lose a game, whether it's because you mulled to 5, got blown out, your opponent topdecked Yawgmoth's Will, or any other reason, don't immediately write that off as bad luck.  Ask yourself-- what could I have done differently?  What decisions that I made led to that outcome?  What can I change next time? 

I look at Magic as a contest to control a series of random outcomes to the greatest extent possible to ensure that they end in my favor.  You can't eliminate the chance of mulling a series of no-land hands down to 4, but you can control it.  Did I mulligan more than 4 times in a 5-round tournament?  Then I might need to look at my manabase.  You can't eliminate the chance of being blown out by combo in a match-deciding game, but you can minimize it.  Did I get blown out by combo more than once?  Then I probably need to look at my maindeck and sideboard and reevaluate whether they're doing their job against combo decks. 

I guess what I do is try to pinpoint exactly what decided the outcome of each game I play and then try to determine what factors led to that point.  Were they overly aggressive play decisions I made?  Did I lose control of the game because I didn't run enough counters?  Did I have control of the game, but lose it because I didn't draw a win condition in time to put the opponent away?  Being honest with yourself about your role in the outcome of a game allows you to be more prepared next time around, and to grow as a player.

That being said, I'll add one caveat.  I said before that TAL overstated his position when he said, "If there is something you could have done about it, it isn't luck."  I wouldn't go that far.  There is always something you could have done differently to prevent whatever outcome happened.  You could have run 45 mana sources, and your odds of getting no-mana hands would be extremely low.  You could have packed 4 maindeck Mindbreak Trap and you probably wouldn't have been blown out by that combo deck.  Although there was something you could have done, I disagree with Rich that your losses weren't attributable to luck.

You could have controlled for variation in your hands by adding more lands, and you could have controlled for variation in your opponent's combo openers, but too much hedging against one negative outcome invites another.  Those extra lands you might run next time won't be helpful against combo, and those extra Mindbreak Traps will be disappointing topdecks against Fish.  At some point, you have to acknowledge that random outcomes will sometimes not work in your favor, despite your best efforts, and despite what probability might seem to dictate. 

At times like these, I remind myself that greater sample sizes are often more faithful to probability.  I might have lost in one tournament to getting mana shorted with my 26 source deck, but next time around that might not happen.  Over the course of 5 more tournaments, that's very unlikely.  If it still happens, though, it's frustrating for me, as it is for all players.  In those situations, I have to really go over every angle I have control over, and every decision I made.  Am I missing something?  Because reality isn't matching up with my expectations.  If, after a thorough examination, things still aren't working, I'll just move onto a different deck, knowing there's a hole in my theory somewhere that I can't find.

[Rico Suave]

Yes, luck exists.  No, there is nothing you can do about it.  The most important thing to do when faced with bad luck, or even worse a string of bad luck, is to persevere and keep trying.  This is actually an important life lesson that goes beyond the game of cards we play.  Sometimes things just keep going the way we don't want them to go, but what separates people is how they face those situations.

If you face some bad luck, try to shrug it off.  If you face a lot of bad luck, sit down and play some more.  If you face so much bad luck that you want to quit, take a breather and do something else.  If you have reached a point where you literally just don't want to play anymore, then perhaps not playing is the best course of action for you.  I have taken extended breaks from this game and I'm fairly confident each one has done nothing but help me in the long run, though it might change from person to person.

My suggestion?  Listen to some music.  If you get frustrated at any point, take a step back and throw on some tunes you enjoy.  Just some time away from the game will help, even if it's just 5 minutes or so.  When you come back, focus on the task at hand and not what happened in the past. 

-----------------------------------------

We have no control over luck.  But there are a hell of a lot of things we do control.  Decisions we make, both before and during the tournament, have a dramatic impact on how we perform at said tournament.  It's impossible to claim that every decision we made was perfect.  There is a saying that the average PTQ player makes about 3 mistakes per turn.  Most people probably don't even realize they are making 3 decisions every turn.

I see myself making mistakes.  A lot of them actually.  And more importantly I'm open to the idea that I make mistakes.  My concern is doing the best I possibly can, and with this as my motivation I look at not just my losses but every game I play and note where I could have played better. 

I think the best way to become a better player is to first admit that you make mistakes, then look actively at every possible decision to be made and analyze whether it was the absolute best decision or not.  Taking it a step beyond this, it is also perfectly acceptable to admit that we make mistakes that we don't even know about.  Even in hindsight when looking at a lost match, sometimes it is difficult to say what would have been a correct decision.  But usually, there is always something that could have gone differently.

Honestly, there are so many decisions to be made where people can go wrong.  Deck choice, specific card choice, choosing to show up rested and well fed, and all logistical decisions can have an effect on your tournament before you ever sit down for a match.  Mulligans are a critical decision to be made, and arguably the most commonly made mistakes, and that is before you ever play your first land.  And lord knows all sorts of decisions come up during the games. 

With all these decisions, there is only one correct play.  One.  You may be faced with dozens upon dozens of doors to open at any point in time, but only one of those doors is the right one.  If you don't make the best play at every juncture in the game, and really who can, then you can't blame luck. 

---------------------------------------

One last thing.  Sometimes good players will need to get lucky to win.  Here is proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t0pzLnSWw0&feature=player_embedded#!

Listen to the commentators.  That is Flores and Buehler, neither of whom is a slouch, arguing about what the correct play is.  Did the one guy get lucky to win?  Sure.  But he made the decision that would allow him to get lucky.  He made the decision to give himself the best possible chance to win the game. 

[Yare]

I've heard the "there is only one correct play" mantra before, and while I understand the rationale behind it, I can't agree with it for a number of reasons. When building your deck, you can only anticipate so much what the field will be. Short of asking every other player you know of whether he is going to show up that day and what he is going to play and precisely what configuration he is going to run, there is going to be some guesswork involved. There is no way that one could somehow come to the conclusion that there is one perfect version of the perfect archetype for tournament day; it inherently involves some guesswork or perhaps just a sense of what deck will best maximize your odds of winning. In this sense, it is possible for one to have made a "mistake" before he even sits down for his first match, even if he did everything "correctly." Sometimes you just don't know, and I think this is true in Magic more often than we'd like to admit.

Applying this reason to an actual tournament situation, Magic, like Poker, is a game of imperfect information. Magic is an inherently human interaction in that you have to make judgment calls in the absence of information that is impossible or near impossible to ascertain ahead of time. What cards is my opponent running? How well does he run his deck? Is he bluffing a counter? A computer cannot quantify whether one's opponent is bluffing. In this sense, there is no "perfect" play; you as a person just have to make that judgment call. Similarly, you personally have to decide if you're going to bluff or not. While some attack might seem to be a really bad play in the abstract, an ingenious player might discern that he can actually maximize his odds of winning by making this "foolish" attack because his opponent, for whatever reason, won't block. He's read his opponent and knows that this what he should do.

Additionally, one needs to recognize that players make mistakes. When I'm in a bad position, I don't strive to just keep the game more respectable by losing more closely. Instead, I'll take greater risks that depend upon my opponent making a mistake and depend upon my deck giving me the right draws to go with this riskier strategy. Sometimes this is the only way to win. But, again, knowing when that riskier play will increase your odds of winning as opposed to playing it straight is again a human judgment; no computer can calculate this.

Regarding luck generally, I'll reiterate what has been written many times in that you have to know the odds of your deck and trust your deck sometimes. Just like with mulliganing, if the hand you're looking at isn't great, but if the top card of your library is a land you're golden, you should know the odds of pulling a land, tempered by your opponent's ability to deal with whatever this master plan is. You have to balance certain information (what's on the battlefield, what's in your hand, what's in both players' graveyards) with uncertain information (what is your opponent holding, what are you likely to draw in the near future, how aggressive is your opponent likely to be, what are the odds your opponent just makes an outright blunder in the next few turns, etc.). Yes, for some of these things, there is an objectively correct answer. Other times, you have to use judgment because no amount of analysis can yield some "perfect" answer precisely because you don't have all the information available. Magic is more like Poker than Chess in this sense.

If we're talking about just drawing land after land after land when you need business, yeah, I've been there and I've done that; we all have. Just this last tournament I attended, my opponent drew mana sources for something like 5 turns in a row while my Inkwell proceeded to have a field day. After the game he kept drawing and found that he would have drawn 3 more mana sources before he drew business had the game continued. Games like this happen, and, I will suggest, even with a deck that is built "perfectly" and that had the "perfect" hand to start the game. It's a mathematical certainty that this will occur at some point, no matter how perfectly the deck is built and no matter how skilled the player is because this is something that is built into the rules and parameters of the game. Whether one should continue playing, given this, is really just personal preference. I've accepted, particularly in Vintage, there will be games and matches that I will not win, no matter what I do. The same will be true for my opponents from time to time. That's the format. But, having accepted this, I enjoy the games and matches where the outcome is not preordained and there is a real battle of wits that has to take place. That's what I play for and I think that's what others should look to do as well.

Edit: Upon further reflection, ultimately, there will be the right play and the wrong play. What I mean to say is, sometimes it will be impossible to determine (for the player sitting at the table or for anybody else) what is the right play because there is simply too much information that is not known. Just because it turns out well doesn't mean you made the right play nor does the fact that it turned out badly mean you made the wrong play. Sometimes there will be objective answers, but other times there may be other things (like your acting or distraction skills) that will be more important than what is the "objectively right play."

[forests failed you]

I don't believe in luck.  I am of the opinion that talking about losses in terms of luck or unluck is pretty much useless.  If every time I lose to a timely topdecked card, or because my opponent has a better hand than me, it must equally be true that every time I have a better hand than an opponent or a good draw that I'm lucky.  If this is the case we might as well just cut out Wizards and buy lotto tickets.  The fact of the matter is that there is a random element to Magic.  We don't control what cards we draw and in what order we draw them.  Luck is only a tool that people who are so impatient that they can only look at the moment, and not the big picture, use to make themselves feel better.  In the long run "luck" averages out of the equation; sometimes I draw the card I need to break out of a soft lock and sometimes he draws the card that breaks my soft lock.  The key is that if you play well then your soft locks will have fewer outs, and their soft locks will leave you with more outs.  If you do this then you will get "lucky" more than your opponents will in the long run. 

I have NEVER lost a game of Magic where afterward I thought to myself: "If I could play that game over I would have done everything the same way."  Mulligan better, play tighter, practice better, METAGAME BETTER.  There are a million things that a person can do to win more. 

Magic players are arrogant and don't want to admit that others are better than they are.  If you are getting "unlucky" more than you are getting "lucky" over an extended period of time, it is probably because your game needs improvement.  Sorry, but its the truth.  Whining about how you got mana flooded, or how your opponent didn't deserve to win, or how you got runner runnered doesn't make you any better at Magic--its just an excuse for why you are bad--or, at the very least demonstrates that you don't understand that just because you are 80% to win from a position doesn't mean that you don't lose that game one out of five times.  It isn't useful, it doesn't help you, and most importantly it is debilitating to your ability to get better in the long and short term.  If you are tilted you are going to play poorly, and if you are not willing to be accountable for your mistakes you are not going to improve.

Random decks of cards.  You can't win them all.  If you don't like it play chess.

[voltron00x]

I don't believe in luck.  I am of the opinion that talking about losses in terms of luck or unluck is pretty much useless.  If every time I lose to a timely topdecked card, or because my opponent has a better hand than me, it must equally be true that every time I have a better hand than an opponent or a good draw that I'm lucky.  If this is the case we might as well just cut out Wizards and buy lotto tickets.  The fact of the matter is that there is a random element to Magic.  We don't control what cards we draw and in what order we draw them.  Luck is only a tool that people who are so impatient that they can only look at the moment, and not the big picture, use to make themselves feel better.  In the long run "luck" averages out of the equation; sometimes I draw the card I need to break out of a soft lock and sometimes he draws the card that breaks my soft lock.  The key is that if you play well then your soft locks will have fewer outs, and their soft locks will leave you with more outs.  If you do this then you will get "lucky" more than your opponents will in the long run. 

I have NEVER lost a game of Magic where afterward I thought to myself: "If I could play that game over I would have done everything the same way."  Mulligan better, play tighter, practice better, METAGAME BETTER.  There are a million things that a person can do to win more. 

Magic players are arrogant and don't want to admit that others are better than they are. If you are getting "unlucky" more than you are getting "lucky" over an extended period of time, it is probably because your game needs improvement.  Sorry, but its the truth.  Whining about how you got mana flooded, or how your opponent didn't deserve to win, or how you got runner runnered doesn't make you any better at Magic--its just an excuse for why you are bad--or, at the very least demonstrates that you don't understand that just because you are 80% to win from a position doesn't mean that you don't lose that game one out of five times.  It isn't useful, it doesn't help you, and most importantly it is debilitating to your ability to get better in the long and short term.  If you are tilted you are going to play poorly, and if you are not willing to be accountable for your mistakes you are not going to improve.

Random decks of cards.  You can't win them all.  If you don't like it play chess.

I'd really like to post something of substance, but after the post above, I have little more to add.  I particularly agree with the parts in bold. 

What most people call luck is just variance, and people notice variance in their opponent's favor but often overlook variance in their favor. 

One great thing about writing, for me, is that it makes me confront the reality of my tournament play:  what hands I kept and shouldn't have, where my metagame analysis or sideboarding failed, where my playtesting may have been flawed or incomplete, where my hands were excellent,  or where top-decks were exactly what I needed to balance out games where I had to mull or flooded out and couldn't draw an out.  Even if you don't write for a website, taking notes and reviewing tournament performance can help you improve and balance out things that you might otherwise be inclined to chalk up to luck.

[Shock Wave]

We can conclude that luck is generally irrelevant in Magic since it is almost always the same players at the top tables. Yes, luck happens, but if luck had any significant impact on the game, then weaker players would be claiming a lot more T8 appearances. In my experiences, luck always evens out in the end, leaving the best players at the top of the heap. 

[Grand Inquisitor]

I'm going to take the poster's comment to mean how to understand what is perceived as luck as something that can be handled more constructively.

I have NEVER lost a game of Magic where afterward I thought to myself: "If I could play that game over I would have done everything the same way."  Mulligan better, play tighter, practice better, METAGAME BETTER.  There are a million things that a person can do to win more. 

That's it exactly.  And it's not all about humility, it's about understanding the mechanics of the game you're involved in.  It really requires having good people to play with and against and talk about the game with.  It requires continually bringing a fresh perspective to your own stance on the game.

[Smmenen]

My thinking around the issue of luck has evolved in the last couple of years, just as it has on almost every major issue pertinent to Vintage. 

I used to strongly subscribe to the view that luck has no real role in Vintage -- that it was mostly an excuse for players to disregard their own play mistakes, design errors, or faulty metagame predictions.  I still largely agree with that viewpoint, but only for practical reasons.   It's without question true that luck is an element in Magic.   Players who go first are at an advantage, or else people would not consistently elect to play first.   But, as a practical matter, it is best if players act as if magic were completely deterministic.  This makes it easier to draw attention to things that they could have done differently. 

Too often players focus on an unlucky topdeck, but there is always the question of why that topdeck mattered.  Deck choice is just as important as in-game decisions.   I would argue that reading the metagame is one of the most important skills in magic.   

Incidentally, and it's relevant to this conversation: randomness actually increases the skill level of magic as a game.  I argued this, and created a proof, in this article: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/15539_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Lucky_Yeah_Thats_The_Point.html

[meadbert]

Regarding "Is there a right play?"

Usually there is one right play, but sometimes the "right play" is actually a distribution of right plays.

Here is a common scenario that used to show up with Meandeck Gifts.  I (playing Gifts) open with Mox, Mana Vault, land and pass the turn.  My opponent opens with land, Sol Ring.  In response to Sol Ring I play Gifts.  My opponent has Force.  What should my opponent do?

If he always counters Gifts then he will find a lot of his counters being Misdirected to Sol Ring.
If he never counters Gifts then I am free to cast Gifts without MisD backup in response to any of his spells.  In reality the optimal strategy is probably to randomly counter Gifts according to some probability.

The same thing shows up with combo "baiting."  If you always bait or never bait then your opponent can take advantage of that.  Instead, the optimal strategy is to bait a certain percentage of the time and keep your opponent guessing.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Usually there is one right play, but sometimes the "right play" is actually a distribution of right plays.

I get what you're saying, but is this practical?  As a player entering this decision point do I resolve it by either using a randomizer that reflects my belief of distribution or even more strangely, keep track of my historical decisions for this decision point?

Thinking from within the situation, I'd probably use other external factors to supplement the choice: "did I win game 1 and therefore can afford to call his misdirection bluff?", "did his past plays show an expertise or lack thereof with optimizing gifts piles?", "does the opponent look nervous?", "am I feeling 'lucky' right now?", etc.

But, as a practical matter, it is best if players act as if magic were completely deterministic.  This makes it easier to draw attention to things that they could have done differently.

Even if they don't view it as completely deterministic, they can gain from evaluating the circumstances they do control.

Also, I'm still kinda foggy on whether we're belying the poster's actual question by focusing on converting perceived luck to deterministic skill improvement...instead of actually discussing how we 'deal' with luck, if, that's in fact something a magic player can do.

[Nazdakka]

Do experts take note of everything that happens in a tournament so they can realistically assess their good or bad fortune afterward?

I don't think that would be wise. How lucky or otherwise you were during a tournament doesn't really matter, so there's no reason to spent mental energy worrying about it. Sure, if you kept track of everything that went wrong you can tell better bad beat stories, but that's not really helping you

Are their any mental tricks worth developing to cope with a perceived streak of bad luck ?

If I made a mistake during a game and went on to lose the game, I view that mistake as having cost me the game, regardless of whatever factors are involved. Yes, this is probably not true in many cases - games will happen from time to time that for whatever reason, you just can't win. But concentrating on my own play means I'm worrying about the things I can control, not about what a bitch Lady Luck is.

Of course, you can take this too far. You can, sometimes, do the right thing and still lose. I remember selling someone a spare Lorwyn booster I had in my bag for ~£2.50. He opens it, and whaddya know, the rare is a foil Thoughtseize. Was it a mistake to sell him that pack? I'd have got a much better result by opening it, obviously, but there was no way I could have known that beforehand, so I didn't make a mistake.

[Stormanimagus]

Too often players focus on an unlucky topdeck, but there is always the question of why that topdeck mattered. 

I realize I am not an adept, but I figured I'd pipe in my two cents. I think this comment by Stephen is absolutely correct and hits at the heart of the matter. This is, in fact, the reason I am not yet getting to the top tables every time I go out for a tournament. I mean, I'm a smart guy, and I can do probabilities and all that jazz that tends to make for a good magic player, but there's also seeing ahead in the decision tree to the moment where you'll either:

1. Need a lucky top-deck
2. Hope your opponent doesn't find his.

and, consequently avoiding that track.

I am not saying that there isn't luck in the game. Clearly there is. But, just as a good poker play knows how to win with the hands that may be the second best hand in reality, magic players must too win this mental game and pull out those games that are not a blow out. Statistics suggest that there will be "outlier" games pretty frequently where the power of the opening 7/who goes first determines the outcome of the game on turn 1 (given optimal play from both players), but the players who reach the top tables are the players who push the "close" games to a victory consistently.

It's also these "close" games that I'd like to say another thing about. Often times you can position yourself in a close game (balanced opening hands/game states) to NOT have to rely on your good luck or your opponent's bad luck through incredibly tight play and odds management. There are things that some players take for granted that are very important to winning comfortably. Here are some examples and how I'd tier them based on skill:

Really bad rookie mistake: Not swinging with Confidant or Noble Hierarch when that is clearly and open avenue for you. This will cost you more than you think in a metagame full of 5/3's and lands that deal their controller 2 damage, mana-management/storm management

Pretty bad mistake: Choosing the wrong cards to put on top of deck with Brainstorm. Number of Cards to draw off Necro. When to play Moxen + Lotus as a Storm pilot, when to play draw 7's, stacking triggers

Difficult to see mistakes: Gifts Piles, FoF Piles, Baiting/Counter-wars, when to use ichorid hate, blocks in creature-heavy match-ups, timing of fetching, using Top, Deck design/SB design.

Taking all these types of mistakes into account I'd argue that a lot of players make mistakes in all 3 categories, a fair amount manage to avoid stupid mistake, a majority of random top-8ers (I think this is my category) often avoid 1 & 2 type mistakes and a select few (the ones you ALWAYS see at the top tables) tend to avoid all 3.

I'm working towards that place, but there are plays that are extremely difficult to execute properly given limited information and I really think that experience plays a huge factor in making those calls correctly on a regular basis.

Anyway, those are my thoughts,

-Storm

[TheBrassMan]

I think I tend to look at the game backwards from most players.  The general consensus among good, advice giving players seems to be "Good play leads to victory, luck sometimes helps you or hurts you but don't worry about that."  Rather than that, I feel the game starts with luck.  The random distribution of cards before you sit down determines who wins the game, and you can merely decrease your ability to succeed through poor play.  This is a fundamental difference in viewing the game, but the takeaway is similar, "you can't control luck, you can only play well or not play well."  There's some merit to the idea "take something away from every game, even if you got 'unlucky'".  The idea that you probably made a mistake in any given game is spot on, because it's a damn complicated game, and we all make tons of misplays (even players much much better than me).  But this only helps if you take just as much from the games you you win (in which you also probably made mistakes).  If you assume that every loss is from misplay instead of luck, you might end up overvaluing minor mistakes from games where your opponent drew better, and undervalue mistakes in games you just drew better, despite poor play.  I feel like it's important to have a realistic view of how much luck was a factor in the game, and weight the results accordingly, rather than just ignore it altogether.  

Within the context of a tournament, there's an even bigger caveat, which I think speaks to what the original poster was saying.  Before the next round, it's more important to avoid tilt than it is to try and learn something from your mistakes.  To do this you need to know yourself, because everyone is affected by things differently.  Personally I don't get all that upset when my opponent draws out on me, and I don't get intimidated by players who I know are very good, or better than I.  On the other hand, I'll tilt when I make mistakes I really shouldn't have.  In particular when I make a misplay due to inattention/laziness, like missing an on-the-board trick, I lock up.  To me the game is already over, and I find it very difficult to get myself ready to make any difficult decisions again.  If I lose a close match this way, (especially against a player I perceive to be worse than me [whether or not that's actually the case, as I tend to, like most people, overestimate myself]) I might be in trouble for the rest of the event.  If you need to bitch about your bad luck to get your head back in the game before the next round -- you do that.  You're going to win a lot more games avoiding tilt than you are from a lesson you just learned a match ago (about a specific situation that probably wont come up again in a matchup you might not even play again).  After the event, you have time to step back, take a look at your play, figure out what you could have done differently.  During the event though, you need to do what it takes to keep your mindset strong.  

In the same way, if you're really having a losing streak and tilting because of it, it might make sense to mix up decks or strategies, even if you're convinced you're moving to a worse plan, just to get yourself into a different mindset.  You really just have to know yourself, and know what situations make you play worse.  Bad beats might not be a problem for you at all, but for some people it is -- and dwelling on it immediately might do more harm than good.  If you're lucky (heh), you'll be able to just focus on the variables you can control and ignore the chance -- but not everyone can do that, so you have to train that, or be realistic about yourself.

[zeus-online]

For the purpose of determining if you've made a bad play*, it find it very usefull to simply ignore any possibility of luck having any effect.

Afterall, sure you could loose because you simply drew worse then the opponent....But on the other hand, if you start blaming your losses on that you will cease to analyze how you could've turned the game around**.
I also find it very usefull to try and spot the exact moment when the game got out of control and then figure out what went wrong....What did i do wrong? What did my opponent do right? Can my deck cope with this situation should it occur again? If i consider it very likely that it will happen again it might be a good idea to guard against it in the future (This also involves deck choice)

You also need to accept that eventhough you make the right plays everytime, you might still loose.

*I recall finkel once saying that there is no wrong plays, there's the right play and then there's everything else.

**I see alot of people doing this...."Oh well nothing i could've done, i was just unlucky" and then they just start getting worse at magic. This is worse in formats where there are lots of decisions, draft being the number one since your decision tree starts pack 1, pick 1.

[Shock Wave]

*I recall finkel once saying that there is no wrong plays, there's the right play and then there's everything else.

I may be wrong, but I believe the quote was: "There is no such thing as a good play. There is the correct play, and then there is the mistake."

If I am quoting correctly, I disagree with that statement altogether.

[TracerBullet]

Brief points -

Magic is a game of luck, and like nearly all multi-variable luck problems, impossible to play perfectly.  The truly skilled player is the one who can best manage these clouds of probabilities, ranging from the micro (in game probabilities) to the macro (metagame/deck building probabilities).  Each player has to assess his own skills in both areas, find his deficiencies, and attempt to improve.  That's the first difference between a good player and a great player; the ability to identify mistakes, both his own and his opponents'.  Meadbert (?) had an excellent post regarding this a few months back; to any player looking to actually improve their game (and not just play their game), I suggest you read it.

It's been said a couple times, but I'll make it a bit more brief- A player's luck matters in the short run.  A player's luck is irrelevant in the long run.  It's all a matter of sample size.

[JACO]

*I recall finkel once saying that there is no wrong plays, there's the right play and then there's everything else.

I may be wrong, but I believe the quote was: "There is no such thing as a good play. There is the correct play, and then there is the mistake."

If I am quoting correctly, I disagree with that statement altogether.

I entirely agree with the statement. There may be multiple 'lines of play,' but only one option is the most optimal, and therefore correct in any given situation. If a play is not the best possible one, then it cannot possibly be correct, although sometimes the actions may yield similar results. It does not matter if you do not have perfect knowledge of a situation, because you can always make a proper decision based on the full extent of information you do have.

There is a lot of luck involved in Magic, and that is by design.
- luck in the cards drawn, as the game is one of randomized order
- luck in what you play against (pairings, decks, etc.)
- luck of the die roll, determining who goes first, and how a specific game and match will then play out

These things are inherent in the design of the game, but that does not mean you cannot put yourself in the best possible situation to succeed, and to reduce the effects of the luck elements outlined above. You can do this a number of ways (deck choice, in-game decisions, etc.).

[Shock Wave]

There may be multiple 'lines of play,' but only one option is the most optimal, and therefore correct in any given situation. If a play is not the best possible one, then it cannot possibly be correct, although sometimes the actions may yield similar results. It does not matter if you do not have perfect knowledge of a situation, because you can always make a proper decision based on the full extent of information you do have.

My contention is that the "correct play" is not necessarily the same play that is suggested to be correct by the information that is available to you. Instead, the correct play is the play that wins you the game, and it often happens that on the surface, this appears to be the wrong play, and from a technical angle, it often is.

A small example:

My opponent has Mindslaver on the board and a Tinker in hand with 4 mana available. He can either cast Tinker or activate the Slaver. He knows that I have 4 ways to stop the Slaver activation, but only 3 ways to stop the Tinker. I have 7 cards in hand. Mathematically, "the correct play" is to cast the Tinker. He casts Tinker and I have one of the 3 outs to stop him. He loses this game.

Now, the argument is going to be that he made the right play, despite having lost. I submit that if the "correct play" loses you the game, where the "wrong play" would have won you the game, then something is very wrong with our decision nomenclature.

Often, the correct decision in Magic has nothing to do with probability, the same way the correct decision in Poker has nothing to do with probability. If success were largely predicated on crunching numbers, then Poker would be owned by mathematicians, but it is not. In fact, people who play Poker according to the numbers generally perform very poorly.

Since board position and probability is the only known information to base any decisions on, but this information is often not good enough to win the game, then it cannot be true that the "correct" play (based on known information) is always the play that is going to win you the game.

For some players with weaker people skills, the correct play is always based on known information (board position, cards in hand, mathematical probability). However, players with stronger people skills may make technically incorrect plays because they are better able to pick up on an opponent's tells about what is in their hand.

[TheBrassMan]

It's worth mentioning that Finkel is possibly the best magic player ever, certainly in the top 5.  It isn't even questionable that he reads his opponents for tells, that he does so better than anyone on this website, and that he factors that into his decision making.  Tells are measurable and discrete, and not correctly catching one is a mistake.  For most players it is far more practical and beneficial to develop what we're calling "technical play" (which for the sake of this discussion I'm assuming means 'what the right play would be if there were no tells').  Even with perfect information, you still need greater technical skill than your opponents to win consistently.  Besides, your example doesn't quite work... you have no way of knowing how many outs to slaver or tinker has, you're making a guess based on what he's already shown you, and what you've seen in other events and online, which is basically more "tell-reading" than math anyway.  I'm also a little confused as to why you cant make one play this turn and one play next turn... if you're dead on board Tinker isn't an option anyway, and if you're not you have time to make both plays (nit-picking and beside the point, yes, but the example confused me).

To try and pull it back to on-topic, you have to include tells and reads in your tournament post-mortem.  If there was a legitimate signal that you didn't properly evaluate that caused your play to be wrong, you can't discount that as luck.

We may want to start a new thread, as "how do you deal with luck" and "what makes a play correct" are very different (though very interesting) topics.

[Shock Wave]

We may want to start a new thread, as "how do you deal with luck" and "what makes a play correct" are very different (though very interesting) topics.

I will continue along, since I think that both topics are closely related. Of course, I don't have any objection to a new thread being created either.

It's worth mentioning that Finkel is possibly the best magic player ever, certainly in the top 5.

Indeed, I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that there is an absolute criteria that makes a play correct or incorrect. If it were just a matter of math or board position, then this wouldn't even be a discussion. However, Magic and most card games are won as much through psychological and interpersonal interaction as they are by superior technical ability. The problem is that technical decisions are generally easy to evaluate (i.e. the board positions, probability, etc), whereas the psychological element is very difficult if not at times impossible to evaluate (i.e. your opponent's "tells").

Since the true correct play is contingent upon both technical (known) and interpersonal (derived) information, and since derived information always has an element of chance to it, sometimes the correct technical play will lose you the game and in other cases, the wrong technical play decision will win you the game.

My point is this: In many cases, the correct play can be observed through the position of the board and known criteria. However, there are instances where the play that wins you the game appears technically incorrect and can only be derived from what you perceive your opponent to be communicating to you.

It isn't even questionable that he reads his opponents for tells, that he does so better than anyone on this website, and that he factors that into his decision making.  Tells are measurable and discrete, and not correctly catching one is a mistake.

I respectfully disagree here. Tells are not always reliably measurable, and I'm sure you know sometimes tells and information are provided in order to deceive.

For most players it is far more practical and beneficial to develop what we're calling "technical play" (which for the sake of this discussion I'm assuming means 'what the right play would be if there were no tells').  Even with perfect information, you still need greater technical skill than your opponents to win consistently.

I agree with all of this. My point was that sometimes you need to make the technically incorrect play in order to win.

Besides, your example doesn't quite work... you have no way of knowing how many outs to slaver or tinker has, you're making a guess based on what he's already shown you, and what you've seen in other events and online, which is basically more "tell-reading" than math anyway.  I'm also a little confused as to why you cant make one play this turn and one play next turn... if you're dead on board Tinker isn't an option anyway, and if you're not you have time to make both plays (nit-picking and beside the point, yes, but the example confused me).

In the example I provided, I meant to illustrate that activating Slaver is the play that wins the game, despite all known evidence suggesting otherwise. The purpose of the example was to illustrate a scenario where Option A has a better probability of winning than Option B, but Option B is actually the play that would win the game. However, there is no technical evidence which suggests that Option B is worthy of consideration. Furthermore, even if there is a way to derive information from the opponent, there is no way to know for sure if the information you are deriving is correct.
 

To try and pull it back to on-topic, you have to include tells and reads in your tournament post-mortem.  If there was a legitimate signal that you didn't properly evaluate that caused your play to be wrong, you can't discount that as luck.

I don't agree that there is a set of criteria that can be applied to measure whether your opponent is sending you a legitimate signal. Sometimes your read is on, sometimes your read is off, and I would often chalk that up to luck. I think the real skill when making a play decision is choosing when to rely on your read, when to rely on known information, and when to rely on a combination of both.