[Premium Article] Getting Your Eyelids out of the Way

[zeus-online]

The problem with a deck that is so easy to play that you always make the right play is that in the mirror you will never really have an edge

Is this inherently a problem?  This assumes that you're better than your opponent, which is a pretty gigantic assumption - an incorrect assumption for half of the people in any given match. 

Lets say, hypothetically,that you are a better player than your opponent.  You don't get the edge by switching to the harder deck - that just opens you up to more potential mistakes, even if you're not that likely to make them.  You can only leverage that skill if your opponent switches to the harder deck, which you generally have very little control over (spreading misinformation on TMD aside).

But if we're talking about a deck so easy to play that the optimal play will always be the same then i will not be able to do anything but accept my fate (Win or Loose)
I do understand where you're going, but for me it would be unacceptable to not be able to influence how well i am doing.
I think for this thought experiment you'd be pretty dumb to play anything else then the "60 lands with you win the game" deck and thus i'd assume that the mirror match would be quite frequent, if indeed anyone would be bothering with playing a game of flip a coin magic.

I also agree that for the sake of winning, a deck being "Hard to play" is not a good thing.

Hmm i'm not sure if you're correct that half of the people in any given match is superior or inferior to their opponents, since we have no way of measuring "Skill" other then simply see who won or lost - And i don't think that's a fair way of measuring skill. (Finkel could loose to a 10 year old kid with a starter deck while playing Tezzeret afterall)

Note: Oh and yes i am arrogant enough to assume that i am superior to my opponents

[TheBrassMan]

I do understand where you're going, but for me it would be unacceptable to not be able to influence how well i am doing.
I think for this thought experiment you'd be pretty dumb to play anything else then the "60 lands with you win the game" deck and thus i'd assume that the mirror match would be quite frequent, if indeed anyone would be bothering with playing a game of flip a coin magic.

I agree entirely.  This is why I said "There are more factors than EV that go into deck choice."  One of these factors is that you want to feel like you're good at magic.  This means playing a deck that makes you feel like you earned your victory with, even if, ultimately, it was a "bad at magic" decision to do so. 

Many people find it unacceptable to not influence how they do in an event.  I'm one of them.  Sometimes this means you reduce your chances of winning by playing a more complex deck with lower EV.  Sometimes you realize you're doing this, and sometimes you don't.

Hmm i'm not sure if you're correct that half of the people in any given match is superior or inferior to their opponents

This was not some clever way of saying "lol people are bad," - it was a tautology.  Between any two people playing magic, one is better than the other.  No matter what metric we use to measure skill -- even if it were impossible to measure skill --, this is true. 

[zeus-online]

Hmm i'm not sure if you're correct that half of the people in any given match is superior or inferior to their opponents

This was not some clever way of saying "lol people are bad," - it was a tautology.  Between any two people playing magic, one is better than the other.  No matter what metric we use to measure skill -- even if it were impossible to measure skill --, this is true. 

That was not exactly what i meant. If we invented some machine that could measure skill then both players might be equal.

But it seems like we agree on most of the other issues (If not all).

[Delha]

That was not exactly what i meant. If we invented some machine that could measure skill then both players might be equal.

This occurred to me as well, but in those cases, assuming both players assumed they were superior to the opponent, 100% of people in the match made an incorrect assumption. Half of the players were still wrong, it's just that the other half was ALSO wrong (instead of being right, as one might expect).

[zeus-online]

That was not exactly what i meant. If we invented some machine that could measure skill then both players might be equal.

This occurred to me as well, but in those cases, assuming both players assumed they were superior to the opponent, 100% of people in the match made an incorrect assumption. Half of the players were still wrong, it's just that the other half was ALSO wrong (instead of being right, as one might expect).

True i guess, hadn't thought of that. But just because i assume that i'm superior to my opponent who is actually just as good as me, does not mean that he thinks he's superior to me.

I think we're drifting way off right now anyway, so i'll leave it at this.

[TheBrassMan]

Oh I never intended to get into "people aren't as good as they think."  Whether that's true or not, one player is better, and one player is worse.  This means that "play the deck that, in a mirror, will make the most skilled player win" is an actively -EV decision for 50% of players, whether they have an accurate assessment of their relative skill level or not.


What this boils down to though, is that I think some people are saying "workshop decks have poor EV", and some people are saying "I don't suggest playing workshops in an event."  The disparity in what those two statements actually mean have made it very difficult to have a productive discussion on the subject, as many people may not be on the same page.

[zeus-online]

On that issue i will say:

I would not play shops because i much prefer playing a drain deck if there is a decent one available.

However, i feel that shops are atleast as good as the competition and that they reward a different skill set then the other decks.

[bb-g]

Actually, there is a theorethical way to measure skill of 2 given players with a certain deck.

Create 2 exact the same decks
Order those decks identically
let every player make it's spells at the same time witouth having a look at the plays the opponent does.
at the end of turn both players can view the position of the other player and draw his next card.
The player that wins at the end of the game has had the better skill in that game there all weapons were equal.
If it ends in a draw, both had equal skill.

There might be some flaws in this system but it's a good start in tryig to measure skill of players but i think that we are derailing to much from the topic if we discuss this further...

[zeus-online]

Actually, there is a theorethical way to measure skill of 2 given players with a certain deck.

Create 2 exact the same decks
Order those decks identically
let every player make it's spells at the same time witouth having a look at the plays the opponent does.
at the end of turn both players can view the position of the other player and draw his next card.
The player that wins at the end of the game has had the better skill in that game there all weapons were equal.
If it ends in a draw, both had equal skill.

There might be some flaws in this system but it's a good start in tryig to measure skill of players but i think that we are derailing to much from the topic if we discuss this further...

Only thing we're going to figure out is who was best at playing the "deck x mirror match"

[Odd mutation]

Actually, there is a theorethical way to measure skill of 2 given players with a certain deck.

Create 2 exact the same decks
Order those decks identically
let every player make it's spells at the same time witouth having a look at the plays the opponent does.
at the end of turn both players can view the position of the other player and draw his next card.
The player that wins at the end of the game has had the better skill in that game there all weapons were equal.
If it ends in a draw, both had equal skill.

There might be some flaws in this system but it's a good start in tryig to measure skill of players but i think that we are derailing to much from the topic if we discuss this further...

Only thing we're going to figure out is who was best at playing the "deck x mirror match"

a

Doesn't have to be: let them both play aginst a third opponent with any deck he/she chooses.

Robrecht

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

Actually, there is a theorethical way to measure skill of 2 given players with a certain deck.

Create 2 exact the same decks
Order those decks identically
let every player make it's spells at the same time witouth having a look at the plays the opponent does.
at the end of turn both players can view the position of the other player and draw his next card.
The player that wins at the end of the game has had the better skill in that game there all weapons were equal.
If it ends in a draw, both had equal skill.

There might be some flaws in this system but it's a good start in tryig to measure skill of players but i think that we are derailing to much from the topic if we discuss this further...

Only thing we're going to figure out is who was best at playing the "deck x mirror match"

a

Doesn't have to be: let them both play aginst a third opponent with any deck he/she chooses.

Robrecht

All that proves is who is better than the other in that one specific scenario with that deck+those cards in that order+that opponent. To solve the first instance you need to test with every single deck possible. Even one card difference can influence decision trees in ways we couldn't imagine. Thus unless you're secretely immortal that isn't possible. The second instance is equally impossible to do due to time constraints. Using an extreme example lets say one player always makes the perfect Gifts piles and the other always makes the perfect FoF piles. Every time one of those cards comes up you're going to have a bias in the results. You can apply this to every card and even if the difference affects one in 100 games it will still mess up your answer so you need to do every possible permutation.

Finally is an issue where many players disagree and will continue to disagree, the influence of your opponent. Magic is luck based, and no matter how you try to get around it. In other words I don't buy the argument that no mater what there is always 1 best play. There is 1 best play based on the information you have available between your deck/hand/graveyard/sideboard/exile/battlefield and information you have from your opponent, and the best play if you have all the information in the world on what your opponent has and the order of your deck etc. These plays are very often mutually exclusive and the most moronic possible play from one point of view could be the best possible play from the other point of view. In other words luck is going to have a strong impact on how games play out. To use an extreme example who truly has more skill, the guy who makes the most moronic possible play based on given information but ends up winning every game or the guy who makes the perfect play based on given information but loses every game?