The early game with blue decks, play or draw?

[psyburat]

Steve, if you can't distinguish between Espresso/Martello/Terra Nova/Marinara vs. other shop builds that people play that are missing key lock pieces, I'd be very surprised.

Without being glib, I confess I have no idea what those terms even mean.

Espresso - Serum Powder, Smokestack, etc. - Developed by Raffaele Forino
Martello - Kuldotha Forgemaster, Steel Hellkite, etc. - Developed by Raffaele Forino
Marinara - Goblin Welder, Cavern of Souls, etc. - Developed by Raffaele Forino
Terra Nova - Mutavault, Dismember, etc. - Developed by Raffaele Forino
Cat Stax Fever - Slash Panther, etc.  - Developed by Mike Noble

[Prospero]

Steve, if you can't distinguish between Espresso/Martello/Terra Nova/Marinara vs. other shop builds that people play that are missing key lock pieces, I'd be very surprised.

Without being glib, I confess I have no idea what those terms even mean.

Espresso - Serum Powder, Smokestack, etc. - Developed by Raffaele Forino and Vincent Forino
Martello - Kuldotha Forgemaster, Steel Hellkite, etc. - Developed by Raffaele Forino
Marinara - Goblin Welder, Cavern of Souls, etc. - Developed by Raffaele Forino and Vincent Forino
Terra Nova - Mutavault, Dismember, etc. - Developed by Raffaele Forino and Vincent Forino
Cat Stax Fever - Slash Panther, etc.  - Developed by Mike Noble

Fixed.

I helped with some of the boards that were used, but they're Forino family creations.  Vinnie should get his due in all of this.

[TheWhiteDragon]

Fairly irrelevent who designed what...and we're way off the original topic.  Sure, we can argue that blue vs blue it can be beneficial to draw (or play - depending on your side of the debate), and against shops, it's beneficial to play first (unless you are gunslinga and always win regardless), and against dredge...nobody has argued either way (though I'd think playing gives u advantage before they just fatestitcher kill u on turn 1)

But the OP was not about keeping or drawing for the strict blue control vs strict blue control matchup.  It was about ALWAYS drawing against every matchup for the hopes of getting some unconscious info.

I think most (probably not 1 TMDer in speceific) would agree that blindly drawing every match does not give you the best odds in each matchup.

[credmond]

Maybe there needs to be a special Mythbuster's episode on the subject.

I can see logic being applied on both sides and the need for statistics to actually settle the debate. What would be interesting is pitting two decks and playing each game out in both scenarios where the card sequencing in each case is fixed and doing this a number of times (so two-fisted testing against oneself where you carefully repeat the exercise and stack the deck in the same order).

[Elric]

Maybe there needs to be a special Mythbuster's episode on the subject.

I can see logic being applied on both sides and the need for statistics to actually settle the debate. What would be interesting is pitting two decks and playing each game out in both scenarios where the card sequencing in each case is fixed and doing this a number of times (so two-fisted testing against oneself where you carefully repeat the exercise and stack the deck in the same order).

It would be extremely hard to "play the same game twice" in any reasonable way and there's also no need to do so to get at this question. You can simply alternate which deck goes first, play each to the best of your ability, and see the fraction of games won by the deck going first (unsideboarded for simplicity). The trouble is that unless the effect (amount by which going first is better than going second, or vice versa) is quite large, say 20 percentage points, you won't reasonably be able to test enough games to learn anything with a high degree of statistical confidence. And even if you do, that's only one matchup.

Even completely obvious conclusions, such as that replacing Vampiric Tutor with Imperial Seal would make a deck worse, can't reliably be confirmed without lots and lots of statistical evidence that you are unlikely to have. To quote a discussion along these lines.

That's what makes it a good example. It's obvious that Vampiric is hugely better and we all know why.  But, the difference in win percentage for the whole deck depending on Tutor vs. Seal will be very close.  If it's within a percentage point (almost certain), then it will take a few hundred games for that to show up numerically.  I'd welcome a better metric.

Your example is being overly kind to the "win percentage" metric.  Imagine that you play some set number of games to compare the two decks.  One logical question is: How many games do I have to play such that the deck with Vampiric Tutor (which I know is the better deck) has a higher win percentage at the end of these games than the deck with Imperial Seal 95% of the time.  The answer to this obviously depends on how much Vampiric Tutor improves the deck's win percentage.

If Vampiric Tutor improves the deck's win percentage by 1 percentage point in each game (e.g., with Vampiric Tutor the deck wins 51% of the time; without it, it wins 50% of the time), then it will take thousands of games (using the Central Limit Theorem, my estimate is around 13000 games) for this difference to show up 95% of the time.  If Vampiric Tutor improves the deck's win percentage by 5% in each game (what you might think is a very noticeable difference), then it still takes around 500 games for the difference to show up 95% of the time.  So in short, you shouldn't place great trust in playtesting results because of statistical margin of error.  See my related post: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=20129.msg323388#msg323388

[Wagner]

You also can't use identical games as data since being on the play or draw, especially after game 1, will dramatically change how you mulligan, you're more likely to keep a hand lighter on mana on the draw and so on.

[Will]

Alright so A-1 inspired me to look into my catalog of life sheets from the tournaments I've played in dating back to March 2011.  Since that point, I played 219 tournament games all with Workshop decks.  My game results were:

Overall: 126 wins - 93 losses (57% win%)
On the play: 63 wins - 38 losses (62% win%)
On the draw: 63 wins - 55 losses (53% win%)

I took this one further because I was interested in how the die roll influenced my match win%.  I constructed decision trees and found that assuming my game win% is the same in games 1, 2 and 3 then if I won the die roll I won 63.41% of my matches whereas I won 58.97% of my matches when I lost the die roll.  Assuming I did my math right and my assumption on game 1 having the same percentages as 2 and 3, then the die roll was only worth 4.43% in determining if I won a match.  Interpret this however you want, but I think this shows that the die roll is not quite as important as has been previously stated.

[Samoht]

Alright so A-1 inspired me to look into my catalog of life sheets from the tournaments I've played in dating back to March 2011.  Since that point, I played 219 tournament games all with Workshop decks.  My game results were:

Overall: 126 wins - 93 losses (57% win%)
On the play: 63 wins - 38 losses (62% win%)
On the draw: 63 wins - 55 losses (53% win%)

I took this one further because I was interested in how the die roll influenced my match win%.  I constructed decision trees and found that assuming my game win% is the same in games 1, 2 and 3 then if I won the die roll I won 63.41% of my matches whereas I won 58.97% of my matches when I lost the die roll.  Assuming I did my math right and my assumption on game 1 having the same percentages as 2 and 3, then the die roll was only worth 4.43% in determining if I won a match.  Interpret this however you want, but I think this shows that the die roll is not quite as important as has been previously stated.

You're on Workshops Will. You should always do better on the play.

Me being on landstill, I definitely want to be on the play. My deck already has enough CA where being on te draw to see 1 more card is almost irrelevant. I haven't tested and kept statistics on it, but bring on the play means standstill, crucible, and jace, all come out faster. So in my opinion that outweighs wanting to be on the draw for that extra golden card lol. And as it was mentioned above the player that does go first will have drain and other counters up faster then the person on the draw. So I will continue being on the play, and welcome anybody that wants to let me be on the play in a game that they choose!

Having Drain first only matters if I play a spell. I promise, if I'm on dedicated control I will continue to let you go first. No problem.

Steve:

There is a difference in the Forino lists from standard fair. The quantities he designed them with and the functions that they serve differ greatly from other people. This is akin to saying that Blue decks are the same because they play the same 30-40 cards despite them changing drastically with the remaining 20-30. I've also listened to your podcasts and know that Paul has explained the nuances to you in the past. I have it on good authority that the styles and functions were also explained to you in a discussion at GenCon. Don't claim to be ignorant of something we both know you are aware of. If you want me to credit you or Mean Deck for changing 5-10 cards and making decks your own, you need to be willing to do the same for others who are playing cards that were off the radar before. That hypocrisy won't fly with me.

I agreed that being on the draw against Shops was always wrong. Why are we belaboring the argument? I simply noted that it is especially wrong against Forino decks because their designs are strictly to stop mana resources. If you look at other lists, you can see quickly that they are more focused on playing powerful cards than they are in playing restrictive cards. This enables you to be more interactive when on the draw so that you can cast cards like Ingot Chewer, Ancient Grudge, Steel Sabotage, or Nature's Claim when you are untapping with multiple mana sources into their Spheres.

When did Chapin become an authority on Vintage? He's barely relevant as a Magic player in the modern era, and is really only credited with being "innovative" in his deckbuilding. Let's not get ahead of ourselves again and bow down to someone who made a few top 8's in another format/environment and pretend that it makes them the almighty. Also, Chapin is the last person I'd listen to advice from based on his past.

Clearly we don't see eye to eye on what defines a dedicated control deck. I'm not sure how to bridge that gap. Claiming that your DD list can be as controlling as UWb Bomberman is absurd. You're behind between 6-8 counterspells/disruption cards. I'm aware that you won matches at Waterbury. I'm also aware that at the time no one really know how to combat what you were doing and the format was still mostly based on fighting over spells. Now that DD is a known entity it has mostly fallen off because people have effective lines to beat it that have been shown to them by others. Josh Potucek is one of the best control pilots I know, but he was fighting the wrong battle against the deck and was routinely beat by Josh Butker because of it. Taking Josh's exact list I played a few games against Butker and it wasn't close at all - but the opposite way. Knowing where to bottle neck the DD player is the key to winning for Landstill. Since me and Josh talked it over, he has since been doing significantly better against DD.

There are elements of control in Grixis or Gush lists, I can't dispute that nor have I. Generally though, they are really just protection for the eventual combo kill that is coming down the line. Either reactive in forcing it through or proactive in preventing you from dying before the combo hits. They don't plan to win long grindy games, but through a BSC or TV+K or Tendrils or EtW or a DD pile. Very rarely they win via Jace ultimate, but that's generally a function of playing against a deck like Shops and attaining a board state in which Jace can't be killed and you are ahead in answers to their threats. The combo decks have a harder time achieving that game state than the dedicated control lists. Games play out very differently when both pilots accept that the game will be 7+ turns.

I'll take the draw against Dredge. More important to draw hate than to lay a land and pass. Significantly better if I'm on Crypt/Rav Trap/Cage than Jailer/Leyline/Relic.

I will continue to draw in dedicated control mirrors, and I will continue to Top 8 because of it. Outside of Justin Kohler and Rob Edwards, I put together the most top 8's last year. They got me by playing in more events, our %'s are about the same. From what I understand Gunslinga has similar success. Just because it challenges the dogma of our game doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. I'm somewhat surprised at how desperately players cling to this concept.

[Will]

Alright so A-1 inspired me to look into my catalog of life sheets from the tournaments I've played in dating back to March 2011.  Since that point, I played 219 tournament games all with Workshop decks.  My game results were:

Overall: 126 wins - 93 losses (57% win%)
On the play: 63 wins - 38 losses (62% win%)
On the draw: 63 wins - 55 losses (53% win%)

I took this one further because I was interested in how the die roll influenced my match win%.  I constructed decision trees and found that assuming my game win% is the same in games 1, 2 and 3 then if I won the die roll I won 63.41% of my matches whereas I won 58.97% of my matches when I lost the die roll.  Assuming I did my math right and my assumption on game 1 having the same percentages as 2 and 3, then the die roll was only worth 4.43% in determining if I won a match.  Interpret this however you want, but I think this shows that the die roll is not quite as important as has been previously stated.

You're on Workshops Will. You should always do better on the play.

My point wasn't that I thought I would do better on the draw than the play, but instead that I thought the difference in my win percentage when I won the die roll would be much higher than when I lose the roll based on the seemingly common perception that Workshops are nigh unbeatable when they win the die roll which is obviously not the case. 

[Elric]

Alright so A-1 inspired me to look into my catalog of life sheets from the tournaments I've played in dating back to March 2011.  Since that point, I played 219 tournament games all with Workshop decks.  My game results were:

Overall: 126 wins - 93 losses (57% win%)
On the play: 63 wins - 38 losses (62% win%)
On the draw: 63 wins - 55 losses (53% win%)

I took this one further because I was interested in how the die roll influenced my match win%.  I constructed decision trees and found that assuming my game win% is the same in games 1, 2 and 3 then if I won the die roll I won 63.41% of my matches whereas I won 58.97% of my matches when I lost the die roll.  Assuming I did my math right and my assumption on game 1 having the same percentages as 2 and 3, then the die roll was only worth 4.43% in determining if I won a match.  Interpret this however you want, but I think this shows that the die roll is not quite as important as has been previously stated.

What you've calculated is a measure importance of winning the coin flip to winning the match (based on your assumptions, the calculation is correct. I go through more details here: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=25791.0).

Setting aside issues of mixing sideboarded and unsideboarded games, these game results would seem to indicate pretty clearly that you win a higher percentage of games on the play than on the draw. But if you test statistically whether the win percentages in the games on the play are different than the games on the draw, you can't say these percentages of games won on the play versus on the draw are different with a high degree of confidence (the p-value is about 0.18). That is, even if the win percentage on the play equaled the win percentage on the draw, when you played this many games you'd see an average win percentage at least as different as what you observed here 18% of the time.

[Samoht]

Alright so A-1 inspired me to look into my catalog of life sheets from the tournaments I've played in dating back to March 2011.  Since that point, I played 219 tournament games all with Workshop decks.  My game results were:

Overall: 126 wins - 93 losses (57% win%)
On the play: 63 wins - 38 losses (62% win%)
On the draw: 63 wins - 55 losses (53% win%)

I took this one further because I was interested in how the die roll influenced my match win%.  I constructed decision trees and found that assuming my game win% is the same in games 1, 2 and 3 then if I won the die roll I won 63.41% of my matches whereas I won 58.97% of my matches when I lost the die roll.  Assuming I did my math right and my assumption on game 1 having the same percentages as 2 and 3, then the die roll was only worth 4.43% in determining if I won a match.  Interpret this however you want, but I think this shows that the die roll is not quite as important as has been previously stated.

You're on Workshops Will. You should always do better on the play.

My point wasn't that I thought I would do better on the draw than the play, but instead that I thought the difference in my win percentage when I won the die roll would be much higher than when I lose the roll based on the seemingly common perception that Workshops are nigh unbeatable when they win the die roll which is obviously not the case. 

We'd need to break your data out based on archetype faced. The presumption is that Blue decks are easily beaten by Shops on the play, not the format. Do you have that data? My point is that Dredge and the mirror are much less P/D dependent than say Storm or Blue(and potentially this further to separate Control lists from the Combo kill lists).

[Will]

Alright so A-1 inspired me to look into my catalog of life sheets from the tournaments I've played in dating back to March 2011.  Since that point, I played 219 tournament games all with Workshop decks.  My game results were:

Overall: 126 wins - 93 losses (57% win%)
On the play: 63 wins - 38 losses (62% win%)
On the draw: 63 wins - 55 losses (53% win%)

I took this one further because I was interested in how the die roll influenced my match win%.  I constructed decision trees and found that assuming my game win% is the same in games 1, 2 and 3 then if I won the die roll I won 63.41% of my matches whereas I won 58.97% of my matches when I lost the die roll.  Assuming I did my math right and my assumption on game 1 having the same percentages as 2 and 3, then the die roll was only worth 4.43% in determining if I won a match.  Interpret this however you want, but I think this shows that the die roll is not quite as important as has been previously stated.

You're on Workshops Will. You should always do better on the play.

My point wasn't that I thought I would do better on the draw than the play, but instead that I thought the difference in my win percentage when I won the die roll would be much higher than when I lose the roll based on the seemingly common perception that Workshops are nigh unbeatable when they win the die roll which is obviously not the case. 

We'd need to break your data out based on archetype faced. The presumption is that Blue decks are easily beaten by Shops on the play, not the format. Do you have that data? My point is that Dredge and the mirror are much less P/D dependent than say Storm or Blue(and potentially this further to separate Control lists from the Combo kill lists).

No, not really. I don't record what specific deck they are on usually, I almost always just have their first and sometimes last name. I might be able to break it out, but I'm not sure of the accuracy of posthumously saying X was on Control dating back to 2 years ago. I might be able to piece it together though. It also matters on what is in fact control vs Combo which into experience is a challenging distinction to make.

[Smmenen]

Alright so A-1 inspired me to look into my catalog of life sheets from the tournaments I've played in dating back to March 2011.  Since that point, I played 219 tournament games all with Workshop decks.  My game results were:

Overall: 126 wins - 93 losses (57% win%)
On the play: 63 wins - 38 losses (62% win%)
On the draw: 63 wins - 55 losses (53% win%)

I took this one further because I was interested in how the die roll influenced my match win%.  I constructed decision trees and found that assuming my game win% is the same in games 1, 2 and 3 then if I won the die roll I won 63.41% of my matches whereas I won 58.97% of my matches when I lost the die roll.  Assuming I did my math right and my assumption on game 1 having the same percentages as 2 and 3, then the die roll was only worth 4.43% in determining if I won a match.  Interpret this however you want, but I think this shows that the die roll is not quite as important as has been previously stated.

You're on Workshops Will. You should always do better on the play.

Me being on landstill, I definitely want to be on the play. My deck already has enough CA where being on te draw to see 1 more card is almost irrelevant. I haven't tested and kept statistics on it, but bring on the play means standstill, crucible, and jace, all come out faster. So in my opinion that outweighs wanting to be on the draw for that extra golden card lol. And as it was mentioned above the player that does go first will have drain and other counters up faster then the person on the draw. So I will continue being on the play, and welcome anybody that wants to let me be on the play in a game that they choose!

Having Drain first only matters if I play a spell. I promise, if I'm on dedicated control I will continue to let you go first. No problem.

Steve:

There is a difference in the Forino lists from standard fair. The quantities he designed them with and the functions that they serve differ greatly from other people. This is akin to saying that Blue decks are the same because they play the same 30-40 cards despite them changing drastically with the remaining 20-30.

I definitely don't agree.   Control decks vary to a much greater degree for several reasons: first, color configurations change more frequently; second, the package of draw spells are often hugely different (Bob, Remora, Snapcaster, Jaces, Gush, Standstil, etc), and; third, coutnerspell packages differ greatly.  

Basically every Workshop deck has 4 Golem, 4 Chalice, 4 Sphere, 4 Thorn, 4 Tangle Wire, 3 Metamorph, 1 Trinisphere, 4 Shop, 4 Ancient Tomb, 5 Moxen, 1 Mana Crypt, 1 Strip Mine, 4 Wasteland, and 1 Academy.  That's 44 cards, and most Workshop decks have Lotus and at least 2-3 City of Traitors.  that's almost 50 cards.   I used to run breakdowns on Workshop decks in statistical analysis for SCG, so I know the routine.  That degree of uniformity does not exist, say, between Bomberman, Gush decks, Landstill, or Grixis Control.

The basically 10-15 cards difference are significant, no doubt, but my point wasn't that the other cards don't matter, but that they don't matter with *respect to the question of whether being on the draw or play makes a big difference*, which is the issue here.   As long as the Workshop deck has Chalice, Spheres, and Golem, of course being on the play is going be of relatively the same significance regardless.  

 I've also listened to your podcasts and know that Paul has explained the nuances to you in the past. I have it on good authority that the styles and functions were also explained to you in a discussion at GenCon.

Yes, but that was two years ago!   For whatever reason, the words "Martello, Marinera, etc" do not encode in my brain or my memory with clearly recognizable deck forms or tactics.  I'm sorry, but the fact that I've been told what Martello means once or twice in the past does not mean that I remember or can recall those differences.   It might be different if I played in a metagame where people regularly used those terms. 

In the list that someone had above, I don't associate Stell Hellkite with a person, but with a common sense development to fight Trygon Predator coming out of a new set.  

The one card that I do associate with one of the names is Serum Powder and Espresso Stax.  That's about it.  

 Don't claim to be ignorant of something we both know you are aware of. If you want me to credit you or Mean Deck for changing 5-10 cards and making decks your own, you need to be willing to do the same for others who are playing cards that were off the radar before. That hypocrisy won't fly with me.

I'm not sure which decks you are talking about.  I don't really apply "meandeck" to decks anymore and haven't in years.  Meandeck Gifts could well have been called Scroll Gifts.   I really could not tell you what these various Workshop variants are by sight. I just see them as MUD variants anchored around a core set of tactics.  

When did Chapin become an authority on Vintage? He's barely relevant as a Magic player in the modern era, and is really only credited with being "innovative" in his deckbuilding. Let's not get ahead of ourselves again and bow down to someone who made a few top 8's in another format/environment and pretend that it makes them the almighty. Also, Chapin is the last person I'd listen to advice from based on his past.

Not necessarily an authority, but he did study the format closely back in the time period he was writing about Vintage.  His analysis is worth pointing out because it shows that Workshops have always had a huge advnatage on the play, and that this is not just a contemporary phenomena.  

Clearly we don't see eye to eye on what defines a dedicated control deck. I'm not sure how to bridge that gap. Claiming that your DD list can be as controlling as UWb Bomberman is absurd. You're behind between 6-8 counterspells/disruption cards.

Really?  Here's my Waterbury Top 8 decklist: http://www.morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1509&highlight=6#place6

I played: 5 Duress effects, 2 Flusterstorm, 4 Force, 4 Mental Misstep, and 2 Spell Pierce -- that's 17 counterspells/disruption spells.   To my knowledge, that's significantly more than most Bomberman decks.  And it's virtually much more because of the virtual card advantage of the Alan Comer/Turbo Xerox mana base & spell configuration.  

I'm also aware that at the time no one really know how to combat what you were doing and the format was still mostly based on fighting over spells. Now that DD is a known entity it has mostly fallen off because people have effective lines to beat it that have been shown to them by others. Josh Potucek is one of the best control pilots I know, but he was fighting the wrong battle against the deck and was routinely beat by Josh Butker because of it. Taking Josh's exact list I played a few games against Butker and it wasn't close at all - but the opposite way. Knowing where to bottle neck the DD player is the key to winning for Landstill. Since me and Josh talked it over, he has since been doing significantly better against DD.

It's worth noting that I play the deck differently than Josh.  I play it much more as a control deck.  That's why I don't run Dark Ritual in it.   I take the view that I can play the control role better than a control deck because of my virtual card advantage and becaue of Gush.  I don't miss land drops becuase I use Gush, and Gush allows me to win almost every counterwar.   I only comboed out once I had complete control --  meaning I had more counters in hand than opponent had cards in hand.  

I'll take the draw against Dredge. More important to draw hate than to lay a land and pass. Significantly better if I'm on Crypt/Rav Trap/Cage than Jailer/Leyline/Relic.

What about game 1?  In game one, you must maximize yoru chances for actually assembling the broken kill, whether it is Tinker or Time Vault + Key.

I will continue to draw in dedicated control mirrors, and I will continue to Top 8 because of it. Outside of Justin Kohler and Rob Edwards, I put together the most top 8's last year. They got me by playing in more events, our %'s are about the same. From what I understand Gunslinga has similar success. Just because it challenges the dogma of our game doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. I'm somewhat surprised at how desperately players cling to this concept.

Go for it.   I would like to see how your approach fares in larger events, like the Vintage Champs or Waterburies.  

I think the fact that Josh has said that being on the draw with Landstill is wrong is a compelling and persuasive testament that the burden of proof is on those who wish to contest the conventional wisdom here.  

[Stormanimagus]

This debate is absurd.

Even if we were to construct scenarios where being on the draw was a good thing (i.e you are running Gemstone Caverns, or Library of Alexandria is unrestricted all of the sudden) you STILL want to be on the play to be able to sneak in threats under a mana drain or to be able to ya know, develop a mana base instead of having all your moxen hit by a chalice @0.

Stephen, I don't think it's necessary to humor this guy's inane claim that being on the draw is ever better than being on the play in Vintage. There may be formats where it is arguable, but Vintage ain't one of them.

"Thread Closed." Haha.

-Storm

[Smmenen]

This debate is absurd.

Even if we were to construct scenarios where being on the draw was a good thing (i.e you are running Gemstone Caverns, or Library of Alexandria is unrestricted all of the sudden) you STILL want to be on the play to be able to sneak in threats under a mana drain or to be able to ya know, develop a mana base instead of having all your moxen hit by a chalice @0.

Stephen, I don't think it's necessary to humor this guy's inane claim that being on the draw is ever better than being on the play in Vintage. There may be formats where it is arguable, but Vintage ain't one of them.

"Thread Closed." Haha.

-Storm

I'm not humoring, I'm genuinely engaging it.  It's worth discussing, I think, even though I strenuously disagree. 

[Tha Gunslinga]

This debate is absurd.

Even if we were to construct scenarios where being on the draw was a good thing (i.e you are running Gemstone Caverns, or Library of Alexandria is unrestricted all of the sudden) you STILL want to be on the play to be able to sneak in threats under a mana drain or to be able to ya know, develop a mana base instead of having all your moxen hit by a chalice @0.

Stephen, I don't think it's necessary to humor this guy's inane claim that being on the draw is ever better than being on the play in Vintage. There may be formats where it is arguable, but Vintage ain't one of them.

"Thread Closed." Haha.

-Storm

All you're saying is, "It's obvious that the sun revolves around the Earth, and anyone who states otherwise is wrong, so there."  I see no evidence, I see no testing, I see NOTHING here.  Do your research.  I did mine.  It contradicts popular wisdom.

[Samoht]

This debate is absurd.

Even if we were to construct scenarios where being on the draw was a good thing (i.e you are running Gemstone Caverns, or Library of Alexandria is unrestricted all of the sudden) you STILL want to be on the play to be able to sneak in threats under a mana drain or to be able to ya know, develop a mana base instead of having all your moxen hit by a chalice @0.

Stephen, I don't think it's necessary to humor this guy's inane claim that being on the draw is ever better than being on the play in Vintage. There may be formats where it is arguable, but Vintage ain't one of them.

"Thread Closed." Haha.

-Storm

Storm:

What are you trying to sneak under a Mana Drain in a dedicated control match up? You have no cards to push through. You're valuing being on the play is as a format, not in specific match ups. I 100% agree that blind I take the play. Every time. There are too many times where taking the draw puts you at a decided disadvantage. That does not at all mean that 100% of the time it is best to be on the play. Again, If I'm on a 75 card mirror with Potucek or Kohler, I'll take the draw. There is value in the extra card, and they are not going to make any gamebreaking plays in the first 2-3 turns anyway. You either are disregarding what is being discussed or unaware of how the games play out.

[Samoht]

RE Shops the same vs Blue the same: See Steve, that's the point. not every Shop list maxes out on Spheres or Thorns. Not all of them run City of Traitors.  I didn't say it was the exact same thing as saying Blue is all the same, but simply made an analogy that holds weight. Compare the two decks that Raf Forino won with last year, Martello and Terra Nova. One is running Mutavault's and Sculpting Steels and Dismembers and the other is running Phyrexian Revoker and Forgemaster (with the tutor package). To say that the 2 decks are the same is silly, as they play very differently and attempting to attack them the same way means you are likely losing every time against one. Your Shop theory has always been behind or lacking, and this line of discussion simply exacerbates that. Revoker is a card that is so much better on the draw than the play for the Shop player. Martello was actually designed with the intention of interacting more with the board as opposed to be constricted into an all or nothing position like Espresso. Seeing as not all shop decks are running 12 +1's + 8 Copies + 4 Chalice + 3ball + Wire, you can't say that the % chance of things is equal. There is a difference. You seem to think it is negligible. I don't agree, based on experience and math. There are plenty of Shop decks that try to just play straight aggro, and fire off 4+ Creatures with little to no resistance in the form of Spheres. They haven't done well, but they exist and are played often at events. To put those in the same category as Terra Nova is just wrong, and to pretend that is ok is mind blowing to me.

RE the Mean Deck moniker: Perhaps you aren't the culprit on your team that seems to turn everyone else's Deck X into Mean Deck X. DeMars generally posts lists in his articles that are straight rips of others lists and then changes cards. I've called him out on it before. I don't remember the specific one, but he simply added Tinker Bot to someone's pile and claimed it a Mean Deck. We all named our lists Mean Deck Slaughter Smurfs as a tongue in cheek gesture towards him for over a month. However, I'll confess to not buying your articles as I refuse to pay for content (but that's another matter) so perhaps I falsely attributed this tactic to you as well. I apologize if that's the case.

RE Chapin: I don't think anyone has said that they don't have an advantage on the play. To say that they all favored the same is where I have a problem, and I don't really know how else to show it than to show you that there are not always full sets of restrictors in decks and ask for simple acceptance of % change. You are more likely to be able to play spells against different builds of Shops when on the draw. Sure, I've already conceded that if they lead Shop Sphere Chalice you're not looking too good, but that doesn't mean that they will always have all of that.

RE Disruption: Just counted, UW Bomberman is at 19 and UR Landstill is at 18 regarding game 1's against DD. Not counting the SB stuff, as I see you left off yours. I'm not sure what lists you are looking at for control.

RE Style of play: I'm sure you do play differently. There's a reason you are who you are, and it's your style of play and valuation on lines. You also have a much different meta, and so you build to take advantage of that. I'm sure Josh Butker does similar things in his preparation, he just isn't as confident as you that he can play control in our environment effectively(this is an assumption on my part about Butker's config.).

RE Dredge + Broken plays: Both Bomberman and Landstill have neither Tinker or Vault Key. Landstill needs the dredge player to mulligan a bit to have a chance, while Bomberman needs an early Cage/Trinket Mage for Cage.

RE Champs/Waterbury: I went 5-2-1 at Champs, but was playing Oath and as such always took the play because of Mox Orchard Oath. I would only be taking the draw if I'm in a dedicated control mirror. This is not the same thing as saying I always want to be on the draw. Please make sure that distinction is understood.

RE Josh: Josh doesn't often play dedicated mirrors. He is almost always the control. When fighting against aggressive strategies, even the mid range blue style of decks, it is better to set up early defenses, win a counter war, and then drop Standstill than to just wait for the other guy to blink. I've told Josh several times that I think he's a bit rash with some of his statements and that it is often not predicated on facts but his own opinions. I would contend that this is the case here.

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

What did I say here that you don't agree with?

If its on the topic of dropping early standstill, of course I dont ALWAYS do it. But when I can say drop turn 1 standstill on the play I will every time. Or even turn 2 standstill on the play if they don't have drain up I will. But it is really case by case honestly. Depends what the rest of my hand looks like and depends what my opponent is on (if I know).

But yeah I am of the "opinion" that being on the play is better. Weather I am right or wrong who knows. I don't really care. But I would be more then happy if my opponent chooses to put me on the play hah...

[Samoht]

What did I say here that you don't agree with?

If its on the topic of dropping early standstill, of course I dont ALWAYS do it. But when I can say drop turn 1 standstill on the play I will every time. Or even turn 2 standstill on the play if they don't have drain up I will. But it is really case by case honestly. Depends what the rest of my hand looks like and depends what my opponent is on (if I know).

But yeah I am of the "opinion" that being on the play is better. Weather I am right or wrong who knows. I don't really care. But I would be more then happy if my opponent chooses to put me on the play hah...

Basically, I think that you're better off being on the draw against UW Bomberman than you are on the play. I also think you are decidedly more advantaged on the draw in the Standstill mirror.

If you play turn 1 Standstill, that means you have a land and Mox, so after it pops you're back to 7. That is a great situation. But, you play 2 moxes and often don't have them in the opener. This make turn 1 Standstill very unlikely. Additionally, a turn 2 Standstill is a much weaker play if you're already on 6 in hand, as they can simply fire off a card to turn it into a draw 3 pitch 2, or just wait until you and they are at 7 and make it even worse for you. Obviously against a deck like Fish or BUG or UBR this is the play every time. It's not necessarily the case in a control match. I think you get that, but I also think you're not extrapolating it all the way to the final conclusion of being on the draw is better in a mirror where we both have Waste + Factory + Counters.

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

Basically, I think that you're better off being on the draw against UW Bomberman than you are on the play. I also think you are decidedly more advantaged on the draw in the Standstill mirror.

I half heartedly agree with you on this statement. I agree more so in the standstill mirror. While bomberman pumps out a fast jace I would like to have drain up asap or even pierce, or both lol. I am just so used to being on the play when I have the option. Maybe this is wrong, I am not sure. But like I said I can see it being totally fine with choosing to draw in landstill mirror withut a doubt. Not so sure against bomberman, especially against Mr. Kohler who always seems to have turn 1 or 2 jace...

Against him in the top 4 of the event I just won, I never felt behind because standstill always pulled me back. The one game he even had turn 2 Jace I think it was, and I played standstill with jace in play followed up by double factory and still won. But like I said I am not sure about choosing to draw vs bomberman only because of the faster jace into play thing...Idk best way to figure out is to gather a large sample of data and do some work haha

[Smmenen]

RE Shops the same vs Blue the same: See Steve, that's the point. not every Shop list maxes out on Spheres or Thorns. Not all of them run City of Traitors.  I didn't say it was the exact same thing as saying Blue is all the same, but simply made an analogy that holds weight. Compare the two decks that Raf Forino won with last year, Martello and Terra Nova. One is running Mutavault's and Sculpting Steels and Dismembers and the other is running Phyrexian Revoker and Forgemaster (with the tutor package). To say that the 2 decks are the same is silly,

Again, I'm not saying they are the same.  I am saying they are the same *in all or most of the respects that matter with respect to this issue*.   Don't Martello and Terra Nova both share all or most of the cards I listed?  (Im assuming they do).

To put those in the same category as Terra Nova is just wrong, and to pretend that is ok is mind blowing to me.

They are in the same category: They are both MUD decks.  It's not that mindblowing.  More to the point, though, they are the same in respect to the issue under discussion: whether being on the play or draw is better.  That's all I was saying.

RE the Mean Deck moniker: Perhaps you aren't the culprit on your team that seems to turn everyone else's Deck X into Mean Deck X. DeMars generally posts lists in his articles that are straight rips of others lists and then changes cards. I've called him out on it before. I don't remember the specific one, but he simply added Tinker Bot to someone's pile and claimed it a Mean Deck. We all named our lists Mean Deck Slaughter Smurfs as a tongue in cheek gesture towards him for over a month. However, I'll confess to not buying your articles as I refuse to pay for content (but that's another matter) so perhaps I falsely attributed this tactic to you as well. I apologize if that's the case.

Example?  I don't actually think my teammates do that.  I'd be surprised if you Brian literally added two cards and put our team name on it.  I'd like you to support that accusation with actual evidence. 

RE Disruption: Just counted, UW Bomberman is at 19 and UR Landstill is at 18 regarding game 1's against DD. Not counting the SB stuff, as I see you left off yours. I'm not sure what lists you are looking at for control.

List?  I just looked on Morphling.de and the Bomberman that made top 4 at Vintage Champs had under 11 disruption spells.  My Doomsdsay deck had 17, which is more than mono blue decks had in 2002.  I just looked at Josh P's last Landstill deck and it has 15 counterspells.  That's much less Disruption than my Doomsday deck.  

Moreover, you keep ignoring the point about virtual card advantage that Alan Comer's Turbo Xerox and all subsequent Gush decks are built on.   This results in an even higher effective coutnermagic rate.  And, no, Bolts don't count as disruption against me, since I typically win by Gushbonding into Yawgmoth's Will into Tendrils or just a huge Yawgmoth's Will against heavy control decks once I've achieved complete control. 

RE Style of play: I'm sure you do play differently. There's a reason you are who you are, and it's your style of play and valuation on lines. You also have a much different meta, and so you build to take advantage of that. I'm sure Josh Butker does similar things in his preparation, he just isn't as confident as you that he can play control in our environment effectively(this is an assumption on my part about Butker's config.).

Did you forget that I designed my Top 8 Gush Doomsday deck *for the WATERBURY*?    Isn't that your metagame?  

[LennoxLewis86]

I think we can all agree that despite build or variation of the archetype, MUD decks are generally better on the play. So the real question regarding this topic is whether this disadvantage (from a blue player's point of view) outweighs the potential benefits of being on the draw against other blue decks.

Because when I know what I'm up against, I'll play unless I'm playing against blue.

I'm just curious whether in a meta where you expect an ''even'' distribution between played archetypes, and when you play a very reactive blue-based deck, it may be wise to choose to draw when winning the die roll.

We could try to put the advantages and disadvantages of playing and drawing against each archetype into some sort of comparable content. I do have to admit that the disadvantages of drawing against MUD probably outweigh the advantages of drawing vs. blue but this theory can still be applied to heavy blue metas not to mention that Vintage is the format to try and find new tech because it's very easy to get sucked in by the stale nature of vintage, and that will make the innovative part of your vintage brain lazy.

[Adan]

Well, this is like the greatest bullshit I have ever read on this forum, sorry guys.

This format is being hated for AEONS for being so dependant on the diceroll. I cannot imagine any scenario where I would want to be on the draw ever. Even in the blue mirrors where it can really depend on who drops his Confidant first. Slamming a 1st Turn Jace with Lotus is also devastating most of the time. And I would want to have the possibility to have Flusterstorm and or Mana Drain (via Mox Sapphire) to defend myself against such random shit.

Verbal Warning - It was entirely possible to make your point without the use of expletives, or in demeaning fashion. You chose otherwise.  Please phrase your points without such vitriol in the future - Prospero.

[TheWhiteDragon]

I believe most people have come to the same conclusion through much discussion - when running blue, it is sometimes beneficial to be on the draw if you are facing a strict control deck.  It is often best with any deck to be on the play when facing dredge or shops.

Given that the OP said you don't know what you are facing, is it best to always play, or always draw?  You are in a meta where you have no idea if it is you on blue vs 30 shop decks, or you are on blue vs 30 landstill decks...completely blind in every match.

Since every meta seems diverse to varying degrees, the question really becomes "is it more detrimental to play vs blue or draw vs shops/dredge?"  If playing vs drawing is a huge difference in a blue mirror (and also assuming those blue decks don't have swingy bombs like tinker) and playing vs drawing is marginal difference vs shops, then drawing is always the right call.  If the opposite is true (which I'm inclined to believe from my own testing) then the opposite starting action is right when being 100% blind every time.

I also contend that my suggestion about gaining unconscious info from the opponent still holds regardless of being on the play or draw.

All that said, this thread has devolved into 1) who gets credit for which buids (nobody cares!) and 2) is it better to play or draw when you are one slow blue control deck and you know your opponent is also a slow blue control deck.  Couldn't be further that the OP's question.

On the blind, every time, in a diverse tourney...if you won every flip, do you always play or always draw? (I always play for the reason stated about which matchup I feel suffers most from drawing).

[evouga]

Can we all at least agree that you should play if facing a known shops deck, or g2/g3 against shops? Or would you guys continue to draw even in these circumstances?

[Samoht]

Can we all at least agree that you should play if facing a known shops deck, or g2/g3 against shops? Or would you guys continue to draw even in these circumstances?

I don't think anyone is advocating choosing the draw against Shops. Even Gunslinga only offers that he's had success doing it, not that it's inherently right.

[TheWhiteDragon]

Can we all at least agree that you should play if facing a known shops deck, or g2/g3 against shops? Or would you guys continue to draw even in these circumstances?

I don't think anyone is advocating choosing the draw against Shops. Even Gunslinga only offers that he's had success doing it, not that it's inherently right.

I don't think it is best to draw vs shops - but some people probably feel it's best to always draw - even against Cyclotron or belcher.  No persuading those people otherwise.  To stay on thread though, this was about being blind - not g 2/3 or knowing what you are facing - because the whole point was "waiting as a way to get pregame info from the opponent".  if you aware of the matchup, you could easily decide the best course as afar as play draw and sbing accordingly.  Being on the blind in every match though, the only real question becomes if you expect to face more strict, slow, blue control than anything else, or do you expect a fair amount of shops, aggro, and turn 1 combo decks with a quarter or so being blue control of the non-turn-1-bomb variety.

[Smmenen]

I hope people draw against combo decks "to get the extra card."  LOL.  I'll do my best to make sure you don't get a turn. 

[Samoht]

I hope people draw against combo decks "to get the extra card."  LOL.  I'll do my best to make sure you don't get a turn.  

I draw against your Burning Oath deck every time. Haven't dropped a game. I don't know how it ever wins against competent Blue pilots.