The early game with blue decks, play or draw?

[LennoxLewis86]

I've come back to vintage after a couple of years of not really playing the format. During that time span I have played a lot of legacy and modern. When coming back to vintage and playing a couple of games I got smashed. I seemed to totally forget how to play this format. It took me a good couple of games to get the feel for the format again. Sometimes when you look at a format, when you play other formats and look again, your view on things might have changed while the format is practically the same.

As a player, I am very much strategically oriented. This may sound like a redundant thing to say when playing Magic but let my try to explain. My decision trees are basically based on information that I have gathered throughout the game. This makes vintage so unique. It has been said before and I will say it again; vintage is the puzzle format. So imagine playing a big tournament and you have no clue what you're up against. You're on the play. How do you evaluate your hand? Don't you keep hands based on how you plan to play out your hand? You have 0 information and you have a big decision to make. Now this may be true for the player who draws too but let me try to explain why this could almost be regarded as an advantage. Since there is such a big difference how the pillars from vintage attack you, it is rough to estimate whether your hand is good. Lots of lands is useful against a prison deck, but it will get you killed against dredge. It could be a strong hand against another blue-based control deck but it's absolutely worthless when your opponent tries to land a protected Oath on turn two. When totally in the dark, you can only base your hand strength on overall power, and you'll base that on whether you have bombs (blue power, tinker, demonic), whether you have countermagic and how explosive your draw is. Sure, it can give you a pretty good idea whether a hand like that will get there in general, but other that that it's just waiting for pieces of information to base your game plan around.

So let's say you're first to declare keep or mulligan. A good opponent doesn't even pick up his hand but tries to detect something from your body language. Imagine how he can deduce things by looking at how you evaluate your hand. Dredge players don't base their keeps on how their hand plays out, they base their decision on whether they have a Bazaar. Not to mention builds with Serum Powder will literally give away all the needed information. So imagine sitting down from an opponent, he wins the die roll and draws 7 cards after shuffling. He quickly scans his hand and declares a mulligan. While one should never make big decisions based on perceived body language. To me that looks like an opponent who was looking for a Bazaar of Baghdad and didn't find it.

On the other end of the spectrum we have blue decks. From experience I can tell you that I never snap-keep, unless I have the absolute nuts. I always try to imagine how the game might play out before I decide whether the hand is good enough. So when you sit down from an opponent, and he thinks a good bit before he keeps, I'd put him on a blue or combo deck, because he's either thinking out his strategy or doing math. Either way, you'll have a feel for what kind of game you can expect. Finally, in the middle are the Workshop decks. You never snap-keep, but you also never seem to really have to think too much whether a hand is playable. It requires somewhat of a decent mix of mana, resistors and theats. Spotting a Bazaar in your hand goes a lot faster than detecting whether you have a bit of everything.

My question to you is, when playing a blue deck, isn't it maybe better to choose to draw in hopes to pick up some tells on opponents to evaluate your mulligan decisions better? It also has some other advantages. Since blue decks always run Library of Alexandria, you not only increase your chances of starting the game with it in hand (8 cards opposed to 7), but you also get to use it in the same turn you put it into play. Also, it's confusing for the opponent. Count on it he's going to be thinking of decks that would have an advantage on the draw. He would most likely overthink the situation and put you on something unorthodox like a dredge deck that uses the discard step as an outlet.

When the first game is played, you will naturally choose to play first when given the decision because there is no more benefit in drawing after game one. Once you know what deck your up against you can evaluate your hand and have a feel for how the first couple of turns might play out.

So, to summarize. Is it justified for a blue player to choose to draw based on this reasoning?

[hitman]

You don't want to be on the draw against anything that can get a significant advantage on you by the first turn.  Since that can be said of any format, even Return to Ravnica draft, you almost never want to be on the draw, especially in Vintage.  In really slow draft formats it's very reasonable to be on the draw but not otherwise.  I suppose if you were playing a Fish or Landstill mirror, it wouldn't matter much.  Too many things can bury you before you get a chance to do anything and the small amount of information you think you're getting doesn't even remotely outweigh the disadvantage of being on the draw.  Against blue, they're drawing cards a turn before you.  Against Shops, they're laying Spheres and Chalices and you may never get to play a spell.  Against Dredge, they're almost half way to killing you by the end of their first turn. 

Getting little nuances of information is much more important in formats where the power level of the cards is much lower.  You need to leverage each card for everything it's worth to get an edge.  In formats as powerful as Modern, Legacy and Vintage, the information isn't as important as being the first player to start doing powerful things.  Basing your game one mulliganing decision on the power of your opening hand is a much more reliable way to win than hoping you get enough information from your opponent in his first mulligan and your ability to correctly interpret any information you may be getting.

Additionally, many Vintage players play similar archetypes from tournament to tournament so if you know who they are, you probably have a relatively good idea of what they're playing as soon as they sit down across from you.

[TheWhiteDragon]

Not only is always drawing a bad idea (unless you ask SOME people on TMD), but the info you hope to gain can be misleading.  Let's say I'm on shops.  I open a hand of waste, tangle, golem, golem, tangle, karn, smokestack.  In the same amount of time that it would have taken me to see that I have no bazaar - being on dredge - I just as quickly see I have no mana and my hand blows.  Now it goes to your priority....do you keep, or do you mull for your wasteland thinking I'm on bazaar?  Do you toss your decent hand with FoW and a hurkylls because you think you need your grave hate or a faster kill like tinker to compete?  You might just shoot yourself in the foot with that strategy.  

The other thing is as hitman stated.  Land drops are crucial in vintage.  Facing shops when you have island in play before they start dumping their hand is WAY different than if you have no mana at all.  No ancestral in response, no pierce, no snare, no sabotage, no 1 mana to pay for FoW through that initial sphere to hit the golem that you were really fearing.  WORLD of difference.  Against dredge, unless you are packing wastes (not likely in a blue deck) or substantial maindeck grave hate - you're going to lose g1 anyway, so no point in hedging for that.  Against fish, combo, or control - they could easily be mulling a no-mana hand or a mana flooded hand and you'd have nothing but false information (which can be worse than no information).

I'd say just keep what looks like a strong hand that advances your gameplan and perhaps has an answer or two in there - like a FoW.

**additional thought**

Players in vintage tend to have a pet deck they love and play the hell out of - so they can tell at a glance what is keepable and what is not.  Unless you're Keith Barry, you're not going to see much difference in the guy that fans out a no-bazaar hand and mulls vs the guy that has tested just shy of a billion games and knows a mulligan hand quickly without needed analysis.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Has anyone actually done the stats on die-roll win correlation with match win? I remember it actually favoring drawing in certain limited formats where it had been examined.

In Vintage, things that commonly happen on the first turn can outright lock you out of a game.  I would be very surprised to learn that choosing to draw was correct outside of corner cases like the landstill mirror. "Blind" to the possibility of an opponent on Shops or Dredge...I can't imagine electing to go second being a net advantage.

[Tha Gunslinga]

Playing or drawing is even, and I always draw now, and I think I do as well as I did before, if not better.  It also speeds up your games by eliminating the tedious die-rolling.

[TheWhiteDragon]

Playing or drawing is even, and I always draw now, and I think I do as well as I did before, if not better.  It also speeds up your games by eliminating the tedious die-rolling.

Yes, I stand corrected.  Drawing is always the correct play, regardless of the matchup.  Dredge especially does poorly when they get to activate their bazaar one turn before you lay your hate.

I think my analysis of the shops matchup is ample enough to show you why it's not always best to draw first - but most importantly, the other scenarios should show why electing to draw solely to gain perceived information is a flawed practice.

[Wagner]

Playing or drawing is even, and I always draw now, and I think I do as well as I did before, if not better.  It also speeds up your games by eliminating the tedious die-rolling.

Yes, I stand corrected.  Drawing is always the correct play, regardless of the matchup.  Dredge especially does poorly when they get to activate their bazaar one turn before you lay your hate.

I think my analysis of the shops matchup is ample enough to show you why it's not always best to draw first - but most importantly, the other scenarios should show why electing to draw solely to gain perceived information is a flawed practice.

I'll still go with the person that can back this with results and not an analysis based on theory.

I would also think that playing is always the right move, but I never did gather results to see if it did made an impact, and I'll gladly accept any data proving either option instead of conjectures.

[TheWhiteDragon]

*conjecture alert!*

I think you'll find that vs dredge and shops, your odds are slightly worse on the draw and against blue, they are even or better.  Against aggro, it's probably a wash.  The decks you want mana in play against are decks that can cripple you or flat out win turn 1.  In those cases, you never actually get the advantage of an 8th card because you are either locked out or dead.  Then it becomes a matter of both players having 7 cards, but only one getting to play mana and spells. If you ALWAYS have FoW, I guess it doesn't matter, but I try to keep my blue decks to the legal 4 copies.

The main point still stands that you are deriving imperfect information from an opponent based on how they mull.  Unless they're tipping their hand, literally, with serum powder, you have no clue.  Sometimes I'll stare at my hand of dredgers, LED, petrified field, and dread return and wonder if I should keep....then decide to mull.  If you saw that, you probably assume I'm running TPS with a mediocre hand.  Misinformation is more dangerous than no information, so play the best hand you have for your gameplan.  If you are playing to "stop the opponent" rather than winning - you're already losing.

[Samoht]

1) I always choose to draw in the blue mirror. I also board out Mystical Tutor 100% of the time and Vampiric Tutor 80% of the time in the blue mirror.

2) I think there are several strategic advantages to being on the draw with decks like URg Landstill. The card will matter much more than the opening play. Against Workshop based prison strategies, I would still choose play even on a control deck.

[TheWhiteDragon]

To clarify...when I said "always being on the draw is a bad idea", that's very different than saying "being on the draw is always a bad idea."  There are times being on the draw is good - and conversely their are times it is bad.  The strategy of always choosing to draw in hopes of getting info based on mulligans is a poor strategy.  When they look at their hand and see island, sapphire, mana crypt, tinker, ancestral, misstep, FoW, and take all of one second to shout KEEP!  Do you mull down to wasteland assuming they are dredge holding a bazaar or two?

I admit if my opponent mulls to 5 or 4, my immediate thought is "dredge", but I won't mull away a decent hand unless I see serum powder hands.  Otherwise, if you mull equally low for the dredge hate, you just negated all the CA you had for the chance that they are on bazaar.

[Smmenen]

The decisions per turn ratio is so much higher in this format relative to virtually every other Magic format.  This is because there are fewer turns per game in Vintage than any other sanctioned Magic format.  

Not being on the play risks not interacting meaningfully.   Workshops and Dredge vividly illustrate this idea, but so do other decks.  Being the draw risks having fewer turns per match than the opponent.  

[Samoht]

The decisions per turn ratio is so much higher in this format relative to virtually every other Magic format.  This is because there are fewer turns per game in Vintage than any other sanctioned Magic format.   

Not being on the play risks not interacting meaningfully.   Workshops and Dredge vividly illustrate this idea, but so do other decks.  Being the play risks having fewer turns per match than the opponent.   

You mean being on the draw risks having fewer turns?

Play Landstill vs Bomberman and keep note of who wins. After 50 games you should see a decided advantage for the person on the draw. More so than archetype or player.

[A.-1.]

Here are some statistics of the last 10 tournaments I made top 8 since the play/draw rule for top 8 was implemented:

My overall record while on the play (OTP) was 57-18 (.760%).
My overall record while on the draw (OTD) was 47-32 (.595%).

I played Keeper/Landstill in five events and Martello Shops in five events.
My record with blue OTP was 29-8 (.784%) and OTD 20-15 (.571%).
My record with Shops OTP was 28-10 (.737%) and OTD 27-17 (.614%).

I don't keep notes from every tournament, these numbers are only from ones that I saved my report, and they're only from events I made top 8.

[For someone who proclaims to hate math, I sure do use it a lot.]

[TheWhiteDragon]

It's all a function of which deck you're playing against.  Against a slower deck, anything that wants to stream weenies (fish) or drop one bomb spell protected by counters (blue), CA is at a premium, and being on the draw can be a benefit.  But the premium for shops is board presence, not card advantage - which you let them massively establish first with them on the play.  The premium for dredge is unmolested bazaar activations - which  you let them get 1 more of faster by them being on the play.

The OP's point however, was NOT knowing who your opponent is and determining such by their tells while mulliganing.  To do so would mean ALWAYS drawing instead of playing.  I think vs fish or blue, you're not really hurting yourself by being on the draw (especially if you play removal), but vs shops, you hurt yourself by starting the game behind spheres and possibly chalice making all your moxen dead.  Against dredge - well, i think you lose g1 vs them anyway 90% of the time if you are blue, so I don't see an advantage in determining your opponent is on dredge.

And just to be sure...starting player decides mull or keep, then player on the draw decides mull or keep, and then back and forth until both players keep, correct?  Without serum powder revealing the deck, a mull to 6 is not nearly enough to determine they are on dredge.  As I said, an obviously bad hand will be put back as fast as a no-bazaar hand.  Sometimes they'll over-study a bad hand just to throw you off too.  It's just a bad strategy.

The best strategy vs an unknown opponent is to keep the best hand that advances your plan and then sb appropriately g2/3.

[Smmenen]

The decisions per turn ratio is so much higher in this format relative to virtually every other Magic format.  This is because there are fewer turns per game in Vintage than any other sanctioned Magic format.  

Not being on the play risks not interacting meaningfully.   Workshops and Dredge vividly illustrate this idea, but so do other decks.  Being the play risks having fewer turns per match than the opponent.  

You mean being on the draw risks having fewer turns?

yes, on the draw.

Play Landstill vs Bomberman and keep note of who wins. After 50 games you should see a decided advantage for the person on the draw. More so than archetype or player.

I'm a skeptic.  If I were playing mono blue control against Landstill, I would prefer to be on the play to have a chance of forcing through a turn one Back to Basics.  

[TheWhiteDragon]

Here are some statistics of the last 10 tournaments I made top 8 since the play/draw rule for top 8 was implemented:

My overall record while on the play (OTP) was 57-18 (.760%).
My overall record while on the draw (OTD) was 47-32 (.595%).

I played Keeper/Landstill in five events and Martello Shops in five events.
My record with blue OTP was 29-8 (.784%) and OTD 20-15 (.571%).
My record with Shops OTP was 28-10 (.737%) and OTD 27-17 (.614%).

I don't keep notes from every tournament, these numbers are only from ones that I saved my report, and they're only from events I made top 8.

[For someone who proclaims to hate math, I sure do use it a lot.]

It's hard to judge from one player's small pool of results.  You seem to just win more than lose.  If anything, we can say being on the draw is worse for you with any deck - but that's a big leap from a small sample.  Also, every match you faced was different pairings each time and different opponents.  It's also, presumably, in one meta that tries to adapt to itself as opposed to 100+ man tourneys that are completely random and diverse every time.  Getting a large enough sample with a control group (and even accounting for luck) is nearly impossible to get numbers that actually show anything useful.

[LennoxLewis86]

White Dragon,

You state yourself that being on the draw against blue could be considered an advantage, against shops it's a disadvantage and against dredge it's not going to matter much. If there is not much of a difference overall with being on the draw, then why not try and get that extra bit of information? The cost for it is much less than a lot of players make it out to be.

Also, I'm not talking about basing all of your mulligan decisions on tells. Just when you pick up something and you were already considering mulliganing based on the fact the hand is average in general, and just plain terrible vs one of the pillars.

I'm talking about playing a blue-based control deck in a big vintage tournament like Bazaar of Moxen. I'm playing a Keeper deck myself, and I actually play a pair of Wastelands and a Strip Mine. So for me there is actually a bit of benefit trying to sniff out a Dredge player because there is no advantage for playing. I only get to destroy a Bazaar when it's on the table, play or draw.

Also, I'm not claiming to be the master of reading players, but there's just a world of difference between glancing over a hand, scanning for specific cards and staring at a hand while envisioning different lines of play. But mostly, my point is that there is more benefit to drawing than picking up tells. In general you're still looking for overall playability but vintage is very much centered around the opening hand and the rock, paper, scissors nature of it. Yes, playing first has a ton of advantages over drawing, but I think body language, especially in the vintage format, is being overlooked, because more so than in any other format, the opening hands are incredibly important in vintage.

[TheWhiteDragon]

White Dragon,

You state yourself that being on the draw against blue could be considered an advantage, against shops it's a disadvantage and against dredge it's not going to matter much. If there is not much of a difference overall with being on the draw, then why not try and get that extra bit of information? The cost for it is much less than a lot of players make it out to be.

Also, I'm not talking about basing all of your mulligan decisions on tells. Just when you pick up something and you were already considering mulliganing based on the fact the hand is average in general, and just plain terrible vs one of the pillars.

I'm talking about playing a blue-based control deck in a big vintage tournament like Bazaar of Moxen. I'm playing a Keeper deck myself, and I actually play a pair of Wastelands and a Strip Mine. So for me there is actually a bit of benefit trying to sniff out a Dredge player because there is no advantage for playing. I only get to destroy a Bazaar when it's on the table, play or draw.

Also, I'm not claiming to be the master of reading players, but there's just a world of difference between glancing over a hand, scanning for specific cards and staring at a hand while envisioning different lines of play. But mostly, my point is that there is more benefit to drawing than picking up tells. In general you're still looking for overall playability but vintage is very much centered around the opening hand and the rock, paper, scissors nature of it. Yes, playing first has a ton of advantages over drawing, but I think body language, especially in the vintage format, is being overlooked, because more so than in any other format, the opening hands are incredibly important in vintage.

I'll agree with a couple points - that the opening hand is very important and that there's not much purpose in playing a non-wasteland hand against dredge.

However, you decide whether you play or draw before you ever pick up your initial hand of 7.  Drawing with keeper isn't a terrible thing to do against some decks, namely other blue decks - but it is BAD vs shops more often than not.  If your meta is mainly lacking in shops, then drawing all the time is fine.  You'll occasionally sniff out the dredge player (and often will mistake a fan of no-land hands that get quickly mulliganed for a dredge player - forcing you into a bad mulligan decision).  You'll have little difference against fish or blue.  If shops have any presence at all in that meta, though, you're basically giving them a large advantage for the chance at sniffing out dredge and then mulling into 1 of your 3 answer cards?  I think the disadvantage you get against shops outweighs the possibility of advantage against dredge.

Odds are, if you were already considering mulling it, then you probably should.  If your opponent makes it obvious they are on a certain deck, then yes, use it to your advantage.  But also realize that the vintage community tends to be filled with more experienced, mature players that LOVE mind games.  There are times I've played dredge with double bazaar and a bomb hand and just stared quizzically at my hand for 30 seconds before doing the Indian bobblehead and nonchalantly keeping.  The fact is, body language is not bad to go by but can be misleading.

What you are also forgetting is that players that WILL give tells also have a trademark action - they look at their own cards before reading their opponent.  That's because at our core, humans are self-interested and they have to train themselves to be otherwise.  A player who is less adept at hiding their own tells or deriving info from others will look at their own hand and give you all the info you need via facial expression, etc., even when you are on the play.  They'll analyze their situation before they ever look in your direction to see what you decide to do.  A bazaar player who is unconscious of these tells, even when you are on the play, will look at their hand, see it doesn't have what they want, and will make one neat little pile in their hands, ready to mulligan, and then ask if you want to keep. Some lesser experienced ones will even declare they mull or flash serum powder before you even decide.

If you face an opponent who draws their 7 and watches you before looking at their hand, don't look to them for tells, because odds are they will try to give you misinformation.

So, given that players who will unconsciously give you tells will do it regardless of whether you play or draw, why handicap yourself vs shops?  Again, keep in mind that you only get to see them mull to 6 before you have to decide to mull.  If they're not flashing serum powder, you're not going to get much regardless.  Even if they DO flash serum and you see they are on dredge, do you plan to just mull into wasteland when you only have 2 and a strip mine?  The best way to beat dredge is to do your best to win g1 with a fast kill or luckily having the wasteland and then just boarding in enough hate to crush them g 2/3 when you most likely lose g1.

Just keep the best hand possible for your own gameplan, take whatever tells your opponent will give you (which they will do regardless of play or draw), and have a good sb for weak matches.  I personally always play if the coin flip allows me to vs an unknown opponent because the likelyhood of a chalice@0 or turn 1 sphere/golem is much more likely to crush me than the odds of me learning my opponent is on dredge and then actually having the ability to mull into the right hate with my pre-sb deck.

[Samoht]

The decisions per turn ratio is so much higher in this format relative to virtually every other Magic format.  This is because there are fewer turns per game in Vintage than any other sanctioned Magic format.  

Not being on the play risks not interacting meaningfully.   Workshops and Dredge vividly illustrate this idea, but so do other decks.  Being the play risks having fewer turns per match than the opponent.  

You mean being on the draw risks having fewer turns?

yes, on the draw.

Play Landstill vs Bomberman and keep note of who wins. After 50 games you should see a decided advantage for the person on the draw. More so than archetype or player.

I'm a skeptic.  If I were playing mono blue control against Landstill, I would prefer to be on the play to have a chance of forcing through a turn one Back to Basics.  

Mono blue control wasn't mentioned by me or anyone else before now. Bomberman is UW or UWb.  If you're adding that deck to the mix, it's still better to be on the draw. The odds of having a Back to Basics and the mana to cast it and cards to protect it is pretty low. Sacrificing an advantage for that small possibility is very risky, with mitigated payoff. The Landstill player easily could be on 3-6 basics and could still just win through Jace. I respect you to much to simply disregard your statement, but I really think you should re-evaluate your line here. Lands still tap once with B2B in play.

[credmond]

Being on the play always seems better to me. The only time it seems up to question is if there is a Library of Alexandria in my deck and I am going against a slow blue opponent.

Being on the play means I can make plays like spell pierce your turn 1 lotus or fluster your ancestral. I get to be the first to start generating tempo.

[Samoht]

Being on the play always seems better to me. The only time it seems up to question is if there is a Library of Alexandria in my deck and I am going against a slow blue opponent.

Being on the play means I can make plays like spell pierce your turn 1 lotus or fluster your ancestral. I get to be the first to start generating tempo.

In the control mirror, if you lead with t1 Land -> Ancestral, you have no idea what you're doing. I'm actually ok with trading Lotus for Spell Pierce on turn 1. Also, if you're in a blue mirror and don't have a Library, you're at a severe disadvantage in the long game. It makes you push the tempo much harder than you otherwise would, unless you have Waste/Strip to fix it.

[Tha Gunslinga]

I have been doing nothing but drawing for a while now, Steve, and it has worked great for me. Have you actually tried it, have you kept records of playing vs drawing, or are you just guessing?  Because I feel like actual results should be taken more seriously than guesswork.

[Shock Wave]

I haven't done any formal testing on this subject in a long time, but I will submit this: The last time I performed this exercise, Dicemanx and I were testing Dragon vs. 4c Control, which we anticipated would be very favorable for Dragon on the play. Instead, after testing about 50 games, the opposite proved true --- Dragon was very favorable on the draw. It did significantly worse on the play.

What is the relevance today? .... nothing, except to say that perhaps there are matchups in the current environment which would play out similarly. I would not be surprised.

[Smmenen]

I have been doing nothing but drawing for a while now, Steve, and it has worked great for me. Have you actually tried it, have you kept records of playing vs drawing, or are you just guessing?  Because I feel like actual results should be taken more seriously than guesswork.

My analysis 's empirical, although it's not statistical.   It's not guesswork.   

I have not been keeping careful track of my tournament performance based upon winning the die roll or not, but I could easily go back and do so in the 3 tournaments, for example, I've played Burning Tendrils in (because I wrote play-by-play reports).

That said, I have been keeping careful track in two ways:

1) I have done very careful testing of the MUD Matchup, and I can say that *without* question, being on the play makes a *gigantic* difference in who wins.

Workshop decks, in my experience, have a tremendous advantage on the play, and are much weaker on the draw.   This is understandable.  They seek to lock out the opponent.  This has been true for almost a decade.  A great article on this point was Patrick Chapin's article on Meandeck Gifts vs. Stax, which he wrote from prison: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/13158-The-Secret-to-the-Gifts-Stax-Matchup-How-to-Gain-an-Edge-From-Either-Side.html

2) Aside from even my own performance, I closely observed the Vintage Championship Top 8.  I even noted, play-by-play, the finals, including what each player drew.  I can say, without hesitation or doubt, that Marc Lanigra would not have won had he not been on the play in each round of the top 8.  I watched each of his top 8 matches.  Having watched exactly what he drew each turn and what his opponent drew each turn. 

That top 8 solidified in my mind the overriding significant of being on the play.   It is no doubt significant, however, that the Top 8 was 4 Workshop decks, 2 Dredge, 1 Bomberman and 1 Grixis Control. 

The decisions per turn ratio is so much higher in this format relative to virtually every other Magic format.  This is because there are fewer turns per game in Vintage than any other sanctioned Magic format.   

Not being on the play risks not interacting meaningfully.   Workshops and Dredge vividly illustrate this idea, but so do other decks.  Being the play risks having fewer turns per match than the opponent.   

You mean being on the draw risks having fewer turns?

yes, on the draw.

Play Landstill vs Bomberman and keep note of who wins. After 50 games you should see a decided advantage for the person on the draw. More so than archetype or player.

I'm a skeptic.  If I were playing mono blue control against Landstill, I would prefer to be on the play to have a chance of forcing through a turn one Back to Basics. 

Mono blue control wasn't mentioned by me or anyone else before now. Bomberman is UW or UWb.  If you're adding that deck to the mix, it's still better to be on the draw. The odds of having a Back to Basics and the mana to cast it and cards to protect it is pretty low. Sacrificing an advantage for that small possibility is very risky, with mitigated payoff. The Landstill player easily could be on 3-6 basics and could still just win through Jace. I respect you to much to simply disregard your statement, but I really think you should re-evaluate your line here. Lands still tap once with B2B in play.

I applaud folks for raising this issue.   Unreflective decision making should always be brought under scrutiny.  But I simply do not believe that it is a prudent or wise choice to be on the draw unless there are very special circumstances, which I cannot even contemplate at this time. 

Even in a control matchup, there are simply too many things an opponent can do on turn one.   It is *imperative* for control decks to establish early countermagic superiority.

When playing Mono Blue control, going first is imperative in order to have land or land, mox up to be able to play Mana Leak/Spell Pierce/Flusterstorm or whatever on turn one, and back it up with Force/MM/Misd/MBT.  The same principle applies to Landstill.   If you don't play first, you are relying *entirely* on pitch countermagic, which is often card disadvantageous.

If I were fighting Landstill, why would I allow Landstill to have an opportunity to force through a Standstill before I have Mana Drain mana up?  That seems ludicrous to me. 

I greatly value empirical data, but I'd like to see that data and inspect it carefeully before I'd buy the conclusion that I should be on the draw. 

[Samoht]

Standstill isn't as backbreaking in a Control mirror, especially if you are playing instant speed cards. If we both have Wastes and Factories, Standstill is actually a gambit in the situation. Moreover, turning it into a Draw 3 Pitch 3 is pretty weak if you have useless cards to fire off EoT. It's when you're pushing Tempo/Aggression and you refuel the Standstill pilot that it becomes broken/absurd. How often are you actually on dedicated control and not a Grixis/BUG style deck that is really more mid-range/aggro-control? Because it seems to me that you're evaluations of the cards is off in dedicated control mirrors. The only play that needs to be responded to on turn 1 is Jace. While possible, it is decidedly hard to achieve without also having pitch counters themselves to protect because it is an all in gambit. Asking a control deck if they have FoW/MBT on turn 1 is poor if yes leads to a loss. Additionally, you are severely disregarding/discounting the power of Mindbreak Trap, which is excellent on the draw (even/especially against Control/Workshops). Even Mental Misstep solves most turn 1 plays without being a card disadvantage. The control decks don't pack Tinker or other explosive starts. They don't really have busted turn 1's. They plan to just incrementally gain advantages and win wars over spells (and now exceedingly more win wars over permanents). Ensuring that you make land drops is infinitely more important than having an irrelevant Spell Pierce/Flusterstorm up on t1. You're afraid of cards/lines that don't exist in the decks in question.

100% agreed that against any Forino built Workshop deck, being on the play is a decided advantage. I don't think anyone is disputing that claim. They are so effective at choking your resources from producing sufficient mana that allowing them the tempo is a huge mistake. Other Shop decks are more forgiving, as they eschew certain cards that are less flashy for things that are situationally amazing - but still have the same restrictive potential that makes the play where you want to be. Again, little to no dispute here either.

[Smmenen]

Standstill isn't as backbreaking in a Control mirror, especially if you are playing instant speed cards. If we both have Wastes and Factories, Standstill is actually a gambit in the situation. Moreover, turning it into a Draw 3 Pitch 3 is pretty weak if you have useless cards to fire off EoT. It's when you're pushing Tempo/Aggression and you refuel the Standstill pilot that it becomes broken/absurd. How often are you actually on dedicated control and not a Grixis/BUG style deck that is really more mid-range/aggro-control? Because it seems to me that you're evaluations of the cards is off in dedicated control mirrors. The only play that needs to be responded to on turn 1 is Jace. While possible, it is decidedly hard to achieve without also having pitch counters themselves to protect because it is an all in gambit. Asking a control deck if they have FoW/MBT on turn 1 is poor if yes leads to a loss. Additionally, you are severely disregarding/discounting the power of Mindbreak Trap, which is excellent on the draw (even/especially against Control/Workshops). Even Mental Misstep solves most turn 1 plays without being a card disadvantage. The control decks don't pack Tinker or other explosive starts. They don't really have busted turn 1's. They plan to just incrementally gain advantages and win wars over spells (and now exceedingly more win wars over permanents). Ensuring that you make land drops is infinitely more important than having an irrelevant Spell Pierce/Flusterstorm up on t1. You're afraid of cards/lines that don't exist in the decks in question.

100% agreed that against any Forino built Workshop deck, being on the play is a decided advantage. I don't think anyone is disputing that claim. They are so effective at choking your resources from producing sufficient mana that allowing them the tempo is a huge mistake. Other Shop decks are more forgiving, as they eschew certain cards that are less flashy for things that are situationally amazing - but still have the same restrictive potential that makes the play where you want to be. Again, little to no dispute here either.

Every Workshop deck plays Spheres and cards like Chalice, which punish you for being on the draw.  I don't distinguish between Fornino Workshop decks (which I admittedly could not identify from a decklist) or one's from 2006, like in Chapin's article.  

There are a bunch of plays that I'd want to defend against on turn one besides Tinker or Jace (and, btw, both can be played without playing 3 spells to activate MBT).  Assembling Key and Vault is one.  Ancestral is another.  And, certainly, Fastbond is yet another.  Yes, Mental Misstep can stop many of those, but not if your opponent also has Mental Misstep.   Gush decks can and will.   Josh Butker, I'm sure, has proven that.  

I mentioned MBT in my post above, btw.  I'm not discounting that or anything.  I'm just saying that counter superiority can only be assured if you go first.  Otherwise, you are just relying on pitch magic.  

[Samoht]

Standstill isn't as backbreaking in a Control mirror, especially if you are playing instant speed cards. If we both have Wastes and Factories, Standstill is actually a gambit in the situation. Moreover, turning it into a Draw 3 Pitch 3 is pretty weak if you have useless cards to fire off EoT. It's when you're pushing Tempo/Aggression and you refuel the Standstill pilot that it becomes broken/absurd. How often are you actually on dedicated control and not a Grixis/BUG style deck that is really more mid-range/aggro-control? Because it seems to me that you're evaluations of the cards is off in dedicated control mirrors. The only play that needs to be responded to on turn 1 is Jace. While possible, it is decidedly hard to achieve without also having pitch counters themselves to protect because it is an all in gambit. Asking a control deck if they have FoW/MBT on turn 1 is poor if yes leads to a loss. Additionally, you are severely disregarding/discounting the power of Mindbreak Trap, which is excellent on the draw (even/especially against Control/Workshops). Even Mental Misstep solves most turn 1 plays without being a card disadvantage. The control decks don't pack Tinker or other explosive starts. They don't really have busted turn 1's. They plan to just incrementally gain advantages and win wars over spells (and now exceedingly more win wars over permanents). Ensuring that you make land drops is infinitely more important than having an irrelevant Spell Pierce/Flusterstorm up on t1. You're afraid of cards/lines that don't exist in the decks in question.

100% agreed that against any Forino built Workshop deck, being on the play is a decided advantage. I don't think anyone is disputing that claim. They are so effective at choking your resources from producing sufficient mana that allowing them the tempo is a huge mistake. Other Shop decks are more forgiving, as they eschew certain cards that are less flashy for things that are situationally amazing - but still have the same restrictive potential that makes the play where you want to be. Again, little to no dispute here either.

Every Workshop deck plays Spheres and cards like Chalice, which punish you for being on the draw.  I don't distinguish between Fornino Workshop decks (which I admittedly could not identify from a decklist) or one's from 2006, like in Chapin's article.  

There are a bunch of plays that I'd want to defend against on turn one besides Tinker or Jace (and, btw, both can be played without playing 3 spells to activate MBT).  Assembling Key and Vault is one.  Ancestral is another.  And, certainly, Fastbond is yet another.  Yes, Mental Misstep can stop many of those, but not if your opponent also has Mental Misstep.   Gush decks can and will.   Josh Butker, I'm sure, has proven that.  

I mentioned MBT in my post above, btw.  I'm not discounting that or anything.  I'm just saying that counter superiority can only be assured if you go first.  Otherwise, you are just relying on pitch magic.  

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. I wouldn't be comfortable crediting anyone else for those decks, as I know for a fact that people were not playing the cards they were/are that make the deck as powerful as it is. I'm not saying that they make the only Shop decks that are good, but they are focused on constricting resources as opposed to coming over the top with counters/blow outs. Even other decks that are winning don't have the same style of play. BC's deck is very different than the Forino piles of MUD. It obviously was very potent, but it had a very different game plan. Just because it COULD play out very similarly doesn't exclude the fact that it often played out VERY differently based on his card choices. Do we really need to delve into the differences or can we agree that there is a distinct difference between the lists that are coming from NY and elsewhere?

If my opponent goes Land -> Ancestral I laugh and let it resolve. Not understanding how control matches work is a key misunderstanding of the format. Cards are important, but timing and need is infinitely more important. Ancestral is a card that has extreme value, but by itself does nothing. Rich Shay pointed out to me that during his testing with Brassman he found that fighting over Ancestral was costing him games. The expected return on 3 cards was less than the effort needed to fight it. Much like Standstill, it is much less important when two control juggernaut's are duking it out. Sure, you can hit the best 3 cards, but you'd have drawn them anyway. Seeing as I wasn't pushing the action, you basically made sure when the counters fly you're locked into what's in your hand and I have more cards to see (obviously potentially).

Vault and Key show up in a few of the dedicated control decks, but not all of them. Putting both together with counter back up that early is unlikely, though possible. Both are generally 1 of's and in order to get the mana to play them you need at least a Sol Ring or multiple Moxes. Obviously Lotus enables it as well. Mathematically the number of hands with both TV+K with the mana to drop them and counter magic is sub 10%. I'll take those odds, especially when FoW, MBT, and MM will all interact with them directly and MD indirectly. The same can be said of Jace, though only Lotus enables him without MBT being live (barring Spirit Guides, show me some in a control deck). Simply, the value of getting a free card trumps the very small chance of them having the 1 or 2 busted plays they can have less than 15% of the time.

Also, Fastbond isn't a control card. It's a combo card in Vintage, and can potentially be a tempo card. Let's not get ahead of ourselves in saying that all decks with blue are control decks. They simply aren't. Even the Grixis "Control" decks aren't really control. They are Combo decks with counterspells and removal. They aren't dedicated to controlling the game in the way that Landstill and Bomberman are. I'm sure you can see that.

As far as Butker, ask him about playing me on Landstill and see what he says about me being on the draw. He cast Duress and I laughed, showing him that after the Standstill popped I had 8 direct answers to his combo. The card was infinitely more important than the land drop, as he was forced to wait several turns to put something together, which allowed me the time to set up Crucible of Worlds and end the game by constricting his resources. Granted, that match is not sufficient to declare one way or another that Draw vs Play is right, but it is empirical evidence.

I'm aware you mentioned MBT, but you lumped it in as a pitch counter and said it led to card disadvantage along with Mental Misstep. Was just pointing out that it doesn't fit in that category so well as neither has card disadvantages despite having others (limited scope (cmc + trap clause)).

[Smmenen]

Standstill isn't as backbreaking in a Control mirror, especially if you are playing instant speed cards. If we both have Wastes and Factories, Standstill is actually a gambit in the situation. Moreover, turning it into a Draw 3 Pitch 3 is pretty weak if you have useless cards to fire off EoT. It's when you're pushing Tempo/Aggression and you refuel the Standstill pilot that it becomes broken/absurd. How often are you actually on dedicated control and not a Grixis/BUG style deck that is really more mid-range/aggro-control? Because it seems to me that you're evaluations of the cards is off in dedicated control mirrors. The only play that needs to be responded to on turn 1 is Jace. While possible, it is decidedly hard to achieve without also having pitch counters themselves to protect because it is an all in gambit. Asking a control deck if they have FoW/MBT on turn 1 is poor if yes leads to a loss. Additionally, you are severely disregarding/discounting the power of Mindbreak Trap, which is excellent on the draw (even/especially against Control/Workshops). Even Mental Misstep solves most turn 1 plays without being a card disadvantage. The control decks don't pack Tinker or other explosive starts. They don't really have busted turn 1's. They plan to just incrementally gain advantages and win wars over spells (and now exceedingly more win wars over permanents). Ensuring that you make land drops is infinitely more important than having an irrelevant Spell Pierce/Flusterstorm up on t1. You're afraid of cards/lines that don't exist in the decks in question.

100% agreed that against any Forino built Workshop deck, being on the play is a decided advantage. I don't think anyone is disputing that claim. They are so effective at choking your resources from producing sufficient mana that allowing them the tempo is a huge mistake. Other Shop decks are more forgiving, as they eschew certain cards that are less flashy for things that are situationally amazing - but still have the same restrictive potential that makes the play where you want to be. Again, little to no dispute here either.

Every Workshop deck plays Spheres and cards like Chalice, which punish you for being on the draw.  I don't distinguish between Fornino Workshop decks (which I admittedly could not identify from a decklist) or one's from 2006, like in Chapin's article.  

There are a bunch of plays that I'd want to defend against on turn one besides Tinker or Jace (and, btw, both can be played without playing 3 spells to activate MBT).  Assembling Key and Vault is one.  Ancestral is another.  And, certainly, Fastbond is yet another.  Yes, Mental Misstep can stop many of those, but not if your opponent also has Mental Misstep.   Gush decks can and will.   Josh Butker, I'm sure, has proven that.  

I mentioned MBT in my post above, btw.  I'm not discounting that or anything.  I'm just saying that counter superiority can only be assured if you go first.  Otherwise, you are just relying on pitch magic.  

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.  

To me, there are is a concise list of about 10 or so very important lock parts (2sphere, 3 sphere, thorn, chalice, tangle, golem, stack, crucible, metamorph, etc), followed by a list of about 40-50 other cards you can consider including (which include the common, like Sundering Titan, Steel Hellkite, Dismember, to the more marginal or obscure, like Orb of Dreams or Sword of Fire and Ice), which pretty much define every possible permutation of Workshop variants.

While there may be hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands of possible Workshop lists, pretty much anything you can come up with that is any good is rooted in a list of of cards that number below 100 (including lands), and the vast majority of which is in the list of 10 or so.  The differences between Workshop builds are matters of emphasis and marginal metagame choices rather than huge structural differences, imo. 

Illustrating this point, while Blaine's deck differed greatly from other MUD variants tactically, it still featured a core set of tactics in the first category, such that I don't really think it changes the math or probability of your game chances very much at all about whether you should play or draw.  Being on the draw against any Workshop deck, whether it is a Forino list, Blaine's list, or the list Chapin wrote about, which I linked -- is always going to be a disadvantage, because of Chalice and 3Sphere if nothing else.  Workshop decks are always advantaged on the play, and disadvantaged on the draw.  

 I wouldn't be comfortable crediting anyone else for those decks, as I know for a fact that people were not playing the cards they were/are that make the deck as powerful as it is. I'm not saying that they make the only Shop decks that are good, but they are focused on constricting resources as opposed to coming over the top with counters/blow outs. Even other decks that are winning don't have the same style of play. BC's deck is very different than the Forino piles of MUD. It obviously was very potent, but it had a very different game plan. Just because it COULD play out very similarly doesn't exclude the fact that it often played out VERY differently based on his card choices. Do we really need to delve into the differences or can we agree that there is a distinct difference between the lists that are coming from NY and elsewhere?

Certainly not willing to concede that because I honestly don't know those differences.  Every MUD list starts with 4 2sphere, 4 Thorn, 4 Tangle, 4 Golem, 4 Chalice, and 3-4 Metamorph, no?  What else matters?

If my opponent goes Land -> Ancestral I laugh and let it resolve.

Then your opponent's deck is badly constructed, in my view.  Again, see Chapin's article on this point (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/12918_Right_Wrong_A_NonVintage_Vintage_Split_Article.html) .  He argued, and I happen to agree with his assessment, that resolving Ancestral has an extremely high correlation with winning, although I disagree with his percentage.

I think the problem is that some decks simply do not know how to leverage Ancestral into maximal card advantage.  They are too passive, and do not continue to channel Ancestral into other reosurces and an insurmountable advantage.  This was the problem with pre-Meandeck Gifts Gifts decks, and why no decks before that ran 4 Scroll.   Decks that play Ancestral and don't immediately maximize it are not doing what I believe Type I decks should be doing.  

Not understanding how control matches work is a key misunderstanding of the format. Cards are important, but timing and need is infinitely more important. Ancestral is a card that has extreme value, but by itself does nothing. Rich Shay pointed out to me that during his testing with Brassman he found that fighting over Ancestral was costing him games. The expected return on 3 cards was less than the effort needed to fight it. Much like Standstill, it is much less important when two control juggernaut's are duking it out. Sure, you can hit the best 3 cards, but you'd have drawn them anyway. Seeing as I wasn't pushing the action, you basically made sure when the counters fly you're locked into what's in your hand and I have more cards to see (obviously potentially).

I'm not surprised though.   Andy's Gifts decks and Rich's Control Slaver decks were far less aggressive than subsequent iterations of control decks like Meandeck Gifts and most of the Time Vault decks since the re-errata of Time Vault.  Compare Brassman Gifts and Meandeck Gifts, and the difference becomes clear.  

Also, Fastbond isn't a control card. It's a combo card in Vintage, and can potentially be a tempo card. Let's not get ahead of ourselves in saying that all decks with blue are control decks. They simply aren't. Even the Grixis "Control" decks aren't really control. They are Combo decks with counterspells and removal. They aren't dedicated to controlling the game in the way that Landstill and Bomberman are. I'm sure you can see that.

My Doomsday deck is extremely passive and, can play a hard control role for as long as Bomberman decks.   Against blue decks, it actually wants to play the control role.   That's why I don't run Dark Ritual.   I generate card advntage with Gushbond and eventually Yawg Will, and, equally importantly, although less appreciated, virtual card advantage from the Gush mana base (light lands, few Moxen) such that I will always have more cards and more relevant cards in hand to win any counterbattle.   That's what I did repeatedly at the Waterbury.  

I think we define control decks differently, then, as I view Grixis Control and some of my Gush decks are Control decks, but suspect you would not so classify them.  

In any case, the fact remains that while the %s of any given play on turn one is not particularly high, the summative chance of any of these plays is non-trivial.  Being on the draw risks not being able to interact when these plays arise.  The additional card advantage rendered by drawing one more card is not, imo, worth the risks against Dredge, Workshops, and even Control mirrors.  You might not even get a turn in this format if you give your opponent the first turn.  Even in a deck with as much free countermagic as Landstill.  What are you going to do, mulligan a hand with no free countermagic?  

If you really do believe in being on the draw, I encourage you and others to continue to stick to your convictions on this matter.  I suspect few Vintage opponents will be heard to complain.  

[Tha Gunslinga]

If you really do believe in being on the draw, I encourage you and others to continue to stick to your convictions on this matter.  I suspect few Vintage opponents will be heard to complain. 

They never complain, but they always lose.  Seriously, Steve, don't knock it til' you've tried it.  Saying "I watched the match and he only won by being on the play" means nothing.  He would have gone one mystery card deeper by being on the draw, and the game would have been entirely different.

Sure, playing against MUD is very different, because of all the lock pieces.  That can be our exception.  But even there, I love having an extra card (could be a land!), and NOT giving them the extra card (probably a lock piece) means you have an advantage. 

I go on the draw vs everyone, with zero exceptions.  Playtesting, EDH, tournaments, whatever.  Sure it's a little scary sometimes.  But even against MUD I'm winning.  I think the play/draw thing is just one of those pieces of dogma, like only playing one Merchant Scroll, that everyone believes but nobody has really researched.

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

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!