Amount of Games Required For an Effective Testing Experience

[vaughnbros]

To try to make the best deck possible - so when I do play (on cockatrice, table games, local shop, wherever) my deck has the best chance of winning.  Playing something god-awful that is untuned and losing all the time isn't fun.  Testing to tune a deck and make it good vs other competitive decks allows you to play fun, competitive games, wherever that may be.  And if I do take it to a tourney, I'd want the best tuned version of my deck.  I'm sure your deck that came in 1st* place has a better showing than my pet deck that I've never played in a tourney - but that has nothing to do with my logic on playtesting strategy in general.

Fixed that for you.

I didn't say you don't play them out....you DO play them out, then rewind and play it out a different way.  Sometimes I don't even finish a game...I just carry out a senario 5 or 6 turns to see where it is leading, back up, and try the other way...set up the same scenario with a different board state, play it out 5 turns, back up, try another way.  You learn what is the correct play in a variety of situations quickly that way.

Yes I understand you are playing them out... This is exactly my point... Please reread my posts.  You are now replaying with additional information (skewing results) and you are consuming just as much time as playing a new game.

[Chubby Rain]

Lance does have a point in that, though you can reset the board state back to it's original state, you can't forget about the information you gained and can't always recognize how that influences your subsequent plays. Letting someone take back a Mox played into a Chalice provides with the knowledge that they have a Mox in hand, which may incentivize you to cast spells more aggressively or you may try to overcompensate for the fact that you now know an opponent has a dead card in hand, leading you to take a more conservative line. You also get trapped into using results to justify your actions, but we play a variance-ridden game in which the "best" plays aren't necessarily the right plays.

Relating back to the original topic, I get a lot more out of detailed analysis of the practice games I play than the shear quantity of games. For instance, if a scenario like the one you described above, I would write down the scenario and construct as many lines as possible then dissect those lines based on probability. I would not play out those lines though...

[TheWhiteDragon]

To try to make the best deck possible - so when I do play (on cockatrice, table games, local shop, wherever) my deck has the best chance of winning.  Playing something god-awful that is untuned and losing all the time isn't fun.  Testing to tune a deck and make it good vs other competitive decks allows you to play fun, competitive games, wherever that may be.  And if I do take it to a tourney, I'd want the best tuned version of my deck.  I'm sure your deck that came in 1st* place has a better showing than my pet deck that I've never played in a tourney - but that has nothing to do with my logic on playtesting strategy in general.

Fixed that for you.

 Yay, you had a deck that placed 1st somewhere...good for you...wasn't my point.  Your record at a particular tourney with a particular deck is of no consequence to me. Or are you saying you ALWAYS place first with every deck?  No?? Didn't think so.  Thus why I said Xth in comparison to a deck I have yet to take to a tourney.  We're talking about a general testing strategy in abstract, not refering to a specific deck.  Comparing your recent tourney result to my recent non-existent tourney result doesn't help your point.  Would comparing my 100+ man SCGP9 results to your SCGP9 help make my point stronger?  I don't think so.  I'm, due to my location, retired from tourney vintage for all intensive purposes.  Doesn't mean I can't talk theory/strategy and know what I'm talking about.

[vaughnbros]

To try to make the best deck possible - so when I do play (on cockatrice, table games, local shop, wherever) my deck has the best chance of winning.  Playing something god-awful that is untuned and losing all the time isn't fun.  Testing to tune a deck and make it good vs other competitive decks allows you to play fun, competitive games, wherever that may be.  And if I do take it to a tourney, I'd want the best tuned version of my deck.  I'm sure your deck that came in 1st* place has a better showing than my pet deck that I've never played in a tourney - but that has nothing to do with my logic on playtesting strategy in general.

Fixed that for you.

 Yay, you had a deck that placed 1st somewhere...good for you...wasn't my point.  Your record at a particular tourney with a particular deck is of no consequence to me. Or are you saying you ALWAYS place first with every deck?  No?? Didn't think so.  Thus why I said Xth in comparison to a deck I have yet to take to a tourney.  We're talking about a general testing strategy in abstract, not refering to a specific deck.  Comparing your recent tourney result to my recent non-existent tourney result doesn't help your point.  Would comparing my 100+ man SCGP9 results to your SCGP9 help make my point stronger?  I don't think so.  I'm, due to my location, retired from tourney vintage for all intensive purposes.  Doesn't mean I can't talk theory/strategy and know what I'm talking about.

Look man.  I didnt come picking a fight with you.  You came and picked it with me.  I simply stated what I do and why I do it and then you had to dichotomize it into good/bad.   Then I'm chastisied for disagreeing with you?

Since we really want to get into a pissing contest.  For the record, my pet deck has 2 first place finishes, 2 finals splits, and numerous number of other top 8's in the North East where we actually play vintage.  And while I do not top 8 every time, I top 8 more often than not.  I've also won tournaments with other archetypes, and top 8'ed with nearly every style of deck out there.  Along with pioneering entire archetypes.  Yes your SCGP9 event finishes were probably great, while I was in grade school.  It is nice that you used to be a good player, and that you didn't just spontaneously think that you were better than everyone else.  Location isn't really a great excuse anymore with MTGO in existence, as well as cockatrice leagues that don't require you to be in a particular place to play.

[Smmenen]

Relating back to the original topic, I get a lot more out of detailed analysis of the practice games I play than the shear quantity of games. For instance, if a scenario like the one you described above, I would write down the scenario and construct as many lines as possible then dissect those lines based on probability. I would not play out those lines though...

That's where MTGO really does a great service.  The capacity to review played games is a tremendous analytical tool.

[TheWhiteDragon]

To try to make the best deck possible - so when I do play (on cockatrice, table games, local shop, wherever) my deck has the best chance of winning.  Playing something god-awful that is untuned and losing all the time isn't fun.  Testing to tune a deck and make it good vs other competitive decks allows you to play fun, competitive games, wherever that may be.  And if I do take it to a tourney, I'd want the best tuned version of my deck.  I'm sure your deck that came in 1st* place has a better showing than my pet deck that I've never played in a tourney - but that has nothing to do with my logic on playtesting strategy in general.

Fixed that for you.

 Yay, you had a deck that placed 1st somewhere...good for you...wasn't my point.  Your record at a particular tourney with a particular deck is of no consequence to me. Or are you saying you ALWAYS place first with every deck?  No?? Didn't think so.  Thus why I said Xth in comparison to a deck I have yet to take to a tourney.  We're talking about a general testing strategy in abstract, not refering to a specific deck.  Comparing your recent tourney result to my recent non-existent tourney result doesn't help your point.  Would comparing my 100+ man SCGP9 results to your SCGP9 help make my point stronger?  I don't think so.  I'm, due to my location, retired from tourney vintage for all intensive purposes.  Doesn't mean I can't talk theory/strategy and know what I'm talking about.

Look man.  I didnt come picking a fight with you.  You came and picked it with me.  I simply stated what I do and why I do it and then you had to dichotomize it into good/bad.   Then I'm chastisied for disagreeing with you?

Since we really want to get into a pissing contest.  For the record, my pet deck has 2 first place finishes, 2 finals splits, and numerous number of other top 8's in the North East where we actually play vintage.  And while I do not top 8 every time, I top 8 more often than not.  I've also won tournaments with other archetypes, and top 8'ed with nearly every style of deck out there.  Along with pioneering entire archetypes.  Yes your SCGP9 event finishes were probably great, while I was in grade school.  It is nice that you used to be a good player, and that you didn't just spontaneously think that you were better than everyone else.  Location isn't really a great excuse anymore with MTGO in existence, as well as cockatrice leagues that don't require you to be in a particular place to play.

Well, I didn't mean to get into a pissing contest with you.  And I said I probably misspoke when i said your approach was "bad", when i just should have said I didn't see the benefit in it as opposed to doing takebacks.  I also think we were defining takebacks a bit differently where I was originally referencing misplays - not plays that turned out bad like a spell getting countered, because that results in additional information that can inform decision-making, but derf plays like unintentionally playing an ancestral into a chalice@1 that had been sitting there all game that you forgot about (as was mentioned with the sol ring example). I took it as YOU beginning the pissing match when you attacked my pet deck "out of left field" when I didn't think I did anything to jump on you (but I see how what I said could have set you off now that you point it out - so, sorry).

I'm not sure I used to be good and am suddenly not good anymore.  I still keep up with the top finishers lists (NE, CA and Europe) and try to build all-around solid decks, not metagame decks.  I still consider myself decent at worst even if not practiced as much as a regular current vintage player.  I play Modern mainly now because it's what they play around me. I just don't play in Vintage tourneys because there aren't any big ones around me and I won't drive two hours + for a 10 man tourney.  I don't play MTGO because it costs money.  I own all the paper cards - i can't justify respending all that cash on a digital version. 

[Islandswamp]

Relating back to the original topic, I get a lot more out of detailed analysis of the practice games I play than the shear quantity of games. For instance, if a scenario like the one you described above, I would write down the scenario and construct as many lines as possible then dissect those lines based on probability. I would not play out those lines though...

That's where MTGO really does a great service.  The capacity to review played games is a tremendous analytical tool.

I agree. I don't watch as many of my replays as I'd like to, due to time constraints, but I've spotted some egregious errors on my part that went completely overlooked when they occurred. I've learned to slow down and that's made a difference.

I also try to test against the decks I think will be rough to beat. You probably don't need more experience beating up on your positive match-ups. I know that some folks dislike play-testing against certain decks like Shops, but that should likely be a deck you get to know very well if you want to succeed.

[vaughnbros]

 I also think we were defining takebacks a bit differently where I was originally referencing misplays - not plays that turned out bad like a spell getting countered, because that results in additional information that can inform decision-making, but derf plays like unintentionally playing an ancestral into a chalice@1 that had been sitting there all game that you forgot about (as was mentioned with the sol ring example).

Ummm... What?  I'm not sure what you are even arguing about here.

...
Things like cabal therapy, takebacks can help too.  If your trying to protect a creature (lets say dark times since you insist on bringing my pet deck into the convo) and have depths and hexmage and name plowshares, you might wiff.  If you name FoW (which would stop hexmage) you might hit.  You may wiff naming FoW and they might be holding plowshares.  But over time, allowing takebacks and doing several tests, you can learn that FoW is in their hand far more than plowshares and naming FoW on turn 1 is the far better play.  Similarly, if I have ponder and brainstorm and want to chain spells for storm, which do I play first?  Well, one way to gain info faster is to try them both.  Play them in one order, then rewind and play them in the other order to see which has the better outcome.  You may learn that it's always better to ponder first when you are digging, but always better to brainstorm first when you are trying to filter your hand. The point is, takebacks allow you to see how different lines play out much faster than just running one line out and losing and playing a hundred more hands waiting for that exact situation to occur again in another test.  
...

This entire post was talking about replaying things that weren't necessarily missplays.  If I was misinterpreting its nice to know that before giant walls of text appear with the interpretation that I was using.

I took it as YOU beginning the pissing match when you attacked my pet deck "out of left field" when I didn't think I did anything to jump on you (but I see how what I said could have set you off now that you point it out - so, sorry).

Sorry for attacking your pet deck, but to be fair if you are truly a modern vintage player you have to admit is currently nonexistent in the Vintage metagame.  And you did attack my entire methodology as a deck builder first, which I think is a little more extreme....

I'm not sure I used to be good and am suddenly not good anymore.  

Well we won't know if you aren't playing in any tournaments.  You should try to at least make it to worlds, and other big events worth traveling for.

[TheWhiteDragon]

Sorry for any misunderstanding and inadvertent pissing match.

I'd love to make it to Worlds, but a $500 plane ticket + event fees...not sure I can swing that just to go play magic - the wife would shoot me.  Someday, perhaps.  Wish there was something close by.  Wish there were hundred man tourneys that gave out P9 again for that matter.  Would make it worth the trip.  I just haven't found the travel to be worth it for 20-30 man tourneys to win an Unlimited Underground Sea or whatnot in Houston or Dallas.  I could buy one on eBay for the cost of gas alone.

I do have a buddy moving to San Antonio...maybe we'll make the trip out to Worlds together.  If not this year, perhaps next.  And I'd for sure run some version of Dark Depths.

[MTGFan]

Relating back to the original topic, I get a lot more out of detailed analysis of the practice games I play than the shear quantity of games. For instance, if a scenario like the one you described above, I would write down the scenario and construct as many lines as possible then dissect those lines based on probability. I would not play out those lines though...

That's where MTGO really does a great service.  The capacity to review played games is a tremendous analytical tool.

Even better is the option to review games with full knowledge of your opponent's hand at every point in the game, which leads you to understand his train of thought during the match. This kind of replay with full opponent knowledge is only available via Cockatrice, afaik.