Please hold while we load your cart...
[SCROLL DOWN TO READ THE ARTICLE!]
Become a StarCityGames.com Premium Member and receive exclusive access to top-level strategies, new decklists and entertaining reports from many of the best players and writers that the game has to offer! This includes "The Innovator" & Worlds finalist Patrick Chapin, 2010 Player of the Year Brad Nelson, Classic Theorist Mike Flores, Hall of Famer Brian Kibler, GP and SCG Invitational Champion Gerry Thompson, StarCityGames.com Director of Sales Ben Bleiweiss ...and many, many more!
PLUS! StarCityGames.com Premium members now have an EXCLUSIVE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER sent just to them with the latest tech, exclusive content and exclusive deals along with unprecedented access into America's largest Magic: the Gathering sales database, and can view lists of StarCityGames.com's top-selling items - broken down by category, format legality, and rarity - in real time! When it comes to trading, increased knowledge equals increased profits - and increased knowledge is just one click away for our Premium members!
A StarCityGames.com Premium Membership gives you exclusive access to the best Magic: the Gathering content available and is an amazing bargain for just pennies a day! When you're ready to start getting more out of this game, click here to join StarCityGames.com Premium today!
If you are a valid StarCityGames.com Premium member and still cannot view the article, please consult this FAQ.
Last year I did a statistical mini-analysis of a Neutral Ground mock tournament, trying to see which decks fared better against others in the hopes of finding an edge. That tournament had 14 players and 38 matches; a small sample size but larger than your average playtest session. This Extended season, a mock tournament never really happened, but I still wanted to do some analysis. I wanted to get as much data as possible, and really see which decks were winning over time, not just those that won the tournament. There’s a long standing theory that if a deck shows up in numbers and ends up winning the whole thing, the success is based on brute force rather than actually being the best deck at the tournament. While I’m sure quantity plays a role, reducing the impact of random shuffling, pairings, and other effects, I do not want to assume that the deck only won because it had more chances. What if it was actually the best deck, and 30% of the field knew it and brought it? The most recent PTQ at Neutral Ground served as a surprisingly good test case for this theory.
With my curiosity piqued, I contacted Donald Lim of Replenish fame to see if I could gain access to all of the results from the PTQ. Not just the Top 8. Not just final standings. Everything. Round by round pairings and results, along with decklists. The round by round results were easy, Don just exported them from DCI Reporter and sent them to me via electronic mail. The decklists, unfortunately, were only in hard-copy. Points of fact: I live in New Jersey, Don lives in New York, my article deadline was approaching too quickly to entrust the United States Postal Service with the decklists. It looked like I was going to be going into the city for something other than a draft, which was no small feat. I don’t mind sitting in traffic for 60-90 minutes to get in a weekday draft and only have a 30 minute ride home late at night when the traffic has subsided. Sitting in it both ways was something that didn’t seem optimal to me. Thankfully, upon hearing my sob story, my wife volunteered to retrieve the stack of papers from Don while she was in the city for work. Yeah, I’m a lucky guy alright.
So now I had all of the data I needed. 180 decklists, just under 500 match records. After some tedious data-entry I managed to load it all into Excel, where the real magic happens. Initially I wanted to do some sort of readout on card choices, deck variations, etc. Imagine for a moment manually typing up 180 decklists. Got it in your head? Good, so you know why I didn’t do it either. What I did instead was set up broad categories and then try to do some further classification within them. Rock is a prime example. I have a broad category of "Rock" and several child categories like "Doran," "Confidant," "Generic," and "Gifts." Disclaimer #1: the naming conventions I used are either very recognizable names, or largely long-standing archetypes and/or card names. Some categories really only have one deck type, like Ideal. Disclaimer #2: generalizations were made; breaking everything up into its own category because it is six cards different from Deck A does not serve a function for us, as we’re trying to reach an understanding of a general archetype. Once that is achieved, further analysis can be done.
If you'd like, an Excel document covering this data can be provided. I’ve removed people’s names and replaced them with an arbitrary player_id, to protect those who, like myself, scrubbed out. Disclaimer #3 : there were 2 decklists missing. I’m told they were various homebrews that were missing due to deck-registration failures. I’ve included them as "unknown homebrew."
There is a lot of data here, I’ll start off with a simple breakdown of decks and categories played.
| Deck_Cat | Deck | Total Decks | Percent to Total |
| Rock | Doran | 34 | 18.89% |
| Gifts-Rock | 6 | 3.33% | |
| Confidant Rock | 5 | 2.78% | |
| Generic Rock | 5 | 2.78% | |
| Rock Total | 50 | 27.78% | |
| Affinity | Affinity-Shrapnel | 13 | 7.22% |
| Affinity-Goyf/Blast | 2 | 1.11% | |
| Affinity-Frenzy | 2 | 1.11% | |
| Affinity-Goyf | 2 | 1.11% | |
| Affinity-Bob | 1 | 0.56% | |
| Affinity Total | 20 | 11.11% | |
| Zoo | Vindicate Zoo | 11 | 6.11% |
| Gaea's Might Get There | 6 | 3.33% | |
| RGb Zoo | 2 | 1.11% | |
| Zoo Total | 19 | 10.56% | |
| Counter-top | Chase Rare | 12 | 6.67% |
| Next Level Blue | 6 | 3.33% | |
| Counter-top Total | 18 | 10.00% | |
| homebrew | Unknown | 2 | 1.11% |
| Mono Black Control | 2 | 1.11% | |
| Ǽthermage's Touch | 1 | 0.56% | |
| BW aggro | 1 | 0.56% | |
| Golgari.dec | 1 | 0.56% | |
| BG Elves | 1 | 0.56% | |
| Orb Fish | 1 | 0.56% | |
| RG Ensnaring Bridge | 1 | 0.56% | |
| homebrew Total | 10 | 5.56% | |
| Goblins | Goblins | 9 | 5.00% |
| Goblins Total | 9 | 5.00% | |
| Tron | UG Tron | 5 | 2.78% |
| UW Tron | 3 | 1.67% | |
| Tron Total | 8 | 4.44% | |
| Loam | Loam | 7 | 3.89% |
| Slide | 1 | 0.56% | |
| Loam Total | 8 | 4.44% | |
| Mono Blue Control | Spire Blue | 5 | 2.78% |
| Mono Blue Control | 2 | 1.11% | |
| Mono Blue Control Total | 7 | 3.89% | |
| RG Burn | RG Burn | 4 | 2.22% |
| RG Burn Total | 4 | 2.22% | |
| Dredge | Dredge | 4 | 2.22% |
| Dredge Total | 4 | 2.22% | |
| Tog | Tog | 3 | 1.67% |
| Tog Total | 3 | 1.67% | |
| Balancing Tings | Balancing Tings | 3 | 1.67% |
| Balancing Tings Total | 3 | 1.67% | |
| Cephalid Breakfast | Cephalid Breakfast | 2 | 1.11% |
| Cephalid Breakfast Total | 2 | 1.11% | |
| Mind's Desire | Mind's Desire | 2 | 1.11% |
| Mind's Desire Total | 2 | 1.11% | |
| Tooth and Nail | Tooth and Nail | 2 | 1.11% |
| Tooth and Nail Total | 2 | 1.11% | |
| GW Midrange | GW Midrange Gaddock | 2 | 1.11% |
| GW Midrange Total | 2 | 1.11% | |
| Ideal | Ideal | 2 | 1.11% |
| Ideal Total | 2 | 1.11% | |
| Storm | Grapeshot Storm | 1 | 0.56% |
| Dragonstorm | 1 | 0.56% | |
| Storm Total | 2 | 1.11% | |
| Charbelcher | Charbelcher | 1 | 0.56% |
| Charbelcher Total | 1 | 0.56% | |
| Threshold | Threshold | 1 | 0.56% |
| Threshold Total | 1 | 0.56% | |
| Fish | Fish | 1 | 0.56% |
| Fish Total | 1 | 0.56% | |
| Elves | Oppo-Elves | 1 | 0.56% |
| Elves Total | 1 | 0.56% | |
| White Control | Flores White | 1 | 0.56% |
| White Control Total | 1 | 0.56% | |
| Grand Total | 180 | 100.00% |
No real surprises so far. Rock decks, in all their forms, represented over a quarter of the field. Which means, to win this PTQ (8 rounds plus Top 8) you should expect to play against the Rock three times. If you can’t beat the Rock, you’re going home without an envelope. Affinity, Zoo, and Counter-Top decks were the next-most represented decks, with everything else representing less than 10% of the field. I should note that I lumped Chase-Rare deck and Next Level Blue together for this purpose.
So now we know what we’re dealing with, and Chris Pikula’s prediction of a heavy Rock field has been proven correct. The next layer is to examine how each deck performed overall. The below table shows how each category / deck performed throughout the day. Mirror matches have been removed. I’ve limited this to the top 10 categories in terms of matches played, the full readout is in the Excel document at the end.
| mirror_deck | N | ||
| player_deck_cat | player_deck | Data | Total |
| Rock | Generic Rock | Count | 34 |
| win % | 65.63% | ||
| Confidant Rock | Count | 33 | |
| win % | 64.52% | ||
| Doran | Count | 152 | |
| win % | 60.14% | ||
| Gifts-Rock | Count | 31 | |
| win % | 50.00% | ||
| Rock Count | 250 | ||
| Rock Sum of win % | 60.34% | ||
| Loam | Slide | Count | 8 |
| win % | 66.67% | ||
| Loam | Count | 43 | |
| win % | 55.26% | ||
| Loam Count | 51 | ||
| Loam Sum of win % | 56.82% | ||
| Zoo | Gaea's Might Get There | Count | 42 |
| win % | 60.98% | ||
| Vindicate Zoo | Count | 55 | |
| win % | 47.17% | ||
| RGb Zoo | Count | 12 | |
| win % | 45.45% | ||
| Zoo Count | 109 | ||
| Zoo Sum of win % | 52.38% | ||
| Mono Blue Control | Mono Blue Control | Count | 13 |
| win % | 66.67% | ||
| Spire Blue | Count | 24 | |
| win % | 43.48% | ||
| Mono Blue Control Count | 37 | ||
| Mono Blue Control Sum of win % | 51.43% | ||
| Affinity | Affinity-Goyf | Count | 12 |
| win % | 54.55% | ||
| Affinity-Frenzy | Count | 13 | |
| win % | 53.85% | ||
| Affinity-Shrapnel | Count | 61 | |
| win % | 45.76% | ||
| Affinity-Goyf/Blast | Count | 11 | |
| win % | 45.45% | ||
| Affinity-Bob | Count | 4 | |
| win % | 25.00% | ||
| Affinity Count | 101 | ||
| Affinity Sum of win % | 46.94% | ||
| Counter-top | Chase Rare | Count | 52 |
| win % | 47.83% | ||
| Next Level Blue | Count | 30 | |
| win % | 42.31% | ||
| Counter-top Count | 82 | ||
| Counter-top Sum of win % | 45.83% | ||
| Goblins | Goblins | Count | 45 |
| win % | 43.18% | ||
| Goblins Count | 45 | ||
| Goblins Sum of win % | 43.18% | ||
| RG Burn | RG Burn | Count | 20 |
| win % | 40.00% | ||
| RG Burn Count | 20 | ||
| RG Burn Sum of win % | 40.00% | ||
| Tron | UG Tron | Count | 29 |
| win % | 48.15% | ||
| UW Tron | Count | 16 | |
| win % | 21.43% | ||
| Tron Count | 45 | ||
| Tron Sum of win % | 39.02% | ||
| homebrew | BW aggro | Count | 4 |
| win % | 50.00% | ||
| Mono Black Control | Count | 11 | |
| win % | 40.00% | ||
| BG Elves | Count | 6 | |
| win % | 40.00% | ||
| Unknown | Count | 7 | |
| win % | 33.33% | ||
| Ǽthermage's Touch | Count | 8 | |
| win % | 25.00% | ||
| Golgari.dec | Count | 5 | |
| win % | 20.00% | ||
| Orb Fish | Count | 5 | |
| win % | 20.00% | ||
| RG Ensnaring Bridge | Count | 5 | |
| win % | 20.00% | ||
| homebrew Count | 51 | ||
| homebrew Sum of win % | 31.25% | ||
| Total Count | 791 | ||
| Total Sum of win % | 50.74% |
From this we again see the dominance of Rock. Not just in terms of popularity, but also with regards to getting the W. We can also see though, that within the Rock category, old-school generic Rock decks and Doran-less versions outperformed the eventual winner. Gifts rock was the clear family failure, but even that put up a .500 record. Loam, which represented less than 5% of the field, showed up as the 2nd best performing category. Tron was a clear disappointment, posting a sub .400 record. Unsurprisingly, homebrews got steamrolled throughout the day.
"But Paul," you say, "if homebrews got steamrolled all day, and Rock decks were steamrolling people all day, isn’t it possible that Rock’s win percentage is inflated from bashing those folks who chose to disregard the latest net-tech and bring their own concoction?" Sure it is, let’s take a look and see who Rock was beating up on.
| opp_deck_cat | Data | Total |
| Zoo | Count | 43 |
| win % | 60.98% | |
| Affinity | Count | 31 |
| win % | 74.19% | |
| Counter-top | Count | 19 |
| win % | 56.25% | |
| Loam | Count | 17 |
| win % | 53.85% | |
| Goblins | Count | 15 |
| win % | 66.67% | |
| homebrew | Count | 14 |
| win % | 78.57% | |
| Tron | Count | 11 |
| win % | 70.00% | |
| Dredge | Count | 9 |
| win % | 62.50% | |
| Mono Blue Control | Count | 8 |
| win % | 42.86% | |
| Balancing Tings | Count | 7 |
| win % | 42.86% | |
| RG Burn | Count | 7 |
| win % | 42.86% | |
| Ideal | Count | 6 |
| win % | 40.00% | |
| Tooth and Nail | Count | 6 |
| win % | 83.33% | |
| White Control | Count | 4 |
| win % | 66.67% | |
| Cephalid Breakfast | Count | 4 |
| win % | 25.00% | |
| Storm | Count | 4 |
| win % | 50.00% | |
| GW Midrange | Count | 3 |
| win % | 66.67% | |
| Tog | Count | 3 |
| win % | 33.33% | |
| Mind's Desire | Count | 1 |
| win % | 100.00% | |
| Elves | Count | 1 |
| win % | 100.00% | |
| Threshold | Count | 1 |
| win % | 100.00% | |
| Total Count | 214 | |
| Total Sum of win % | 62.00% |
Again excluding mirror matches, Rock most frequently played against Zoo decks, and lit them up about 61% of the time or about as often as they beat the rest of the field. Homebrews did get destroyed when playing against the Rock, but they were only 6.5% of Rock’s non-mirror matches so we can’t really blame them for inflating the numbers since they represented 5.5% of the field anyway.
Most of these numbers look promising for Rock players and the ones that don’t are sadly a very small sample size. Balancing Tings, Mono Blue Control, RG Burn, and Ideal look like logical choices for beating the Rock, though they each have less than 10 matches so it is hardly conclusive. But let’s assume for a moment that those numbers would at least mostly hold up with a larger sample size and that those 4 are your best bet for beating Rock. How well do they handle the rest of the field (remember, Rock was just barely over a quarter of the field, so you still have to beat everyone else).
| player_deck_cat | player_deck | Data | Total |
| Ideal | Ideal | Count | 6 |
| win % | 66.67% | ||
| Ideal Count | 6 | ||
| Ideal Sum of win % | 66.67% | ||
| Balancing Tings | Balancing Tings | Count | 11 |
| win % | 54.55% | ||
| Balancing Tings Count | 11 | ||
| Balancing Tings Sum of win % | 54.55% | ||
| Mono Blue Control | Mono Blue Control | Count | 9 |
| win % | 66.67% | ||
| Spire Blue | Count | 20 | |
| win % | 42.11% | ||
| Mono Blue Control Count | 29 | ||
| Mono Blue Control Sum of win % | 50.00% | ||
| RG Burn | RG Burn | Count | 13 |
| win % | 30.77% | ||
| RG Burn Count | 13 | ||
| RG Burn Sum of win % | 30.77% |
I wish we had more data for these, as it looks promising for the first three with a small sample size. RG Burn, however, looks like it can handle Rock but basically runs away from anything else ever. Unfortunately, 55% of the matches for Tings and Mono Blue played were against Affinity, meaning there’s virtually no data on the rest of the field. Ideal’s is split across five different decks, meaning the sample size is basically one for all of them, or largely irrelevant to us for now.
Without more data, we’re left thinking that Rock is the best choice for an upcoming PTQ. So if you’re going to be playing Rock, and expect a lot of Rock, what do you do? Let’s go a little further into this and see which Rock decks beat the other ones.
| player_deck | Data | Confidant Rock | Doran | Generic Rock | Gifts-Rock | Grand Total |
| Doran | Count | 11 | 2 | 4 | 17 | |
| win % | 44.44% | n/a | 100.00% | 50.00% | 53.33% | |
| Gifts-Rock | Count | 4 | 4 | |||
| win % | n/a | 50.00% | n/a | n/a | 50.00% | |
| Confidant Rock | Count | 11 | 1 | 12 | ||
| win % | n/a | 55.56% | 0.00% | n/a | 50.00% | |
| Generic Rock | Count | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| win % | 100.00% | 0.00% | n/a | n/a | 33.33% |
Now we can start to see that, while Doran did slightly worse against the field as a whole, it was slightly better in the Rock on Rock love. Again, we’re lacking enough data to fully analyze this, but we’re starting to get a clearer picture of how this particular PTQ went.
I would be remiss if I didn’t include some nuggets about some of the decks that had low representation. If we don’t limit ourselves to the Top 10 in matches played and just take the single deck with the best win percentage on the day, we have a White deck from Mike Flores, whose 5-2-1 record failed to secure him a Top 8 berth. 5-2-1 is good for 71%, though, which seems amazing when compared to the overall Rock score of 60%. This is where the danger in small sample sizes lies. While Mike did post the highest win percentage, he also had a long subway ride home to ponder his poor performance (as definied by not winning the blue envelope). His tops win percentage, due to a small sampling, did not translate into anything close to noteworthy.
So what can you do with these numbers? You cannot take these numbers and say you expect to win 60% of your matches. If you do, you’re saying that your plan for the day is 3-2 drop. Obviously, somebody wins the tournament. The problem is that you are stating what everyone armed with the deck is expected to do. To single yourself out, the range of variation increases greatly.
What we’re saying is that in this field, I would expect Rock decks to perform at a 60.34% win percentage. I can say this with a decent degree of certainty. The range of records for all Rock players is literally 0% - 100%. The eventual winner was 9-0-2, while five different Rock players failed to post a single victory. So when it comes to predicting an individual’s record with a specific deck, the model is wildly inaccurate. I could get into the entire statistics of it all with some advanced calculations, but it would prove to be busy-work as we already know that there is an incredibly wide range (widest possible). The distribution is nowhere near normal. 38%, or 19 of the 50 Rock players, had record worse than 50%, while 48% posted a record above .500 (the remaining 14% were, obviously, equal to .500). The average record of a Rock player was only 51% but the deck as a whole won 60% of its games; meaning its top performers out-dueled its bottom performers to raise the overall score.
I hope this exercise has been as interesting for you as it has been for me. While I suspected that Rock was the leader in terms of representation, I was skeptical that it was the performance leader as well. I want to leave with some caveats. Of course, this only represents one metagame, that of New York. Regional metagames can be highly different, so please take that into consideration when making your deck choice. That should only have an impact on the representation numbers, not necessarily on the performance indicators. Also, this represents Week 1 technology. It is incredibly possible and even likely that a deck that falls into the same category as one of these finds a new card that totally destroys Rock, moving it from a 2-3 ‘dog to a 3-2 favorite. And finally, naturally play skill will be the final decider. If your opponent is just awful, but his deck is very good against yours, don’t pack it up so quickly. No matchup is 100%, so you can very possibly tip the scales in your favor by being as awesome as you are.
If I’m able to get my hands on more data later in the season, I certainly will try to do a follow-up to this, as well as a comparison. If anyone out there can get me non-New York-centric data, I’d love to compare regional/national differences.
PJ
[Editor's Note - If you'd like a copy of the Excel document, send an email to Mail us at https://sales.starcitygames.com/contactus/contactform.php?emailid=2 with "JORDAN EXCEL" in the subject line. - Craig.]
Today’s Innovations sees Patrick Chapin investigate the latest exciting build from the brainpan of Mike Flores: Rith’s Charm Combo. Of course, being the... 
Tiago Chan, Portugal's Magic dynamo, takes us by the hand and leads us through the choppy waters of a triple-Lorwyn draft on Magic Online. He shares each and every pick, from one to forty-five, and supplies expert commentary on... 
Last week I talked about some of the decks that had been doing well online, and shared a few other tidbits on the Extended metagame. I also said I’d go over... 
Yeah, I know, it sounds disgusting doesn’t it? Still, that’s the word that Craig the Editor used earlier this week to describe the act of playtesting Extended with Mind’s Desire, a.k.a. The Extended Perfect Storm, a.k.a. TEPS.... 
Magic Online has become a huge part of my Magic playing. It is currently in something of a transition – or crisis, if you believe the naysayers. I want to look at where MTGO is, where it is going, and what needs to be 
Today’s Sullivan Library visits the difficult task of honing one of the most underexamined elements of a deck: the mana. Adrian arms you with the tools... 
With mere days until the Morningtide prerelease, Nick Eisel rounds out his Lorwyn-only Limited articles with an insightful piece on signaling. In triple Lorwyn drafts, there are a number of ways to signal intent to your neighbors,... 
Hello everybody, and welcome to another edition of the Magic Show. This past week I was fortunate enough to spend a weekend in Roanoke, Virginia for the PTQ and... 
Often, I pride myself on my ability to figure out what is important to a Constructed format, and build around that in a complicated dance of design and re-design. I seek to find a deck that I am comfortable with that I believe... 
Mike narrowly missed Top 8 this week with a deck that you simply have to see to believe. There is really nothing else to say, or can be said, than 
With over thirty Drafting With Tiago drafts to his name, Portugal’s Magic dynamo looks back and takes stock of the first thirty in the series. From humble... 
Christopher Coppola continues his discussion of UGB Threshold, talks about the threshold mirror, and gives some sideboarding plans for a few common 
On New Year's Eve, I made a promise to myself: I would follow four very simple rules. Those rules have already raised my Magic play - and in ways I didn't expect.... 
Tom takes an introspective look at his experiences at the recent Extended double feature weekend at the Star City Game Center in Roanoke, and muses about how to... 
