[For reference, this article is a response to “Data Mining in Action: Could Dave Price be Wrong?”, the latest article by Mike Flores. Ryan was quoted extensively in Mike's piece, and thus the abovementioned article is required reading. – Craig]

Goodness.

I feel that I should respond and clarify what I said. There's actually quite a lot I've packed in the few lines that Mike quoted – and these don't necessarily follow a particular order, so don't be surprised if this article comes across as disjointed.

Constructed formats usually mature

This seems almost too obvious to be worth stating, but I'm not sure this has ever been expressed so explicitly – and I've been around since the Dojo days. This means that from the birth of the format – typically the Pro Tour that kicks it off – from that point onwards from week to week, qualifier to qualifier and Grand Prix to Grand Prix, successful strategies change. When they change, they either get better or get worse. But since we are playing to win (and nobody would reasonably choose a worse strategy) they get better… and so they mature.

But it's not really good enough to end there. Because underneath that simple assertion is another question – why do they mature?

Constructed formats usually mature because there are unexplored card interactions that, if used, will be successful

Again, I am wondering if I'm just talking more about things that you probably know already. Where we already know everything that is out there (such as in very small formats, typically Block Constructed with only one or two sets), in the abstract we would know what would be the most powerful (and thusly, the best) deck.

But most of the time, we don't know everything that is out there. For reasons of time constraint, we have to create a gauntlet to represent what we think the field is going to look like … which is a different animal from what it actually is. To further complicate things (especially for those that are trying to qualify) this creature mutates from week to week and from location to location, so you can see how miserable (or wonderful) it is a task that you have to deal with.

For my part, I've always liked formats where the possibilities have been “maxed out,” and we all know what the best deck is. This is because it rewards the disciplined and prepared player, who sticks to the best deck no matter how much hate there is for it (me). I know that I'm not as talented a deck designer or innovator of new successful strategies (yet), so it is to my advantage that I don't have to pull a rabbit out of my hat or face someone who will – but instead focus on playing my game perfectly. In other words, I like broken formats and dislike healthy environments. I guess you could say I'm the Spike waiting to celebrate for when R&D screws up.

The closest real life example (and I am still hedging here – I can't say for sure there were no more unexplored successful card interactions) I can give of this is probably the 99-00 Extended season where it was evident that Illusions-Donate with Necropotence and Dark Ritual was still the best deck, even taking into account the hate that existed for it.

To give an example where the possibilities have not maxed out, of which we would call a healthy and diverse format, of which is still maturing, we could perhaps look at the timeline given for the Standard environment from US States to the present Magic Online metagame. Strategies such as using Howling Mine and Ebony Owl Netsuke – unexplored during States – become viable, and successful in making Top 8 at Magic Online Premier Events.

Proactive strategies tend to be more successful at the beginning of the Constructed season

This is a more nuanced look at there being no wrong “threats, only wrong answers.” Whereas the Price “theory” is static, this assertion is dynamic because it places the viability of a proactive strategy at a certain point at the season – that of when it begins. This is quite a bold assertion on my part, but the numbers don't lie – and it would appear that for the most part, as per Mike's analysis, this is true.

So why is this important? This is important because if you want to increase your chances of winning at the start of the Constructed season, based on what has been successful before, you will want to be concentrating on proactive strategies for success. I'm not saying that a reactive strategy won't work, I'm just saying that it seems more likely than not that a proactive strategy will be successful, given the past evidence. Again, that might offend you because I'm sure some forum guy will flame me saying that things are different from format to format.

More importantly, as far as David Price is concerned, he appears to be right. The data that Mike has analyzed clearly proves that at the Pro Tour, at the beginning of the season, proactive strategies dominate. The saying there are no wrong threats, only wrong answers is still correct, and relevant, as far as this part of the season is concerned.

From here onwards this is conjecture, and is formed based on an impressionistic view of trying to explain what is going on – I have no data to back it up but I'm just trying to explain and prescribe things based on what I read and feel is going on [READ: HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE], having followed the coverage online and reading the reports, etc. Not the most scientific way of approaching this, but bear with me.

Reactive strategies tend to be more successful as the season develops

This is a natural response to the previously successful proactive strategies. There is now a target for the reactive player to hit, and those that hit it get the blue envelope. If you want to look at it in the context of “no wrong threats, only wrong answers,” then Price seems just flat out wrong – there are wrong threats, and you can find the right answers. Thus drawing Lantern Kami versus Keiga, the Tide Star in the Boros Deck Wins versus Flores Blue matchup. Interestingly, and I may be wrong here – this can be used to describe the first half of the Flores Approach to Deckbuilding – in that he builds decks designed to pre-empt an established strategy on its fundamental turn: a reactive solution to a proactive problem.

As the season develops and reactive strategies tend to be more successful, either the season ends and we are left thinking that it is the reactive strategy that is dominant, or, the proactive decks mature and become capable of beating apparently successful reactive strategies

For the first part of that assertion, that is merely because there has not been enough time left for further card interactions, which may have been successful, to be explored.

For the second part, that would explain Patrick Sullivan's Frenzied Goblins, or Osamu Fujita's Deck X, or Flores Critical Mass, or Friggorid allowing for a proactive strategy to continue to be successful, now that they have either accommodated for the existing reactive strategy (Frenzied Goblin versus Keiga) or approach the matchup in a different way (Dredge/recursion/haste and non dependency on artifacts of Ichorid versus Psychatog). This also provides the second half towards the Flores Approach to Deckbuilding, in that he not only takes into account the proactive threat, but the reactive response, and between the two tries to find out how he can beat both…. and so, in Kamigawa Block Constructed, the proactive strategy of White Weenie, which was answered by Gifts, are both answered by Critical Mass.

So what happens now?

I suppose that so long as there are unexplored card interactions which lead to success, I guess you would have a health and exciting Constructed environment, which rewards both proactive and reactive strategies, together interacting in a harmonious (or I would say disastrous) cycle – rewarding the innovative player who can come up with new strategies or tweak existing ones to deal with the hate.

Ok, I understand what you're saying and this is great. But what does Mike's article, and your original question as posted in the forums, have to do with this?

This is the kicker.

I'm not really sure that it's true to say that we can continue to safely assume that proactive strategies tend to be more successful at the beginning of the Constructed season.

Here's a dynamic that might make you want to question that: sophistication. Come to think of it, call it relevance - it's a better term. Here's a go:

Once we had no idea what was going on, and tech was stored in bottles in secret laboratories, waiting to be unleashed on the unsuspecting masses. However, advances in community interaction and existing play outlets such as Magic Online, the increased participation in the use of message boards, and the writings of pros who share technology - in particular proactive strategies - have combined to make these proactive strategies more discernable. Because of this information, our gauntlet, previously an illusion of reality, becomes closer to reality – making it possible to predict and react to what would normally be a successful proactive strategy…. and counter it with a successful reactive strategy at the start of the season.

In other words, the reactive solutions to proactive problems have become more relevant with the widespread dissemination of information. It is like the Internet (or your StarCityGames Premium subscription) is a scope on your rifle where you previously had to fire blindly and hope you hit the proactive target.

Thus, what prompted me to write in to pose the question to Mike, was that, from what I understood, he was suggesting that there has been a paradigm shift…. are we at the stage where reactive strategies are the default strategy for success at the beginning of the season? Or will a proactive strategy always win out regardless? I have no idea – but I'd sure like to know what you think.

Cheers,
Ryan

A response to an objection which might occur:

“What is proactive anyway? What is reactive? How can you tell the difference?”

Just because there is dusk and dawn doesn't mean you can't tell night from day. A proactive strategy does things to your opponent typically independently of what it is he's doing – such as creatures that attack, e.g. Isamaru, Hound of Konda. A reactive strategy is a response to that, e.g. Wrath of God. There are reactive strategies with proactive elements, and proactive strategies with reactive elements, but that does not mean that they are indistinguishable.

*BONUS* Humor Section – Giant Solifuge and Kird Ape

1) Giant Solifuge is not an insect

It vexes me.

Giant Solifuge is an ARACHNID! Why should it be an insect? Honestly!

You would think that Magic players would be smart enough to handle the “A” word. Or at least be willing to be fooled by it being designated a “Spider” type. Yes I've read Brady Dommermuth's answer on Ask Wizards. It's what ignited inspired me to write this.

I cannot tell, of course, if Jon Becker would approve.

I can tell you this much. The Solifuge is a great card.

Often, it does an average of five-and-a-half damage whilst taking out a creature along with it. That's just over a quarter of your opponent's life total. Not bad, eh?

I'm sorry. I will persist. If you would recall a scene from The Fifth Element (1990-something) directed by Luc Besson and starring Bruce Willis, where the bad guy (Billy Zane's character) is in negotiations with alien mercenaries over some artifacts they are supposed to recover. In exchange, he would give them some tech stored in crates.

Billy Z (paraphrasing): This box is supposed to have four stones. Not one, not two, not three, but four. Four stones! That was the deal! How am I going to give you anything for this? Zero stones, zero crates!

It's in the counting. If I ever get my chance:

Ryan S: This card is meant to be an Arachnid. Not six, not seven, but eight. Eight Legs! That was the deal! How am I going to give you my money for this? Eight legs, not a f***ing insect!

I'm sure some punk will correct me in the forums how I've got the taxonomy wrong. It's ok. It is my hope that no one can sensibly claim that solphugids are insects. I know. I've checked on Wikipedia.

2) Neema the Kird Ape

(Because we all love these…)

Neema was a Kird Ape that lived in the mountains, until she one day decided that maybe she would want to go and check out some of the greenery in the valleys below. To do that required her to live amongst the Red/Green clan we all know and love. In order to do so, it required her to be more savage and disorderly. Which is not the most exciting if you are a neat and organized little ape like Neema. It also required her to be totally committed towards living amongst the clan. This was fine, so she packed her stuff and moved down to live amongst the clan and...

To her surprise, the clan was bigger than she thought. In fact, it was everywhere. She couldn't believe that whilst living in the mountains she didn't hear of it. After spending some more time there, and getting confirmed to 2/3 status and wreaking havoc with the lions and the wolves, the clan really was everything she knew about.

One day she was asked about her experience, and this led her to remark...

"It's a Gruul, Gruul world."

(Don’t go. I'm not finished.)

The Burning-Tree Shaman that asked her was a clan recruiter.

Numbers had been dwindling lately, and they required model examples of the clan to attend recruitment drives to speak to potential applicants. Neema was one of them. With her aptitude for beatdown, and close rapport with the savage gorillas, she was a fearsome Gruul clan member. When she got out her war paint, they left the war plow at home - they wouldn't need it.

But, much like investment banking, getting into a career with the Gruul is an all-consuming experience. You don't really have any personal time to yourself for any day in the week and you are at it from the time you get up until the time you stumble home to get to bed. If, that is, you have time to sleep at all. All the time, it would be crushing this, or eating that. Exciting! But not for everyone.

Which is why she just couldn't do it for Art. She knew that the Llanowar Elf in front of her was too innocent, too unspoiled, to be even be shown or told what a Gruul was like. Art was a sweet little thing, holding a basket of fruit, stopping by on the way to visit his mother, when he came in through a walk-in-interview. He was the kind of elf that would never tell a lie, that would always be counted on to be honest and ethical to himself, which was essentially sweet and gentle.

Neema couldn't do it. Seeing him about wandering outside about to enter the booth, she quickly wiped off all her face paint, and left the war club behind her desk. She even stopped walking so brusquely and for a brief moment, reverted to her younger self when she lived up in the mountains...

She just couldn't be Gruul to an Art that was true.

The King lives,
ryansoh on the StarCityGames Forums