If had a very interesting experience reading “Moneyball,” by Michael Lewis. I thought I knew what was going on in baseball before I read the book, but in the middle of reading I suddenly realized the game was different from what I thought. I started the book watching one game and ended the book watching a completely different one. The players on the field and the rules hadn't changed, but the game was forever different. Lewis himself went through this shift while watching Oakland's statistics group watch a game. In the stat-geeks' game, the battle was all centered on the third pitch. For those who really understood what was going on, it was the third pitch that made or broke the pitcher/batter conflict. If the pitcher went up 2-1, then the batter was almost certain to lose. If the batter went up 1-2, then the pitcher was almost certain to lose.

I can't watch a baseball game the same way any more.

I recently went through the same game-changing experience with poker. I read Dan Harrington's “Harrington on Hold-Em.” Wow, did that book ever change my understanding of the game. I thought I had understood what was going on. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Everything I knew was wrong. Having read Harrington's book, I finally understand the game… or at least understand it far differently from how I understood it before.

I can't watch a poker hand the same way any more.

I've recently been thinking about Magic theory with the uneasy thought that I really did not understand what was going on. “The Philosophy of Fire” and “Who's the Beatdown” by Mike Flores, and almost everything written by Zvi, hit on the big issues… but something was missing, and so I started to run the thought process to ground. There is the adage “Combo beats Aggro beats Control,” but that understanding just didn't seem as though it were enough. I needed more. What I realized next changed the way I understand Magic.

I can't watch Magic the same way any more.

Here is what I learned. Bear with me, because the basics are pretty basic, but the payoff comes in understanding by the end.

The Basics
Magic consists of Offense (removing a resource - usually life - from an opponent) and Defense (preventing the removal of the resource or creating more of the resource). Yawn, right? Keep with me. It takes only one more level of complexity to capture most of Magic.

Offense consists of:

Reusable Offense (creatures, mainly)
Single-use Offense

Defense consists of:

Defending against Reusable Offense
Defending against Single-use Offense

This is still simple, but already strategies can become more complex by mixing types of offense and defense. A deck can be thought of in terns of combinations of offense and defense (or lack thereof). A deck consisting entirely creatures that turn sideways is O1. A deck that is only burn spells is O2. A white weenie deck with Wrath of Gods and Final Judgments would be O1D1, and so on.

Finally, we add in one more layer of complexity with “hardening.” Some strategies can be hardened against the corresponding counterstrategy. The easiest of these to understand is a hardened creature. We will call a hardened source of reusable offense O1+. A hardened creature is one that his hard to remove with available D1. Makes sense, no? Thus, Simic Sky Swallower is O1+, and the uncounterable (at times) Demonfire is O2+. Wrath of God is D1+ (prevents Regeneration) and so on.

With only these four categories: O1, O2, D1, D2 and the idea that each comes in standard and hardened varieties, my understanding of Magic changed.

The easiest deck to understand in the current format is Gruul, which is O1, O2. Beat face, burn face. In contrast, U/W control (Wrath of God, counterspells, few creatures) is D1, D2. Moldervine Cloak and Giant Solifuge both provide some small amount of O1+ hardening, and U/W control has a small amount of hardened O1 (e.g., Meloku).

Ho hum. Who cares? What do we do with this information, anyway? Well, we now understand the matchup a lot better.

Gruul versus U/W = O1O2 versus D1D2.

U/W has the perfect defense against Gruul, it seems. Gruul brings on O1 and O2, and U/W counters with D1 and D2. So what? Well, we thus know that the strategies are in essential balance, and something will have to change the balance for one deck to win. What can change? The first is that U/W could have the wrong mix of D1 and D2 for Gruul's O1 and O2 draw. In this case, Gruul stands a reasonable chance of winning (Wrath of God is not so useful against Flames of the Blood Hand). In practice, most of the games in this matchup come down to “does U/W have the right mix of D1 and D2.” U/W attempts to smooth the mix by drawing more cards. When U/W is able to draw many cards before dying, the correct mix of D1 and D2 is likely, and U/W will win.

Heartbeat is pedal-to-the-metal O2.

Heartbeat versus Gruul = O2 versus. O1O2.

Egad!

The metagame thus appears, on the face of it, to be primarily O1D1. A look at the major decks in Standard reveal that O1D1 is a very popular choice, with diversions into O2 and occasionally D2 fairly minor and somewhat rare. Ghost Dad, Ghost Husk, Ghazi-Glare, Hand-in-Hand, U/W Aggro, Beach House, etc. all work by beating the opponent with creatures and killing off the opponent's creatures, as one might expect (contrast this with the Mirrodin-legal standard, where O1 was insanely good so that D1 could not keep up).

Once we understand a metagame in terms of O and D, we now know strategies that are likely to be successful within the cards available to that metagame. One approach (a fine one but not an optimal one, as I will discuss in a moment) is to run the “Best Deck” … run the best offense and, if it is strong, the best defense to that offense. In current standard, O1D1 is the default strategy for Tier 1 decks. There is nothing really wrong with this approach, other than the fact that the approach plays fair.

“Best Deck” … Play the best offense and, if the best defense against that offense is strong, also play that defense.

One of the best examples of O1D1 in the current metagame is Ghost Husk. It is no surprise that this deck was a metagame leader in Regionals.

A potentially stronger approach in theory is to find an imbalance between offense and defense and then choose a strategy that maximizes the imbalance in your favor. In Standard, O1 and D1 are both strong. Thus, if we play an O1 deck, we have the obvious advantage of playing the best offense but the obvious disadvantage that we will be vulnerable to opposing D1. There is no large imbalance between O1 and D1, so a truly advantageous deck cannot lie within the stock O1 strategy. What imbalances are available? The obvious choice is O2. D2 is horrible in this format, so if we can find a good O2 strategy, we exploit a natural imbalance in the metagame. We are not taking the best strategy in isolation (we know O1 to be better) but the best strategy where there is a mismatch between offense and defense.

“Unfair Deck” … Identify and exploit the largest imbalance between offense and defense.

To find an “exploiter” deck in the current Standard metagame, one need look no farther than Heartbeat Combo. Heartbeat is a deck that wins through a single large spell, and with the relative weakness in D2, Heartbeat can have a field day.

The third approach is hardening, or “The Solution.” There are two ways to harden: find hardened spells, or ways to protect your spells using other spells (e.g., though counter-magic). Dovescape is a prime example of The Solution in practice. Dovescape starts with good creatures then protects them with the nearly inviolate Dovescape. Other Solution decks use components in an O1 strategy that automatically dodge D1 altogether, or at least punishes the wielder of D1. Simic Sky Swallower dodges much D1 nicely. Yosei punishes the opponent for applying D1. Zombify makes D1 look a bit silly.

“The Solution” … Use the best offense that is hardened against the best defense.

Any further complication to the metagame tends to loop back upon itself. That is, other strategies are certainly possible but are unlikely to be better than the three strategies I outlined above. “Best Deck” is not difficult to create, and works well no matter what the metagame might be. “Best Deck” is the default. “Unfair Deck” is not as often seen, simply because the deck usually appears to be giving up raw power. “The Solution” is best found in a defined metagame where one can know, for example, that Dovescape will kick Heartbeat in the teeth with no outs.

“Best Deck” is easy. Pick O1D1 and be done with it. B/W Husk does the trick nicely. Ghazi-Glare would be another choice. If you go for the “Best Deck” strategy, you will have the D1 answers for the best offense an opponent can throw at you, and you are loaded for bear with your own O1. You set the pace of each matchup and will be the deck to beat.

“Unfair Deck” burns face; pairing this with D1 is an optimal configuration. I played against a deck at Regionals that looked like “RW Owl” with tons of burn to the face (including Boros Fury Shield). There simply is not much defense available to this strategy, and much of the O2 doubles as D1 (Lightning Helix to the creature, when necessary). At the time I thought the deck pretty much was lucky to have beaten me, but now I see the deck for what it is: totally “Unfair.”

“The Solution” is something like Solar Flare and Sea Stompy. The offense is Tier 1, and the creatures are hard to kill (Remand your Wrath of God, or “fine, kill my Yosei; I don't care”).

By using the OD method, one can understand Magic in ways previously not available. In new formats, one can look through card pools and reach understanding very quickly. The rise of Solar Flare at recent Nationals events shows that finding a Solution-type deck can be profitable, and I will be looking for this type of deck in the future as my primary strategy.

Until next time,

Jeff Stewart