@ChubbyRain said in Vintage Restricted List Discussion:
@Smmenen "Best" was not discussed in the context of statistics but in the context of dominance.
False dichotomy. How do you think we measure dominance? Statistics... It's one and the same.
If you go back and look at the old Phil Stanton or my mid-aughts tournament reports, we sought to identify the best deck not just by frequency of Top 8 appearances, but also by weighting position within Top 8s. And in B&R discussions, I specifically peg "dominance" at statistical thresholds.
It's not really relevant what the metagame percentages and win rates are if they are not substantially different.
Reread what I said:
"There is always a "best" blue draw engine. We usually only restrict them in Vintage when they dominate the entire metagame, not when they just predominate among other blue decks. Otherwise, we'd be restricting blue draw engines every few months."
I draw a distinction between metagame dominance and blue draw engine predominance. Predominance among blue decks is not metagame dominance writ large.
The fact that you can't provide an answer suggests that is the case.
The reason I can't provide the answer to the question of "What is the best blue draw engine in October, 2014?" is because I haven't run the numbers, and I don't have the spare time to do so. Not because I can't. I strongly suspect the answer is Gush.
But what does this have to do with my critique of your justification for the restriction of Gush? Your implied suggestion that Shops will diminish in coming months? Or your continual claims that we lack quality data. When you will be satisfied by the quality of the statistical tournament evidence?