@diophan said:
@Khahan Well the impetus of the thread is that we are trying to put decks from the P9 challenge in black and white categories. If we make 15 different buckets with just a couple decks in each the analysis verges on meaningless.
My point and I think Topical's is that you cannot do that (at least not in the way you are attempting). To me it seems abundantly obvious that strict black & white categories don't work because decks don't fit. Any data you get from strict black & white classification is meaningless because the base data you are using is mis-categorized. So the conclusions you draw are faulty.
To say its a 'gush or a combo' deck - its both. Its a combo deck that uses gush as a draw engine. Why would you pigeonhole it into 1 and ignore the other in the classification? Especially when one of those is really a sub-classification of the other. Gush would be a sub-classification of combo, just like it can be a sub-classification of control. Which is why I don't like using card names to classify decks into these kinds of categories.
You guys are using shops as a category - is it prison shops or agro shops? I'm going to sideboard a bit differently vs both. Vs an aggressive deck with ravagers I'd prefer pithing needle to Dack. Vs a control version I'd prefer dack to pithing needle. By giving us broad 'shops' I have no idea what the meta is so I can't make an informed decision on historical data.
I applaud the effort and don't want to discourage it. But I think it be directed into a much more useful format.
last edited by Khahan