@maxtortion I'd love it if people posted their cool decks here whether or not they 5-0'd, but I certainly don't have any issue with that sort of thread if someone wanted to make it.
I totally get that, and wasn't meaning to be results-exclusive. I love to see cool decks, 5-0s or not.
The idea behind my suggestion is to get a more thorough snapshot of "what's winning" as opposed to "what's cool."
In the event that these changes result in genuinely important technology and/or decklists missing from the reported results, I highly suggest you just post those decklists here instead
Would it be a good idea to create a dedicated "5-0 Thread," where anyone who 5-0's an MTGO Vintage league is encouraged to post their decklist and matchups?
reducing the damage dealt from 5 to 2 as it is rounded down.
Card text : If a source would deal damage to you or a permanent you control, prevent half that damage, rounded up.
Seems like it will be 5 to 3 then doubled, right?
The prevented damage is rounded up. 2.5 damage is prevented, rounded up to 3 damage prevented.
Seems bad- we're going to lose out on seeing a lot of tech.
I'm pretty sure that Esper and Grixis PO fall within 20 cards of each other, despite them being different decks.
In a related note: a challenge for @brianpk80 : 5-0 with an Oath deck so different from other Oath lists that we get 2 Oath decks published. The threshold is 20 cards, and I think it's in the 75.
UPDATE: another 3 leagues in the books with a solid 12-3 record. Highlight was going 4-1 in the last league with all wins 2-0 and my one loss 1-2 to our hero Maxtortion
Nice! And if it's any consolation, I 5-0'd that league.
2-0 5c Humans
2-0 Ravager Shops
2-1 Ravager Shops (you)
2-1 Ravager Shops (Montolio)
I posted the argument about Misstep not because I agree with it, but because I intended this article for a largely non-Vintage audience, and most of them wouldn't have heard it before.
As @Smmenen points out, as long as Blue decks are ~70% of the metagame, like they are now, it is 100% correct to be pre-boarded against Blue, and have dead cards vs Shops in your maindeck. I touch on this in my article.
Do you know what other deck is also pre-boarded against Blue, with around 7 dead cards in its maindeck against Shops?
A somewhat random aside and I may be mistaken, but I think that Max was running Steel Overseers while many of the “Shops Mirrors” he played in may have been against Ravager decks that did not run Overseer.
I actually kept on switching a few cards between leagues. I rarely entered a league with the same 75 twice.
In Leagues 16-19, I played Car Shops, a la Nick DiJohn. I went 2-1 in Shops mirrors with Car Shops vs Overseer Shops, and 13-0 in Shops mirrors when I had Overseers. As you said, Overseer is insane in the mirror.
After a rough start with some misclicks and going 3-2 my first league with the deck I have gone 4-1, 5-0, and 4-1.
It looks like you're also at 80%. That's awesome!
I'm curious if anyone has been Game 1 Mulliganing against you, thinking you were on Dredge. I know I've done that against you once. I threw away a totally reasonable 7 because it couldn't beat Dredge, and you opened up with Blue spells! Learned my lesson.
Max has collected his data - Now we have to determine whether or not Max is good or lucky. And honestly, we cannot know for sure.
@Koby would make the claim that I exist in a perpetual state of lucky. I’m inclined to agree.
@ChubbyRain , thank you for taking the time to make this. It was data-driven, interesting, enlightening, and possibly the most statistically-backed compliment I’ve ever received. I would also be super interested in seeing the combined data, but understand the massive time commitment that doing so entails.
At first sight those stats would indicate that you're a much better player than the typical online player since even 16 matches is a lot to justify a 93.5% winrate. But considering your other matchups suffer by comparison, one could get the impression that Shops is actually a weak deck ! Of course many factors are at play, like as @ChubbyRain says, difference of the importance of skill in different matchups, possibly you just being better at playing the mirror than other matchups.. Also the sample is big enough to justify the overall winrate for this specific player.
Please don't take it bad OP, you're clearly a very good player, and the article is interesting, but the data taken in isolation doesn't actually translate to "Shops is top" but "that player is"
I'm a good player, but I'm not the best. My winrate at PTQs (when those were still a thing) was a little below 70%. I've played two GPs, both in Legacy, and neither with any byes. I went 10-5 and 11-4. I've never been on the Pro Tour.
I know my way around a Brainstorm, but I'm not some Magic savant. I don't believe that I'm doing anything that remarkable with my play. Sometimes, it's quite the opposite.
That said, I think the main takeaway about my winrate in the Shops mirror vs my winrate in the Blue matchups is that the Shops mirror is a lower-variance matchup than Shops vs Blue.
When you think about how the matches play out, that makes a lot of sense. In Shops vs Blue, the most powerful Shops draws prevent the Blue player from doing much of anything. The weaker Shops draws get picked apart by powerful artifact hate cards.
Meanwhile, the Shops mirror is about navigating Arcbound Ravager, Steel Overseer, Walking Ballista, and Hangarback Walker. It's about how to best leverage the ones that likely benefit you over your opponent, and when to Revoker / Spyglass the ones that likely benefit your opponent more than yourself.
It's about how to sneak in chip shots of damage. It's about realizing when trading resources is better for you or for your opponent. It's about figuring out whose board state is likely to improve more by the next set of turns, and behaving accordingly.
I'm not a player who suffers from tournament fatigue. I can play 12 rounds of competitive Magic in a day, and still be excited to jam games with friends after. The Shops mirror still makes my brain hurt.
@will I'm glad you enjoyed the article!
For the record, I'm not specifically advocating for Mental Misstep to be restricted. I included that argument because I intended this article to be read and understood by a non-vintage audience, and most of them wouldn't have heard that argument before.
Supply-side restrictions, much like supply-side economics, don't quite work as well in practice as they do in theory.