MikeTheProf on MTGO
@ChubbyRain I definitely understand that white is not a primary color anymore, etc. Also, I was suggesting Serenity purely as a sideboard option. It doesn't change anything if you're not in white, but I thought I'd make that clear.
I guess what I am trying to probe is the depth to which sideboard options have truly been explored. Discussions suggesting particular restrictions seem to assume that this exploration has been sufficient, but I've never been convinced of that. I feel that this general plan of playing 1-for-1s (or near enough, anyway) against Shops is akin to jamming a handful of Coffin Purges as your Dredge hate and hoping it works out.
I'm very interested in your results from that Nahiri deck though, whenever you get around to it
@ravager101 I am aware of all of those issues and they don't seem like particularly amazing arguments to me.
I can see the argument that Serenity is "slow" in that your opponent knows it's coming, of course, and you are correct in that it blows up your own artifact mana.
But as you mentioned, people are playing Ancient Grudge and By Force. I can see Grudge being better in a way, since the 2-for-1 can be distributed over multiple turns, but then you're getting hit by sphere effects twice over, so it has its downsides. I don't think Serenity is any slower than By Force against a deck that dumps its hand on the table in the first 2 turns. On a side note, I am not sure I'd agree that Ancient Grudge or By Force can be considered "effective hate", but that is an entirely different discussion.
Also, I wasn't suggesting that you could only rely on Serenity. There are scenarios where Ravager + Factory still kills you, but only about 20% of keepable hands are going to contain that combination. And about 20% of the time, you'd have Swords + Serenity (assuming you're playing 4 of each) as a solution.
I also don't agree with your comparisons to Hurkyl's. Being able to replay all the cards is significantly different than destroying them when you're not combo-ing out. The lower-to-the-ground variants of Shops will, in many cases, have played most of their hand when you cast Serenity.
Aside from "I'm not playing white", this isn't making sense to me. There was a whole year where nearly every blue deck was in white for Mentor and we still didn't see anything in sideboards except for 1-for-1 artifact removal (with a few exceptions).
Have you (or anyone that you know) actually tested this card in the matchup with a significantly large sample? I am happy to be wrong about this, but anecdotal evidence is all I've seen.
@ribby I've given it some thought and I think I'll add a tab to the CDF tool that does what the website you linked does, but includes mulligans as well. Thanks to you and @wappla for the conversation here
My next article will likely be an update to the CDF and example questions/answers to questions like wappla's (but done without approximation and including mulligans.
There's no direct way to do that with the tool, but it's something I'll consider for future updates of the CDF.
In the meantime, I would suggest that you do the two things independently. You could calculate the number of white sources you'd want and (separately) calculate how many "double mana" sources you'd want.
Once you know those numbers, you could then find the likelihood that you'd have a white source with your Thalia (from the Mana Stats tab) and (separately) the likelihood that you'd have a Mox (from the Spell Stats tab). The probability of having both would be (approximately, since they technically depend on each other):
1 - (likelihood of white source w/ Thalia)*(1 - likelihood of a Mox).
That would give you the percentage of hands that either have a Thalia with the white source and a Mox or don't have a Thalia at all.
Hopefully that helps
I've written an article about applying statistics to deck building that would (hopefully) be of pretty general use. It even contains a download to a file that will do the math for you