Beyond the Norm: A Standard Round (and 'round and 'round) Table

With a flurry of Standard GP’s on the horizon, I wondered how players would decide which deck to bring to the tournament, assuming the goal is to win. I sat down with a group of playtest buddies to get their thoughts on deck selection. Like many Magic players, I don’t really remember their names, but I do remember which decks they’re on, so that’s how they’ll be referred to here.

 

Q: Could you all just go around and share which deck you’ve chosen for the weekend and why?

 

Chainwhirler:

I’m playing RB Aggro. It’s the best deck. We know this because it has the largest metagame percentage by far and has performed consistently over the last several months.

 

Esper:

I’m playing Esper Control. It’s the best deck. It had a breakout weekend at GP Brussels and GP Orlando because Contempt/Gearhulk stomps all over RB and our countermagic and disruption beats Bant Nexus, which are the most-played decks.

 

Bant:

I’m playing Bant Nexus. It’s the best deck. It’s incredibly favored against pretty much everything in Game 1, and post-board, it’s resilient enough to fight through the hate.

Esper:

Pshhhh please, my matchup against you post-board is at least 70/30.

Bant:

Are you crazy? It’s like 55/45 in my favor. The overall match is around 70/30.

Esper:

Please, I bring in Duress and Negate against you. You just fold to those cards.

Bant:

Yeah, have fun Negating my Carnage Tyrant.

Esper:

It’ll be more fun to Vizier of Many Faces your Carnage Tyrant.

Brew:

Come on guys, let’s keep this thing going. 

Chainwhirler:

Shut up, Brew! You’re human garbage.

 

Grixis:

I’m playing Grixis Midrange. It’s the best deck. It’s a pile of all the best cards—

Esper:

Oh, really? I didn’t see Teferi in your list.

Grixis:

Shut up Esper, my matchup against you is insanely good. At least 65/35. Additionally, the deck can adapt post-board to fight all the major players in Standard.

 

Green:

I’m playing Monogreen Stompy. It’s the best deck.

 

(The room laughs.)

 

Chainwhirler:

Just disregard him. He just won’t let the deck die.

Green:

It had a rough weekend, sure, but that means that people aren’t going to be ready for it. Once I figure out the best splash color, Green is going to stomp all over the competition this weekend.

 

Merfolk:

It’s one hundred percent a mistake to not sleeve up the fish this weekend. I’ve been crushing my online testing, something like sixty percent winrate over twenty games. I think—

Q:

Games? You mean matches, right?

Merfolk:

No, I do all my testing on MTG Arena, and don’t want to pay for the competitive constructed queues. I crush it in the Free Play though!

Q:

Do you think that’s good data?

Merfolk:

Yeah, I mean, it seems about as legit as everyone else’s claims.

Brew:

I’m on a brew this weekend. I’ve played around ten leagues on MTGO and have a 56% win rate, so I think it’s pretty promising.

Chainwhirler:

Wait, I’m confused. Does your deck have Chainwhirler in it?

Brew:

No.

Chainwhirler:

Teferi?

Brew:

No.

Chainwhirler:

The Scarab God?

Brew:

Um… no.

Chainwhirler:

Then why are you talking?

 

Q:

Wow, okay, let’s move on here. I’m really interested, if you guys are playtesting together, how did you all come to such different conclusions about which deck to play?

 

Chainwhirler:

Because everyone else here is stupid.

Esper:

Hey—

Chainwhirler:

Okay, everyone aside from Esper. And maybe you Bant.

Bant:

Aw, shucks. Thanks, Whirly Boi.

Chainwhirler:

Basically, everyone else is cherry-picking data so that they can play the deck that they want to play and were going to play anyways.

Esper:

That is so not true. I’m favored against you. 60/40.

Chainwhirler:

No, I’m favored against you, around 55/45. Also, be honest Esper, when was the last time you registered a deck for a GP that did not contain a counterspell in it?

Esper:

Uh… is this a trick question? Without counterspells, how am I supposed to counter my opponent’s spells?

Green:

Ew, counterspells are gross. They should ban Essence Scatter.

Chainwhirler:

Exactly. You just play control every season, and a broken clock is right twice a day.

Bant:

False. What if it’s broken such that it’s a minute ahead of the correct time?

Chainwhirler:

Please, Bant, I just called you maybe not stupid. Don’t make me regret it. You’re just a glorified Johnny who builds jank every season, and, in this one season, you happen to be lucky because jank is somehow Tier 2.

Bant:

Tier 1.

Chainwhirler:

No, RB is the only Tier 1 deck. It was 50% of the top meta at the GP’s this past weekend. You and Esper are Tier 2.

Green:

Guys, Green is gonna make a comeback this weekend. I can feel it.

Esper:

If there’s only one deck in Tier 1, then shouldn’t it be Tier 0?

Grixis:

Hey, I should be included in Tier 1!

Chainwhirler:

Shut up, Grixis. Go play some three mana 2/1’s.

Brew:

Aren’t Tiers kind of pointless? Nobody agrees on how to define them, and non-Tier decks win tournaments all the time.

Green:

Guys, you should totally sleeve up some Steel Leaf Champions this weekend.

Chainwhirler:

How rich, Brew talking about pointless things. Look in the mirror, bud.

 

Q:

I feel like you all derailed my question a bit. But a lot of you are citing percentages, claiming that you’re favored against each other. Some of you even disagree. How did you come to these numbers?

 

Merfolk:

Arena! I’m around 70% against the entire format based on my testing.

Bant:

You didn’t win a single match in our playtest sessions.

Merfolk:

Yeah, variance hit me hard.

Chainwhirler:

We’re obviously estimating the percentages based on the feel of the matchup alongside the sample of matches that we played.

 

Q:

I see. So you’ve played the roughly 100 games necessary to determine a matchup to statistical significance?

 

Chainwhirler:

Are you kidding me? We don’t have time for that.

Esper:

Yeah, when you’re good enough, you can play a couple of matches and come up with a pretty good estimate.

Q:

But you and Chainwhirler disagree on your matchup?

 

(Awkward silence.)

 

Green:

Guys, Green is going to be great this weekend.

Chainwhirler:

Well, I’m also accounting for the fact that Esper is actually a stronger player than me, and I’m still winning.

Bant:

Wait, what? You’re now trying to incorporate play skill into your matchup estimate? How in the world are you supposed to quantify that?

Chainwhirler:

It’s just an estimate to further refine your estimate.

 

Q:

I see. So you play a statistically insignificant number of matches, estimate your opponent’s play skill, estimate the matchup, and then make an estimate on how your opponent’s estimated play skill is influencing the matchup.

 

Chainwhirler:

I mean, that’s part of it, but you also have to look at the larger sources of data. GP Top 8’s, Top 32’s, MTGO Standard PTQ’s, etc. Hence, Chainwhirler.

Esper:

It’s more about metagame trends, if you ask me. How is it evolving week-to-week? You want to play the best deck for a given weekend, not for last weekend.

Chainwhirler:

Or you could just play the best deck.

Esper:

But that changes from week to week.

Chainwhirler:

Not in this format it doesn’t.

Bant:

I think it’s about refinement. Bant is objectively the best deck, as we saw at the Pro Tour, but people have caught on and have started packing the hate. So while Esper is right that you have to pay attention to metagame trends, it’s so that you can refine what is objectively the best deck, not just audible to something completely different every week.

Grixis:

Well, keep in mind that the deck putting up the most results or the largest metagame share might be part of a bandwagon effect. Way back when, Ghost Dad was dominating tournaments, but only because everyone was playing it. It turned out the deck was actually pretty bad. That’s why I value versatility in my deck selection. Grixis gives me a wide range of threats and answers that I can adjust from week to week and based on the matchup.

Green:

I think it’s more about going for surprise. You want to play a Tier deck, obviously, but you want to pick the one that people are going to be the least prepared for. This will put your opponents in awkward scenarios where their gameplan and sideboard don’t line up against what you’re doing, but you’re ready to prey on all the big fish.

Brew:

Exactly, but realistically, Green, you’re not going to surprise anyone. People have seen Llanowar Elves into Steel Leaf Champion before. If you really want to get people, you have to play something completely off the radar that people won’t even know how to play against.

Chainwhirler:

Playing a bad deck that nobody has seen before or that fell from Tier 1 because it was bad sounds like a great way to lose tournaments.

Merfolk: 

I think it’s more about playing what you know, finding a deck that fits your playstyle. You want to optimize the deck not in some statistical void, but in your hands specifically.

Chainwhirler:

That’s just not true in Standard. Decks aren’t all that different, and if you want to win, pure power level should be prioritized over what you feel comfortable with. Playing Merfolk optimally is going to be worse than playing Chainwhirler suboptimally.

Esper:

But I’d rather play Esper optimally than Chainwhirler suboptimally.

Bant:

Wait, but then where’s the line? How do you determine how good a deck is before it’s worth playing that deck over anything else regardless of playstyle?

Chainwhirler:

You’ve gotta feel it out. Playtest the best decks against each other, then estimate how close to optimally you’re playing each one, and then take that into account when estimating how good the deck is in your hands.

 

Q:

Here’s what I’m getting from all of this. The seven of you got together a couple nights this week, played a statistically-insignificant number of games with other people who have different playstyles and different skill levels. Furthermore, each of you are probably biased toward certain decks being good or not. You then looked at a small sample size of results from recent large tournaments. Accounting for your own unquantified bias, you then combined all these non-quantitative factors together into matchup percentages which you disagree on, but are each individually completely confident in. In the end, most of you are going to be playing whatever you want to play anyways, either ignoring your poor data which you have high confidence in, or claiming that it supports your conclusion after the fact. Is this accurate?

 

Chainwhirler:

Look, Wizards hides the data which would allow us to make decisions that have quantitative support. This is the best we can do.

 

Q:

But… the best you can do seems terrible. Nobody agrees on how to weigh factors or even what the factors are. Why even bother playtesting?

 

(Brew stands. A single tear runs down his cheek. He puts his arms around Merfolk and Chainwhirler, who recoils and slaps it away.)

 

Brew:

Because this game isn’t about the Magic. It’s about the Gathering.

 

(The room boos. Chainwhirler shoves Brew onto the ground and starts kicking him while the rest of his “friends” throw stuff at him.)

 

Chainwhirler:

You’re not Sam Black, and you never will be! You don’t have his brewing mind, you don’t have his play skill, and you don’t have his thin, long, elegant hands!

 

 

It was at this point that I thought it best to call the police and quickly exit the premises. As I reflected on how meaningless everything was, I pulled out my phone, pulled up the browser, and signed up for GP Providence.

 

Ryan Normandin is a grinder from Boston who has lost at the Pro Tour, in GP & SCG Top 8's, and to 7-year-olds at FNM. Despite being described as "not funny" by his best friend and "the worst Magic player ever" by Twitch chat, he cheerfully decided to blend his lack of talents together to write funny articles about Magic. Make fun of him online through Twitter (@RyanNormandin) and Twitch (norm_the_ryno).