Opponent starts like... 80% of times.

[Brasileiro]

Is it just me?

I'm talking about a long time of this happening.
Yesterday I started 3 match in 15 attemps. Whataf***?

[StuffedPlatypusLuvsOrigamiRabbit]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von DontMisunderstand:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Debby:

lul wut

To be fair, I guess that's only 100% true if you don't play aggro decks. Aggro decks want to go first. Hardcore stax decks may also want to go first to get their taxes in before the opponent plays their cards, but the basic math of the game still leans in favor of going second. Literally every other deck type wants that extra card more than it wants a single irrelevant turn cycle.

I'll put it this way. The basic math of the game tells you that going first is less advantageous than every single one of the lands in your deck coming into play untapped. And if you're familiar with that math, you'd also know the extremely tiny fractions of a percentage point we're talking about comparing the perfect manabase to just tossing in guildgates and other tapped duals and calling it good.

Once again lol wut? Look up any stats on play vs draw win %, watch high level tournament play to see if they pick play or draw, forsaken crossroads the card even tries to level the playing field by giving the draw player an advantage.

[DontMisunderstand]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Debby:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von DontMisunderstand:

To be fair, I guess that's only 100% true if you don't play aggro decks. Aggro decks want to go first. Hardcore stax decks may also want to go first to get their taxes in before the opponent plays their cards, but the basic math of the game still leans in favor of going second. Literally every other deck type wants that extra card more than it wants a single irrelevant turn cycle.

I'll put it this way. The basic math of the game tells you that going first is less advantageous than every single one of the lands in your deck coming into play untapped. And if you're familiar with that math, you'd also know the extremely tiny fractions of a percentage point we're talking about comparing the perfect manabase to just tossing in guildgates and other tapped duals and calling it good.

Once again lol wut? Look up any stats on play vs draw win %, watch high level tournament play to see if they pick play or draw, forsaken crossroads the card even tries to level the playing field by giving the draw player an advantage.

I see, another delusional fool who believes tournament play must inherently equate to optimal deckbuilding and piloting. Surely you've noticed in your time on this earth that human beings are neither infallible nor omniscient? That human beings can, and often are wrong, ignorant, or both?

There are also flaws in your assertion of fact... namely that the stats you're referencing are at best inconsistent. Sources can't even agree on the advantage given from going first, some make wild assertions of a +30% win rate, some merely suggest 53% chance to win when going first, all other things equal. There's also the fact that, among top level pro players, win rates are only about 65-70% in the first place, which is already at the border of statistical probability of a randomized 60 card deck. If going first were all that impactful, pure random chance would push win rates below that with literal perfect play and perfect construction. On the other end, that 53% number is pretty firmly in the category we'd call "not statistically significant".

If you're going to try and assert a fact, it should be backed up by logic first, and evidence only after having been thoroughly analyzed, and with an emphasis on avoiding cherrypicking. There's a reason hypothesis comes before experimentation when applying the scientific method.

[GoddessofEternity]

conspiracyyyyy oooh

[Nubbles]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von DontMisunderstand:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Debby:

Once again lol wut? Look up any stats on play vs draw win %, watch high level tournament play to see if they pick play or draw, forsaken crossroads the card even tries to level the playing field by giving the draw player an advantage.

I see, another delusional fool who believes tournament play must inherently equate to optimal deckbuilding and piloting. Surely you've noticed in your time on this earth that human beings are neither infallible nor omniscient? That human beings can, and often are wrong, ignorant, or both?

There are also flaws in your assertion of fact... namely that the stats you're referencing are at best inconsistent. Sources can't even agree on the advantage given from going first, some make wild assertions of a +30% win rate, some merely suggest 53% chance to win when going first, all other things equal. There's also the fact that, among top level pro players, win rates are only about 65-70% in the first place, which is already at the border of statistical probability of a randomized 60 card deck. If going first were all that impactful, pure random chance would push win rates below that with literal perfect play and perfect construction. On the other end, that 53% number is pretty firmly in the category we'd call "not statistically significant".

If you're going to try and assert a fact, it should be backed up by logic first, and evidence only after having been thoroughly analyzed, and with an emphasis on avoiding cherrypicking. There's a reason hypothesis comes before experimentation when applying the scientific method.

k.

[StuffedPlatypusLuvsOrigamiRabbit]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von DontMisunderstand:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Debby:

Once again lol wut? Look up any stats on play vs draw win %, watch high level tournament play to see if they pick play or draw, forsaken crossroads the card even tries to level the playing field by giving the draw player an advantage.

I see, another delusional fool who believes tournament play must inherently equate to optimal deckbuilding and piloting. Surely you've noticed in your time on this earth that human beings are neither infallible nor omniscient? That human beings can, and often are wrong, ignorant, or both?

There are also flaws in your assertion of fact... namely that the stats you're referencing are at best inconsistent. Sources can't even agree on the advantage given from going first, some make wild assertions of a +30% win rate, some merely suggest 53% chance to win when going first, all other things equal. There's also the fact that, among top level pro players, win rates are only about 65-70% in the first place, which is already at the border of statistical probability of a randomized 60 card deck. If going first were all that impactful, pure random chance would push win rates below that with literal perfect play and perfect construction. On the other end, that 53% number is pretty firmly in the category we'd call "not statistically significant".

If you're going to try and assert a fact, it should be backed up by logic first, and evidence only after having been thoroughly analyzed, and with an emphasis on avoiding cherrypicking. There's a reason hypothesis comes before experimentation when applying the scientific method.

Imagine getting big mad over being proven wrong. All data shows that that on the play has a 50%+ win rate. People that play at the top level with money on the line choose to be on the play more often than not. Wizards test out a card in Alchemy to try to level the on the play advantage, but DontMisunderstand did the math everyone .

"That human beings can, and often are wrong, ignorant, or both?"
^^^ Dis u?

[Soji]

Every turn based pvp game ever acknowledges going first has an advantage, from mtg, to chess to advance wars. If it didn't, MTG wouldn't say the one who goes first can't draw on their first turn or games like Hearthstone adding The Coin as a way to combat the mana advantage going first has. Even games like DnD wouldn't bother with items that increase initiative rolls and wouldn't be made if people didn't know acting before someone else wasn't very strong.

[JusticeJudge]

Going first like 99% of the time is better especially when you have 2 mana counter spells which hit everything in the format or playing a 1 drop then just nuke the opponents turn 2 creature with removal etc, gives you massive tempo swing.

[Jamjars]

The second player needs something a little more to balance out going second. What about giving them a bit more life?

Ursprünglich geschrieben von magnumaniac:

Actually it is an incontrovertible statistical fact that exactly 50% of the time someone goes first, and exactly 50% of the time someone goes second.

You will have streaks of being on the play or on the draw - but because it is negatively impacting, our brains are conditioned to notice the bad streaks more.

It is literally impossible for that starting ratio to be true for 50% of the mtg playing population. Are you smart enough to figure out why?

[DontMisunderstand]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Jamjars:

The second player needs something a little more to balance out going second. What about giving them a bit more life?

Ursprünglich geschrieben von magnumaniac:

Actually it is an incontrovertible statistical fact that exactly 50% of the time someone goes first, and exactly 50% of the time someone goes second.

You will have streaks of being on the play or on the draw - but because it is negatively impacting, our brains are conditioned to notice the bad streaks more.

It is literally impossible for that starting ratio to be true for 50% of the mtg playing population. Are you smart enough to figure out why?

Not to overstate the obvious, but they were making a joke out of the fact that it's literally impossible for a game with two players where every single match has one go first and one go second to have an unequal number go first and second.

[StuffedPlatypusLuvsOrigamiRabbit]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Jamjars:

The second player needs something a little more to balance out going second. What about giving them a bit more life?

Ursprünglich geschrieben von magnumaniac:

Actually it is an incontrovertible statistical fact that exactly 50% of the time someone goes first, and exactly 50% of the time someone goes second.

You will have streaks of being on the play or on the draw - but because it is negatively impacting, our brains are conditioned to notice the bad streaks more.

It is literally impossible for that starting ratio to be true for 50% of the mtg playing population. Are you smart enough to figure out why?

Because WotC uses super powered AI bots to pretend to be people in order to force me the best player that ever lived into a 50% win rate in turn making me buy gems. The fact that the AI has learned to rope really is one of the of all times.

[Explorer]

The most difficult part of Magic, is creating a deck with an efficient mana curve, provided you have the most efficient cards in your deck...

In the end it really doesn't matter who goes first, but what cards you draw each turn
I played Magic with real cards, and trust me, luck hits you worse than the digital game ;)

[Brasileiro]

I don't blame the game for card drawing, not at all. Actually I bet having one free mulligan per game would recuce theirs servers a lot and make a lot more joyable for us.

But is quite curious that you never-ever play 1st in two matches in a row.
You play some 50 matches and it won't cut you some slack.

Now, regarding deck building, yes, it depends on strategies, I believe I can do that.
My point about that is another role: how stupidly strong cards are once noticing their costs.
Having cards costing 6 mana or higher is quite brave decision.
On 6th round is game 90% done.
But that's another matter, another thread.

[Sonic Mirage 🎸]

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/confirmation-bias

[Connie]

This thread was quite old before the recent post, so we're locking it to prevent confusion.