The Current State of BO1 Standard

[Shiku]

I've recently switched from BO3 to BO1 and I have to say it's the most unfun experience. Everything is highly polarized.
- Super aggro deck
- A deck specifically catered to counter aggro (mid range)
- Heavy control & grind decks

On one hand, it's nice to have paper-stone-scissors mechanics and that's theoretically how it should be. On the other hand, the way it plays out is latest by round 3 you already know if your deck is going to lose in that match-up and your plays don't matter at that point. Aggro beats slow decks but loses vs mid-range and slow decks win vs mid-range. I do hit Diamond 1/2 every season so I wouldn't say I'm a bad player though I obviously do make mistakes. However, every time I look back at a match and try to think what I could have done better or different and there's nothing that comes to my mind. If a Boros deck is on the play with a good hand, you are 100% toast as a slow deck even if your hand had early plays. Same is true when you play as mid-range into a Azorius/Esper/Dimir and everything gets countered, destroyed and removed from your deck and it's a boring snooze fest of waiting until you lose. Seeing the cards the opponent plays, you know their deck would 100% lose vs aggro but your mid-range has no chance whatsoever.

So in the end, skill and deck building doesn't matter and all it comes down to is numbers game: are you on average matched more often vs decks you're favored against or not.

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by Soji:

Best of 1 is the worst possible way to play this game. Half the complaints people have about MTGA would be alleviated at least noticeably if they just started playing best of 3. No hand smoothing, very little aggro because in a competitive environment it struggles to reach the same numbers as its Bo1 counterparts, actual interactive games where both players are adjusting their decks post side board. People would really love the bo3 experience but they just do not have time for a bo3 apparently.

Best of 3 is mathematically more likely to be decided by non-games as a result of the randomness of card draw than best of 1. There's mathematically LESS skill involved in the outcome for best of 3.

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by Ha 何豪源:

the devs probably like to bully real life focused people with bo1 and no fair adjustment of the starting order that you have to spend a lot of time to get your daily wins.

everyone knows that on the draw is like losing in about 75% of the cases, yet the devs are happy with not implenting a turn-rotated starting order. HOW HARD THIS CAN BE?!

My winrate is higher when I'm on the draw, significantly higher. Overall my winrate is 60-70%, but it's closer to 80% on the draw and closer to 50% on the play. Turns out if you're good at deckbuilding the mathematical advantage of having more cards than the other player outweighs the insignificant difference in mana and tempo. Regardless of whether you're on the draw or on the play, the first player to miss their land drop is behind on mana. Being on the play is a significant disadvantage for a deck that isn't either aggro or tempo.

[Soji]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Originally posted by Soji:

Best of 1 is the worst possible way to play this game. Half the complaints people have about MTGA would be alleviated at least noticeably if they just started playing best of 3. No hand smoothing, very little aggro because in a competitive environment it struggles to reach the same numbers as its Bo1 counterparts, actual interactive games where both players are adjusting their decks post side board. People would really love the bo3 experience but they just do not have time for a bo3 apparently.

Best of 3 is mathematically more likely to be decided by non-games as a result of the randomness of card draw than best of 1. There's mathematically LESS skill involved in the outcome for best of 3.

This isn't the first or even the 2nd time you've replied to me with an actual nonsense post, so I'm going to go ahead and do for you what you said you did to me and block you because getting tagged by your nonsense isn't even funny at this point anymore, just sad.

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by Soji:

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Best of 3 is mathematically more likely to be decided by non-games as a result of the randomness of card draw than best of 1. There's mathematically LESS skill involved in the outcome for best of 3.

This isn't the first or even the 2nd time you've replied to me with an actual nonsense post, so I'm going to go ahead and do for you what you said you did to me and block you because getting tagged by your nonsense isn't even funny at this point anymore, just sad.

You're calling axiomatically true mathematical statements "nonsense". If there is a non-zero chance for a non-game to occur due to the randomness of card draw, then it must NECESSARILY be true that there is a HIGHER chance of the results of a best of 3 to be decided by those non-games.

[Kurt Angle's Neck]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Best of 3 is mathematically more likely to be decided by non-games as a result of the randomness of card draw than best of 1. There's mathematically LESS skill involved in the outcome for best of 3.

This is not computing for me, do you mind breaking this down a little further?
From my view, every game should have the same statistical chance of becoming a non-game (assuming the same decks are being played). None of the games in a Bo3 are affected by the previous game (except for sideboard swaps, which won't affect land ratio), so they shouldn't have any more or less chance of becoming a non-game.

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by Kurt Angle's Neck:

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Best of 3 is mathematically more likely to be decided by non-games as a result of the randomness of card draw than best of 1. There's mathematically LESS skill involved in the outcome for best of 3.

This is not computing for me, do you mind breaking this down a little further?
From my view, every game should have the same statistical chance of becoming a non-game (assuming the same decks are being played). None of the games in a Bo3 are affected by the previous game (except for sideboard swaps, which won't affect land ratio), so they shouldn't have any more or less chance of becoming a non-game.

Individually, yes. But the result of a best of 3 is dependent on all 3 individual games together. We can broadly consider 3 possibilities in each game of the match. Fair game, non-game that results in player 1's win, and non-game that results in player 2's win. Regardless of what the particular odds of a non-game happening are, those non-games should have an equal likelihood for each player to gain an advantage from it. In a best of 1, it's either a fair game or a non-game, but for best of 3 to be determined by skill in the same manner you need either all 3 games to be fair, or exactly 1 fair game and two non-games that result in opposite players winning. In addition to those, you could add the scenarios in which the first two games are fair games even if the third is unfair, but only if the same player won the first two games, though adding those distorts the math a bit, due to the incalculable nature of the games being decided by player skill. No matter what the specific percentage of games you believe will be non-games, it's necessarily true that this percentage will be higher for the overall results of a best of 3. I ran through the math on the example of 50% of games being non-games in a different thread, and if I remember correctly best of 3 comes out to something like 68% of those matches being unfairly skewed by those non-games. Though the specific numbers there are just an estimate according to memory, I'd have to re-run the numbers all over again to be more accurate.

[The_Dybbuk_King]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Originally posted by Kurt Angle's Neck:

This is not computing for me, do you mind breaking this down a little further?
From my view, every game should have the same statistical chance of becoming a non-game (assuming the same decks are being played). None of the games in a Bo3 are affected by the previous game (except for sideboard swaps, which won't affect land ratio), so they shouldn't have any more or less chance of becoming a non-game.

Individually, yes. But the result of a best of 3 is dependent on all 3 individual games together. We can broadly consider 3 possibilities in each game of the match. Fair game, non-game that results in player 1's win, and non-game that results in player 2's win. Regardless of what the particular odds of a non-game happening are, those non-games should have an equal likelihood for each player to gain an advantage from it. In a best of 1, it's either a fair game or a non-game, but for best of 3 to be determined by skill in the same manner you need either all 3 games to be fair, or exactly 1 fair game and two non-games that result in opposite players winning. In addition to those, you could add the scenarios in which the first two games are fair games even if the third is unfair, but only if the same player won the first two games, though adding those distorts the math a bit, due to the incalculable nature of the games being decided by player skill. No matter what the specific percentage of games you believe will be non-games, it's necessarily true that this percentage will be higher for the overall results of a best of 3. I ran through the math on the example of 50% of games being non-games in a different thread, and if I remember correctly best of 3 comes out to something like 68% of those matches being unfairly skewed by those non-games. Though the specific numbers there are just an estimate according to memory, I'd have to re-run the numbers all over again to be more accurate.

Lmfao this is the type of nonsense that keeps bringing me back. This is HILARIOUS. You really need to learn how to build and use a sideboard properly. Made up stats and feelings based statements mean nothing.

Originally posted by Soji:

Best of 1 is the worst possible way to play this game. Half the complaints people have about MTGA would be alleviated at least noticeably if they just started playing best of 3. No hand smoothing, very little aggro because in a competitive environment it struggles to reach the same numbers as its Bo1 counterparts, actual interactive games where both players are adjusting their decks post side board. People would really love the bo3 experience but they just do not have time for a bo3 apparently.

This is assuming these players learn how to sideboard, which, considering they can't even put a proper 60 together, is a very hard ask.

[Soji]

Originally posted by The_Dybbuk_King:

Originally posted by Soji:

Best of 1 is the worst possible way to play this game. Half the complaints people have about MTGA would be alleviated at least noticeably if they just started playing best of 3. No hand smoothing, very little aggro because in a competitive environment it struggles to reach the same numbers as its Bo1 counterparts, actual interactive games where both players are adjusting their decks post side board. People would really love the bo3 experience but they just do not have time for a bo3 apparently.

This is assuming these players learn how to sideboard, which, considering they can't even put a proper 60 together, is a very hard ask.

They should try it, they can even put their nonmeta cards in the side deck to show everyone just how smart they really hard. They're honestly sparing us from their immeasurable genius

[The_Dybbuk_King]

Originally posted by Soji:

Originally posted by The_Dybbuk_King:

This is assuming these players learn how to sideboard, which, considering they can't even put a proper 60 together, is a very hard ask.

They should try it, they can even put their nonmeta cards in the side deck to show everyone just how smart they really hard. They're honestly sparing us from their immeasurable genius

I 150% agree, they should absolutely try Bo3. Non-meta sideboard cards are actually really good (sometimes). They might actually improve at the game.

[Winter Wolf]

I mean I played tournament magic for years and sideboarding was never easy for me. I think it is a lost art now.

[The_Dybbuk_King]

Originally posted by Winter Wolf:

I mean I played tournament magic for years and sideboarding was never easy for me. I think it is a lost art now.

As a tournament player myself, sideboarding is not easy, and that is kind of the point I am making. It forces you to look at more aspects of the game.

Just building a sideboard is an exercise in metagame understanding, while boarding midmatch is a test of your ability to understand and adapt to your opponent under pressure. It will 100% make you a better player.

[Shiku]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

My winrate is higher when I'm on the draw, significantly higher. Overall my winrate is 60-70%, but it's closer to 80% on the draw and closer to 50% on the play. Turns out if you're good at deckbuilding the mathematical advantage of having more cards than the other player outweighs the insignificant difference in mana and tempo. Regardless of whether you're on the draw or on the play, the first player to miss their land drop is behind on mana. Being on the play is a significant disadvantage for a deck that isn't either aggro or tempo.

I'm not sure what decks you run into or what you play but 60-70% on the draw sounds odd. Any aggro deck has a huge advantage on the play and you're always playing catch-up. Lands only matter in a match-up with two slow decks. Boros and mono red only need 2-3 lands to kill you turn 3/4 if not stopped.

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by Xenagos:

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

My winrate is higher when I'm on the draw, significantly higher. Overall my winrate is 60-70%, but it's closer to 80% on the draw and closer to 50% on the play. Turns out if you're good at deckbuilding the mathematical advantage of having more cards than the other player outweighs the insignificant difference in mana and tempo. Regardless of whether you're on the draw or on the play, the first player to miss their land drop is behind on mana. Being on the play is a significant disadvantage for a deck that isn't either aggro or tempo.

I'm not sure what decks you run into or what you play but 60-70% on the draw sounds odd. Any aggro deck has a huge advantage on the play and you're always playing catch-up. Lands only matter in a match-up with two slow decks. Boros and mono red only need 2-3 lands to kill you turn 3/4 if not stopped.

Aggro decks don't have the longevity to win out if you do survive those first few turns. Make them gas out faster or just outlast the initial assault and they struggle a lot to stay in the fight. Something like Boros Convoke can be pretty scary if you don't have the right opening hand to stop them, but they also won't open the perfect hand reliably anyway. Currently I have 3 decks... a dimir discard can make an aggro deck entirely gas out on turn 2-3, my abzan taxation deck has a life gain subtheme so aggro really needs to get lucky to win, and my superfriends deck uses the gates package, which has a 3 mana boardwipe, gigantic efficient creatures to block with, and has access to some of the most consistent ramping in the game.

A fast deck vs a slower deck tends to be a blowout, but that doesn't mean the fast deck comes out on top. If gameplay occurs, the aggro deck loses. That's why I don't like aggro decks in general.

[Tom the Mime Artist]

Originally posted by The_Dybbuk_King:

Originally posted by Soji:

They should try it, they can even put their nonmeta cards in the side deck to show everyone just how smart they really hard. They're honestly sparing us from their immeasurable genius

I 150% agree, they should absolutely try Bo3. Non-meta sideboard cards are actually really good (sometimes). They might actually improve at the game.

One of the better examples I've seen of this on arena is sleep-cursed fairy in izzet wizards in historic. Looks at odds with the aggro gameplan but is actually pretty good in the mirror, just as a wizard that it's hard for them to remove, turning on flames of anor and wizard lightning. Clone crafter fills a similar role in the sideboard and isn't something you'd expect at first glance (can also be nice against azorius control given often the only creature they play is snapcaster).

The sideboard is great in that it's where the niche solutions for certain matchups live. I remember seeing a video about words of worship against psychoatog where it goes from "why are you playing that godawful card?" to "Wait, I can't actually deal enough damage anymore and you can't even deck out".

[The_Dybbuk_King]

Originally posted by Tom the Mime Artist:

Originally posted by The_Dybbuk_King:

I 150% agree, they should absolutely try Bo3. Non-meta sideboard cards are actually really good (sometimes). They might actually improve at the game.

One of the better examples I've seen of this on arena is sleep-cursed fairy in izzet wizards in historic. Looks at odds with the aggro gameplan but is actually pretty good in the mirror, just as a wizard that it's hard for them to remove, turning on flames of anor and wizard lightning. Clone crafter fills a similar role in the sideboard and isn't something you'd expect at first glance (can also be nice against azorius control given often the only creature they play is snapcaster).

The sideboard is great in that it's where the niche solutions for certain matchups live. I remember seeing a video about words of worship against psychoatog where it goes from "why are you playing that godawful card?" to "Wait, I can't actually deal enough damage anymore and you can't even deck out".

EXACTLY. Poopy cards can find actual uses in sideboards.

There was a short amount of time I ran Calamity's Wake in my side in standard. All around a pretty middling card, but casting it on your own upkeep to ensure a wincon during main phase (or to bait out that pesky counter they're holding) was funny af. Not to mention, it obliterated Atraxa reanimator decks entirely.

If you are a true Chad though, you hard call a control player's turn with it at the end of your opponent's draw step and get a 2 mana Time Walk in white.