To loot or not ?

[Grillo_Parlante]

We are just as likely to set up that critical mass by eot looting, and gain more chance of pulling way ahead. What card are you seriously concerned about milling? Hill giant? You've got basically just as much chance to gain our critical mass on our turn?

The only cards I actively don't want to draw are lands. The only remaining "bomb" left to draw is CM (maybe air elemental). There is probably going to be a fair amount of magic left to play, the rest of the game will probably be attritiony, and I'm going to win by assembling a critical mass of bad cards.

Why would I switch from my card quality/critical mass strategy to a self-mill/dig strategy?

The truth of course, is that neither choice probably is going to materially impact the game, but its interesting to hear the different way people issue spot and issue frame the situation. This seems less of a probability question to me, and more of a strategy question.

 

[sigh]

The only bomb left in the deck is in lootings favor. If our cards are all bad and flat power level, might as well dig for that bomb.

Also ow do we know we weren't on the dig plan before? Maybe we JUST successfully dug out the Blast?

Especially when your supposition that digging harms our sifting plan seems baseless. That's the whole thing about relatively flat power level, self milling is a non-issue unless you reach your bomb, then it's a win.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

The only bomb left in the deck is in lootings favor. If our cards are all bad and flat power level, might as well dig for that bomb.

Also ow do we know we weren't on the dig plan before? Maybe we JUST successfully dug out the Blast?

Especially when your supposition that digging harms our sifting plan seems baseless. That's the whole thing about relatively flat power level, self milling is a non-issue unless you reach your bomb, then it's a win.

We kind of have to except that neither choice is likely to be material. Is milling a turn likely to impact the game? Most likely not, but it seems like a distraction, and could potential get in the way of a sifting plan than generally seems stronger to me.

Self milling in this instance seems like an issue to me if you hit anything but a land, and only gets worse if you hit either of the one or two remaining bombs, but thats an interesting point about digging for those couple bombs.

How high should we be valuing cm or air elemental in an environment like this? If they seem essential to winning, than maybe digging is better.

 

[James Stevenson]

I feel like somebody should run the numbers and put this issue to rest.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I feel like somebody should run the numbers and put this issue to rest.

I am quite amazed that this has sparked such a discussion. On second thought looting is probably right. There's only three cards I would hate to draw right now (Control Magic and Sift), so there's 23/26 chance that I'll draw closer to one of those three cards and still get to keep the removal spell for the Serra Angel.

 

[sigh]

On why to loot, someone on the comments of the WTP put it very poignantly:
"Your hand quality either stays the same or goes up"

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

On why to loot, someone on the comments of the WTP put it very poignantly:
"Your hand quality either stays the same or goes up"

Thats not actually true here though, because you need multiple cards to win, not one. At a micro level I could see looting, on the basis that you're unlikely to mill one of the few cards you want to hit, but on a macro level its more complicated. The whole idea of being behind on draws only works if you have a specific draw you are digging towards, and there just isn't one here: you're going to win off of critical mass, not individual card power.

I can't help but feel there is an element of appeal to authority at work in the decision to loot: after all, who wants to take a position opposite one of magic's most popular personalities. Level 0 analysis though should be what our macro strategy is to win the game, and I feel like the EOT loot stats argument skips that portion of the discussion. Strategy should dictate our tactics, not the other way around.

But I realize the forum has ruled in favor of LSV, so I will let it go if we are so inclined.

 

[sigh]

The power level of CM is far, far above the rest of your deck. Why would you not dig down for it, give you a win con rather than just kill the angel and have to work up from there?

It is that simple. You can actively increase your hands power level. Go for it.

I flushed this all out on my own last night, independent of the "pros" we are supposedly appealing to. There's lots of tiny tiny reasons. The difference between being good and really good is the tiny tiny things.

And we still don't actually know what the decks strategy is. Digging for bombs could be the decks strategy, with a generally low power level. You have 6 tapped lands from something that's now dead, gone, or used up.

Also also we have a chance to win with one card. One. Lets increase our chance by 4%.

Obviously we don't agree.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Sure, but you have to set a strategy, and its where the argument that it would be greedy comes from: the odds of hitting cm are very low, you probably don't need it to win, and you're risking milling a spell.

I can at least respect that argument though, as it provides something tangible to compare. The mill sequences that are out right bad become a lot clearer, as do the unfavorable ones, and more tollerable ones.

One thing I haven't seen brought up too much, is whether you self mill out of fear of cm becoming a dead card if you fail to draw it that turn.

 

[sigh]

I've thought of that too. If serra angel is the most powerful spell in their deck(I mean, look at our deck), CM is only going to get worse.

I still fail to see where the "fear of milling a spell" is coming from. Your deck is randomized and rather flat power level (except CM). On top deck mode the opponent "fears drawing a land". There's a 40% chance their deck basically gives you the thumbs up to win if they stumble on that draw.

To get technical, your spell density goes down ~1.5% if you mill a spell, but your chance of clinching a major bomb goes up 4%. I could definitely see where it'd be hard to translate that slim difference into game play decisions, but it's still there.

Another little thing me and my top drafter brainstormed last night (he agrees with me, and only saw the scenario on a phone screen, didn't look at responses, etc) is that we are playing against a deck that plays white. What does white get/do in general because they don't get card draw? Better individual cards. We may in fact need this Serra Angel to not lose later to other, lesser white creatures that are still better than phantom warrior.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Is a ~1.5% reduction in top decks you need to win a game an acceptable risk for a 4% greater chance at drawing a card you shouldn't need to win the game, but would probably close it out if you find it now.

That seems to me a decent framing of the question.

 

[sigh]

But you don't lose the looter. You still have twice the card quality they do. You don't dunk yourself in the trash over 1.5%, because of looter, but you do dunk them in the trash with CM, or get a lot closer.

And it's still random! What if the N+1 card is the card you needed, but never looted? That chance is the same, but you see one less card w/o looting! (I'm seeing here where this is being talked about)

EDIT: Built up this deck on Tappedout, shuffled my hand back into my deck (no lightning blast in the equation, I'm just assuming it's in hand), and drew three cards to see what the looting would do. I know, statistics and all.... but real life wins (first try perfect example in this case) resonate with me:


EDITEDIT: Three more trials. #Resonate

 

[MCMcEmcee]

Looting is not the "greedy" play. Not looting because you want to keep your good-but-not-best card is the greedy play.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Looting is not the "greedy" play. Not looting because you want to keep your good-but-not-best card is the greedy play.

Its speculative how good CM actually is in this format.

Thank you for that harsh lesson EMA >.>

 

[safra]

Its speculative how good CM actually is in this format.

Thank you for that harsh lesson EMA >.>

Elaborate? It's doom blade and phantasmal image in one card.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Silent departure is a common

 

[sigh]

I'd say that this environment doesn't look to be as powerful as EMA. Also an important part of exercises like these is to keep the context. Not find the context. Keep the context.

We no nothing about the opponent's deck except the Angel. We no nothing about our deck except what we have and see. We aren't supposed to make more context for it, just figure out how it plays in that scenario. There's no format, no opponent's deck, even, just the cards.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Silent departure is a common

But also in your colors. While it's not as good maybe as it used to be, Control Magic's still a first pick, right?

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I'm just joking with you guys: I know the community verdict.

I am sure CM is still a high pick in EMA, but I am sure it is a lower pick than it normally is. There is a greater density of higher power cards than normal, and a very effective foil at common.

 

[Aston]

Surely a higher power level doesn't make Control Magic that much worse, if at all. It's one of those cards that scales with its environment. Eg taking Serra Angel is really good, but taking Visara the Dreadful is insane. I'm guessing also that it's particularly good against the auras deck. I have only done one draft of the format but I would have gladly swapped any card I had for Control Magic.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Against silent departure its 4 mana to bounce a creature and you go down a card; and its in the same format as fact or fiction.

Its still a good card, but not as good as it normally would be, from what I've experienced.

 

[Aston]

Sure, it's not great against Silent Departure but not every player will have that card. I also don't think Fact or Fiction is necessarily that much better, as the format seemed like it could be fairly fast and having something that affects the board in such a huge way as Control Magic is important in those matchups.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Which is fine, but its still not as good as it normally would be, because a tempo blowout exists at common. I don't know how far down I would scale it, but it certainly has to be scaled down somewhat.

My instincts though is that fof would be better? Isn't it pretty close even before silent departure plays? Legit curiosity here: fof is a hell of a card.

 

[Jason Waddell]

I feel like somebody should run the numbers and put this issue to rest.

Doesn't this require knowledge of the opponent's deck?

 

[James Stevenson]

Doesn't this require knowledge of the opponent's deck?

Oh I don't even know any more. I just mean your chances of drawing not-jank under different lines of play, I guess. You don't need to know your opponent's deck to run numbers on your own draws.