The reason I picked this video to show off here is because the next theory video I'm planning will be about lands, and while that's not the same as mana curve, I'll be talking a lot about curve and other related concepts. Stay tuned! 😁
I came to the conclusion that card access is more important. because if you theoretically have your entire deck in your hand from turn one, you have a land drop every turn. card access is also mana access
I really like that. Card access can go a long way to resolving anything the deck might be lacking. Card access promotes *smoother* mana access, not to mention removal options, etc. But on the other hand, having a lot of cards without the mana to play them makes that card access a lot less efficient (if I draw 5 cards, how likely is it that I play all 5 cards?). And relying on card access to solve mana problems can cause you to draw too many lands- the only hand you really want 3-4 lands in is your opener. Any hand beyond that, those lands are dead cards that turn. ...Not to mention that if you theoretically have your entire deck in your hand Turn 1, you lose on turn 2.
I generaly agree with this, as long as you mulligan well at the start of the game. But there are times when I have all the ramp in my deck and card draw lets me get to it. I agree that ramp is generaly more important but the fact that you can draw into more ramp might play with the math in some weird ways. Great video tho
I agree with @@JetNAmplifyand @raustzeal4212. Of course you need both for your deck to work and you need ramp to play your cards. its never all or nothing, but lots of card draw gives you the opportunity to put less Ramp into your deck. for example if you want ramp on your start hand you might want to put 15+ ramp cards into your deck to be able to play a ramp card on turn 1-3 but if you put a decent amount of burst card draw or selection cards into your deck you can affort to drop your ramp cards down to 10nish. @aegisgamingofficial2178 I love the statistics and fooder for discussion you put out there and you really have a point but as a non cedh player i would go on a ration of Draw/Ramp to 15/10 as a minimum when im building my deck. Also: a bad Draw spell is always better than a bad ramp spell mid to late game and in non cedh it matters more.
We have 5 cards, 2 of which are land. After scrying 1 land to the bottom making its position known, what is the probability the top unknown card is a land? Next we fetch a land from 5 cards 2 of which are land. After shuffling what is the probability my top card is land?
In the first scenario, the chance of a land being on top is 1/4. - 6 ways where the top card is land #2 (one for each of the 6=3! ways to rearrange the three nonlands underneath, given that land #1 was moved to the bottom). - 6 ways where the top card is land #1 (likewise, one for each way to arrange the three nonlands underneath it, given that land #2 was moved to the bottom) - 6 ways where nonland #1 is ontop (with land #1 on bottom) - 6 ways where nonland #2 is ontop (with land #1 on bottom) - 6 ways where nonland #3 is ontop (with land #1 on bottom) - 6 ways where nonland #1 is ontop (with land #2 on bottom) - 6 ways where nonland #2 is ontop (with land #2 on bottom) - 6 ways where nonland #3 is ontop (with land #2 on bottom) = 12/48 = 1/4 ways to find a land on top. In the second scenario, the chance that the top card is a land is 1/4. Now we've seen scenarios where thinning is better than scrying, and scenarios where thinning is equal to scrying. What would have to be true for scrying to be better than thinning?
@@aegisgamingofficial2178To answer your question at the end, scrying is better than thinning when you still want a specific resource to stay within your library. For example, with a Jalira or Illuna polymorph deck, you would rather put a polymorph jackpot on the bottom rather than exiled from the deck. If you've been scrying alot, you almost actively don't want to shuffle your deck. It becomes more apparent in other tcgs that have you utilizing the entirety of your deck, like slower matchups in Flesh and Blood. Scrying vs Thinning is a bit inherently loaded, since there's extra baggage/benefit built into their mechanics. If I could kick sadistic sacrament on myself, I certainly would, but how much of a mana cost is worth it? Would it be worth the card even if it was free?
Oh wow, there's a lot to dig into. - A lot of the methods are *great.* I'll be making some similar assumptions in a future video to talk about lands, where I'll be explaining *why* the model found a lot of what it found (such as why the model runs 0 spells with the same mana value as the commander, which I've spoken about before, or why the model started playing more early drops, no card draw, etc.). I think there's a lot of value in simulation, but personally, I want to understand *why* the answer was what it was rather than just saying "it's what the computer came up with." That's not a knock against simulation as a valid method of research- it's just not the final answer. Simulation is best used as a treasure map to tell you where to look for insight, rather than the actual insight. - That said, the limits of simulation are to be expected. Magic is complicated, and no matter how it's done, there will be limits to what you can find. - *If I have a problem,* it'd be with using only Game Knights as a basis to inform some of those decisions, and the assumption about how removal operates. A 1-cost Swords to Plowshares doesn't provide only 1 mana worth of value, nor does a 4-cost Wrath of God, and Negate usually counters more than 2 mana worth of spell. Removal usually *overperforms* on value/mana, and that assumption influences some other conclusions the simulation came to, like not running card draw and merely concluding that the game "ended" on turn 7. In reality, commander games are a lot more interactive, and oftentimes it's the extra card draw that draws you the game-saving removal spell. - Even acknowledging that there are limits to what you can simulate, many commanders encourage you to run specific mana values that skew one direction or another, and it's not always advisable to play a 4 mana commander on turn 4; some commanders require more setup than can be done in the early turns, and still others are kill-on-sight threats that you would be better off waiting until you have protection to play. Add to that the fact that recasting your commander makes it occupy *more than one* slot in your mana curve, plus all the ways to cast a spell for free, or use a spell in more than one way (Adventure, Flashback, Mutate, Cycling, etc.). I don't know how useful the mana curve findings are. - I've said it in a previous comment, and I'll say it again in that lands video: the only hand you want to find 3-5 lands in is the opening hand. Any hand after that, having more lands beyond the first you're playing that turn is a dead card. The consequence is that players are best served looking for the *minimum* number of lands to run that will make their deck perform the way it wants to, and I think for most decks, the answer is going to be substantially less than 40. I'm not sure how useful that information is (doesn't mean it's not useful, only that I'm uncertain how useful it is).
Until the next time you shuffle, scrying to the bottom is the same as drawing a card (they're both "draws without replacement"). Meanwhile fetching a land is a non-random action that gives us exactly the thing we don't want. Are you really saying you'd rather exile a land from your library & shuffle on your upkeep on turn 10 than scry 1? Thinning is negligible, but scry is a second chance at not drawing a land. I'm not sure why you're convinced Monty Hall has anything to do with this, either. I'm pretty sure it's irreplicable in Magic. You're vague when constructing the analogy
Regarding resources and deck building, a dive into mana curve would be an awesome video.
The reason I picked this video to show off here is because the next theory video I'm planning will be about lands, and while that's not the same as mana curve, I'll be talking a lot about curve and other related concepts. Stay tuned! 😁
I came to the conclusion that card access is more important. because if you theoretically have your entire deck in your hand from turn one, you have a land drop every turn. card access is also mana access
I really like that. Card access can go a long way to resolving anything the deck might be lacking. Card access promotes *smoother* mana access, not to mention removal options, etc.
But on the other hand, having a lot of cards without the mana to play them makes that card access a lot less efficient (if I draw 5 cards, how likely is it that I play all 5 cards?). And relying on card access to solve mana problems can cause you to draw too many lands- the only hand you really want 3-4 lands in is your opener. Any hand beyond that, those lands are dead cards that turn.
...Not to mention that if you theoretically have your entire deck in your hand Turn 1, you lose on turn 2.
I generaly agree with this, as long as you mulligan well at the start of the game.
But there are times when I have all the ramp in my deck and card draw lets me get to it. I agree that ramp is generaly more important but the fact that you can draw into more ramp might play with the math in some weird ways.
Great video tho
I agree with @@JetNAmplifyand @raustzeal4212. Of course you need both for your deck to work and you need ramp to play your cards. its never all or nothing, but lots of card draw gives you the opportunity to put less Ramp into your deck. for example if you want ramp on your start hand you might want to put 15+ ramp cards into your deck to be able to play a ramp card on turn 1-3 but if you put a decent amount of burst card draw or selection cards into your deck you can affort to drop your ramp cards down to 10nish.
@aegisgamingofficial2178 I love the statistics and fooder for discussion you put out there and you really have a point but as a non cedh player i would go on a ration of Draw/Ramp to 15/10 as a minimum when im building my deck. Also: a bad Draw spell is always better than a bad ramp spell mid to late game and in non cedh it matters more.
We have 5 cards, 2 of which are land. After scrying 1 land to the bottom making its position known, what is the probability the top unknown card is a land?
Next we fetch a land from 5 cards 2 of which are land. After shuffling what is the probability my top card is land?
In the first scenario, the chance of a land being on top is 1/4.
- 6 ways where the top card is land #2 (one for each of the 6=3! ways to rearrange the three nonlands underneath, given that land #1 was moved to the bottom).
- 6 ways where the top card is land #1 (likewise, one for each way to arrange the three nonlands underneath it, given that land #2 was moved to the bottom)
- 6 ways where nonland #1 is ontop (with land #1 on bottom)
- 6 ways where nonland #2 is ontop (with land #1 on bottom)
- 6 ways where nonland #3 is ontop (with land #1 on bottom)
- 6 ways where nonland #1 is ontop (with land #2 on bottom)
- 6 ways where nonland #2 is ontop (with land #2 on bottom)
- 6 ways where nonland #3 is ontop (with land #2 on bottom)
= 12/48 = 1/4 ways to find a land on top.
In the second scenario, the chance that the top card is a land is 1/4.
Now we've seen scenarios where thinning is better than scrying, and scenarios where thinning is equal to scrying. What would have to be true for scrying to be better than thinning?
@@aegisgamingofficial2178To answer your question at the end, scrying is better than thinning when you still want a specific resource to stay within your library. For example, with a Jalira or Illuna polymorph deck, you would rather put a polymorph jackpot on the bottom rather than exiled from the deck. If you've been scrying alot, you almost actively don't want to shuffle your deck. It becomes more apparent in other tcgs that have you utilizing the entirety of your deck, like slower matchups in Flesh and Blood.
Scrying vs Thinning is a bit inherently loaded, since there's extra baggage/benefit built into their mechanics. If I could kick sadistic sacrament on myself, I certainly would, but how much of a mana cost is worth it? Would it be worth the card even if it was free?
Whats your opinion on the article "What's an Optimal Mana Curve and Land/Ramp Count for Commander?" from Frank Karsten?
Oh wow, there's a lot to dig into.
- A lot of the methods are *great.* I'll be making some similar assumptions in a future video to talk about lands, where I'll be explaining *why* the model found a lot of what it found (such as why the model runs 0 spells with the same mana value as the commander, which I've spoken about before, or why the model started playing more early drops, no card draw, etc.). I think there's a lot of value in simulation, but personally, I want to understand *why* the answer was what it was rather than just saying "it's what the computer came up with." That's not a knock against simulation as a valid method of research- it's just not the final answer. Simulation is best used as a treasure map to tell you where to look for insight, rather than the actual insight.
- That said, the limits of simulation are to be expected. Magic is complicated, and no matter how it's done, there will be limits to what you can find.
- *If I have a problem,* it'd be with using only Game Knights as a basis to inform some of those decisions, and the assumption about how removal operates. A 1-cost Swords to Plowshares doesn't provide only 1 mana worth of value, nor does a 4-cost Wrath of God, and Negate usually counters more than 2 mana worth of spell. Removal usually *overperforms* on value/mana, and that assumption influences some other conclusions the simulation came to, like not running card draw and merely concluding that the game "ended" on turn 7. In reality, commander games are a lot more interactive, and oftentimes it's the extra card draw that draws you the game-saving removal spell.
- Even acknowledging that there are limits to what you can simulate, many commanders encourage you to run specific mana values that skew one direction or another, and it's not always advisable to play a 4 mana commander on turn 4; some commanders require more setup than can be done in the early turns, and still others are kill-on-sight threats that you would be better off waiting until you have protection to play. Add to that the fact that recasting your commander makes it occupy *more than one* slot in your mana curve, plus all the ways to cast a spell for free, or use a spell in more than one way (Adventure, Flashback, Mutate, Cycling, etc.). I don't know how useful the mana curve findings are.
- I've said it in a previous comment, and I'll say it again in that lands video: the only hand you want to find 3-5 lands in is the opening hand. Any hand after that, having more lands beyond the first you're playing that turn is a dead card. The consequence is that players are best served looking for the *minimum* number of lands to run that will make their deck perform the way it wants to, and I think for most decks, the answer is going to be substantially less than 40. I'm not sure how useful that information is (doesn't mean it's not useful, only that I'm uncertain how useful it is).
Do I need to be a patron to ask for a specific deck build request?
Nope! Anyone can ask, I just keep a separate list for patrons and make sure theirs get done first. Other decks I brew when I have time to spare.
Until the next time you shuffle, scrying to the bottom is the same as drawing a card (they're both "draws without replacement"). Meanwhile fetching a land is a non-random action that gives us exactly the thing we don't want. Are you really saying you'd rather exile a land from your library & shuffle on your upkeep on turn 10 than scry 1? Thinning is negligible, but scry is a second chance at not drawing a land.
I'm not sure why you're convinced Monty Hall has anything to do with this, either. I'm pretty sure it's irreplicable in Magic. You're vague when constructing the analogy