Oh man… I suspected I might have got it wrong, but not quite as wrong as it turned out. I thought Montreal might have been rough on the Red deck, but not quite the bloodbath it turned out to be.
During the second round I walked up the tables. You could see the gradation between the number of Mountains becoming less and the number of Tarmogoyfs increasing as I walked from the lower tables to the top tables.
It was like watching a slow motion car crash and being powerless to do anything about it.
My deck list was already in, and I had just two more rounds to go before the oncoming train hit me…
Today’s article is going to be a little on the bitsy side. This is sort of forced, as I’m currently halfway through my North American Magic adventure, which I’ll be talking about later. Pro Tour: San Diego has been and gone. I imagine I banked my two Pro Points and then spent the rest of the weekend doing things in Tijuana that can’t really be mentioned on a family-friendly website such as this. I guess, anyway, as this is all still some time in the future for me. I’m currently writing this on the 14th floor of a Quality Inn in Montreal. Who knows, strange things might have happened, like making Day 2 at a Limited team event… or even actually being well-behaved for a change.
But more on this later…
My article on IDs and concessions generated quite a bit of activity in the forums. This surprised me, as I wasn’t really sure there would be that much interest. This seems quite an emotive subject for some people. There are some things I’d like to clarify.
First off, I wanted to avoid the ethics of IDs and concessions and just try and explain why they occur.
For the record I don’t think IDs and concessions are particularly good for the game, but they are currently legitimate options and as a (reasonably) serious tournament player I would be disadvantaging myself if I didn’t use all the tools available to me.
In theory you could ban both IDs and concessions, but I don’t think this would work, as it’s too easy to play to obtain the desired result (by deliberately playing slowly or badly). It would put judges in a horrible position of having to make judgement calls on whether a match is being played legitimately or not. It would also put honest players in a horrible position of knowing that they are worsening their tournament chances by playing straight while "everyone else is doing it."
As a weird little digression, it’s a frighteningly small step to take Ethics versus Maximising Tournament Success to the logical but obnoxious extreme, where cheating is considered another tool. Personally, for me, Ethics wins that battle, but it’s vitally important that cheaters are seen to be punished severely. If you get a universal perception that "everyone else is doing it" then the playing field becomes dangerously warped. The grey guys will feel they need to use the cheat tool just to keep up with the black guys, and the white guys will just quit because they won’t be able to play on a level footing without sacrificing their morals. It’s for this reason I believe Mark Rosewater is very wrong to champion Mike Long for the Hall of Fame. Whether it is correct or not, Mike Long’s name has sadly become associated with cheating, and the game cannot ever be seen to reward this.
Returning back from our little digression, I’d argue that rather than banning IDs or concessions you should direct the flow rather than trying to stem it. In this case, you need to remove the advantage they bring to maximising tournament success. I may talk about how this could be done in more detail in a future article.
The other interesting point raised was whether you should maintain a hostile local environment where nobody ever conceded. There were some that reasoned this could also act to benefit tournament success, as it would protect you from being “the guy who finishes 9th because some lucksack got scooped in.”
While sounding plausible, it doesn’t work, and I’ll repeat the proof I gave in the forums at the time to demonstrate it (mainly because I like an opportunity to show off).
You have two strategies, A and B:
A will always play to win even if the result doesn’t affect their own performance ("never concede").
B will concede if it doesn’t affect their performance (they’re already eliminated or through).
However, I’m going to make an assumption that B is running Tit-for-Tat, and this problem has been run enough times that players know what strategy their opponent is running.
B will concede to other B strategies, but play it out against A strategies (presumably because they’ve been ratted on in the past). We’ll call this strategy "Tit-for-Tat concede".
So now we have a situation where it is the last round of the tournament. Player 1 (P1) is the potential scooper (they’re in or eliminated, basically this result does not affect their tournament result at all), player 2 (P2) is their opponent, and player 3 (P3) (who we assume won their match) needs player 2 to lose to advance (to represent the player who misses out).
The other assumption I’m going to make is that if they play it out, player 2 has a 50/50 chance of securing the win they need.
This means if they play P2 has a 0.5 chance of making Top 8, and P3 has a 0.5 chance, we can write it out like this:
P(P2) = 0.5, P(P3) = 0.5.
Where P(P2) represents the probability of player 2 making Top 8.
If P1 concedes P2 has a 1.0 chance, while P3 has a 0.0 probability of making Top 8.
P(P2) = 1,0, P(P3) = 0.0
So far it seems straightforward, but if we run out the combinations using A or B to represent the player strategies:
Player 1 is type A, so they have to play it out regardless of player 2’s type
A1, A2, A3 —–> P(A2) = 0.5, P(A3) = 0.5
A1, A2, B3 —–> P(A2) = 0.5, P(B3) = 0.5
A1, B2, A3 —–> P(B2) = 0.5, P(A3) = 0.5
A1, B2, B3 —–> P(B2) = 0.5, P(B3) = 0.5
Player 1 is type B, but they won’t concede to player type A. This is also played out
B1, A2, A3 —–> P(A2) = 0.5, P(A3) = 0.5
B1, A2, B3 —–> P(A2) = 0.5, P(B3) = 0.5
However, type B will concede to other type Bs
B1, B2, A3 —–> P(B2) = 1.0, P(A3) = 0.0
B1, B2, B3 —–> P(B2) = 1.0, P(B3) = 0.0
Now we calculate the total probabilities overall:
P(A2) = 0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5 / 4 = 0.5
P(B2) = 0.5+0.5+1.0+1.0 / 4 = 0.75
P(A3) = 0.5+0.5+0.5+0.0 / 4 = 0.375
P(B3) = 0.5+0.5+0.5+0.0 / 4 = 0.375
So the overall probabilities of making Top 8 for the two strategies are:
P(A) = 0.5+0.375 / 2 = 0.4375
P(B) = 0.75+0.375 / 2 = 0.5625
From this we can see that "Tit-for-Tat concede" has a slightly higher probability of success than "never concede."
“Never concede” is not an Evolutionary Stable Strategy. If your local area had a “never concede” policy and you were "invaded " by a group of players using “Tit-for-Tat concede,” these players would experience slightly better tournament finishes overall.
It’s a nice little proof, but also running some broad assumptions. First, we’re assuming that players can correctly identify what strategy their opponent is running. Second, Tit-for-Tat implies that you get paired against the same player sometime in the future where you can either punish or reward them. For some people this does seem a rather nebulous advantage at best.
In reality, it’s a little more complex. In the truest sense a Tit-for-Tat strategy requires you to treat your next opponent, whoever they are, according to how you were treated by your last opponent.
A small population of “Tit-for-Tat concede” would struggle to invade a large population of “never concede” because they would mostly all be knocked into “Tat” mode by the first round of encounters with “never concede” players. However, a larger population would gain a slight benefit by being paired against enough players running the same cooperative strategy to result in an increased probability of tournament success.
Again, I don’t have time here to go into greater details, as I’m sort of in transit and trying to practise for PT: San Diego.
At some point in the future I’ll probably go over this again, as well as looking at the other interesting scenario of what happens when both players need a win to advance and the game is about to time out in a draw that eliminates both.
Anyway, back to Montreal.
I arrived in Canada around 10 in the evening, and Stuart Wright was waiting for me at the airport. Martin Dingler and Nick Lovett were driving up from New York (where Martin had been staying with his sister), and together the four of us had a room at the Quality Inn on Crescent St.
Crescent St. seemed very lively. There were plenty of bars and restaurants, and it was bustling by the time we got there. Apparently it was prom night, so there were a lot of kids running around in suits and fancy clothes and being very excitable. I did wonder if I’d be able to get some sleep as the hotel seemed infested with them, and I was expecting a lot of noise. Jetlag beats that any day of the week.
Before that, we actually popped over to the venue. One thing I really like about North American GPs is that the venue stays open really late on the day before the tournament. Unfortunately we’d just missed registration, but it was nice to be able to mingle with other people.
This was where I was presented a massive dilemma, as Billy Moreno showed me his version of the Red deck that splashed Black for Korlash.
Splash Black for Korlash!
Yeah, by playing Urborg (and some swamps).
Billy Moreno is just a master.
Splashing Black in the Red deck is fantastic. Straight away you have access to a sliver package of Sedge and Ghostflame that potentially hits a lot harder than Blood Knight and co.
Urborg is also more than just Korlash. It’s Strip Mine against Urborg-fuelled Tendrils from the control decks, as well as allowing you to board in Tendrils against the other Red decks.
Playing Black means you also have access to Slaughter Pact to kill those monsters normally out of range of burn spells (I’m looking at you, Tarmogoyf).
The synergies don’t end there. You can even use Korlash’s grandeur ability to power up X-spells like Disintegrate and Molten Disaster.
Billy is just a master.
I came so close to switching, but eventually decided against it as it was too late and I felt I should probably stick with the deck with which I’d practised.
Usually this is the correct call, but in this case I think I was incorrect. It’s always hard to know. Billy made Day 2 but finished outside of the Top 32, and I think StarWarsKid didn’t even make it that far. Maybe it wouldn’t have helped me in reality, but the deck does seem really cool.
Here it is in its glory:
Creatures (20)
Lands (25)
Spells (15)
Sideboard
As for me, I managed to dodge most of the onrushing train of Green/White decks, but missed out in a last round bubble match against Gerry Thompson. As usual, you can read yet another “I came close but won’t be coming back tomorrow” report here.
Here’s a Could Things Have Been Different riff completely stolen from Tiago Chan. He won’t mind. I took him out shark fishing on Sunday, and used him as the bait, bwahahahaha!
Round 6 versus Jean-Charles Salvin playing Green/White ‘goyf.
What happened?
This is the nightmare matchup for Red deck. I almost one-sided Wrath’ed him with Word of Seizing and it wasn’t enough as he just made gigantic Mystic Enforcers. Game 2 I cowered behind Fortune Thief and burnt him out. Game 3 I didn’t find land number five for Word of Seizing for a Griffin Guided Saffi Eriksdotter.
Could things have been different?
Probably not. This is a nightmare matchup. I have two Fortune Thief and he has three Sunlance. I think I should have definitely played more Fortune Thief, probably over Stuffy Doll, but it still feels like you need to be lucky and not have them draw removal for it.
Salvin thanked me after the game for not trying to stall him out, as he thought I could have played in a way that would have given us a draw. I’m not sure if this is the case. We had eight minutes extra because I lost a Mogg War Marshal in between rounds 5 and 6. Salvin actually killed me on turn 6, so the only way I could have played for a draw would have been to do a Max Bracht special, and we all know how he ended up.
Round 7 versus Chikara Nakajima playing Mono-Blue
What happened?
I beat him game 1 because he missed land drops, but failed to put him under enough pressure and got tempo’ed out in games 2 and 3.
Could things have been different?
I may have sideboarded incorrectly. I boarded out Gargadons as their Snapbacks and Teferi mean you can’t really rush him in, and Teferi stops him coming in at all. This might be a mistake. If you keep in Gargadon you can use their own Teferi as a death sentence with Word of Seizing. It’s a difficult call, as good players will see it coming anyway.
My usual plan is to board in extra removal in Dead/Gone to try and pick off the morphs. I think I probably want more creatures and faster beaters in this matchup. Going burn heavy doesn’t really work, as Willbender malfunctions it and Cloudskate and Venser prevent you from ever getting enough counters on storage lands to Molten Disaster them out.
There was definitely a mis-assignment of role here.
Round 9 versus Gerry Thompson playing Blue/Black Teachings control
What happened?
My draws were fairly grotty and his Tendrils went wild both games.
Could things have been different?
I sideboarded absolutely atrociously. For some reason I had the idea of an alternate plan of boarding in Epochrasites as a cockroach to outlast their Damnations. This is a horrid mis-assignment of role. I am not the control deck.
He boarded in Aven Riftwatchers. If I’d kept in Blood Knights I might have been able to keep swinging for enough to maybe get him in range of Molten Disaster. It was a slim chance given the amount of life gain his deck ran, but a slim chance is better than the absolute drubbing that was handed out to me.
The Red deck is currently in a very bad place. The Green/White Tarmogoyf matchup is practically unwinnable, as their beatdown creatures are just far superior. The Red deck game plan runs through several distinct phases. Generally you rush them early with small guys and then pick them off from distance with burn before their superior spells take you down. Green/White ‘goyf trumps this on all levels. Their monsters come down as fast as your earlier beaters and prevent them from attacking. Green/White ‘goyf is also aggressive enough to beat up the Red deck much too fast for it to get the burn plan online.
The only solution I can think of at the moment is to buy the extra time for the burn plan by hiding behind Fortune Thief. Unfortunately they also have Sunlance (or Red burn of their own if they’re running the three colour version) and enough card drawing from Horizon Canopy and Edge of Autumn to find their answers faster than you can ask the questions.
Having one impossible matchup isn’t the end of the world, although the ‘goyf deck is going to be pretty popular over the next few weeks. It won the GP after all.
Of more concern is that the other matchups don’t feel that easy either.
Against the Tendrils decks you really need to keep the Gargadon in suspension. If you fail to draw it or they nail it with Pull from Eternity, then the matchup suddenly becomes very difficult.
I don’t think I like the Mono-Blue matchup much either. Delay is actually really irritating, and if they buy enough breathing space to make morphs with mana open, then Willbender becomes a real problem. Simply making a face-up Brine Elemental can also be a real headache as it’s bigger than most burn, and if left alone is invariably followed by a Shapeshifter to lock the game. You can’t really sit on storage lands either, as they just bounce them with Cloudskates.
I think I might have erred too much on more burn rather than early threats. The two matches I lost against the control decks felt like it was because I never really put them under pressure early on. Keldon Marauders might be a possibility again, although their temporary nature can backfire.
As a last minute change I switched Avalanche Riders for Detritivores. I never really drew them, but in most of the games I think I would have rather had the ability to sled a land and come in for damage.
Red will still be around over the next few weeks, and it is still a strong enough deck in an unprepared field to post decent finishes. I’m not sure I can see it taking too many blue envelopes home unless the pilot both plays a blinder and gets very lucky, as the matchups against the actual good decks are very hard.
To really challenge the top tier I suspect Red might have to look to other colors. Successfully working in Tarmogoyf is one avenue of attack, while Billy Moreno Urborg splash is another.
If I get time I’ll run a few ideas through 8 mans and report back on anything that doesn’t get smashed. Standard for Nationals with 10th Edition is starting to loom on my mind…
Sunday night after Montreal was a real blast. I went for a meal (nice Ribs, yum) with the Brits, Steve Sadin, and some of his friends. Somehow we "accidentally" ended up in a… uh… Strip club, where we consumed three buckets of bottled beer in a relatively short space of time. This was distributed along the lines of one for Matt, two for me, and three for Steve (and a girly cocktail for Stuart Wright).
Later on, Steve started phoning various people he knew, just in case they’d forgotten he’d won a Grand Prix. I think I may have spoken to Zac Hill at some point, but the music was so loud I didn’t hear any reply. Given that it was probably hideous a.m., this may not have been a bad thing. Sorry dude!
That was good fun. I think I crawled home around three in the morning.
But obviously this all actually never happened, as I’m a fine upstanding decent young man who would never ever actually frequent a place that served alcoholic beverages while young "clothically challenged" women danced in the background.
Monday was very quiet. I thought it might have been a good idea to get an extra day in Montreal, but as Nick and Martin had to leave on Sunday night there was only Stuart and I left. I had a brief wander around the city and it looked quite interesting, a bit like a typical U.S. city, but with a very strong European influence. It was a shame I was so tired on Saturday night and no one was around Monday, as there were quite a few fun places to get drunk in.
In keeping with the bits and bloody pieces of this article, here’s a couple more random paragraphs.
More severed bits: MTGO foil card request
I’m trying to assemble a foil set of 9th Edition online to redeem into real life cards before 10th comes in.
A pro that actually collects, shock horror, does such a thing exist? Don’t you guys just draft then throw all the cards in a big drawer somewhere?
I’m a bit of a magpie that likes collecting shinies, but that’s okay, my results are so terrible so far this year I probably don’t actually count as a pro any more.
Anyway, I need a 9th Ed foil Seedborn Muse. If anyone has one they’re willing to sell on MTGO, just drop a message to my account name: Prof_Hydra.
Even more severed bits and grue: Music
Let’s see.
Wakefield travel type stuff ripped off… check.
Chan “where did I go wrong” type stuff ripped off… check.
I suppose I may as well rip off the Aten/Sanchez iPod top 5 just to prove I can rock it with the young ‘uns.
Well, maybe. My guess is most of you out there will struggle to recognise most of the names. As may have been mentioned back when I scared unsuspecting people at karaoke, I do have a penchant for the heavy stuff, although the following list is not as extreme as I normally go.
Stuff I’m vaguely listening to at the moment:
1. Disturbed, “Land of Confusion.”
2. Cathedral, “Hopkins (The Witchfinder General).”
3. Cult of Luna, “Dark City, Dead Man.”
4. My Dying Bride, “The Dreadful Hours.”
5. Machine Head, “Blood of the Zodiac.”
The second leg of my North American adventure kicks off with a stupidly early flight on Tuesday morning to take me down to San Diego and the Two-Headed Giant Pro Tour.
I don’t anticipate doing very well, it being both Limited and a Team event, but I’ll be back next week with the travel escapades Craig feels safe to print.
(I know by the time you read this San Diego will have already happened, but my deadline is Sunday night and I’m having to piggyback the café up the road’s unsecured wireless as it is. I’m fast, but not that fast)
Thanks for reading.
Prof