Let's talk about Extended and Testing

I went 5-3 at States with Bram Snepvanger's Boros list. I was happy with the deck excpet that I'd probably make the Burst Lightnings into Earthquakes, which may necessitate swapping Teetering Peaks for Terramorphic Expanse to make my dudes more likely to live through it, but I like Kor Skyfisher too much to take it out for something else in that case.

One thing I'd like to do more of at the beginning of the season for Extended is side-by-side testing to play both sides of the matchup. It was great for learning the format because instead of trying out one deck for yourself at a time, you're trying out two. It's also important to know how the other deck plays to read into your opponent's plays. A valuable piece of advice I read back in the day on, believe or not, Team Academy was about how the writer (probably Andystok) couldn't beat a certain deck, so he switched to that deck and bashed it tons. Then he couldn't beat a deck that beat that deck, so he bashed that tons. But, then couldn't beat his original deck, so he switched, but now he could beat the deck he originally couldn't beat since he knew how it played and what it cared about.

Switching decks in playtesting is also a good idea for learning the format. It also takes the playskill skew out of the picture if you really want to learn what the matchup is actually like. But the common playtest partner will probably be reluctant to switch since he'd rather get as many games in with his deck than a deck he isn't going to play. With side-by-side testing, there is no skew. Even though you've seen the other hand, it makes you ask the question if playing/not playing into something is worth it.

I could also go as slow or as fast as I wanted when figuring out lines and plays, and I could learn about the matchups I cared about, rather than whatever the person at the store with a deck was battling. A lot of times I'd make a play from the other side of the Boros deck, and then switch windows to my Boros hand and blow him out the next turn, so I'd back up and make a tighter play and see if would change the outcome of the game.

Other logistical considerations for side-by-side testing is that coordinating games and playtest sessions is a pain when you or your playtest partners have real life to juggle, the awkwardness of discussing over MWS, and the time it takes to proxy up paper decks for live testing. I think I'd consider traditional live testing more of practice and side-by-side testing true testing and experimentation and discovery. I'm going to have a lot of time this week to bash the Extended decks from Worlds against each other, so I'll probably be keeping tabs here about what I learn.

For those interested, my gauntlet is Tezzeret, Rubin Zoo, Dredge, Hypergenesis, and All-In Red, as these were the decks that put multiple people into 5-1 at Worlds. With the exception of All-In Red, off the top of my head, I think these also all had representatives in the 6-0 bracket. The other decks I'll try but not necessarily consider part of the litmus test for other decks are Bant, Scapeshift, Dark Depths, UB Faeries, UW Control, and Mono-Red Burn.