Preparation, or lack thereof

I have two weeks until Grand Prix Oakland, and I've been playing very little actual Extended matches. I haven't even been doing side-by-side testing, because of a lack of faith in it. When you can't figure out how Dark Depths beats Scapeshift when it's supposed to be a very good matchup according to people who actually play Magic, or similarly when you think Faeries can beat Burn, your methods may be flawed.

Also consider that there are a MILLION viable decks, unlike Standard where Jund was the big bogeyman and I was basically trying three or four decks to see if they beat Jund. I've come to the conclusion that if I pick out a top tier deck and come armed with a solid sideboard, I can do fine as long as I like my deck.

Add to the fact that Worldwake may not have added many cards to the format, except maybe the new Wasteland which only really nerfs Scapeshift, and I can just use the current metagame to figure out what the most powerful decks are.

I'm proxying four or five decks I could conceivably play:
- Steppe Lynx Zoo
- Faeries
- Aggro-Scapeshift
- Thopter Depths
- Red Burn

I'm bringing them with me to the prerelease this Saturday pretty early and battling anyone who will battle me. In fact, I'll probably be going to a lot of events just with these decks battling anyone who will battle me. I'm not interested in collecting data, but instead just finding a deck I "like", and figuring out how matchups go. I think all these decks are the most powerful decks in the format, it will just be a matter of getting comfortable with them and knowing the interactions.

I'll probably end up purchasing the cards for ALL of these decks and bringing them to Oakland and then making a metagame decision and adjusting my sideboard accordingly. Maybe in the meantime I will stumble upon a brew I like that has good matchups against most decks in the format and that people won't have a clue about, ala my Naya deck last May for the Grand Prix. (I went 16-5 with that deck that weekend. One poor match away from top 8'ing the PTQ!)

I've said it many times, but Constructed is hard...

Tracking and evaluating your performance, or lamenting over bad results

A couple times today I started to write depressing pieces about how awful I am at Magic and how frustrating Constructed is. (For your information, I went 2-2 in the PTQ and 1-3 in the subsequent GPT with Scapeshift. My commentary will only be speculative, ask someone who actually did well.) I asked myself the question "Am I actually doing well in PTQs", and decided to track my performance.

I accumulated the records in all of the PTQs and Grand Prixs that I have participated in. That would be 23 PTQs and 5 GP's. Here are my results:

PTQ Yokohama (T1.x) - 1 PTQ, 3-3-1
PTQ Valencia (TSP Block Constructed) - 2 PTQs, 1-6
2007 Total - 4-9-1

PTQ Hollywood (T1.x) - 3 PTQs and 1 GP, 17-13
PTQ Kyoto (Shards Limited) - 4 PTQs and 1 GP, 14-20
2008 Total - 7 PTQs and 2 GPs, 31-33

PTQ Honolulu (T1.x) - 5 PTQs and 1 GP, 10-12-5
PTQ Austin (T2) - 3 PTQs and 1 GP, 16-13
Grand Prix Boston (M10 Limited) - 11-4
PTQ San Diego (Zendikar Limited) - 4 PTQs, 15-10-1
2009 Total - 12 PTQs and 3 GPs, 52-41-6

Unlike the Magic meme that went around a while back, I didn't put down what Top 8's I've had or anything like that because I don't have any. If out of dumb luck I were to Top 8 a major event and they asked me my major finishes, I'd write down "I've won FNMs" and that wouldn't be facetious in any sense.

I crunched the numbers for 2009 to look for any indication if I were "due" for a PTQ Top 8. Under the very strong assumption that a 52% win percentage is valid for every round of the PTQ, and that to Top 8 a PTQ you must win the first 6 out of 8 rounds (and ID twice) or otherwise win 7 of 8, I'd top 8 a PTQ 4.9% of the time, or once every 20 PTQs. Crunching these numbers further, the probability of not making a single Top 8 in the 12 PTQs in which I participated in 2009 is 54%. (For fun, the probability under such assumptions that I could win a given PTQ is 0.7%.)

The conclusion? Yes, I am getting better. I have played in more PTQs and Grand Prixes, and I have won more every year. I am still a mile away from Top 8'ing a PTQ. I think people (at least ones I'd consider friends) think I'm a competent Magic player, but would you have considered the Seattle Mariners a competent baseball team this past season?

Another alarming conclusion is that in 2009 my record is better in Limited than in Constructed. Maybe it's because I can afford to draft for fun on paper and online because of getting to collect/sell paper cards and because I'm close to breaking even drafting online. I guess I really need to re-evaluate my Constructed preparation.

My next major tournament, besides any GPT's that pop up in the area, will be Grand Prix Oakland in six weeks. I'm not sure if it will be more beneficial to take a break from Extended and Magic for a while or if eating and breathing more Extended will help me get there. The last two Constructed events I had the benefit of Thanksgiving and Christmas vacations on the East Coast to spend sitting on my computer bashing decks together on my computer. Without those now, do I start my preparation now, or figure out how to work smarter and not harder?

Quick hits

I've been out of the country for a family issue, but I have had my laptop and been able to do a little bit of testing. Here's what I know so far:

Tezzeret is really freaking hard to play! For a million dollars, if I had to correctly cast Gifts Ungiven, I wouldn't be able to do it. Heck, for $100 if I had to split Gifts Ungiven correctly, I wouldn't be able to do it. Trinket Mage and the Transmute cards are also really hard to play because you can get so many things, and depending your list, if you misuse one of your tutor targets, you're screwed for the game. My plan is to proxy the deck up and just goldfish it tons to see what the plays are, without the pressure of real game situations.

Other than that, it seems like Rubin Zoo is the deck to beat, and I'm leaning toward something that outraces it. Probably not Steppe Lynx Zoo since that version of Zoo actually makes Punishing Fire pretty good, but more like the bogeyman from two years ago: Dredge. Tuning that deck will come to guessing how much hate people will be packing in their maindeck and adjusting the Dredge maindeck appropriately. For example, I think I want Darkblast to have some kind of answer to Gaddock Teeg. If I think people will be packing Ravenous Traps and Leylines, however, maybe I'd be better off playing Rubin Zoo or Tezzeret.

I also haven't touched sideboards yet. It seems that you can tune your sideboard to beat any deck in the format. Again, comes down to guessing what the metagame will be and what other adjustments decks will be making between now and the first PTQ (which happens to be Seattle this season!)

Still plugging along...

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.

Fear of Constructed

When I sit down for most Constructed tournaments, I have a fear that I don't have in Limited tournaments.

Bad matchups scare the crap out of me. When your opponent can play his first land and you know you've only got a 40% chance of winning this game, that scares the crap out of me.

When your opponent can play a card that just ruins your entire plan like Kataki, that scares me.

When your opponent draws more relevant cards in a mirror match than you and you just lose, that scares me.

I've never had the same confidence in Constructed as Limited. In Limited, your decks are much more even, and you can plan for bombs, and you can attack and block, and you'll hardly ever be surprised by card choices. In Constructed, so much work happens before you sit down and draw any cards.

Tomorrow I'm playing Boros Bushwhacker at State Championships. I think I'm even to a slight favorite against Jund since you can blow them out and their mana can be really awkward, even though I am declining on Goblin Ruinblasters since I don't think deck can reliably get to four mana on turn 4 (the only turn where it's really good). The deck's also really good against GW strategies that try to beat Jund since you're just faster and they rely on Noble Hierarchs which you can burn. I really don't see an edge in the Jund matchup, and I've been playing that online since it came out. I like Boros because it can feel like a combo deck like UR Dragonstorm back from Standard. I've played a lot of games in side-by-side testing with it, so we'll see how it goes tomorrow.

I think afterwards I'll evaluate my preparation for this tournament and figure out what needs to change for Extended season. As of right now, I really prefer side-by-side testing to random playtesting since you can be much more methodical with what matchups you want to test and what data you want to collect, rather than being at the mercy of the person in your group you're playing against getting bored with a deck or wanting to battle the deck he's already decided on. I also like being able to backup and revisit different lines of play that you don't understand without bogging down a playtest partner.

Bobbie McRae

I grew up in Raleigh, NC, and my weekends in high school usually included time at All Fun 'n Games in Apex, NC. Now, I sucked. I couldn't draft for the life of me, played loose as hell, and only came out ahead in Constructed because I was playing better decks than half the room since I used the Internet.

A fixture there was Bobbie McRae, one of the two women who ran the store. I went off to college a million miles away, but on my breaks home would find time to make a visit and draft, and Bobbie would always be excited to see an old familiar face.

I hadn't been to the store for probably the past year since my trips home had been much more serious with the health and the passing of my father, but I recently got a message from an old Magic baller friend from this time period about playing Two-Headed Giant this weekend at AFNG. (The last time he played was four years ago when I was home, he hadn't played for a year, and he asked me to play 2HG with him at the store also! How can I say no to an old friend?)

I went to the site for info about the tournament, and to my shock, the front page had a blurb that Bobbie had passed away this year to a long fight with cancer. I knew she had been sick, but she always seemed so cheerful when she was at the store that you wouldn't believe that she was undergoing treatment if you didn't hear it from someone.

I'm upset that the last time I saw her was probably over a year ago, but if she were still around, I'd thank Bobbie for being a part of my Magic experience and my growing up, and hope that she and those by whom she is survived are proud of her work sharing gaming with a lot of people.

My Grand Prix Wish List

I guess it's almost Christmas time, so here's my Grand Prix wish list for 2010. The entire 2010 schedule is here. These are the one's I'm probably making plans for:

Feb. 13-14 Oakland, CA, T1.x
April 3-4 Houston, TX, T1.x
June 12-13 Manila, Philippines, T2
Sept. 11-12 Portland, OR, M2010 Limited
Oct. 23-24 Toronto, ON, "Lights" Limited

The North American Grand Prixs are pending the location not being somewhere awful, like GP Tampa or GP Atlanta. Oakland's close, and Houston and Toronto should be pretty awesome places to visit... right?