Anything But: What You Didn’t See

Posted on October 24, 2013 by JustSin

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Anything But: What You Didn’t See”.

 

  1. Awesome overview, very good insights on the actual metagame! I very much appreciate your work. While parsing through your article I really felt my understanding of the format growing. I also agree this is one of the most fun metagames I’ve ever seen in pauper, perhaps actually the most fun, and the numbers point to a very healthy format! Excellent, I like it when pauper is doing well.

  2. Excellent. Thanks for the updates! Can’t wait to see how things shape up, and what new innovations arise.

  5. I sampled about 800 decks and compared power level based on raw points and weighed points. Kiln Fiend is one of the few decks that actually showed statistically significant power level differences compared to most of the other decks, being the deck with the least power level, save some rogue decks.
    Analysing the decks showed me that it is quite difficult to compare decks in a meaningful way because there are so many variables to be considered.. I tried correlating player power level (sum of showings in the last two months) with DE success, and actually found a (nonsignificant) negative correlation, which was quite surprising, for example.
    Do you include 2-2′s and 2-0′s in your analysis?

  6. what would including 2-0s accomplish as you’d be double counting many decks?

    if I were to track every deck that showed to a DE I think you’d lose a lot because it doesn’t say how strong a deck is just how many people brought it… if you’ve ever played a DE there is always a chance that in Rd.1 you get paired to someone running a very casual deck and including that just would shrink numbers and make it too cluttered I think

  7. I only can say… Thank you very much!

    I can imagine all the work that you have opening every tournament, checking every deck and cataloging them.

  10. I really enjoyed your article, and the statistics are perhaps the most interesting part of it. If in the future though, you could not have the sections in the pie charts be differently coloured that’d be great. It’s a bit confusing when the different data swaps MBC and Eye Candy, but keeps the same colours for the same spaces on the pie chart. Otherwise, all this info is great.