With Ravnica Allegiance right around the corner, the changes
that its release will impose upon the meta is likely on many people’s minds. In
this article, I briefly explain the Strong Law of Large Numbers (SLLN) and
apply this to the challenge of racing the meta which is, at least for me, the
main goal of playing MTG.
Strong Law of Large
Numbers?
The SLLN is a theorem that states that if one conducts the
same experiment over and over again, such that each trial is independent of the
others, then the sample average of the outcomes will approach the true expected
value of the experiment almost surely as one performs infinitely more trials.
In the context of experiments where there are only two possible outcomes,
particularly Deck A winning against Deck B when piloted by the same pair of
players in each game, each player being a master in both decks and completely
familiar with the other’s playstyle such that each succeeding game is not
affected by any preceding games, then as the players play infinitely many
games, the true win rate of Deck A versus Deck B when both are piloted without
misplay will be obtained.
If it was possible to conduct this experiment for each pair
of decks in a given card pool, then one can obtain all of the true win rates of
each deck both versus a specific deck and versus the entire collection of
possible decks. Of course, the reality is that it is not reasonably possible to
conduct this experiment. For one, I do not think there are existing A.I.s that
can sufficiently mimic the playing ability of a pro or even a highly competent MTG
players across multiple decks. However, those win rates do exist and are
basically hidden information from players at the release of a new set. The reality is that
the exact value of those numbers likely remain hidden indefinitely. However, estimates
of those win rates can be ascertained as more games under the new card pool are
played across different platforms and data from those platforms are made
available. This is where the concept of racing the meta comes in.
Racing the Meta
As previously mentioned, while the ideal setup for finding
true win rates cannot be reasonably implemented, imperfect experiments
pertaining to a new card pool begin to be conducted upon the new set’s release.
Each match played with the new card pool is one of those imperfect experiments
and a large portion of these are documented and made publicly available through channels such as MTG Goldfish. While SLLN cannot be invoked on this due to violations of
its assumptions, the idea that estimates to the true win rates of each deck
become better and better as more matches are played remains dependable.
Racing the meta means being able to identify which decks are
best as early as possible, before the truth about those decks’ superior win
rates become common knowledge. By doing so, one is able to play more matches
using the superior deck, and therefore generate more value per unit time while
the new card pool is standard legal. An important thing to note here is that overall
win rates always depend on the existing meta. That is, incoming information about
viable decks in the new card pool from match results across platforms affects
what people decide to play, which in turn shape the new information generated.
Thus, racing the meta also involves recognizing when to change decks as the
meta changes.
For Guilds of Ravnica, I was able to achieve considerable
success at the beginning of the season with a UB deck that only had The Eldest
Reborn and a single copy of Josu Vess as win conditions during the first two
weeks upon release (I had 4 Thief of Sanity in the sideboard). As more information
about the new card pool emerged, it became apparent that UB was disadvantaged
versus both Red aggro and Golgari with multiple copies of Midnight Reaper, and
so I shifted to the latter.
It is also possible for a deck to sustain its high win rate
across set releases. An example of this is Ramunap Red, which had obscenely
high win rates versus the field the whole time that its entirety was legal in
standard (Ixalan just made it stronger with Rampaging Ferocidon). Yet this was
not obvious enough until WotC published the numbers which it used to justify
banning cards from the deck. Imagine playing Ramunap Red from the time that
Hour of Devastation was released up to the time when Ramunap Ruins and
Rampaging Ferocidon were banned from standard. You would have generated X% more
value (whether in gold, gems, tix, or $) than you would have playing anything
else for the same number of matches. For me, it is this that constitutes a win
in MTG and what makes the game so exciting. The game does not begin at the
start of your match; the game is a race that begins when a new set is released
and restarts with the release of the next. “Winning” is measured by how early
you are able to figure out what decks work, through a combination of insight in evaluating
the new card pool and empirical information on deck winnability that is released to the
public. As more information is released, it becomes easier to identify what you
should be playing. However at the same time, the value of this information is
diminished because of the time you lost not figuring out the best decks earlier
(during which you were playing other decks and were therefore not winning as
often as you would have been).
Start your engines…
As we welcome the Orzhov, Gruul, Rakdos, Simic, and
Azorious, I hope that this perspective can help you in making deckbuilding decisions
in the new season. Put on your thinking caps and most importantly, never neglect to open your
eyes and ears to the data about the new meta.
Let the race begin…
…and may the shuffler be with you.
Comments
Post a Comment