Are you a Quiet Speculation member?
If not, now is a perfect time to join up! Our powerful tools, breaking-news analysis, and exclusive Discord channel will make sure you stay up to date and ahead of the curve.
This week SCG rolled out an interesting new type article in which they ask a set of questions to two different columnists and post both of their answers. The series is called Fact or Fiction, and will be featured in Select and Premium versions. From the first installment there was one question that stood out to me as being particularly polarizing:
Yuuki Ichikawa won Grand Prix Shanghai with a 61-card Abzan Control deck. 61-card maindecks have a negative stigma around them, but with this win, more players should consider this approach.
The poll resulted in two writers agreeing, and two disagreeing. Interestingly, despite the seemingly split decision all of the writers made it clear that you better have a good reason to play more than 60 cards, with only Adrian Sullivan advocating it actually making sense in Ichikawa's deck. Meanwhile on Twitter...
Owen even went so far as to cut one of the Tasigurs from Ichikawa's list to play it as a 75 card deck in this week's Standard Super League, which he won.
I don't like the idea of opening up the 61 card debate at large- it's just not something that I see as being productive. Nobody on either camp is about to be swayed by the reasoning of the other. We've both heard it all before. What I want to know, is if you had to play Ichikawa's list or Owen's -1 Tasigur version in a tournament tomorrow, which would you pick?
It’s true that a deck with more than the required minimum of cards is probably never optimum. (Unless we’re talking Battle of Wills). Granted.
That said, in general, there are kind of decks that can get away with this better than others, and even times where you could make a strong argument that the margin you gain by streamlining might not be critical. If your deck is very heavy on card draw and tutoring; AND you have no idea what the metagame is like; AND you don’t have enough sideboard space to make sure you’re prepared for everything; THEN perhaps you could make a compelling case that you can add a few more sideboard cards to the main just to fit it all in.
Basically, if you don’t know what the best 75 are, but you are pretty sure you know what the best 76 or 77 are going to be, and your deck heavily minimizes variance, then, okay.
I think what Owen is reacting to is that someone like him, who pays very close attention to the metagame, will never be in this situation. These folks make a living trying to pick the best 75, after all.
I’ve considered the idea several times. Why do we run 23 vs 24 lands? The percentages just work. Right? Now consider, instead of running 23 lands you add one extra card. You’ve diluted your overall land by a fraction of a %.
Example:
% to draw 1 of a playset in a 60 card deck = 6.667%
% to draw 1 of a playset in a 61 card deck = 6.557%
% to draw 1 of a playset in a 62 card deck = 6.451%
% to draw land with 24 in a 60 card deck = 40%
% to draw land with 24 in a 61 card deck = 39.34%
% to draw land with 24 in a 62 card deck = 38.70%
% to draw land with 23 in a 60 card deck = 38.33%
% to draw land with 23 in a 61 card deck = 37.70%
% to draw land with 24 in a 62 card deck = 37.09%
In a game based around such tight numbers, why are we slaves to a 60 card deck?
I’m going to quote Ross Merriam exactly form his answer, because I think it’s great.
“The difference here is very small, but obvious enough that you should respect it.”
It doesn’t matter that it’s small, it matters that we know about it and that it’s easy to fix.
“The difference here is very small, but obvious enough that you should respect it.”
No matter how you slice it, a .11% isn’t obvious. I have respect for players better than I, yet I know better than to follow blindly. I’ve presented reasonable data. Just consider it. If I run X lands because I’m running X 4cmc spells, what if I run (X – 1) 4cmc spells? Would it not stand to reason I need less land? I know it’s not that clear cut in all scenarios, but you understand my point.
That’s the small part, not the obvious part.
Feeling proud of myself that I almost called the split in votes correctly with my 60/40 in favor of 60 cards. I love this topic and think it should be made into a debate on youtube between a couple of well known pros. I’m in the 61 card camp as long as the power level between the 60th and 61st card is negligible and your ratios of threats, answers, card advantage cards, etc. are better tuned with the 61 card configuration than the 60.
It’s not just the power level difference between the 60th best card and the 61st best card. It’s the power level difference between every card from your #1 best to your #60 and the #61. Adding the 61st card reduces your chance of drawing your very best card too, not just your chance of drawing your 60th best card. The only way to justify going over beyond 60 is for a majority of all 60 cards to be at a similar power level as the card you’re trying to add.
I think people are taking to many assumptions of 61 vs 60 card decks. You are assuming there is a huge gap in power as you add cards to deck. Currently Abzan is packed full of powerful cards, you really do not play any weak cards in Abzan. the difference between the impact between most of them is very slight and usually conditional.
It is also assumed that a 60 card deck can do everything the 61 can and be more powerful against a meta. This is a more subtle issue. As Greg pointed out earlier the odds of drawing specific cards change only slightly from adding the 61st, however it is not known without extensive play testing how much your match % change. If you change a match win rate by 5% and lose 1% against others is it a bad thing.
A little clearer way of looking at it say that 1 card added makes you slightly weak against aggro do to a 1% chance of missing a land drop. Then also say you gain 10% chance of winning long grindy matches against midrange/control decks because of the added draw. Would you not then easily add the card.
This whole debate highlights why I generally dislike how people tend to view magic in general. To many people follow incomplete and uncontextualized ideas of whats correct to do in magic. Without knowing Ichikawa’s reasoning and insight into why he did it, I fail to see how you can really say what he did as incorrect.
Ichikawa’s reasoning for the extra card was that he did not know what card to cut, and rather than risk cutting the wrong card, he played 61.
I don’t play Modern but my understanding is that the metagame has gotten more diverse this year. Using 61 in a control deck is arguably a good way to firm up more of your match-ups – and in the sense that your best match-ups are slightly worse and your worst match-ups get slightly better, you are smoothing out the advantage so that your skill as a player becomes more relevant. And Yuuki is pretty much one of the top 3 in the world right?
Sorry I was thinking of Yuuya