one million words's picture
By: one million words, Pete Jahn
Aug 26 2011 8:31am
4.4
Login to post comments
7938 views


 

Hammie’s The State of the Program for August 26th      
 
This series is an ongoing tribute to Erik “Hamtastic” Friborg.
 

Editorial Section:   The EV of 4-3-2-2s

Years ago, drafts paid out 5 prize packs to the winner, 3 to second place and 2 each to third and fourth (called 5-3-2-2.) A few years later, Wizards introduced special drafts for players with higher ratings, above 1800 if I recall correctly. That didn’t work. Somewhere in there, Wizards introduced drafts that paid 8 packs to the winner and 4 to second place – and nothing to third through last. These are the 8-4 drafts.   Wizards also cut the payout for other drafts to 4-3-2-2. Finally, Wizards introduced Swiss draft, which pays one pack per match win. Swiss drafts appeared about two years ago.
 
I should know these dates, but I never bothered to write them down. Sorry.
 
Anyway, many players and commentators have mentioned that the prize payout for drafts vary. 8-4s pay out 12 packs in total prizes. Swiss drafts pay out 12 packs in total prizes. 4-3-2-2 drafts pay out a total of 11 packs. In terms of pure payout, eleven is less than twelve. These commentators argue that the EV – expected value – of 4-3-2-2s is lower than other forms of draft. That said, the 4-3-2-2 drafts are the most popular type of draft offered, regardless of set. In M12, in Scars block, in old formats, etc., more 4-3-2-2 drafts fire more often than anything else.
 
If the EV is that bad, why is that?
 
First of all, if you are really, really good – and I mean pro tour gravy train good – then 8-4 drafts make sense. If you can consistently make the finals of these drafts, then the EV is far, far higher than either of the other types. For the rest of us, YMMV.   
 
Swiss drafts are the one type of draft that is not single elimination, meaning you play all three rounds even if you lose. The maximum prize payout is 3 packs, assuming you go undefeated, but prizes are not really the point of Swiss. Swiss drafts provide the most play per pack, and are excellent for learning a format or exploring different draft strategies. 
 
Let’s assume, however, that you are neither a pro nor learning the format. In fact, assume that you are dead average: that – absent mana screw, etc. - you beat half the drafters online and lose to the other half. Yes, win/loss ratio is affected by a lot of factors, but over time those even out. There really are drafters who are in the middle of the pack, and those players can conclude that they will beat half the players in any typical draft and lose to the other half. Let’s look at their EVs.
 
For a player in this situation, opponents can be divided into two categories – better players and worse players. Our sample player beats worse players, and loses to better players.  Yes, this is an oversimplification, but you can do the same analysis with other assumptions, like a 40/60 better player split, or a win percentage of just 90% against worse players and a 10% chance of winning against better players, etc.. The math is more complex, but the outcome is the same. 
 
We can make the same assumptions for all matches, namely that better players beat worse players. If you want, you can also assume that bad players who opened bombs win, but that just means they count as good players for a particular draft.  That sort of assumption, like adding a percentage chance to win instead of auto-wins, also have no impact on the outcome over time, other than to make the math more complex. 
 
Let’s look at a sample draft, single elimination, with our sample player. The other cells are populated randomly with better or worse players.
 
1. Our player
??
Better
2. First Opponent
3. Better
Better
4. Worse
5. Better
Better
Better
6. Better
7. Worse
Worse
8. Worse
Note: Actually, if this were playoff pairings, then the seats would be numbered differently, with 1 playing 8, 2 playing 7, etc.   Ordered draft seatings would also be different, with 1 playing 5. I numbered 1 to 8 for simplicity of understanding, not to reflect the actual seats or standings. Moving on.
 
If the first round opponent is better than our player, our player loses and the payout for both 8-4 and 4-3-2-2 drafts is going to be zero packs. If the first round opponent is worse, then our player is going to be paired in round two against a better opponent, if one exists,  and lose. In that case, the payout for an 8-4 is zero packs, and a 4-3-2-2 is two packs.  In order to make it to the finals, our player would have to face worse players in both round one and two, meaning that the draft would have to have worse players in seats 2, 3 and 4. In order to win the draft, he would need to have worse players in all seven other seats. If not, the single better player will win beat the worse players, then beat our player when they are paired.
 
The odds of a better or worse player taking any given seat is, in our example, 50/50.  The odds of our player being paired against a worse player in round one – in other words, winning the round – are fifty-fifty. The odds of winning round two are 50/50 for each seat, so the odds of all three seats (2,3 and 4) being filed with worse players are the individual odds multiplied together: 50% * 50% * 50% equals 12.5%. The odds of our player winning the draft are 50%^7, or about 0.78% 
 
Of course, things happen in drafts: you can draw well, your opponent can flood or you can make fewer mistakes than your opponent, which is why we play the games out. Still, when calculating EV, you cannot assume that you will be lucky. That’s bad math. You have to look at actual odds.
 
For a given draft, the EV is the sum of the payouts times the odds of getting each payout. Thus, for our player, the EVs are:
 
4-3-2-2:   (2 *.5) + (3 * .125) + (4 *0.78) = 1.4 packs
8-4:   (0 *.5) + (4 * .125) + (8 *0.78) = 0.6 packs 
8-4, assuming you split in the finals:   (0 *.5) + (6 * .125) = 0.75 packs
 
Calculating the EV for Swiss drafts is a bit more complex, since these drafts pair winners vs. winners and losers vs. loser. The final EV is approximately 1.5 packs, but to stay at that level, the player has to play out every round, even when he has drafted badly. The extra time spent in Swiss, especially waiting for rounds to end, is a subjective factor that may lower the EV.
 
This hardly the only way to calculate EV, but it is a rational method. This method would justify players playing in 4-3-2-2 drafts, which they clearly do.
 
Alternatively, they could use my method of choosing draft formats – look for the one that is closest to firing and hop in.
 

News and Discussion Items:

Phantom Events:  I wrote the above section - draft EV - last weekend. Today, Wizards announced yet another way to draft or play sealed – “phantom events.” Phantom events cost just a few TIX, but you don’t keep the cards. Let me repeat that – you play in a draft or sealed events and you don’t keep the cards. A six pack limited event will cost just 4 TIX, run four rounds and pay 3 M12 packs for 4-0, 2 for 3-1 and 1 for 2-2. These events will run on Sunday, at 10am PDT, and alternate weekly between sealed for 4 TIX and draft for 2 TIX. The events will use Planeswalker packs. So far, we have almost no information on what will be in Planeswalker packs. 
 
My first concern was that these events could cannibalize normal drafts, but with just one per week, and using Planeswalker packs, it’s clear that Wizards is not going to let that happen. I wonder how well this will be received. It will be interesting to watch it unfold.   
 
Modern is the Real Deal: Modern is here. The announcement of the format is here. Wizards will be running a series of tournaments to celebrate the format. Details on those events here.   As I write this, the schedule of Daily events has not yet been updated. It still shows Extended events, and no Modern events. That is probably incorrect. It is Wednesday afternoon as I write this, and the Daily Events list shows several Modern events and no Extended.  
 
The first Modern format event fired at noon, PDT, on Wednesday, with 85 players. Two man and eight man pods are firing hard and fast, with close to 100 2 man queues, and a couple 8 mans, firing in the first couple hours. 
 
Pro Tour Philadelphia will be Modern format.   This is hardly news anymore, but I have been enjoying the reactions from the pros and podcasters / commentators. Nearly all of the pros have been cheering, since they found the Extended metagame really narrow and boring. The non-pros, especially some commentators who won’t be playing, are whining. They assume that the pros are going to be unhappy because the testing they had already done is going to be lost. Nice theory, folks, but you might want to talk to some actual pros before ranting.
 

Tournaments:

Thursday Night Magic the upcoming week (September 1st ):  Extended.  Maybe – I wonder if Wizards will change this to Modern. Either way, TNMO is a chance to play some constructed on the cheap and still win prizes.  The TNMO card for September is an alternative art [something – not yet announced].  
 
Modern constructed tournaments are happening. Wizards has slotted in a Modern PE for 10am PDT on August 28th
 
Let’s look at the Constructed Tournaments breakdown for the week of August 16th  through August 23rd. Wizards scheduled 210 constructed events (not including TNMO and online PTQs.)   It looks like 103 of those fired. That’s quite low, but the major formats – Standard, Pauper and Singleton all fired pretty much every event. Even Classic fired twice, in addition to Dangerlinto’s PRE. 
 
Format
Fired
Scheduled
% Fired
Standard
44
41 + 3
100 %
Legacy
11
24
46 %
Scars Block Constructed
0
38
0 %
Kaleidoscope
0
6
0 %
100–card Singleton
0
7
0 %
Pauper
30
29 + 1
100 %
Momir Basic
26
26
100 %
Standard Singleton
0
6
0 %
Classic
2
7
29 %
Extended
0
26 + 1
0 %
 
FTY: The number listed under “Scheduled” shows Dailies + PEs, if any. I got the total number of events from the event calendar. I got the number fired from the list of results, here.   Note that this is not always perfect, since Wizards reserves the right to add events, and often does. 
 

Cutting Edge Tech:

Standard: I’m sorry, but Standard feels boring. We are 6 weeks from a major format shift, and the current format has been solved. Another week, another SCG Open top 16 jammed full of Caw Blade, UR Splinter Twin, Valakut – with a splash of Mono-Red. Birthing Pod decks fell off the cart this week, but that may change as the metagame adjusts, but I don’t expect any real changes.  (No decks - this article is immense already, and I have featured most of these.
 
Modern: This should be the new and interesting format, but I try to wrap up these articles on Wednesday, during the downtime. I will stretch this out a bit, to pick up any early results from the early Modern events. Let’s see what I can find – but keep in mind that the format is brand new. Expect shifts and new decks pretty much daily for a while, with even more shifts after the Pro Tour. 
 
The first Modern event had twelve undefeated decks going into the final round. Here are the results:
  •    Affinity beat Living End
  •    Green TwelvePost beat BW Smallpox
  •    Birthing Pod beat UB Tezzeret
  •    Shamans Tribal beat RUG
  •    Curio Elves beat Bant
  •    Green TwelvePost beat UG TwelvePost
 The second Modern event had eight undefeated decks going into the final round. Here are the results:
  •    SplinterTwin beat TwelvePost
  •    TwelvePost w/ Scapeshift beat GBW Pox (?)
  •    Boros beat Boros splashing for Dark Confidant
  •    UW Teferi beat Domain Zoo
Here’s a decklist:
  

 

Legacy had one large event – the SCG Legacy Open in Boston. The Top 8 was a bit more settled: several UW Stoneblade, a ton of NO RUG and one Reanimator.  I have done all of those decks in past weeks.  Nothing new showed up this week in the Top 16.  Maybe next week.
 
Classic:  Classic fired two Daily Events this week, got 22 players in the Classic Quarter PRE on Wednesday and has 38 players in Season Two of MMog’s Classic League. Round one is done. I am playing a very basic Null Rod / Flash Panther Workshops deck, since I wanted something simple to beat down with.   I’m now 0-1, partly due to a misplay game one, and partly due to managing to mulligan to four game three without seeing mana, and never drawing mana until turn 6, in a deck with 27 mana sources. 
 
But you aren’t reading this to hear me whine about mana screw. You want cutting edge tech. Once again, that tech is brought to you by xcorpio, who has had a lot of interesting classic builds features here. Once again, he won two Classic events last week with a new build. This time it is Illusions in what looks like a traditional Merfolk frame.
  
Illusions
Xcorpio - Winner - Classic Quarter Open
Creatures
4 Gossamer Phantasm
4 Krovikan Mist
8 cards

Other Spells
4 Lord of the Unreal
4 Phantasmal Bear
3 Phantasmal Image
4 AEther Vial
4 Daze
4 Force of Will
4 Mental Misstep
4 Spell Pierce
16 cards
Lands
1 Flooded Strand
8 Island
1 Misty Rainforest
4 Mutavault
1 Polluted Delta
1 Scalding Tarn
1 Strip Mine
4 Wasteland
21 cards

Aether Vial

  

Card Prices:  

Note: for cards that are available in multiple sets, I am generally quoting the most recent set’s price, which is almost always the lowest. Thus, the price I’m quoting for Primeval Titan is from M12. 
 
Standard prices have stopped slipping. The crash that precedes every release is over, and prices are heading back up. This is particularly true of the Mythics that are not being opened as often in Scars block drafts, but it is across the board.
 
Standard & Block Cards
Price
In Stock?
Last Week
Change
$ 10.50
Y
$ 10.75
- $ 0.25
$ 18.00
Y
$ 17.50
+ $ 0.50
$ 20.50
Y
$ 18.00
+ $ 1.50
$ 4.50
N
$ 3.75
+ $ 0.75
$ 7.50
N
$ 6.95
+ $ 0.55
$ 18.50
Y
$ 15.95
+ $ 2.55
$ 8.50
Y
$ 6.50
+ $ 2.00
$ 16.50
Y
$ 14.25
+ $ 2.25
$ 19.50
Y
$ 18.95
+ $ 0.55
$ 13.95
Y
$ 13.95
---
$ 7.50
Y
$ 7.50
---
$ 12.25
Y
$ 9.95
+ $ 2.35
$ 22.00
Y
$ 16.00
+ $ 6.00
$ 20.00
N
$ 14.75
+ $ 5.25
$ 9.95
Y
$ 9.95
---
$ 6.95
Y
$ 6.50
+ $ 0.45
 $ 15.50
Y
 $ 13.75
+ $ 1.75
$ 4.75
Y
$ 5.25
- $ 0.50
$ 1.15
Y
$ 1.15
---
 
Modern / Overextend format cards are still climbing, as people get ready to play the format. The Ravnica duals are still climbing. Years ago, I wrote an article wondering if Morningtide would become the new Invasion block, since Morningtide was under-drafted. (It was a second set, and was released during the V2 to V3 changeover.  MTGO was offline for much of the Morningtide drafting season.)   Looks like I was right. Goyf is soaring.   Tarmogoyf is now $90!  It could pass Force of Will.   
 
I have not listed them, but the Zendikar fetchlands have almost doubled in price at the same time. 
 
Modern Cards
Price
In Stock?
Last Week
Change
$ 35.00
Y
$ 32.00
+ $ 3.00
$ 15.50
Y
$ 14.00
+ $ 1.50
$ 22.50
Y
$ 18.00
+ $ 4.50
$ 17.50
Y
$ 16.00
+ $ 1.50
$ 14.00
Y
$ 14.00
---
$ 22.00
Y
$ 17.00
+ $ 5.00
 $ 12.50
Y
 $ 11.00
+ $ 1.50
$ 12.50
Y
$ 11.50
+ $ 1.00
$ 90.00
N
$ 78.00
+ $ 12.00
$ 20.00
Y
$ 17.50
+ $ 2.50
$ 10.00
Y
$ 7.50
+ $ 2.50
$ 25.00
Y
$ 27.00
- $ 2.00
$ 14.50
N
$ 12.95
+ $ 1.55
$ 20.00
Y
$ 15.00
+ $ 5.00
$ 23.50
N
$ 20.00
+ $ 1.50
Legacy prices are stabilizing.  Big Jace is going down, as he is playable in fewer and fewer formats. 
 
Legacy Cards
Price
In Stock?
Last Week
Change
$ 124.00
Y
$ 124.00
---
$ 49.00
Y
$ 49.00
---
$ 77.22
Y
$ 75.24
+ $ 1.98
$ 32.00
Y
$ 32.00
---
$ 32.50
Y
$ 34.95
- $ 2.45
$ 2.50
Y
$ 3.00
- $ 0.50
$17.00
Y
$17.00
---
$ 19.00
Y
$ 19.00
---
$ 17.50
N
$ 17.50
---
$ 70.00
N
$ 68.00
+ $ 2.00
$ 44.55
Y
$ 44.55
---
$ 6.25
N
$ 7.25
+ $ 1.00
$ 9.00
Y
$ 9.00
---
$ 13.75
Y
$ 13.75
---
$ 11.95
N
$ 11.95
---
$ 5.75
Y
$ 5.75
---
 
 
 
 
 
Note: cards which are staples in both Legacy and Classic may appear in either list. If you don’t see a card in one list, check the other.
 
Classic prices are completely unchanged. Most Classic players have what they need. However, Classic is growing, so we may see some growth. What we really need is Mercadian Masques, with the P9 s add-on Mythics. Maybe – but the format is pretty solid, and entry – with a deck Tier One deck like Hate Bears – is almost as cheap as Standard.
 
Classic Cards
Price
In Stock?
Last Week
Change
$ 96.00
N
$ 96.00
---
$ 25.00
Y
$ 25.00
---
$ 18.95
Y
$ 18.95
---
$ 13.95
Y
$ 13.95
---
$ 16.00
Y
$ 16.00
---
$ 9.95
Y
$ 9.95
---
$ 26.00
N
$ 26.00
---
$ 44.00
N
$ 44.00
---
$ 40.00
Y
$ 40.00
---
$ 12.00
Y
$ 12.00
---
$ 22.00
Y
$ 22.00
---

The Top Ten:

Here’s this week’s list of the top ten most expensive non-foil, non-promo cards on MTGO. Modern is having an impact. Tarmogoyf is climbing fast, and a Ravnica land has knocked Jace, the Mind Sculptor off the list. 
 
Most Expensive Cards
Price
Set
Last Week
$ 128.00
MED 1
# 1
$ 95.00
Mirage
# 2
$ 90.00
Future Sight
# 6
$ 77.25
Apocalypse
# 3
$ 70.00
Visions
# 4
$ 49.00
Tempest
# 7
$ 44.50
Apocalypse
# 8
$ 44.00
Weatherlight
# 9
$ 37.00
Odyssey
# 10
$ 35.00
Dissension
n/a
 

Deck Prices:

Time to price out a few more decks. This week, I’ll do the decks I featured in Cutting Edge Tech.  I finally realized that it is pretty simple to upload decks over on MTGOTraders.com.   Over time, I’ll link all of these - but the deck converter is not handling M12 cards, yet. 
   
Standard
Illusions cost $ 108 on August 18th .
UB Control cost $ 185 on August 10th.
Night Shift cost $ 210 on August 2nd.
Birthing Pod cost $ 182 on July 27th.
Post-Jace Caw Blade cost $ 240 on July 20th.
Tempered Steel cost $ 151 on July 13th.
UB Tezzeret control cost $ 299 on July 5th .   Tezz is not Big Jace. 
Elves cost $ 163 on July 1st
UB Control by Shouta Yasooka cost $ 921 on August 21st.
Rot from Within costs $ 16 on June 22nd  - or $19.99 in the store. 
Kuldotha Red was $ 33 on June 16th
Soul Sisters, the cost was $ 199 on May 30th  
Shrine of Burning Rage, (Winner, PTQ Madison) was $ 141 on May 25th.
Valakut, (3rd place, here). The cost was $ 140 on May 18th.
Caw-Blade, Standard. The cost was $ 518 on May 11th
 
Modern
(I promise I’ll do some of these, but not until prices stabilize a bit.)
 
Legacy
Sneaky Show and Tell cost $ 1,078 on August 18th.
Reanimator cost $ 1,006 on August 10th.
NO Pattern Toolbox cost $ 564 on August 2nd.
Mask / Orb cost $ 678 on July 27th.
Manaless Dredge cost $ 171 on July 20th.
UW Stoneforge cost $ 917 on July 13th.
12-Post cost $ 704 on July 5th.  (The four Force of Wills account for $ 500 of that cost.)
Four Color Loam cost $ 701 on July 1st.
Cephalid Breakfast was $ 859 on June 16th
Paulo’s Blue Control cost $ 1,608 on May 30th
Landstill BUG, Legacy, (Winner, Bazaar of Moxen), was $ 1,559 on May 25th.
Painted Stone, (3rd place, here) Legacy. The cost was $ 1,200 on May 18th
Team America, Legacy. The cost was $ 1,586 on May 11th.
 
Classic
Control Oath cost $ 1,039 on August 10th.
Dredge cost $ 233 on August 2nd.
Hate Bears cost $ 268 on July 27th.
Gush Control cost $ 1,001 on July 20th.
Hermit Druid w/ Mimeoplasm cost $ 797 on July 13th.
Noble Fish cost $ 1,344 on May 30th, It has dropped to  $1171 in July.
Whiffy’s Null Shops was $676 on June 16th.
Hermit Druid Combo, Classic (4-0, here.) cost: was $ 949 on May 25th.
Metalworker, (3rd place, here), Classic. The cost was $ 621 on May 18th
GG Oath, Classic. The cost was $ 1,126 on May 11th.
 
PTSD:
JarGrim, (video coming soon) costs $1,317.
Free Whalie, from my article and videos, costs $ 1,040.
ProsBloom, from my article and videos, costs $ 197.
Full English Breakfast, from my article and videos, costs $ 807.
 
Weekly Highlights:
 
Modern!  It looks like a fun format. 
 
I have also played a bit of Classic, including winning my second round in the Classic PRE League.  Here's a video of the deck in action.
  

It always helps to have an opponent mulligan a ton.   

PRJ

“one million words” on MTGO.

 

57 Comments

4-3-2-2 by unspeakable at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 08:58
unspeakable's picture

Thanks for spending some time addressing the popularity of 4-3-2-2. I've thought that the frequent criticism of this format, which is clearly the most popular, was simple minded. As you demonstrated, the payout is better for a drafter of average skill than 8-4, and very close to that of swiss. The time factor is also very important. If you want to be able to accumulate a collection of cards through drafting, you are going to be able to do it much more quickly playing 4-3-2-2 than through swiss, as swiss drafts take nearly twice as long in many cases. Lost time is an opportunity cost, and has a real value. Finally, 4-3-2-2 allows one to escape the misery of wading through a swiss draft with a poor deck. Perhaps you just had bad luck with your packs, or had someone switch colors adjacent to you, or something else that threw your draft off, but having to play 3 games with a deck that's really bad is not fun, and perhaps not worth the one pack you might be able to squeeze out of it.

To be honest I think most of by LostAlone at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 14:46
LostAlone's picture

To be honest I think most of the real criticism of 4-3-2-2 comes from the higher end players who can realistically expect to get at least 4 packs a time from 8-4 drafts. And that's fine. I'm not going to say those guys are wrong at all, just they have more of an interest in the top end than most of the average shmoes do.

The majority of people playing aren't those guys, and the numbers of people playing in 4-3-2-2 shows that.

4-3-2-2 is WAY more fun to play than swiss, and gives you a decent shot at coming out of the draft with a prize even if there are a couple of 'sharks' in your draft.

Personally, I am fine with the prizes available for 4-3-2-2. I'm a pretty decent player, not the greatest but I hope above average, and placing third or forth is pretty much my expectation in any random 4-3-2-2 draft that I run in. Obviously that's not how it always goes because luck plays a part, but I think that as long as I draft pretty well I will normally win a couple of games but very seldom go the distance.

Swiss isn't a bad format, and doesn't have bad prizes, but it is slow and my feeling is that if you can take the max from swiss, you may as well have played 4-3-2-2 and enjoyed it. Similarly if you bomb out, you'll get curb stomped a bunch of times when you knew going in you had a bad deck.

4-3-2-2 is definitely a compromise, and a rookie friendly format, but that's why its popular. For a lot of people, it's just nice to get something for your trouble, even if you don't make the top table, and (as I have often felt) if you do make the top 2 it was more due to getting favorable matchups than anything you really did.

Similarly, if you just got screwed on colours or otherwise ended up with a deck that will only beat very bad players, I am ok with just dropping after one match and having another crack at it.

For people who are hardcore into MTGO, I can see why 4-3-2-2 isn't as attractive, because there is the potential to either win more packs or to play more games, both of which are attractive when you take Magic seriously.

You are right that swiss is by Reaper9889 at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 09:37
Reaper9889's picture
5

*deleted*

You are right that swiss is by Reaper9889 at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 09:29
Reaper9889's picture

You are right that swiss is 1,5.

4-3-2-2 is:
1/2 for 0
3/8 for 2
15/128 for 3
1/128 for 4

which gives 145/128 or close to 1,13

8-4 is:
112/128 for 0
15/128 for 4
1/128 for 8
which is 68/128 or close to 0,53

8-4 split final is:
112/128 for 0
16/128 for 6
which is 96/128 or 0,75

Btw. if one is doing that EV calculation one should remember that more bad players play swiss than any other format (I think) - and more good players play 8-4. But that would require more parameters

Thanks for your continued by MMogg at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 09:54
MMogg's picture

Thanks for your continued support of Classic. =)

So, about the video at the end. 1) Whiffy didn't crack the fetch probably NOT because of being land light; rather, most likely he was either saving it for full value with Top (to see more cards) or kept it up as Wasteland insurance. 2) Yeah, I agree that casting Precursor was a mistake. If he ripped a spot removal spell and targeted the Precursor Golem, he could copy it to kill the Lodestone as well (for others who may not know).

Sounds like you had some bad beats in the League. I too have had some pretty rough draws with Cat Stax Fever. I seem to always get lame City of Traitor hands. >_<

Re: Modern prices . . . man, I remember when people were waiting for the cheap alternate Eternal format (Overextended/Modern) to rid themselves of the expensive ones (Classic/Legacy). I hope they enjoy Rav duals that are more expensive than original duals. >_< Classic 4 life!

Shock lands by Ivo at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 13:14
Ivo's picture

You have to consider that the shock lands are highly likely to get reprinted in a standard-legal set as rares (in a set which also has mythics) and therefore they are bound to become much, much cheaper.

Also, while true duals are relatively cheap in MTGO (for now at least), that does not go for paper.

The lack of a reserve list is going to matter a lot down the line. You can expect Goyf to appear in some product as well (maybe an FTV), and the same basically applies to any other Modern staples that are pricey and have power level concerns. WotC has already shown they are willing to put tournament staples in products that are not standard legal, and I believe they will soon show us they will do that even with cards that are fetching big bucks in the secondary market - like Tarmogoyf.

Ivo.

Vesuva, Blood Moon and Magus by protocol_7 at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 10:51
protocol_7's picture

Vesuva, Blood Moon and Magus of the Moon has soared in price last week.Also rite of flame has hit ~$3 for a common O.O

Drafter skill in differing queue types by unspeakable at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 10:55
unspeakable's picture

It would be interesting to get data on the skill level of drafters in various queue types (8-4, swiss, 4-3-2-2) and how they compare. Since MTGO blocks ratings, we do not have that anymore to get even a rough estimate of the skill of our opponent. Now and then you see misplays or use of cards that pretty clearly suck, but otherwise it can be very difficult to gauge the skill of one's opponent online. Skilled players will tend to be drawn to 8-4, but if enough are drawn to it it can have the perverse effect of driving skilled players away from 8-4 to other queues where their chances of success are greater due to lower average play skill they will have to face. We saw this earlier on in MTGO, where skilled players had little interest in competing against each other in the 1700 room, or whatever it was called, because it decreased their winnings. My own subjective impression is that the weakest players tend to be in the 4-3-3-2 queues rather than the swiss drafts. Perhaps weaker players just want to crack packs and don't have the patience for swiss. In any case, if anyone has an idea on how player skill in these different queues could be clearly determined, I would love to hear it.

Please add a correction by Huger at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 11:29
Huger's picture

I would like to start by saying your articles are GREAT! They are far and away the ones I most look forward to during the week. I think it is good that you tackled the EV draft question, but...

Your calculations are wrong. You can see this very quickly if you just add up the percentages in the 8-4 situations. According to you the player has a 50% chance of losing in the first round (correct), a 12.5% chance of losing in the third round (correct), and the odds of winning it all are 78% (I assume this is a typo, but the math is wrong anyway). In fact, there is an equal chance of winning the last round and getting 8 packs, or losing the last round and getting 4 packs. This should be clear from the parameters you defined where in the player is average, during the last round you should have an equal chance to win or lose the round. Thus, the real formula is 0.5*0 + 0.25*0 + 0.125*4 + 0.125*8 = 1.5. Which is what you should expect given all the players were defined as equal and there are 12 total packs to divide among them. Your second poster pointed out well why 4-3-2-2 actually pays out even less than you suggest, but either way 8-4 is better EV and the same EV as swiss.

The reason I think this is a big deal is 1) the incorrect math which just misteaches people probabilities (I have a PhD in statistical analysis so I know about this and care), but 2) it misleads people to think that 4-3-2-2 can be a better choice. IT IS NOT. WoTC just makes more money from it, which I guess might be good if you are an employee of them, but even then, just save your extra packs/tix and get the chance to enter more drafts. I hope that is clear, and please add an addendum or correction to your article so people aren't getting false information.

Again, great articles in general and keep up the good work.

no - the odds of winning a by one million words at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 12:12
one million words's picture

no - the odds of winning a given round are not 50/50. In this example, the palyers has a 100% cahnce of winning against a worse player, and a 0% chance of winning against a better player.

The player can only winn the draft if every other player in the draft is a worse player, and the odds of that are 50% * 50% * 50% * 50% * 50% * 50% * 50%, which equals 0.78%. Not 78%, 0.78%. In other words, the odds of winning the draft are less than 1%.

Actually you do not have a by Reaper9889 at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 12:49
Reaper9889's picture

Actually you do not have a equal chance of winning and losing the last round in 8-4 or 4-3-2-2.

It comes down to the setup, which is: If atleast one good player is in a match a good player wins it. I suspect that you missed that is was not just vs. you that this was the case...

You are player 1 in his setup. You win round 1 if player 2 is bad (probability 1/2).

You win round 1 and round 2 if player 1, 2 AND 3 are bad (probability 1/8). E.g. if there is a good player out of 2 and 3, a good player would win round 1 out of those two and hence beat you round 2.

You win round 1, 2 and 3 if everybody else are bad (probability 1/128) for the same reason (as in if atleast one of 5, 6, 7 or 8 is good you will meet a good player in the final - since a good player would win round 1 and round 2).

We hence see that if you reach the final you have a probability of 1/16 to win it (you have a probability of 1/16-1/128 to lose it which gives 1/16 to win)...

You can see the calculations in my first (second if you count the deleted one) post.

I agree about the bad math though :/ (not meant as sarcasm - the preceding is about the analysis not the math)

If we are throwing around credentials then I will point out that I am studying for my PhD in algorithmic game theory (aka. modeling stuff like this and then trying to solve it fast using a computer - it has nothing to do with regular computer games though :( ).

*edit* still, the EV of 4-3-2-2 is close to 1,13 in the scenario outline which IS far from 1,5...

:D by jake_antonetz at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 11:34
jake_antonetz's picture
5

So the EV for swiss is higher and the "full value" of both swiss and 8-4 is better.

The reason why 4-3-2-2's are a bane to the magic community. When you enter one,you are essentially telling WoTC you don't value your money, and are fine with being charged more.
Say you win 50 dollars. Your prize is on the table and you have 3 packages to choose from.

Package 1 10 5 dollar bills
Package 2 5 10 dollar bills
Package 3 2 20 dollar bills - You'd be ludicrous to pick this.

I know its not a great analogy but this scenario is fairly ridiculous anyways. Even the constructed events are 5-3-2-2.

As far as I see it.
If your not good enough to win 8-4s play swiss.
If you are looking for the best play, and the best potential payouts 8-4.
4-3-2-2s don't tend to get you anywhere and you are punishing the player base by telling WoTC you are fine with them shorting us on prizes.

I bet most people play by Gardevi at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 12:23
Gardevi's picture

I bet most people play 4-3-2-2 because Swiss is SOOOOOOO slow. The rounds take the full time to finish; you can't go anywhere with that.

Modern prices by amcpherson at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 12:06
amcpherson's picture
4

Re: MMogg

Yes, Modern staples are insanely high right now, but that's not going to last. I believe there are a lot of playsets of Ravnica duals being held by speculators right now, and as soon as the prices stop rising, there's going to be a rush to get out. This is obviously a bubble. We don't even know if Modern will be a success long term; it is pretty much the same format that Extended would have been pre-change, and that Extended wasn't so popular except during PTQ season. I'm not even convinced that the Ravnica duals are worth it, given the excellent mana fixing available now. Remember that we have Vivid lands, tri-lands, fastlands (my name for the Scars duals), filter lands, etc, etc. Also, there's a good possibility that they will be reprinted, possibly as soon as Innistrad. So I wouldn't get too anxious about the cost of manabases just yet. Unless you're playing in Pro Tour Philly, or are a top player, save your money and wait for prices to fall back to reasonable levels.

I think by mattlewis at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 12:25
mattlewis's picture

To the best of my recollection, originally there were only 8-4 drafts, period. Then they tried to introduce the 1800+ room to separate the 'sharks' from the 'fish', but that didn't work because the 1800 room was rarely populated by anybody really. Then they introduced 4-3-2-2 drafts. Finally Swiss was introduced.

I might be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure this is the history of draft payouts on MTGO.

I think the evolution of by mattlewis at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 12:44
mattlewis's picture

I think the evolution of payouts comes from WOTC's awareness of the problem around the perception of strong players preying on weak players and were trying to resolve this issue. I think the move of getting rid of visible ratings was also made to help this problem.

Anecdotally, when the split between 8-4 and 4-3-2-2 occured, I think WOTC thought that the good players would migrate to the higher EV of 8-4 payouts. All things being equal, they should have. But, at that time MTGO wasn't as well attended as today. Combine that with players wanting to play, right now, (a big part of the appeal of MTGO I think) and 8-4 ended up rarely firing. Good players were willing to play with lower EV payouts in order to start a draft right away. Otherwise, they were forced to wait for a draft that might never fire.

me too by pcjr at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 13:23
pcjr's picture

This is my recollection as well. 8-4 came first, 4-3-2-2 later on.

4-3-2-2 works best for me by pcjr at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 13:36
pcjr's picture

I have been consistently winning the first round of 4-3-2-2 M2012. I rarely win the second round. To have an equivalent payout in Swiss with my record, I'd have to play all three rounds. What a waste of time. I'd much rather play single elimination and start a new draft. Swiss is torture unless you are trying to learn the set.

There is no magical by inneutral at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 15:33
inneutral's picture

There is no magical difference between the first and second rounds -- half the time you will be paired in R1 against a deck of identical quality to the average deck you face in R2. I find it naive that people say they can always get out of the first round of 4322. After all, you have a 1/8 shot of playing the eventual winner in round 1 (and of course a 1/8 shot of being the winner).

I agree that swiss takes forever though, which is why 8-4s are king.

I also strongly object to your methodology. Check out the pro drafts online at other sites. They lose plenty of matches, sometimes due to luck, sometimes due to being outplayed. You say that it doesn't matter what we assume the win% is of a worse player versus a better player, that the same result emerges, but this is demonstrably false: if better players only won 50.000000001% of the time versus worse, the average payout from an 8-4 for anyone of any skill level would nearly mirror swiss. Since it doesn't in your 100-0 win rate, we know it matters.

I would love for Wizards to feed us some data on win% broken down by player/opponent rating. Perhaps the next community cup team can twist some arms!

I'll try this once more. by one million words at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 16:11
one million words's picture

Okay, me try phrasing it this way.

My sample player in this example has a rating exactly in the middle of the spread. Exactly half the players playing in drafts have higher ratings, and exactly half have lower ratings.

Then let's assume that rating do equate to skill. We can use the six month average rating for each player, to cut down on variance if you prefer.

Now let's build some sort of formula that estimates the likelyhood of winning based on the difference in rating. For example, the chance of winning is 50/50 for equal ratings. For a lower rated player, the change of winning is 50+ (half of the difference in ratings). Do the same thing for the odd of winning verses higher rated players - the chance of winning is 50 minus half the difference in rating. Or use the log of the difference, if you want a curve that tails off. Whatever.

You can also add random factor to represent strength of cards opened - add or subtract a random percentage to represent opening bombs by one player or the other. Just keep it equal.

Now run 500 drafts.

At that point, the percentages and random factors even out, and our sample player will end up, on average, beating the lower ranked players, and losing to the higher ranked players. Or, put another way, our player loses to better players and wins against worse players.

For any simgle game, the random factors matter. However, in calculating long term outcomes over a large number of matches, you have to calculate based only on the factors that stay relatively consistent (or change at a predictable and consistent rate) like player skill.

My article was excessively long even without the more complex math, so i simplified. I should know better.

I'll try explaing this in another way. Let's simplfy the game enough to model. We'll use the d20 roll-playing system. Each player has a skill level, and a game consists of both players rolling a d20 and adding their skill ratings. Further, let's assume players have skill ratings of 3, 6, 9, 12 or 15. My middle-of-the-road player in the above example has a skill of 9. Put him in a draft and choose the skill level of players in each of the other seven slots randomly. Play it out, with each match being best 2 of 3 rolls. Now write some code to do this and run the model 5,000 times. The payout per match will be really close to my estimate.

going over the math by sanity at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 18:49
sanity's picture

Except that your math is wrong. Please see the comment by Reaper9889, which has the correct math.

According to your formula 4-3-2-2 goes:
(2 *.5) + (3 * .125) + (4 *0.0078) = 1.4 packs
That means that you win some packs 1/2 + 1/8 + 1/128 of the time, which is substantially more than half. As you have defined yourself as the 'average' player, it is easy to see that this cannot be true. What happened was that you double-counted your wins. You said that you will win game 1 half of the time, so you put 2*(1/2) in your formula. The problem here is that the 1/8 of the time you win again is PART of that 1/2 of the time, you can't just add them together.

The correct formula is:
2 * (3/8) + 3 * (15/128) + 4 * (1/128) = 1.13.

Using correct formulas you will see that the EVs come out as follows:
Swiss: 1.5
4-3-2-2: 1.13
8-4: .53

I do agree that a simulation will reproduce numbers - just not the numbers you present in the article.

Note also that if you are worse than average [which, lets be honest, half of us are, by definition] the payout becomes even more tilted. Swiss declines the least quickly, and 8-4s quickly become entirely unprofitable. If you suspect that you are not in the top 40% or so, swiss is far and away the best choice from an EV perspective.

I do agree that if you are by walkerdog at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 21:45
walkerdog's picture

I do agree that if you are pretty bad you should ALWAYS swiss. At the least, 3 rounds per draft will teach you about the format much more efficiently.

I feel like a great by greyes3 at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 15:25
greyes3's picture

I feel like a great alternative to 4322s would be just flat, one round 3333s. Of course, people keep playing 4322s so nothing will ever be done about it.

Good to see that your math by this isnt the n... at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 15:57
this isnt the name i chose's picture

Good to see that your math supports what I have been saying for years.

Only people who cannot add to 12 would do a 4322 instead of a swiss or 84, and now with math to back it up! Defending 4322 because it takes less time than swiss is fully retarded. If you do not have time to do a draft, then DONT DO ONE!

Modern- The prices are ridiculous due to the hype. This format is the same as extended before they neutered ext, and nobody played it then except for tourneys. Modern is dominated by combo with the average game lasting 5 turns or less. Not a recipe for fun.

apaulogy's picture

Clearly something is wrong with prize payouts for middle of the road drafters (myself included), otherwise there wouldn't be this much of a discussion about EV.

On the other hand, being someone who consistently wins the first round only to lose in the second round, I understand the point Mr. Jahn is trying to make here as well.

Swiss is random. A lot of those queues seem to fire with people just trying to rare draft and get value from prize packs, perhaps recouping more packs if they are get "lucky" enough to get good cards both for sale and for draft quality. I occasionally do Swiss, but only when I feel like I have enough time to do all three rounds.

You get the same payout in Swiss if you win two rounds that you would by winning one round of a 4-3-2-2, also. If all you expect to win is one round, based on whatever assessments you make of yourself as a player, then I would use the "time is money" argument and say that you actually net more by going into 4-3-2-2s, even if the EV isn't there.

I am no statistician (although I am going to take some basic statistics classes soon), but isn't EV calculated in a vacuum anyway? Or does everyone just always assume a "null hypothesis" method when calculating this?

I may not seem like I can "count to 12", but I feel that I have gotten more packs back by playing 4-3-2-2s at this point based on where my overall skills are.

Maybe someday I will shark the 8-4s, but until I get a real grasp of drafting in general, it is all Swiss or 4-3-2-2 for me.

If someone were to petition for 5-3-2-2s, I would get behind that cause. I think that is a better approach to this whole situation. Wizards does listen to its customer base if they scream loud enough (See Jace 2/SFM bans or "Modern" as a format for evidence that substantiates my claim).

I think the reason this is by Paul Leicht at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 18:35
Paul Leicht's picture

I think the reason this is controversial is the 1 pack difference between the 8-4 and swiss drafts and the 4322 drafts. Group A believes the discrepancy is a good reason to avoid 4322 in favor of other forms of draft because WOTC is getting away with giving out 1 less pack. They are insistent that we boycott the 4322s and I think I more or less agree with this in principle. Though in fact I don't have a stake because the last cycle I loved drafting was Alara Block before the mixed packs.

Group B does not care about the discrepancy and just wants to play fast and get the heck out. I see their point even if it does not ever have any impact on my choices. This is similar to the argument about whether players should avoid the pre-release events. Some will because they want to see better value for their money and others won't because they just want to have fun and money is no real object.

The EV question is something Hamtastic was fascinated with and I think it has for many magic players an allure because of the math element. I am decent with calculation but don't particularly care about math when it comes to figuring out odds and what not. But I know a lot of players who really get a kick out of it. And arguing about this kind of thing takes it to the next level.

swiss, 4322, 8-4 by oraymw at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 17:16
oraymw's picture

re: Swiss takes too long.

I suppose that if you are really grinding out 15 or more drafts a week, then this is really going to matter to you. But since I'm the kind of person that sets aside enough time to do one draft twice per week. If I play in a swiss, I guarantee that I will be able to play my three rounds. Since my goal is to play Magic, this works out well for me. If I were to do a 4322, I might lose in the first round. After that, I don't have enough time to do another draft, so I'm just done. The difference is the cost in limited matches played, which is what I'm trying to maximize.

re: Prize Payouts

I think too many people operate under the assumption that they are going to be able to "go infinite" in limited. That is absurd. I have a 75% win ratio in Limited matches on Magic Online, and I haven't gone infinite. Maybe there are mythical people who do "go infinite," but I can tell you that they aren't achieving this status in 4322s.

re: Math

Better than math is for each player to keep a spreadsheet of their results. That is what I do, which is how I've found that I have just barely short of a 75% win ratio. I also keep track of my wins and losses, and how many prizes I get. On top of that, I track how many tix I gain from selling draft spoils. I've found that on average, a draft costs me 2.4 tix. In other words, I essentially get each pack for $0.80. Maybe I'm not infinite, but I can sure afford 5 dollars a week to draft essentially as much as I want. And $0.80 per pack is a heck of a lot better than paying retail.

re: Math by Reaper9889 at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 03:44
Reaper9889's picture

Better then a spreadsheet is spreadsheet AND math ^^

If we model it using you winning each round with 75% chance, this is what you get in 4-3-2-2 and 8-4:

Probabilities:
1/4 for losing in round 1
3/16 for winning round 1 and losing in round 2
9/64 for winning round 1 and 2 and losing the final
27/64 for winning all rounds

Which gives 2,48 packs for 4-3-2-2 and 3,94 packs for 8-4 - note that the later is quite a bit more than 3 and hence you could expect to be infinite if you played 8-4 exclusively and the model took everything into account...

If we use the model in the article instead, with you beating 3/4 of all players and losing to 1/4 (note: winning 75% is better than that).

Probabilities:
1/4 for losing in round 1
21/64 for winning round 1 and losing in round 2
4725/16384 for winning round 1 and 2 and losing the final
2187/16384 for winning all rounds

Which gives 2,06 packs for 4-3-2-2, 2,22 packs for 8-4 or 2,53 packs if you split the final in 8-4.

Yeah, the problem is that the by oraymw at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 04:42
oraymw's picture

Yeah, the problem is that the win ratio doesn't hold up in 8-4s. And compared to 4322, my average pack wins is just higher than 2.48 anyways.

On top of that, I just don't have enough capital to handle the swings of 8-4s.

Another interesting tidbit is that I'm like 78% in match one, but only 71% in match 2. I can't remember the match 3 numbers, since I'm at my laptop instead of my desktop, but its around 75% too, but that changes things a lot. I figure its because I face more good decks and players round 2, but in round three, I guess I have a good deck that's passed two rounds, so I win more often.

The problem is that math doesn't account for "Wife says we gotta go..." or "Good players think they need to avoid swiss" or "8-4s are more intimidating" or any of a million other factors.

"Another interesting tidbit by Reaper9889 at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 06:02
Reaper9889's picture

"Another interesting tidbit is that I'm like 78% in match one, but only 71% in match 2. I can't remember the match 3 numbers, since I'm at my laptop instead of my desktop, but its around 75% too, but that changes things a lot. I figure its because I face more good decks and players round 2, but in round three, I guess I have a good deck that's passed two rounds, so I win more often."

It is quite interesting, because it suggest that the model in the article is worse than the simpler model where one just fixes a win-probability for all rounds (at least it is worse at modeling for you)...

"The problem is that math doesn't account for "Wife says we gotta go..." or "Good players think they need to avoid swiss" or "8-4s are more intimidating" or any of a million other factors."

Just to nitpick (sorry) that is actually not a problem for the math, but the model...

I agree with you, but you're by oraymw at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 13:39
oraymw's picture

I agree with you, but you're really just nitpicking a matter of semantics. You are defining Math as using numbers and equations to come up with solutions, and I am defining Math as something that people use to make conclusions and assumptions that are inaccurate and justifying it with voodoo math.

The main target audience for by Sebastian Gua at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 18:29
Sebastian Gua's picture

The main target audience for WotC are the casual players. Swiss are meant for them. It only became an issue when some players started to flame the 1 pack prize difference.

Swiss: For players who are trying to learn how to draft, maximize playtime from the packs, learn how the set works. Sometimes sharks appear for easy QP.

4-3-2-2: For semi competitive players and above. Most online life tilting experience starts from here.

8-4: I want your life. Simple.

In my humble opinion it is not even an issue to spark a heated debate. To each his own preference, choose the type of draft that suits them best and work our way up the ladder. No need to argue which has the highest EV as playing limited is definitely negative EV. The percentages brought up are just an excuse to so call justify claims of which is better but when all are negative EV, what's the point? It is the same as comparing who has the worse job but they still stick to it.

As said by oraymw, he just wants to play. When his objective is met the rest will fall in place as his skill rewards him with cheaper drafts to continue playing. He is still a paying player but the bonus of forking out only 1/5 of the cost more than compensates EV of drafts. How much a player can afford determines how much fun he can have.

Pete stated the math as an oversimplification sample. If it evoked negative reaction, please be kind enough to understand it is not that easy to write an article every week with other responsibilities and we will all overlook on a certain aspect. All we need is a little empathy to make the world a better place.

Peace and out. =)

I like this by apaulogy at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 19:44
apaulogy's picture

You are becoming one of my favorite commenters. I especially like your appeal for empathy.

I am going to add buddy you when I fire up MTGO tonight.

april_sebastian, right?

Yup =) by Sebastian Gua at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 04:45
Sebastian Gua's picture

Yup =)

modern events on the event calendar by sanity at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 18:54
sanity's picture

Modern events are on the event calendar - the are just listed on the Premier event calendar with TNMO for some reason. I don't know why the put the modern daily events on the premier event calendar, but they did.

It would be really nice to see you update this article with a correction to your math and the modern events added.

@ people talking about by MMogg at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 19:38
MMogg's picture

@ people talking about reprints. I mean, I hope so in some capacity, but Wizards has demonstrated throughout their history that they are basically unwilling to print cards based on secondary market and availability issues. Look at Legacy's big offenders. Sure the Reserve List stops reprints of dual lands, but what about cards NOT on the Reserve List. Stuff like Force of Will or Wasteland. Where are those reprints? What about when Tarmogoyf was expensive previously (before tanking after rotating out of Ex)? Why didn't they reprint Ravnica duals in some other set since? Can someone point to an instance where Wizards printed cards to make them more accessible because of market values? If not, I'm not sure where this faith is coming from.

Look, they made a bug hupplah over printing ONE Chain Lightning foil in a $30 (iirc?) premium deck. That card could and should have been in M10 or M11 or M12. It's not broken power wise, so why not just reprint the cursed thing? Simply put, they just aren't interested in reprints on the scale on which most people seem to think the Modern stuff will appear.

I must admit though, I do by oraymw at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 20:59
oraymw's picture

I must admit though, I do flame the one pack difference in modo when there are 2 people in a 4322 queue, and 7 in a swiss

It is super-irritating that by walkerdog at Fri, 08/26/2011 - 21:44
walkerdog's picture

It is super-irritating that the payout is not 5-3-2-2, but the "WAHHH 8-4 and SWISS ARE STRICTLY SUPERIOR RETARDS" people are pretty dumb; most especially the guys who studies stats for a living and wants to ignore basic facts.

If I feel like I can win r1 a high % of the time (oh hey I just got two packs not one sucky swiss) and r2 a decent amount fo the time (oh hey, 3 packs for winning two rounds, suck it swiss) but not always final/win the draft, my best EV is 4-3-2-2 even if the AVERAGE EV sucks in those. 8-4 is fine if you're finalling a lot, but not really otherwise. Swiss is fine for uh... getting 12 packs back into the system? Otherwise, not great. 4-3-2-2, while a dumb payout (EVERY PLAYER GETS 1/8 less of a pack on average that's a whole pack you missed on average after 8 drafts!1111) is fine for someone who feels like R2 is an easy target and R3 is doable.

This argument on EV comes by Tarmotog at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 05:58
Tarmotog's picture

This argument on EV comes down to 2 key issues. Your real win percentage and how "long run" your finances can take you.

#1 Win percentage
At 50-50 you can make more packs playing more 8-4s in the long run.
However, most players are considerably less than 50-50 against the people who know the format inside out and those people expect to go 2-0 and split in the finals. Be honest here.

#2 Long run
Even IF you are 50-50, losing 3 packs + 2 tix at once is tough. If you are not lucky enough to make that one lucky finals every X drafts, you will find yourself dwindled down on resources. If you have a very large pool of resources available, then you really should play 8-4s if you think that you are 50-50. However, most people are happy enough opening $ cards + getting 2 to 3 packs and going into another draft because they can afford the loss of a few tix value per draft instead of losing 14 tix worth at once.

It's actually about stability over risk. In real life, high risk ventures give you higher expected returns in the long run. It's the same thing here.

If going 2 wins = 3 packs, I would gladly take that over 3 wins = 3 packs simply because I think I can make 2 wins and get the 3 packs and I hope not to lose round 1.

If you really cared about purely EV, you would have played constructed instead because drafting in the long run is a $ losing venture.

ratings in the 4322 by johanonymous at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 06:52
johanonymous's picture

Maybe i can shed some light on the average rating in the 4322 queue. Ive been tracking my results including rating change for more than a year. I think that from my rating before and after a game I can deduce the rating of my opponent (within a certain range.) Since i mostly play 4322's that should yield about 100 datapoints. It'll take some work. I mostly play evenings in Europe, so results for other times may vary.

Does anybody find this useful?

If anyone has the formula for calculating rating change, it would save me looking it up :)

Also, what really amazes me, is that I have played against 260 opponents in that period. There is not a single opponent I played twice. What does that say about userbase?

Johan

yes, it would be useful. by one million words at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 07:26
one million words's picture

very useful.

From the Magic Tournament Rules,

Appendix C—DCI Rating and Ranking Systems
ELO Ratings System
The ELO player-rating system compares players’ match records against their opponents’ match records and determines the probability of the player winning the matchup. This probability factor determines how many points a players’ rating goes up or down based on the results of each match. When a player defeats an opponent with a higher rating, the player’s rating goes up more than if he or she defeated a player with a lower rating (since players should defeat opponents who have lower ratings). All new players start out with a base rating of 1600.
The DCI uses the following equation to determine a player’s win probability in each match:

Personal Calculation:

win probability = 1 / ((10^(Opponents Rating - Player's rating)/400) +1)

This probability is then used to recalculate each player’s rating after the match. In the equation below, players receive 1 point if they win the match, 0 if they lose, and 0.5 for a draw. Players’ new ratings are determined as follows:

Player’s New Rating = Player’s Old Rating + (K-value * (Scoring Points – Player’s Win Probability))

The K-value is the maximum number of points a player’s rating may go up or down based on the results of a single match.

The default K-value of all Magic tournaments is 16. Specific tournaments may have a higher or lower K-value. These can be found in that tournament or tournament series fact sheet.

All players are rated at the beginning with the first match in which they play. Further ratings are calculated chronologically from that first match.

Drafts are generally all 16K. Premier events are 24k. I'm not sure about TNMO - those might be 8k.

So much of the Sturm and by Scartore at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 09:48
Scartore's picture
4

So much of the Sturm and Drang i see here are the vehement opponents of the 4322's insisting that we share their outrage at the 1 pack difference in total payout when that one pack isn't going to matter to 7/8ths of the players in the draft. To me at least, the difference in EV is what comes after the 8-4, two big fat zeros. For a causal player, one who maybe drafts once a week at best, that reward for pulling out the first game is a huge difference. In an 8-4 game I have to be the second best player at the table to get ANYTHING back.

All this will be moot to me when we get LEAGUES back.

8-4 vs.4322 by apricio at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 11:26
apricio's picture

I have a 1800+ limited rating and I CANNOT, ABsolutly cannot!!!!! play swiss.
Players do not know how to draft in swiss and I rarely end up winning 1/3 games.
Often times I see a player with a deck 10x better than anyone else at the table, and it makes you wana punch the people sitting next to that player.

I have limited resources so I usually play 4322's cuz losing in the first or second round of an 8-4 is brutal and like tarmotog said, its very rare that you'll go 3-0 in an 8-4.
and the diff. between 2-1 in an 8-4, and 2-1 in a 4322 is a pack. but!!!!! the chance of you going 3-0 in a 4322 is significantly higher than in a 8-4.
It's truly risk vs. reward and how much you want to "GAMBLE".

Lets say you win a 8-4, get second, and then lose in the second round twice and in the first round once.

8+4+0+0+0=12 packs

Lets then apply this to 4322
4+3+2+2+0= 11 packs

The difference is only one pack, but assuming that it's easier to make it past the first round of a 4322 or win instead of lose in the finals:
:.
win = 4+4+2+2+0=12 packs
make it out of first round = 4+3+2+2+2= 13 packs

Imo its way better to do 4322's based off a risk vs. reward analysis.
Grant it my stats are hypothetical and maybe biased, it should give you some food for thought.

Also, drafting is moreso gambling than anything else. There are soo many ways to lose playing that you don't have control over even if you have a very good deck. Like mana screw, poor matchups, lack of answers( removal usually for specific cards), mulligans, misclicks, flooding, and The insane bombs your opponents open like elesh-norn, or the classic, your opponent topdecks a forest so he can untamed might for x=8 in his UB splash g infect deck on his blighted agent for lethal, when hes dead on board next turn.

results by johanonymous at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 11:39
johanonymous's picture

I've done the analysis.
Of the 88 first round opponents in the 4322 queue 4 were below 1400, 8 between 1400 and 1500, 9 between 1500and 1550, 11 between 1550 and 1600, 15 between 1600 andd 1650, 16 between 1650 and 1700, 8 between 1700 and 1750, 13 between 1750 and 1800 and 4 above 1800.
Average rating: 1625.

The numbers are a bit rough. Method: I calculated what a certain rating change tells about the opponents rating. For example: If i gain 11 ratingpoints, my opponent outranks me by a number of rating points between 112 and 163. I took the average of that spread and added that to my original rating to get to my opponents rating.

Disclaimers:
Taking the average of the spread is a very rough estimate. For example the smallest spread (when the opponents rating is closest to your own) is still 44 ratingpoints wide.)

I have cleaned up the data, but some results may be wrong (typing errors etc.)

The matches were played over about 2 years time (release of Zendikar until day before yesterday.) Any creep of average rating will not be shown.)

Last disclaimer: I play at evenings in Europe. Other playtimes may give other results.

4-3-2-2 Ratings by Dav at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 12:59
Dav's picture

Looks like a pretty reasonable bell curve, with the average opponent being, well, average! Not terribly surprising, I suppose, but still interesting.

Ridiculously expensive! by KaraZorEl at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 13:33
KaraZorEl's picture

"Almost as cheap as standard."...say what? Standard has never been cheap and the prices of those cards rising due to the Modern format is just insane. I'm sure the people who have their playset of Tarmogoyf are happy, but I can't say I like it that new players have to invest sooo much money just be competitive.

The dirty secret of drafting by char49d at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 13:39
char49d's picture

The dirty secret of drafting is that no one is infinite. You can go on a hot streak or be ahead of the curve for a while in a particular format, but in the long run, pro's and joe's are all losing tix when they draft.

I guarantee you WOTC shaves a pack from 4-3-2-2- simply because it is their most popular draft type. If it was 5-3-2-2 and 7-4 or 8-3 instead, people would flood the 5-3-2-2 and the 8-4's would never fire. They want you to draft for the least value possible - that's why you can now pay purely tickets to draft (except for out or print sets, where people would actually want to do this, thanks WOTC!).

Drafting isn't always bad, and it is probably equivalent value to draft the packs won from constructed events as it is to sell them to bots, but constructed is the only way to stay afloat, and grinding events is a tremendous timesink. You would probably get more "value" going infinite for minimum wage at McDonald's and buying tickets.

The real value is coming from your enjoyment. Are people that are drafting 4-3-2-2 cheating themselves out of some amount of prizes? Absolutely, without a doubt, if you are just interested in value in terms of tix and packs, you would have to be an idiot. Do people enjoy drafting and winning prizes more frequently? I suspect so, although I don't presume to know exactly the reason each person who enters a 4-3-2-2 is willing to give up a slight amount of value, and the reasoning itself is unimportant.

Looking at drafters as strictly rational actors is ridiculous, especially for something as silly as a card playing hobby. Boiling it down to just value is equally silly, just like the ELO rating they use is silly in a game that is definitely not pure skill. Tylenol convinces millions of people to buy it instead of a chemically identical acetaminophen for half the cost. Politicians convince people to vote against their own economic interests. It isn't a stretch to me that WOTC can convince people to enter a draft for slightly less value.

For the record, I am not by char49d at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 13:48
char49d's picture

For the record, I am not calling people who draft 4-3-2-2 idiots. They are clearly evaluating the value of drafts beyond just packs and tickets, and the difference in value is not enough for them to want to draft in a different prize payout, that is all.

If WOTC suddenly made Swiss payout an extra pack, thus making it clearly the best choice in terms of "EV" (I hate this term btw) I would still not draft it, I would be drafting 8-4 regardless. The time spent in Swiss is not worth the extra pack to me personally, and I certainly don't consider myself an idiot for valuing my free time so highly.

Another problem that you by oraymw at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 13:57
oraymw's picture

Another problem that you didn't mention is the way 4322s affect supply.

I have no idea how man 4322s fire in the day, but if 100 fire (which seems low), that means that 100 less packs are distributed into the market. This has both positive and negative effects on drafts: First, it inflates the cost of packs. This definitely hurts drafters, because they need to purchase packs to keep on drafting. Having 5322s instead wouldn't create a huge change, but it is still going to mean more packs in the system, lowering the cost of packs and making drafting more affordable for everyone. Second, it inflates the cost of singles, since there are fewer packs going into the system. This helps drafters, because it means their singles are worth more, but it only helps the drafters that are selling their singles in order to keep on drafting. The people who hold on to them in order to play them in constructed really get no benefit from this.

I think that too many people misunderstand the position of opponents of 4322s. I hear a lot of people calling such Whiners and Complainers. But really, the point is that the only reason why we have 4322s is because people continue to draft them. As long as Wizards makes more money by running an event with a smaller payout, they are going to keep doing it. Would boycotting 4322s make Wizards change them to 5322s? Probably not, but that is what opponents of 4322s are hoping. It's hard to belief that people would think that this is an ignoble goal (from the view of the consumer).

The matter has two important truths:

1. There is a subset of players for whom 4322s represent better EV than either Swiss or 84s.
2. This subset is an extraordinarily small portion of the crowd.

I think the biggest problem that pro-4322ers have is that they are afraid that if people migrate away from their preferred queue, that they won't be able to draft the way they want to. But trust me, that isn't going to happen. There is no way to educate all the people that are incorrectly playing in 4322s and actually convince them to change.

re: thedirtysecret: This!!!! For all the time these "infinite" drafters put into grinding on Modo, they could easily just educate themselves and get a better job, and then draft as much as they want. I personally play well enough that I could probably go "infinite" and I play well enough that I could probably make a name for myself on the Pro Tour. But my job pays me more for the time that I put in, and that means I can do other things I want to do. Playing swiss means that I can play as many drafts as I care to for about 30 dollars a month, which is perfectly fine with me.

I disagree, but it's just opinion by Alternate at Sat, 08/27/2011 - 14:46
Alternate's picture

I have a thought on the 8-4, 4-3-22, and swiss. There are always going to be games where you get a bad draw, and if you don't draft anything, you get kicked out in the first round. And if you don't get a card worth anything, you lose not just the money involved, but also any rares you pass. For example, I played a 4-3-33 today and won the first game, but lost the second because I had a miserable draw.
(I could have taken a Dungrove Elder with P3P1 but chose a doom blade because I didn't need the Elder)

But even though I won 2 packs, the best card I had drafted was "celestial purge".

If you play M12, like most people seem to be drafting, it is based on 90% luck, 10% skill, and 20% hoping the person to your right is stupid.

When it comes down to it, good deck or bad, just based on percentages, you have a better chance of winning 2 packs in Swiss than you would have in 4-3-22. Although I am a good drafter, my first pack today was the worst pack ever. The 3 uncommon's were sideboard at best, the rare was a dual land, and the best common was just a 2/2 red bloodthirst creature. While the guy I eventually played and was next to me picked up a Primordial Ooze with his first pick.

Swiss allows you to have that one game where everything that can go wrong does go wrong, but you still have the chance to win 2 more games, and you have the liberty to draft a rare instead of a better common. I mean in a 4-3-2-2, I was passed a inferno Titan one time P3P3 because I was the only one playing red atm. And there is always the dreaded...

...Shuffler!!!!

I have figured out the shuffler though. If you sacrifice a lamb to him, he will grant you a possible top deck.

There is absolutely no way 4-3-22 gives you a better chance of winning when Swiss will guarantee almost everyone playing at least 1 pack. I would rather take my chances on a swiss than getting unlucky and having to sacrifice a lamb to the God of Shufflers.

And btw, unlike the people who draft online and get credits to play for free from sites like MTGOtraders, most people would rather not play an 8-4 where your P1 rare is a dual land and another guy gets a Gideon or Garruk, then is passed a oblivion ring, pacifism, arachnus web, gideons lawkeeprs, and then takes 2 auramancers. Then on P3P1 picks up either a Solemn or a Titan. By the time I get his first pack, the best card left is flight.