the only thing i would add to this discussion is the persons collection of cards will make a difference in any results (constructed). so i say money is a big deciding factor in magic (unless you get them free). playing poker doesn't require you to own the cards that are getting played.
Personally, I find poker is at least as skill intensive as Magic, particularly No-Limit Hold Em played in a tournament with 6 to 9 players per table.
Pure bad luck in both games can cost you your tournament - in Magic, you can see a 7 card 0 land hand, then mulligan to a 6 card 3 land hand, keep it, and draw four lands in a row while your opponent has a great start. In Poker, you can get pocket Kings on the same hand an opponent gets pocket Aces, or you can flop three sixes only to see an opponent hit a runner-runner flush.
However, in Magic, you have less control. If you get the mulligan into manaflood situation above, there's not much you can do. In Poker, you can read your opponent's reactions when you make bets with your three sixes that help you to determine what holdings they might have - and possibly be in a position to fold your second-best hand on the river to keep yourself alive in the tournament.
If you want to get an idea of this sort of skill in Poker, look up 'WSOP greatest laydowns' on Youtube, and you'll see some of this skill in action. (The WSOP is Poker's equivalent of Worlds in Magic).
I have to say that I was really disappointed with this article. Among other things, the spectrum is WAY off. As someone rated 1800+ in limited Magic, 2100+ in chess, 1700+ in Scrabble, and generally mediocre in poker, bridge, and a few other games, I am very interested in ideas like the relative randomness and skill intensity of various games. However, I can say with a high degree of certainty that Magic isn't nearly as close along the spectrum to Chess as you might think. (I suspect that poker isn't either, but I'm not good enough there to be certain.)
More importantly, for the matter that I view as central to the entire article, placement of Magic on the spectrum, the discussion spanned a grand total of four lines and three sentences. That's just not compelling to me at all.
Now, I don't purport to have all of the answers on this subject, but here are my ideas: First, I'd look at the rating distributions across games that are rated. Many games use similar systems, several of which are based roughly on the idea that a 200-point rating gap is equivalent to a 75% winning chance. In chess, the world's top human players are rated around 2800 (at last check). The *average* chess tournament player is rated around 1600. Assuming that the transitive property applies perfectly to ratings (it doesn't but it's close), that means the best players in the world would beat an average player about 99.98% (4095/4096) of the time. There is luck in chess, as described by some posters above, but it isn't much (for certain reasons, a pure luck-free game might be impossible). On the flip side, the world champions of Bingo should beat the average Bingo player exactly 50% of the time.
However, there will actually be some rating gap, determined by the normal distribution between the "best" Bingo players and the average ones. Why? Because some players will simply have gotten lucky a bit more than others, and their ratings will reflect that. Such a gap could no doubt be calculated/approximated, and it would show a greater-than-50% win expectation for the "best" bingo players. So randomness itself may account for a small fraction of the rating gap in games like chess. On the other hand, the imperfections of transitivity in the rating system mean that it actually underestimates the win percentage given a very large rating gap (Fischer in his prime would NEVER EVER lose to a mediocre chess player, EVER). So we'll call it even.
Anyway, the best Magic players are rated somewhere around 2000, and Magic uses a similar Elo-based rating system as far as I know. The average players are around 1600, so the best players should win around 93.75% of the time against average players. It's a lot, but 15/16 is a FAR cry from 4095/4096. (Especially if you go and account for the amount of spread that would be expected from pure randomness, like the 'best' Bingo players.)
I'd be interested to see someone more statistically oriented than me really run these numbers, even do a multiple regression analysis of some sort, and find a much better answer to these questions than this rather fuzzy article even dreams of offering.
I didn't expect a conclusive answer. I guess I just expected more than 3 sentences of analysis on what seemed like the key central thesis of the article (the amount of luck versus skill in Magic). I might've hoped for *some* form of attempt at quantitative analysis, or at least some more meaningful sense of how one might evaluate this. Like the ratings thing I looked at in my reply, or something (there are surely multiple good approaches).
However, I recognize that perhaps my standards are high, too high for a casual article. I do appreciate the effort required to write *any* article, which is why I so rarely do so myself. So, I do appreciate the author's work.
I realize this has nothing to do with real Magic, but as an interesting exercise I think everyone might find some facinating results by playing a few games of Magic with perfect knowledge. Play a game with both hands revealed. Go further...play a few games with libraries revealed. Both players will know every card in each others' hand and every card that will be drawn and when it will be drawn. I couldn't stand to play many games doing this, but my girlfriend and I have tried it a few times. She learned to think about the future more and I learned I wasn't smart enough to come to a meaningful conclusion other than it was an exercise that made the game feel more like chess. (I should note I didn't play any games with shuffle effects which would make an enormous difference.) It probably deviates too much from true Magic, but it certainly makes you think about many skills involved. Keep it mind it removes many kinds of bluffing and reading of players that can be a defining skill.
I did something similar when I got a hold of a Momir avatar. I thought I would love the game because my choice to spend less money on the format shouldn't limit my success. I played eight games with the avatar before I sold it. I replayed each game, wrote down each creature that came down and when. With perfect knowledge of what was to come (even better than my oponent as they don't know what they are "casting") I honestly felt that only two of those games may have turned out differently. (That is to say I would have chump blocked knowing a sweeper was coming down or I would have attacked differently, etc.) The sample was admittedly too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. However, I didn't particularly enjoy the helpless feeling I had in each of the games and after my review it looked like 75% of the time it wouldn't have mattered what I did based on what was generated.
I have to say I was one of the people who turned away from tribal because of all the irritating players and was glad to see that it has changed into a much more friendly environment
Yeah, poker is too high. It's skill intensive, but not that skill intensive. Remember, having a skill rating less than any give number (let's say it's a 50% ceiling) is not an insult, as a 50% rating means that half of ALL games are about profiency and imagination, which is an absolutely HUGE delta between players. There's absolutely no way that magic and poker are that skill based (90%? reeaaly?). (assuming I'm reading tha chart correctly). Format should be a factor (as sealed is less intensive than draft, which can be more or less skill intensive than standard, which is less skill intensive than larger formats...on and on ad nauseam). Luck, I find, adds to skill as well. Anyone who's ever considered mulliganing a reasonable hand to 6 looking for a force of will or put the incorrect read on someone in magic will attest to this.
LSV does randomly get hosed in drafts (look at his videos on channelfireball)
Checkers, btw is now often played competitively with 2-random opening moves, especially with computers, and the skill ceiling is very, very high. And chess tournaments are something like 1% luck(not exact, obviously), due to match ups, circumstance, the ambiance of the building affecting players, certain gambits, whatever, etc.
Stephen menendian wrote an article a while ago about a 100% skill format of magic, in which he played against chapin. It's in his archive somewhere, and is very interesting.
I think randomness is fun; you're taking momir too seriously. The problem, however, is that randomness (type 4 , for example), is much more fun in person.
Also, my above statements involve an understanding of rules and basic interactions, as a new player bringing a weak draft deck to vintage will obviously get blown out in 99% of games.
And equal amounts of skill and their positions on the scale are not necessarily equivalent. WHile arm-wrestling contains a greater percentage of skill than magic, it does not necessarily involve more skill, as it is far less complex and skillful in a different way. Chess, magic, and poker are different games, contain differing amounts of luck and skill, and are fun for there own reasons, so fighting about comparisons is silly. Just enjoy the gosh darn game; I find those arguing hugely in favor of skill percentages view the game as more of a status symbol than a game.
As a 1900 limited player on magic online and someone who frequents Vegas to play poker I have to say I think that magic is more skill dependent than poker. If i were to place them on this spectrum I would place poker around the 65-70% skill area and magic around 80%. I def am a much much more experienced magic player but I know and play enough about tournament poker to understand that the variance is quite high.
If you are maintaining a rating around 1860-1920 playing drafts you are winning around 75% of your matches. If luck were truly the more significant factor in magic than it would not be possible to have people maintain ratings over 1850
Any analysis of games based only on luck and skill missing the key point of complexity.
Tic-Tac-Toe and Checkers are just as devoid of luck as chess is. However few people are going to argue that those games have the same kind of skill level as chess.
In Tic-Tac-Toe and Checkers there is essentially a skill level ceiling, in which any player who reaches this point can be just as good as any other player that reaches that point.
I think a similar ceiling exists for certain magic formats such as Momir Vig.
Lately I've run into some silent players, who are usually autoblocks for me. It is amazing to me that anyone can play a 'fun' format and be completely oblivious to their opponent. I mean I know that it isn't very 'cool' to say "hello :)" but jeez.
That's why I look forward to games with people I already have some connection with. Makes that social awkwardness just a tad less irritating.
One of the things Zvi told me when he first started beating on me regularly in Magic was that he knew what my deck was going to do better than I did. And he proved it time and again. I am not saying I couldn't get lucky and win one (it happens) but overall his skill determined the outcome our weekly games. Even when I brought the most rogue jank it was never enough. :/ I think that makes a good argument for skill > luck in magic.
Strangely enough, though I did indicate that there are numerous "randomizing" factors in chess...for the most part those factors matter a great deal more against players who are near to your strength. So I agree mainly with your point about chess. Grandmasters will almost never draw or lose to a Master or under player. And I've never seen a GM lose to a true 1600 player (as opposed to a provisionally rated one). I've played GMs often enough to know just how astounding their grasp of the game is. You clearly know more about this than since you are an active higher rated player than I. (I think my last rated game was 12 years ago or so.) On the other hand having played a wide variety of players I can say for certain that some days I play at a 1900+ level and some days more like 1750-. That is a personal variance though...not sure if you can label that luck.
I think Kalandine's point is that better Poker players separate themselves from the lower ends by their ability to read through bluffs, do the math analysis and generally know when to fold. This takes some of the luck out of the game. It is STILL a very random game. Probably more so than magic though I'd argue not that much more. Some of the same skills do come into play irl. Online not as much since tells are pretty difficult to read electronically. I often hear about Digital Poker players getting housed by "real" poker players because of this. I dunno. I think it is an interesting question.
I am not sure why the article disappointed you though...did you expect a conclusive answer? I think he posed a question and gave his thoughts. About as much as one can expect from a casual article these days.
I will say the magic is more luck than skill. However we all know that losing to a bad shuffle happens quite often online and in paper. Magic also has a large random factor as far as drawing goes. With chess all the information you need at a base level is on the board. However in magic you know only a fraction of the information. You have no idea the absolute contents of your opponents deck nor what is in there hand. You also have no idea how you are going to draw. If you top-deck the win at the last second I would not say you won based on skill. Same with topdecking a land when you need an answer, you lost on luck. In all I would say is far closer to 70/30 than your ranking. Though this would be a good topic to look into further.
Regardless of what poker players think, there is no way in hell that poker involves *remotely* as much skill, or, more to the point, as little luck, as there is in chess. I'd probably put chess at the de facto end of the spectrum. It's not 100%, but it might not be theoretically possible to have any *less* luck involved. I'd put bingo at the other end, despite the tiny skill involved. Again, it might not be possible to be any *more* luck-dependent even if it's below 100%. I'd guess, but it would be just a guess, that poker belonged around 80% of the way toward chess, at most... maybe 70%. Remember, the biggest poker idiot in the world can win around 12.5% of heads-up matches against the world champion just by going all-in on every single hand. Magic belongs somewhere around poker.
Of course in EVERY game (since I suggest that no game is *purely* either luck or skill) the best players will come out on top given enough repetition. This makes the "luck" of a game like poker largely a question of definition -- what is a "game" of poker? However, the real question is: How fast does convergence happen? How quickly does the luck average out, leaving the best players on top? The more luck there is, the slower the averaging process should be.
I can't stand bingo, but you can go to bingo halls and see that better Bingo players can handle more cards in front of them, rather than just 1. Also, better bingo players never miss marking off a called number, whereas a lot of casual people simply don't worry if they missed a called number.
I know a a few people who play poker and chess and consider them to take an equal amount of skill. Many professional poker players have the opinion that, when they loss, it wasn't because of the cards but because they failed to successfully read their opponent or because they failed to correctly project their hand strength when bluffing. I would expect poker to fall closer to luck than chess, but I think poker requires more skill than Magic.
I think, when discussing luck versus skill, one important element that needs to come into the conversation is the difference between luck in a single game versus the results over a long period of time. This is a key element in games like magic with multiple pieces and environments. I think that the overall (i.e. players in the top tier, players in the second tier, etc. - not necessarily who won the finals) results of a tournament have very little to do with luck, while the results of a single game hinge more on skill.
In both poker and magic, a skilled player will more often finish better than a less skilled player, but in a given game, match, or tournament a less skilled player may surpass the better player.
I think you will find that quite a few of the tribal players out there currently run a variety of decks. I have Bears and Merfolk currently (had UG Faeries, Illusions, and a few others before my old computer died).
I haven't run into any jerks in tribal in a long time and most tribal players seem to be willing to chat and relax and have fun.
"You Mr Anon, see LSV getting 'owned'? Where is your proof? Or is it just cool to say?"
Well, I'm not the original poster, but anyone can go see LSV getting owned by noobs on occasion, since he regularly posts videos of his drafts on ChannelFireball.com. He shows the good and the bad, it just goes to show that even when you do make the right decisions in Magic, you can't win all the time.
I have seen a few versions of that Madness! deck in the casual room lately. Playing my GRw deck against it was fair and fun, facing it with a more casual deck (i.e., my Forestfall deck) was not fun.
But, the Steamworks deck seems even more popular these days. That deck is annoying. I'm not sure it is as good as other pauper decks out there right now, but it is annoying.
thanks, I had considered the Sigil for using up that 1 missing card instead of LA, but thought the lower cost would be more beneficial to spamming enchants to pump the enchantress, yes you could definitely explore other tribes that can use heavy non-creature enchants there's lots of powerful stuff I just wanted to showcase some of the enchant loving creatures :)
great article really got me thinking since I know I, like many other players, have often been irritated at an opponent's lucky top deck.. so I was with you until you got the the mtg placement compared to poker.. but you got me back on track when u mention the different types.. the same goes for any card game or variation even poker, depending which type you play the outcome becomes a little more luck based such as singleton to prismatic to prismatic singleton, big decks with one of every card can bring about a much more luck based game though even that gets skewed a little because of things that tutor, that changes it from luck to skill when u need to know what u have/want/need.. overall good stuff
the only thing i would add to this discussion is the persons collection of cards will make a difference in any results (constructed). so i say money is a big deciding factor in magic (unless you get them free). playing poker doesn't require you to own the cards that are getting played.
Personally, I find poker is at least as skill intensive as Magic, particularly No-Limit Hold Em played in a tournament with 6 to 9 players per table.
Pure bad luck in both games can cost you your tournament - in Magic, you can see a 7 card 0 land hand, then mulligan to a 6 card 3 land hand, keep it, and draw four lands in a row while your opponent has a great start. In Poker, you can get pocket Kings on the same hand an opponent gets pocket Aces, or you can flop three sixes only to see an opponent hit a runner-runner flush.
However, in Magic, you have less control. If you get the mulligan into manaflood situation above, there's not much you can do. In Poker, you can read your opponent's reactions when you make bets with your three sixes that help you to determine what holdings they might have - and possibly be in a position to fold your second-best hand on the river to keep yourself alive in the tournament.
If you want to get an idea of this sort of skill in Poker, look up 'WSOP greatest laydowns' on Youtube, and you'll see some of this skill in action. (The WSOP is Poker's equivalent of Worlds in Magic).
when are you normally one i wouldnt mind going enchant based deck vs enchant based deck against you...not necessarily tribal though extended
I have to say that I was really disappointed with this article. Among other things, the spectrum is WAY off. As someone rated 1800+ in limited Magic, 2100+ in chess, 1700+ in Scrabble, and generally mediocre in poker, bridge, and a few other games, I am very interested in ideas like the relative randomness and skill intensity of various games. However, I can say with a high degree of certainty that Magic isn't nearly as close along the spectrum to Chess as you might think. (I suspect that poker isn't either, but I'm not good enough there to be certain.)
More importantly, for the matter that I view as central to the entire article, placement of Magic on the spectrum, the discussion spanned a grand total of four lines and three sentences. That's just not compelling to me at all.
Now, I don't purport to have all of the answers on this subject, but here are my ideas: First, I'd look at the rating distributions across games that are rated. Many games use similar systems, several of which are based roughly on the idea that a 200-point rating gap is equivalent to a 75% winning chance. In chess, the world's top human players are rated around 2800 (at last check). The *average* chess tournament player is rated around 1600. Assuming that the transitive property applies perfectly to ratings (it doesn't but it's close), that means the best players in the world would beat an average player about 99.98% (4095/4096) of the time. There is luck in chess, as described by some posters above, but it isn't much (for certain reasons, a pure luck-free game might be impossible). On the flip side, the world champions of Bingo should beat the average Bingo player exactly 50% of the time.
However, there will actually be some rating gap, determined by the normal distribution between the "best" Bingo players and the average ones. Why? Because some players will simply have gotten lucky a bit more than others, and their ratings will reflect that. Such a gap could no doubt be calculated/approximated, and it would show a greater-than-50% win expectation for the "best" bingo players. So randomness itself may account for a small fraction of the rating gap in games like chess. On the other hand, the imperfections of transitivity in the rating system mean that it actually underestimates the win percentage given a very large rating gap (Fischer in his prime would NEVER EVER lose to a mediocre chess player, EVER). So we'll call it even.
Anyway, the best Magic players are rated somewhere around 2000, and Magic uses a similar Elo-based rating system as far as I know. The average players are around 1600, so the best players should win around 93.75% of the time against average players. It's a lot, but 15/16 is a FAR cry from 4095/4096. (Especially if you go and account for the amount of spread that would be expected from pure randomness, like the 'best' Bingo players.)
I'd be interested to see someone more statistically oriented than me really run these numbers, even do a multiple regression analysis of some sort, and find a much better answer to these questions than this rather fuzzy article even dreams of offering.
I didn't expect a conclusive answer. I guess I just expected more than 3 sentences of analysis on what seemed like the key central thesis of the article (the amount of luck versus skill in Magic). I might've hoped for *some* form of attempt at quantitative analysis, or at least some more meaningful sense of how one might evaluate this. Like the ratings thing I looked at in my reply, or something (there are surely multiple good approaches).
However, I recognize that perhaps my standards are high, too high for a casual article. I do appreciate the effort required to write *any* article, which is why I so rarely do so myself. So, I do appreciate the author's work.
I realize this has nothing to do with real Magic, but as an interesting exercise I think everyone might find some facinating results by playing a few games of Magic with perfect knowledge. Play a game with both hands revealed. Go further...play a few games with libraries revealed. Both players will know every card in each others' hand and every card that will be drawn and when it will be drawn. I couldn't stand to play many games doing this, but my girlfriend and I have tried it a few times. She learned to think about the future more and I learned I wasn't smart enough to come to a meaningful conclusion other than it was an exercise that made the game feel more like chess. (I should note I didn't play any games with shuffle effects which would make an enormous difference.) It probably deviates too much from true Magic, but it certainly makes you think about many skills involved. Keep it mind it removes many kinds of bluffing and reading of players that can be a defining skill.
I did something similar when I got a hold of a Momir avatar. I thought I would love the game because my choice to spend less money on the format shouldn't limit my success. I played eight games with the avatar before I sold it. I replayed each game, wrote down each creature that came down and when. With perfect knowledge of what was to come (even better than my oponent as they don't know what they are "casting") I honestly felt that only two of those games may have turned out differently. (That is to say I would have chump blocked knowing a sweeper was coming down or I would have attacked differently, etc.) The sample was admittedly too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. However, I didn't particularly enjoy the helpless feeling I had in each of the games and after my review it looked like 75% of the time it wouldn't have mattered what I did based on what was generated.
I have to say I was one of the people who turned away from tribal because of all the irritating players and was glad to see that it has changed into a much more friendly environment
i think the only 100% skill format of magic would be type 4. i cant really explain it but it is easily found on starcitygames
Yeah, poker is too high. It's skill intensive, but not that skill intensive. Remember, having a skill rating less than any give number (let's say it's a 50% ceiling) is not an insult, as a 50% rating means that half of ALL games are about profiency and imagination, which is an absolutely HUGE delta between players. There's absolutely no way that magic and poker are that skill based (90%? reeaaly?). (assuming I'm reading tha chart correctly). Format should be a factor (as sealed is less intensive than draft, which can be more or less skill intensive than standard, which is less skill intensive than larger formats...on and on ad nauseam). Luck, I find, adds to skill as well. Anyone who's ever considered mulliganing a reasonable hand to 6 looking for a force of will or put the incorrect read on someone in magic will attest to this.
LSV does randomly get hosed in drafts (look at his videos on channelfireball)
Checkers, btw is now often played competitively with 2-random opening moves, especially with computers, and the skill ceiling is very, very high. And chess tournaments are something like 1% luck(not exact, obviously), due to match ups, circumstance, the ambiance of the building affecting players, certain gambits, whatever, etc.
Stephen menendian wrote an article a while ago about a 100% skill format of magic, in which he played against chapin. It's in his archive somewhere, and is very interesting.
I think randomness is fun; you're taking momir too seriously. The problem, however, is that randomness (type 4 , for example), is much more fun in person.
Also, my above statements involve an understanding of rules and basic interactions, as a new player bringing a weak draft deck to vintage will obviously get blown out in 99% of games.
And equal amounts of skill and their positions on the scale are not necessarily equivalent. WHile arm-wrestling contains a greater percentage of skill than magic, it does not necessarily involve more skill, as it is far less complex and skillful in a different way. Chess, magic, and poker are different games, contain differing amounts of luck and skill, and are fun for there own reasons, so fighting about comparisons is silly. Just enjoy the gosh darn game; I find those arguing hugely in favor of skill percentages view the game as more of a status symbol than a game.
As a 1900 limited player on magic online and someone who frequents Vegas to play poker I have to say I think that magic is more skill dependent than poker. If i were to place them on this spectrum I would place poker around the 65-70% skill area and magic around 80%. I def am a much much more experienced magic player but I know and play enough about tournament poker to understand that the variance is quite high.
If you are maintaining a rating around 1860-1920 playing drafts you are winning around 75% of your matches. If luck were truly the more significant factor in magic than it would not be possible to have people maintain ratings over 1850
Any analysis of games based only on luck and skill missing the key point of complexity.
Tic-Tac-Toe and Checkers are just as devoid of luck as chess is. However few people are going to argue that those games have the same kind of skill level as chess.
In Tic-Tac-Toe and Checkers there is essentially a skill level ceiling, in which any player who reaches this point can be just as good as any other player that reaches that point.
I think a similar ceiling exists for certain magic formats such as Momir Vig.
well of course skill>luck i just dont think the difference is as large as the article represented
Lately I've run into some silent players, who are usually autoblocks for me. It is amazing to me that anyone can play a 'fun' format and be completely oblivious to their opponent. I mean I know that it isn't very 'cool' to say "hello :)" but jeez.
That's why I look forward to games with people I already have some connection with. Makes that social awkwardness just a tad less irritating.
One of the things Zvi told me when he first started beating on me regularly in Magic was that he knew what my deck was going to do better than I did. And he proved it time and again. I am not saying I couldn't get lucky and win one (it happens) but overall his skill determined the outcome our weekly games. Even when I brought the most rogue jank it was never enough. :/ I think that makes a good argument for skill > luck in magic.
Strangely enough, though I did indicate that there are numerous "randomizing" factors in chess...for the most part those factors matter a great deal more against players who are near to your strength. So I agree mainly with your point about chess. Grandmasters will almost never draw or lose to a Master or under player. And I've never seen a GM lose to a true 1600 player (as opposed to a provisionally rated one). I've played GMs often enough to know just how astounding their grasp of the game is. You clearly know more about this than since you are an active higher rated player than I. (I think my last rated game was 12 years ago or so.) On the other hand having played a wide variety of players I can say for certain that some days I play at a 1900+ level and some days more like 1750-. That is a personal variance though...not sure if you can label that luck.
I think Kalandine's point is that better Poker players separate themselves from the lower ends by their ability to read through bluffs, do the math analysis and generally know when to fold. This takes some of the luck out of the game. It is STILL a very random game. Probably more so than magic though I'd argue not that much more. Some of the same skills do come into play irl. Online not as much since tells are pretty difficult to read electronically. I often hear about Digital Poker players getting housed by "real" poker players because of this. I dunno. I think it is an interesting question.
I am not sure why the article disappointed you though...did you expect a conclusive answer? I think he posed a question and gave his thoughts. About as much as one can expect from a casual article these days.
That's what I wanted to hear. Thanks.
I missed the first two tournaments, could a few people post there deck lists?
If the next tournament is a Sunday or Monday I can probably play.
I will say the magic is more luck than skill. However we all know that losing to a bad shuffle happens quite often online and in paper. Magic also has a large random factor as far as drawing goes. With chess all the information you need at a base level is on the board. However in magic you know only a fraction of the information. You have no idea the absolute contents of your opponents deck nor what is in there hand. You also have no idea how you are going to draw. If you top-deck the win at the last second I would not say you won based on skill. Same with topdecking a land when you need an answer, you lost on luck. In all I would say is far closer to 70/30 than your ranking. Though this would be a good topic to look into further.
Regardless of what poker players think, there is no way in hell that poker involves *remotely* as much skill, or, more to the point, as little luck, as there is in chess. I'd probably put chess at the de facto end of the spectrum. It's not 100%, but it might not be theoretically possible to have any *less* luck involved. I'd put bingo at the other end, despite the tiny skill involved. Again, it might not be possible to be any *more* luck-dependent even if it's below 100%. I'd guess, but it would be just a guess, that poker belonged around 80% of the way toward chess, at most... maybe 70%. Remember, the biggest poker idiot in the world can win around 12.5% of heads-up matches against the world champion just by going all-in on every single hand. Magic belongs somewhere around poker.
Of course in EVERY game (since I suggest that no game is *purely* either luck or skill) the best players will come out on top given enough repetition. This makes the "luck" of a game like poker largely a question of definition -- what is a "game" of poker? However, the real question is: How fast does convergence happen? How quickly does the luck average out, leaving the best players on top? The more luck there is, the slower the averaging process should be.
I can't stand bingo, but you can go to bingo halls and see that better Bingo players can handle more cards in front of them, rather than just 1. Also, better bingo players never miss marking off a called number, whereas a lot of casual people simply don't worry if they missed a called number.
I know a a few people who play poker and chess and consider them to take an equal amount of skill. Many professional poker players have the opinion that, when they loss, it wasn't because of the cards but because they failed to successfully read their opponent or because they failed to correctly project their hand strength when bluffing. I would expect poker to fall closer to luck than chess, but I think poker requires more skill than Magic.
I think, when discussing luck versus skill, one important element that needs to come into the conversation is the difference between luck in a single game versus the results over a long period of time. This is a key element in games like magic with multiple pieces and environments. I think that the overall (i.e. players in the top tier, players in the second tier, etc. - not necessarily who won the finals) results of a tournament have very little to do with luck, while the results of a single game hinge more on skill.
In both poker and magic, a skilled player will more often finish better than a less skilled player, but in a given game, match, or tournament a less skilled player may surpass the better player.
I think you will find that quite a few of the tribal players out there currently run a variety of decks. I have Bears and Merfolk currently (had UG Faeries, Illusions, and a few others before my old computer died).
I haven't run into any jerks in tribal in a long time and most tribal players seem to be willing to chat and relax and have fun.
Look forward to your future articles.
"You Mr Anon, see LSV getting 'owned'? Where is your proof? Or is it just cool to say?"
Well, I'm not the original poster, but anyone can go see LSV getting owned by noobs on occasion, since he regularly posts videos of his drafts on ChannelFireball.com. He shows the good and the bad, it just goes to show that even when you do make the right decisions in Magic, you can't win all the time.
I have seen a few versions of that Madness! deck in the casual room lately. Playing my GRw deck against it was fair and fun, facing it with a more casual deck (i.e., my Forestfall deck) was not fun.
But, the Steamworks deck seems even more popular these days. That deck is annoying. I'm not sure it is as good as other pauper decks out there right now, but it is annoying.
Good article.
thanks, I had considered the Sigil for using up that 1 missing card instead of LA, but thought the lower cost would be more beneficial to spamming enchants to pump the enchantress, yes you could definitely explore other tribes that can use heavy non-creature enchants there's lots of powerful stuff I just wanted to showcase some of the enchant loving creatures :)
great article really got me thinking since I know I, like many other players, have often been irritated at an opponent's lucky top deck.. so I was with you until you got the the mtg placement compared to poker.. but you got me back on track when u mention the different types.. the same goes for any card game or variation even poker, depending which type you play the outcome becomes a little more luck based such as singleton to prismatic to prismatic singleton, big decks with one of every card can bring about a much more luck based game though even that gets skewed a little because of things that tutor, that changes it from luck to skill when u need to know what u have/want/need.. overall good stuff