Date:         Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:35:53 +0900

From: David Low <dlow@KURASC.KYOTO-U.AC.JP>

Subject:      Re: Timewalk decks and Frenetics



> > It will take, on average, 1.5 1-1 kill cards to kill an efreet.  That

> > means that if they have 4 efreet, you'll need 6 kill cards.

>

> Actually, you'd need 7.5 kill cards to kill all 4 Frenetics on average I

> think:



    The argument people make against the Efreet (and other cards like it) is

    *not* the average number of cards to kill.  If it were purely an average

    - like Bogardan Phoenix, for example - people would *know*.



    The trouble, as I read it, is the variance (as always :-)).  That is,

    while the average for a Frenetic might just be two cards, if you happen

    to meet a guy in the first round who gets six or eight saves against you

    for one or two fails, you're possibly in big trouble.  It makes no

    difference that (maybe) later in the tournament - or later in that

    player's tournament career - "the odds catch up with them": the argument

    people are making is that it's hurt you, here and now, with "nothing"

    you could do about it.



    The variance aspect is what annoys people who play averages and odds, I

    think.  Variance is such a short-term beast....



    However, as much as I agree with this, I don't quite see the point in

    picking on one aspect.  Fix the concept, not the symptoms - and if one

    doesn't want to take the steps necessary to deal with the concept, then

    perhaps one should wonder why some symptoms are OK and others are not.



    In summary: dealing with the average doesn't help - look at mana screw.

    If you could be assured average draws, you wouldn't have people playing

    50% mana.  The reason people play near-50% mana is so that their

    variance in the early game is reduced - they then engage in other tricks

    to reduce late-game land draws (Glaciers, thinners, etc...).  You don't

    play 50% mana because you want to draw a land every second turn - you do

    it to reduce the chance that you get a tail-end draw.  People like Tom G.,

    who are arguably playing a lot more than you or I, will see more of the

    tail-end effects.  While they can attempt to deal with the mana screw

    issue by upping the land proportion and playing thinners, there isn't

    much they can do about a tail-end Frenetic performance.



    What I suggest is that they deal with the concept as a whole, and come

    to a general fix, rather than just hitting on one bit at a time.

    It takes longer, in the long run, to deal with cards than with

    concepts.  Look at the history of Restriction, particularly with the

    "modern" examples of Channel and Mind Twist.  They were considered too

    powerful, so they were Restricted - but that just reduced the number of

    times they had an effect, not the effect they had when they turned up.

    So, after a period of restriction, the Powers That Be woke up to this,

    and Banned them.  Unfortunately, it took a while for them to realise

    that they were doing this bit by bit with *every* card they Restricted -

    and hence, they finally understood that to remove this variance, they

    had to ban problem cards altogether rather than wait for the inevitible

    buildup of results.



    These days, I hope, they're seeing more and more games decided by

    mana-screw (because there are more games being watched).  The finals of

    the US Nationals, for example :-)  The DC has previously used this sort

    of thing (poorly, IMHO) as justification for restrictions/bannings

    (check out the Hymn/Strip release) - it's unfortunate that they don't

    appear able to model, predict, and extrapolate, relying instead on "wait

    until we see how broken it is, then try to do something about it" :-/

    Whether they do something about mana-screw remains to be seen -

    coin-flip cards, though, I suggest are down the agenda because they

    aren't played in huge quantities, and hence they aren't seen often

    enough for the DC to consider them a problem.



    What will be interesting is if they decide that "top-decking" is too

    much luck to decide matches...because if they continue the line of

    though regarding variance, that's what it's all about.  Like I said in

    my first note on this - it's a very, very fine line to decide just how

    much variance is OK, and how much is over the top.



    Followups to CONV-L, since I've changed the thrust and there hasn't been

    much traffic there in the last two days :-)



         Regards,



             David.



--

{ David J. Low                     |             dlow@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp }

{ JSPS Postdoctoral Fellow         | http://www.kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~dlow }

{ Radio Atmospheric Science Center |    "The words of the Prophets are     }

{ Kyoto University, Uji, Kyoto 611 |    written on the subway walls...."   }