fbpx

In Development – Play to Your Strengths, Play to Reality

So…

Last week I caused a bit of a hubbub elsewhere by writing about how some of the “unspoken” rules and expectations that show up in casual play can be a little offputting to an outsider. You can read the full version here, but the concise version is “clear social contracts are best.” If you want to play without counterspells, or with only tribal cards, or whatever, that’s cool, just be up front about it and don’t tell people they suck for not playing Magic “your way.” With a little search-engine-fu, you’ll find more of the conversation that followed elsewhere.

That’s not today’s topic, but it feeds into it.

One of the complaints of our stereotyped “casual” player who hates the stereotyped “competitive” environment is that it doesn’t let them play the game they want to play. Maybe this means getting to hardcast Emrakul, or perhaps it means playing a game where Serra Angel is relevant outside of the Limited environment. This is a stereotype, but the issue is clear.

We’d like to play Magic “our way,” but if we want to play beyond our kitchen table, we have to play in the “real world.”

But – and this is the big “but” – we can still play Magic “our way” even in the “real world” of our local FNM, a PTQ, or MTGO Dailies. In fact, we probably have to play it “our way.”

Strength >>> Weakness

Coincidentally with all this discussion of casual versus competitive play and wanting to “play the game the way I want to play it,” I happen to have recently read Now, Discover Your Strengths. This book, written by Marcus Buckingham and Donald Clifton of Gallup, is a distillation of Gallup’s wide-ranging analysis of successful people in all walks of life.

The punch line from Gallup’s research on success is that successful people focus on enhancing their strengths, rather than trying to patch up their weaknesses.

This is a worthy topic for discussion outside of Magic, but it naturally has application within the game as well.

There are a number of excellent articles out there about being brutally honest with yourself about your Magical shortcomings – your deficiencies in game play and deck choice and design. This plays right into our expectation that the way to get better at stuff is to patch our weaknesses and become a more well-rounded player. But if we go along with Gallup’s empirical results, while it’s very important to recognize our weaknesses, it’s critical to identify, acknowledge, and build on our strengths.

When Gallup talks about strengths they don’t mean aptitudes (“Susan is good at math”) or learned skills (“Bob is a qualified deep-sea welder”), they mean general ways of approaching the world that you can apply consistently and to great positive effect. For example, one of the Gallup strength categories is “Ideation,” which is a fascination with finding connections and offering new perspectives on familiar challenges. I’ve taken the Gallup Strengthsfinder test myself, and two of my top five strengths are “Context” and “Communication,” which means that I am the kind of person who probably enjoys thinking about the past and finds it easy to put my thought into words.

Which might explain things like this.

Note that the Gallup definition of a strength is not even just about the fact that you are good at doing things a certain way and tend to do them that way, but that you take pleasure in doing them that way. So it’s not just that I can crank out 3,000+ words for a weekly column about Magic, it’s that I like to do so.

So if a strength is something we do well, consistently, and with some amount of happiness, then how can we identify and usefully apply our Magic strengths?

What is a Magic strength?

If we’re going to identify our own Magic strengths, we need to spend a little time thinking about what a strength even is, in the context of the game. Obviously, the Gallup-defined strengths actually apply to how you play your game, and if you feel like plunking down twelve or thirteen bucks for the book, that’ll give you access to their online test and your own results. I’m not really recommending that as a game play tool, but it does make sense that strengths that apply globally apply to how you play a fantasy card game.

Unfortunately for us, we have not surveyed a couple million highly successful Magic players to ask them how they think, to try to divine their strengths and then use that to compile a list of Magic-specific strengths. So it’s left to us to carry out a more anecdotal evaluation based on our observation of players at all levels around us. Here are some examples of what I consider to be Magic strengths as exemplified in players you’ll have heard of.

Unshakeable cognitive tempo

Or, in less bombastic language, “consistently crisp play, technically and in terms of pace.”

My first-round opponent in last weekend’s ChannelFireball Spring Series 5K championship was our very own LSV. Luis is a prime example of this strength, enough so that you’ll hear Brian David-Marshall talk about it during the coverage for the PT Berlin top 8. Even while chatting with me and shoulder-to-shoulder with other active games at a crowded first-round table, Luis maintained a consistent pace of precise, accurate play.

Note that the pace is not particularly frenetic, nor does it alter a whole lot even as the game play situation changes up. I think the single largest pause was after I stuck an early Sparkmage in game two, which I assume locked a Lotus Cobra in Luis’s hand and required a slight update in his game plan.

I think we all like to believe that we can learn this kind of play, but that’s probably not the case. Some people are naturally going to undergo significant shifts in tempo, where they have “obvious” turns and “tank” turns requiring very different amounts of time.

Or, to put it another way, no amount of practice ever let Frank Karsten play faster, and rushing him just means he makes more mistakes. That said”¦

Deep analysis

Frank Karsten is a prime example of someone whose biggest strength is occasionally at odds with winning tournaments. He is analytical in a way most of us aren’t, both before and during his games. The upshot of this very thoughtful approach to the game is that Frank can come up with some spectacular plays not because he’s being inventive on the fly but because he’s spent the time leading up to the tournament and in each and every turn of the current game running complex decision trees forward to explore every possible game state.

At least, I imagine that’s what the inside of his brain is like. Regardless, when Frank was able to cast [card]Gifts Ungiven[/card] as a sort of double [card]Entomb[/card] against Akira Asihara (as highlighted here I don’t believe for a second he thought of that idea right then. Instead, it was in his vast inventory of things he’d already figured out about the contemporary Standard format and the use of each and every card in it – much like the infamously comprehensive pick order list he developed for Pro Tour Nagoya.

The upside to having this strength is, well, it can lead to a lot of wins. The downside is that it can also lead to some frustrating draws.

Crystal-clear recall

Have you read one of Paulo’s tournament reports?

Yeah, even though I take more notes than most I can’t typically reconstruct matches the way he can, well after the fact.

It may be odd to think of this sort of post hoc action as a strength – after all, it’s pretty much about reconstructing an event that’s over and done with. That said, it’s obviously a strength in preparing for your next event, and in building a library of experiences that will shape your decisions concerning things like deck selection and building a mana base.

Again, let’s be clear that these are not all traits that everyone necessarily has, can have, or even needs to have to do well at this game. Tom Ross placed ninth at PT San Diego and just won a PTQ, among his many other victories. Here’s his summary of his round four match up from that PTQ:

I lose the die roll.

I don’t remember much from this match as all the Jund games now began to blend together. I sided the usual and nothing truly interesting happened.

Is it worth Tom’s time to try and develop an eidetic recall of all of his Magic matches?

Probably not. He seems to be doing fine with the tools he’s using right now.

So, those are some examples of what I’d tend to think of as Magic strengths. We don’t have a comprehensive, survey-based list, nor do we really need one, but this kind of thinking gives us the ballpark for identifying our own strengths.

Filling out your strengths inventory

With some prompting from those examples, it’s now time for us to try to figure out our own Magic strengths. As we try to identify them, remember that our qualifiers are excellence, consistency, and pleasure.

Excellence – We’re good at applying the behavior, way of thinking, or approach to the world.

Consistency – We do it pretty much every time, reliably and repeatably.

Pleasure – We enjoy doing things that way.

We really do want to hit this trifecta when describing a strength. I know, as I’m sure you do, people who are consistently excellent at a certain behavior or skill set, but absolutely loath doing it. They may have a knack, but it’s not their thing, and as a consequence it will so drag them down in the long run and they won’t be able to ride that strength to success.

There are no proven methods for identifying your Magic strengths, but here are some ways we can get there from here.

What do you think they are?

Sounds obvious, I know.

What do you think is really good about your game, just as you’re thinking about it right now, sitting there and reading this article. For example, are you particularly good at figuring out when to “go for it?” in the face of countermagic or other disruption? Is that your absolute favorite moment of the game?

Do you get reliable reads on your opponents? I mean, really, spookily reliable? Is this a lot of fun for you when you pull it off? Are you one of those players who lists the cards you think your opponent has, and are you right more often than not?

Sitting back and thinking about it myself, I’ve realized that I’m really good at, for lack of a better phrase, “not losing.” Not only do I have a talent for eking out that extra turn via a surprising series of defensive moves, I also really enjoy it. Some of my favorite match wins have come on the back of marathon game ones where other players would have conceded early on, but I saw a way and a reason to stay in and managed to win out.

What would your friends say?

We’re bad self-evaluators, much of the time – at least, when we don’t have some kind of framework, or the willingness to fact check ourselves against history. In this context, it’s good to check in with the people you know and trust, folks who’ve played with and against you on a regular basis, and who hang out and watch your matches when they’ve finished theirs.

Remember how I mentioned getting reliable reads, above? I know, and I bet you do as well, many more people who think they get good reads than who actually get good reads. If you thinking you’re awesome at reads, you might want to check in with your (hopefully honest) friends and find out if that’s actually the case, or if you’re drowning in confirmation bias and recalling the few spectacular times you were right instead of the massive majority of times you were very, very wrong.

I’m pretty poor at reads, but I don’t think I’ve ever suffered from the illusion that I’m good at reading my opponents.

That said, I’m told that I have a pretty surprising recall for historical situations and weird rules interactions, which fits in with that whole Gallup “context” strength, and is probably obvious in what I write about and how I write about it.

Checking in with your friends is a good chance to both fact check your own impressions and to learn about strengths you never properly pegged yourself as having.

Reviewing your notes

This one is hard in paper Magic if you don’t take assiduous notes or have Paulo’s photographic recall, but it’s pretty feasible for MTGO.

Basically, watch your replays. After you play in a 2-person Standard event, a Daily, or whatever, actually watch your replays and see if you can identify anything interesting or noteworthy in how you play, and how it contrasts from your opponents’ play styles.

I’ve only done this a little bit, but one approach I’ve found useful in applying replays as a tool to divine my Magic strengths or to just get a better feel for my play style is to actually block off the view of my own hand in the replay. Imagine that you’re watching a replay from someone else’s game and try to evaluate the plays with no insider knowledge about one player’s hand.

Be critical. Get judgey, even. Which plays from either player impress you, and what’s your overall impression of the game? Does one player seem to be controlling the pace of play, or otherwise influencing the overall flow of the game? Does it feel as if one player is a step ahead, or pulling off plays that clearly surprise the opponent?

If you divorce yourself a little bit from strongly identifying with the player who is, well, you, that can help you be a little more objective about listing the strong points for “that player.”

What’s awesome?

A core element in a Gallup-style strength is the idea that you aren’t just good at the area in question, but you really like it, too. So another good analytical tool here is to just start listing out things in Magic that you think are awesome. “Things” is an intentionally broad descriptor here, covering cards, decks, formats, plays, and even players.

For example, one question you can ask yourself is “If I had to play someone else’s published deck list in a given format, which one would I play?” If I sat you down right now and said, “You’re playing in a Standard PTQ tomorrow, and you have to use a deck list that’s won a PTQ in the current qualifier season,” what would you pick? If you keep asking yourself questions like this across multiple formats, does a trend show up?

The frequent copout answer that’s given to this kind of question is, “I picked deck X, it’s the best deck.” Real results tend to highlight the flimsiness of that ostensible reasoning, though. On June 19th alone, PTQ wins went to Conscription Mythic, Jund, NLB, Turboland, RDW, and URW Walkers. Was one of those archetypes the “best” deck?

It’s likely that you tend toward certain designs based on some affinity between your strengths and the deck’s features. We can dig a little deeper into this kind of question by asking not just “What decks do I like?” but also, historically, “What have I actually played, and how did I do?”

It’s possible, of course, that one of your strengths is flexibility, in which case you may be genuinely ambivalent about specific deck choices – and a lack of pattern across your choices will, indeed, reflect this.

Similarly, if you think the best plays are intricate, planned-in-your-head-in-advance combo kills, that may point to something about your intellectual approach to play – as contrasted with someone who is all about on-board aggression, pushing tempo, and so forth.

Sweet. So how do I apply these ‘strengths’ once I figure them out?

Good question.

The fundamental idea behind a strengths-based approach is that you will almost always win by pushing your strengths harder. Thus, it’s going to be about setting up a play environment and deck choices that support your strengths.

Let’s use, as an example, the strength I identified above, which I somewhat jokingly call ‘not losing.’ Based on my personal observations, talking with friends, and a detached evaluation of my own play record, this is a genuine strength in my play. I have a lot of single-game match wins where others would have folded. I have an affinity for complex, on-board interactions and eking out an incremental advantage that keeps me in the game just a little bit longer each time.

So, how do I play to this strength? Well, let’s reverse that a bit and ask the corollary question – what happens if you get one, or a few more, turns?

Well, first of all, you haven’t lost the game yet. That’s handy.

Second, you have the chance to access more of your deck and make more plays.

Third, your opponent has the chance to access more of their deck and make more plays.

This third point highlights the potential drawback of this strength – on its own, it keeps you in the game, but does not automatically knock your opponent out of the game. If I don’t pay attention to my own tendencies in this area, I’ll preferentially build and select decks that emphasis this strength, and while they will give me amazing tools to stay in the game, I may forgot to include tools that will let me close the game out.

This is where we want to remember that, fundamentally, we play games in the “real world” – whether that’s FNM, MTGO, PTQs, or the Pro Tour. I may adore complex board states, combat math, and gaining incremental advantage, but I am never going to play in an environment where every opponent will be my willing dance partner and go through the motions of playing this kind of game with me, only to let me win “my way” at the end.

This is where playing Magic “our way” runs right up against the wall of the “real world.” But as I promised in the introduction, playing to your strengths lets you do both.

So, what should someone with an affinity for endurance and incremental advantage do to make sure they can nonetheless thrive in the “real world?” Well, here’s one solution, yanked from day two of PT Valencia 2007:

Rock ‘n’ Nail (Zac Hill)

This is a deck that does all the things I love – it disrupts combo decks, clears the board, slows down the enemy’s offense, gains some life”¦and then it caps it off with a Tooth and Nail for some combination of unsolvable creatures, effectively ending the game right then and there. That’s a solid way to use an extra turn or two!

Is there an analog to this in our current PTQ environment? Sure there is:

Mythic (DelayingScheel5)

This isn’t pure Mythic, but rather is a sort of hybridized deck that has some planeswalkers, Cunning Sparkmages to control the board, and then Mythic Conscription as a finisher. More generally, a number of designs ranging from UW Control through NLB have seen variations that basically just pop in the Sovereigns plus Conscription package to give controlling or incremental decks a one-shot finisher.

If I’m going to continue to be good at eking out turns and incremental advantage, I think one of the best possible decisions for my future play will be to include this style of game-ender in my deck.

If you’re saying, “Well, yeah,” keep in mind what I’m not trying to make myself do. I’m not saying I’ll just go on and play a pure Mythic deck, as I generally don’t do as well just attacking with some big dudes. Similarly, I neither enjoy nor am I as good at doing burn math and scorching people out with Red cards, so I’m not going to just play RDW because it’s done well recently as an archetype.

It’s about playing to our strengths, but doing so in a way that interacts favorably with the real world.

Let’s go for a second example before I close this one out. As I mentioned above, I’m not particularly good at reading my opponents.

I used to really dislike playing against decks featuring countermagic. I’d wind myself up trying to figure out whether they “had it” or not, and then I’d just doubt myself into not making a play and get locked out by the opponent. And this isn’t really shocking, given that I was basically trying to play into a weakness – I wanted to “know if they had it” while being bad at reading the opponent.

But there’s something else that I’m good at, something for which I have a real affinity – and that’s understanding that odds are odds, likelihood is likelihood, and there’s no such thing as luck except as a retrospective description of things that have already happened. In other words, I know that if their deck is running four Negates and three of those suckers are already in their graveyard, they are highly unlikely to be holding the fourth. I know this is true even if the last few times I ran into this situation, I happened to hit the low percentage case where they did have the counterspell.

The practical consequences of accepting and playing to this strength are manifold. First, I no longer waste needless energy and add pointless hesitation by trying to figure out what the other player is thinking. I’m bad at that, so why put a lot of effort into it? Second, I can act with the confidence that I am making the statistically correct play – and the logical outcome of that is that I am making the statistically correct play more often, and, per statistics, it works more often. Third, since I can figure out likelihoods and recall deck lists much, much faster than I can try to suss out what my opponent is thinking, I burn less time and don’t either accrue Slow Play penalties or run out my match timer.

Taking your strengths to the bank

As I’ve mentioned before, if you tell yourself you suck, you’re going to suck. If you instead take the time to try and understand your strengths, you have the opportunity to shape your choices around your strengths and bring their full force to bear every time you show up to a game.

It’s certainly a different way to think about things, but it’s powerful, and can let you play better Magic and relax and enjoy yourself a little bit more.

So what are your Magic strengths? How can you play to them in the “real world?” Let us all know in the comments.

27 thoughts on “In Development – Play to Your Strengths, Play to Reality”

  1. This is an interesting counterpoint to Cedric P’s article on SCG today. Thanks for writing it.

  2. I like the idea of playing to your strengths. One of the things that I think holds a ton of people is a generalized cognitive dissonance. They’ll say they’re good at Magic, but (for example) they’ll be good at making decks, but bad at drafting. Because there’s this contradiction going on, there isn’t 100% confidence the player has for himself.

    That said, I think my strength in terms of the card game is being able to understand why people make certain plays. For example, if I’m playing a white control deck and he’s not playing too many creatures, chances are he thinks that I have a Day of Judgment. I can use that info to create card advantage in other ways (card draw for example) by playing into his thoughts.

  3. Really good and insightful article.

    Here’s a question for you, though: I think that my strength is in puzzle-solving; it’s what I most like to do, and I’d like to think I’m quite good at it, at least outside the realm of Magic. As such, I like playing decks in Magic that have a lot of choices and a lot of lines of play, so I can figure out what the best one is at any given time. I like making complicated mulligan decisions and things like that.

    One of my most fun moments in recent memory happened last Friday where I got the chance to borrow my friend’s Super Friends deck to play some casual games. I really love the deck, but I don’t want to spend the $700 or whatever required to build it. What would you recommend in this type of situation?

  4. Pingback: Scott Tom - Online Poker | Poker

  5. After reading this I realized what I already should have known. I need to be playing RDW. I enjoy burn math and that feeling of ending the game with a blaze of spells. Furthermore, I am pretty good at knowing when to switch gears from burning creatures to burning players. On the other hand, i also love playing defensive reactive decks that create difficult board states to break through and win through a long trickle of damage (possibly with a burn finish). I guess I need to figure out a way to reconcile these two strengths. Lately I’ve been playing a defender deck on MTGO with Vent Sentinels, Lust for War, and burn, which utilizes both of my strengths, but I don’t think it’s really viable and can’t figure out how to shift it into a truly competitive deck.

  6. Pingback: MTGBattlefield

  7. My greatest love for Magic is combination decks. I enjoy having to figure out the puzzle with cards in my hand, or graveyard, etc. and figuring out how I can finish the combination or set it up correctly to win on a future turn. I’m not Karsten-level good at thinking through these decision trees (or even realizing that some option exists!), but I’m better at this than all of my friends.

    Your comment about reading the opponent made me think about Cabal Therapy. Most people reading this will probably never play this card, but if you know a match up well then it becomes easier to name a card blindly and hit. More importantly when you play with Cabal Therapy it forces you to think about what card(s) can defeat you given the current game state.

  8. I think the best way to reconcile this article with cedric’s is to also think “what aren’t my strengths?”

    I personally will almost always sling mountains in some capacity, and I tend to accel at maximizing the efficiency of burn.

  9. good article, thank you.

    would like to see a more comprehensive list developed of what you feel are the most important or archetypal magic-related strengths in addition to Unshakeable cognitive tempo, Deep analysis and Crystal-clear recall.

    again, good article and deserving of a follow up. thanks

  10. Easily the best article in the past two weeks.

    I’m not yet sure what my strengths are… I don’t think it’s card evaluation, since I thought Momentous Fall was going to be great (bzzzzt!) and thought Jace was going to be merely good (bzzzzt!). It certainly isn’t deck design, either.

    I guess my game recall is ok, my analysis is good, but my read on opponents is abysmal. My rules knowledge is certainly above average, and I *enjoy* understanding the comprehensive rules, so maybe I should seek to achieve Cedric-level “discard your own hand to your own Esper charm because you chose the wrong mode” rules knowledge.

    I’ve never received a slow play warning, but I don’t think it necessarily means I play at a good pace… I tank like crazy when something unexpected happens.

  11. One of my strengths is realizing instantly a good thing when I see it, and then abusing it to win all of the cheese. It’s a magic strength and a real life strength, but I digress. Really: I think this method is one of those things. I identify and have several of the “magic strengths” you mentioned, as well as with take games in a fashion I am consistently good at and enjoy. That’s well and good, but not why I’m commenting.

    I think this is one of those good things, again, and I fully intend to abuse it for the cheese. What I would ask of you is to give more people the opportunity at said cheese. Give this concept more than one article. Poll the other writers in the CF community and develop that comprehensive list of their MTG strengths, so that people still trying to shore up their weaknesses can have a chance to play to their strengths and take home more wins. I am comfortable with my abilities as a magic player, but am optimistic about this concept taking my game to a new level, and optimistic as well about it helping people who get bogged down by wasting energy on fixing weaknesses where it could be better spent on strengths. I know several players who do this constantly, and would benefit from this article, and the article(s) I hope you write about it in the future. I will lead them here if you do the rest of the legwork.

    That said, I will do some legwork as well. I write for Magic-league.com (I seriously apologize for the plug, but it’s being done with good intentions) and am going to put fingers to keyboard to pen an article sending people to this one, as well as asking the playerbase of ML to identify their magic strengths. You’ll get hits, and the first line of the article will be in all caps, reading verbatim: GIVE ALEX SHEARER OF CF.COM ALL SHREDS OF CREDIT FOR THE FOLLOWING CONCEPT. I think also that some of us MLers are no slouches, and lists of “magic strengths” from both sites will go far in aiding players around the world with finding and developing theirs’. I hope players from both sites are into the concept and hope you do indeed write the followup. I for one eagerly await it, in all its hypotheticalness.

  12. Thanks as always for all the replies. I let the comments “cook” for an extra day or so this week, partially to see what y’all would say, and also by dint of being stupid busy (you can ask Luis just how out of it I was in round one of the 5K…too much “real life” lately).

    It sounds like this one really hit a (good!) nerve, and that is awesome. I also appreciate the requests for a follow-up on this topic, so I think if there’s support for it from all of you, I will go ahead and start collecting the research and turn this into a developing (hah) article series.

    For anyone who’s coming to this article via ML or anywhere else, please give it a read, then take a stab at describing what you consider you own strengths. To help guide you, here’s a quick two-part approach to that question:

    1) Having read this article, what do you consider to be one of your Magic strengths?

    2) For each strength, why do you consider it a strength? How did you come to that conclusion?

    @Lyle – That intersection of complexity and price is a tricky one. Although I make quirky card choices, I’m not consciously a budget player, other than my desire to get cards cheap and then hold on to them, so I’m not always good at that kind of thinking outside the box. One of the intrinsic issues with appreciating complexity and trying to stick within a budget is that the rarity structure of the game is intentionally tailored to make complex cards more rare, so the super-casual player (e.g. Wal-Mart guy, not EDH guy) doesn’t run into them so often as to make the game offputting.

    William Spaniel addressed this in a way in his most recent article, in that getting into a deck early, regardless of deck, is a way to acquire it at a discount. Thus, if you can identify a reasonable “complex” archetype early in the release cycle for its constituent cards, you can get in for less than if you acquire it later.

    Or, to put it another way, scoop up those Jaces and other cards that speak to generating complex play sooner, rather than later. I know this means treating $160 for a playset as “cheap,” but that appears to be about where we are with certain Mythics right now.

    @Olin – I think that’s a big part of why this kind of (self-)analysis is so useful. Once i acknowledged that I was pretty bad at reads, I stopped beating myself up and undermining my strengths by trying to “be better” at it – and as a result, freed myself to just feel better about myself and my play.

    @DK – It’s possible that these strengths don’t exactly work together (it happens). I think in your case, I’d definitely try the “let’s look at every thing I’ve ever enjoyed playing, or had a good record with” and try to find additional commonalities. It does sound like you have a general-purpose affinity for switching gears and what we might call “exact kills,” and if we abstract the idea out a bit like that, we won’t necessarily get stuck on the idea that you have to be playing RDW to play decks that play to that strength.

    @Jason – That’s honestly the only way I ever play Cabal Therapy, unless I actually know what’s in their hand already. The question is always, “Of the cards that beat me, what is most likely, by the odds, to be in their hand right now?” I wouldn’t trust myself to try to chat my opponent up and get them to give away info, Kibler-style, or to just read their emotional responses to my cards, Sam Stein-style.

    @Coach – That’s a perfectly solid way to look at it. Realizing that you just aren’t good at something informs your decisions about what you can and can’t improve effectively, and where your effort is best spent.

    Also, trying to “just do better” at something at which you aren’t ever going to be very good is a recipe to start hating the game, which is no good.

    @asap – I’d like it, too. I think that requires more review of effective players on my part. Conveniently, we do have an ever-increasing archive of recorded, high-level play to look at in this area. Thus the question I’ve added at the beginning of my replies.

    @SomeNoob – It can take some time to figure this out, especially as we don’t have a lot of good tools to do so right now. Again, this seems like it might be a good series. 🙂

    @reynad – I tend to agree.

    @Stacks – That sounds awesome. Can you please DM me over at twitter (I am parakkum on twitter) so I can set up a line of communication with you via email?

  13. Alex, my email is [email protected]. I don’t hope to get a lot of trolls spamming me, but I’m not Twitter-tech enabled, so would rather just get it figured out this way. I’ve already got the article written (it’s short and sweet, mostly just pointing a finger hither) and it is in the process of being edited by staff. I’ll give you a copy once you’ve dropped me a line.

  14. To answer Alex’s question:

    1) I seem to be pretty good at drafting. Not all that great at playing the deck I make, necessarily, but at drafting the cards to play with.

    2) I base this observation primarily on watching LSV’s drafting videos and realizing that about eight or nine times out of ten I can tell what card he’ll pick/consider, and almost half the time where we significantly digress, I still end up thinking I’m right (the other half, admittedly, I end up slapping myself and thinking “Dang! i didn’t even THINK of that! How could I have possibly missed [enter card name here]?”). Plus, when I play limited, I tend to do better than the average scrub, and can often turn a pile of sealed garbage.into something that’s, well, still garbage, but sometimes just janky enough to win. Not good enough to beat the people who opened legitimate bombs, but good enough to beat the people who didn’t.

  15. Thanks for the great article. Definately worth the time to read.

    Been doing some thinking about my strengths.

    Understanding local metagame – I think that I’ve got a reasonable handle on what the local population of players are likely to go with, to the point were I know what certain people are most likely to play.

    Agro control decks – I prefer to play those style of decks and have enjoyed playing those the most at tournaments, regardless of the outcome.

  16. @Alex – Here’s my answer to your two-part question:

    1. I was good at beating myself up for mistakes I made in games.

    2. I wrote up tournament reports for my (more “casual” playing) friends and they were littered with quotes like, “Now here comes my big play error!” and “Ack! If only I had remembered that fact, I wouldn’t have sided those out and my chances would have improved immensely.” I talked like that, too. I remembered, with burning clarity, many of my game losses, but I didn’t have nearly as good a recall on my game wins (which I often attributed to luck or opponent error).

  17. Pingback: In Development – Great Crossover Potential (MEP content) | Magic: The Gathering - Strategy, Singles, Cards, Decks

  18. Pingback: The next ‘last’ three months of Jund | Gifts Ungiven

  19. Pingback: » In Development – Building Your Character Sheet

  20. Pingback: » In Development – Magic Effectiveness Project, Part 1 – RFC (Not That RFC)

  21. Pingback: » In Development – Building Your Character Sheet

  22. Pingback: » In Development – Great Crossover Potential (MEP content)

  23. Pingback: » In Development – What’s Your Read?

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top