Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (
More info?)
David wrote:
>You seem to be confusing "opinion" with "mathematical fact". It's no
>more up for debate than whether 2 + 2 = 4. What is up for debate is
>whether the decrease in the odds of clumping, which can be the death
of
>a deck, is relatively better or worse than the odds of running out of
>cards, which can be the death of a deck.
Again, I realize that there are instances of combinatorics where the
differences between 75 and 90 look like they'll make a difference. My
point is that, certainly is this deck, the difference is irrelevant.
>This is why your insistence that "no, going 90 is *always* better and
there's no reason to >ever choose 75" just looks uninformed.
See, I think the big problem here is that you have either absolutely
zero tolerance for hyperbole, or a complete inability to understand
hyperbole. But I don't think the latter is the case.
But that being said, in the deck in question, the statement that 90 is
always going to be better that 75, pretty much always, is the result of
nothing *but* information. It just isn't the abstract and mostly
irrelevant information from analysis of cominational math.
>First, your advice for this particular deck wasn't simply adding more
of
>the same cards. But even if it were, you can keep the proportions
>precisely the same. I'm assuming that you do. But you still make
your
>card flow poorer than it would be with fewer cards.
Adding Taste of Vitae is only making the deck work better. And adding
more Haven Uncovered is going to make the deck work better. Well, and
maybe a Dreams, which, also, just makes the deck work better. The rest
of the cards were more of the same. And you are correct that you can't
keep the proportions exactly the same. But you can keep them in a very
close area, and the difference, certainly is a deck with the large
numbers of the same card like this one, is going to be not an issue.
>The reason is that his deck intends to play Trap, and the
>Gate-Gate-Gate, chaining them out for as long as needed to torpor his
>opponent. Card flow is critical. Card flow matters. It may not
matter
>to you as much as those few games that stick out in your mind as the
>ones where you ran out of cards, but that doesn't change the facts.
Adding more Gates and Traps, then, makes the chances of getting more
Gates and Traps increase.
>Realize that my position is far more moderate than yours. I'm willing
>to concede that being at 90 has its advantages. But so does being at
>75.
My position is that, for the deck in question, the advantages of being
at 90 are always going to outweigh the advantages of being at 75. There
might be minor advantages that come from being at 75, in terms of
combinational math, but these advantages are always going to be
outweighed by the advantages of being at 90.
>Your position is completely founded on the following premise:
>"Gagging almost never happens and, when it does, the consequences are
>trivial." I mean, instead of counting on one hand the number of times
>you've run out of cards -- an easy fact to recall -- how about
recalling
>the number of times you didn't win, and how many of those times not
>having the right cards in hand played a significant role? Now, which
>category do you *really* think is larger?
Making the deck larger by adding more of the cards you want in your
hand simply isn't going to have any measurable negative effect on your
ability to draw the cards you want. Especially when you want to draw
the cards that you put more in of. If I was like "Ooh! Put in 15 Gird
Minions!", then, well, yeah, you'd have an argument. But as I'm like
"Put in more Haven Uncovereds, which you want to draw, Traps, which you
want to draw, Gates, which you want to draw, and Tastes, which you
should have in their anyway", I'm not seeing it so much.
>and as far as the running out of cards things go, I'll just (re)state:
I
>see weenie decks all the time, every week. I see them win a lot. I
see
>them win *a lot* with plenty of cards left in their ash heap. Nobody
>has said anything to convince me that running out of cards is a more
>probable obstacle than having a poor hand.
Sure. But you aren't going to have a poor hand any more than you would
at 75 cards. 'Cause the cards you are adding are the cards you want to
draw anyway.
-Peter
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram