Arcane Laboratory – EternalMagic Thu, 15 Aug 2019 02:51:59 +0000 pt-BR hourly 1 Differences between Brazilian and international Legacy metagames Wed, 13 Sep 2017 04:44:16 +0000

Alpha Legacy leva 96 jogadores ao centro do Rio

Jeskai Stoneblade conquista Open São Lourenço – Confira as decklists do Top8

Those events were very useful for the community, not only to show how strong the format currently is inside the country, but also to provide solid statistical base, in terms of deck choices that composes the Brazilian Legacy scenario, which can be used to make predictions for the nationals that will occur on November 24th and 25th, in São Paulo – SP. As almost a tradition here in this page, we could not let the opportunity to make a statistical analysis of the Legacy metagame pass by. This time we are not focusing on the scenario overseas, but how Brazilians face the format.

One thing to be noted in this format is that there is a lot of playable decks. As the power level is very high, there are several different strategies that can be used in a competitive scenario. Even more than that, the lists last long and the metagame is relatively stable. Such stability fosters the development of an affective relationship between the player and the deck, which ends up becoming a master with his/her archetype, without being punished by that – just the opposite, the experience rewards the player. Facing this scenario, it is common for us to find experienced Legacy players repeat: “In this format, people play with what they have/like, and not with what is considered tier 1”. Some famous examples can be found on the international community, such as Rodrigo Togores (wiener of the GP Prague) and his Storm deck; Jarvis Yu (winner of the GP Seattle) and his Lands deck; and Julian Knabb (famous streamer of the Legacy community) and his Elves.

Considering the arguments above, it is reasonable for local metagames of different countries to show significant differences when compared with online tournaments or a GP/global scale event. Following this perspective, it is yet uncertain what are the peculiarities that makes the Brazilian metagame unique. This is a aggravating factor for the Latin-America community due restricted access to high end cards, such as old dual lands and other cards from the reserved list. This month’s article aims to use this new rich data set about the national legacy metagame, and than compare with the ones overseas, offered bt the Magic Online platfor (once it is the easiest way to enter in the format). Considering those objectives highlighted above, the following questions can be raised:

  1.      What are the differences in terms of deck choices when we  compare the Brazilian and the Magic Online Legacy metagame?
  2. What is the difference in terms of archetype density between Agro, Control and Combo on the observed metagames?
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_text_separator title=”Methodology”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In order to answer the purposed questions, the methodology for this article was a comparative analysis of the Brazilian and international metagames, based data provided by one week observations of the Magic Online through MTGGoldfish and on the two events described earlier. Once collected the data, the decks were identified were assimilated to an archetype (agro/tempo, control/midrange/prision or combo), and then the Brazilian results from both events were summed to form one single sample. In the end, the data counted with 173 Brazilian lists and over 57 different decks.

To answer the frist questionrepeated individual sample T tests were applied for each deck in the format. This test basically compares the the density of the probability for the occurrence of one given phenomenon (in this case, the appearance of certain game on the field) against other similar event, using a binomial distribution model, already explained on other articles in this page. For those who are interested, see below the formula used for the calculation:[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”4560″ img_size=”large” alignment=”center”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In this formula, we consider p as the frequency percentage of certain deck in the metagame (p1 = Brazil, p2 = online) and n as the sample size, or number of considered decks. On simple terms, this calculation compares the adoption of certain list in two different fields and generates an Z score. In case this Z score reaches a certain limit, we can consider that this deck is better represented in one field than the other. For this specific case, we are considering an α level of 90%, which leads to a threshold of 1,65. In other words, in case Z is higher than 1,65 the deck can be considered more popular in Brazil. In case Z is lower than -1,65 the deck can be considered more popular on MOL. More details about this approach can be found at:

In order to answer the second question, the percentage density of each archetype was compared qualitatively (due a matter of sample size).[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_text_separator title=”Results”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The results found significant differences regarding the popularity of certain decks on Brazilian metagame, when compared to the international one. Besides that, as expected from the Legacy format, there is a large amount of unusual decks (most of them with sample size = 1) in both metas. As an example we have the Stiflenought (directly from the primordium of competitive legacy), Enchantress, Mono R Storm, BR Control and many others. The raw data can be seen on the table below, in spoiler. Inside the table there are specified the Z values for each decks, and the differences between formats are indicated in red.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”4546″ img_size=”large” alignment=”center”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]As can be seen on the table above, there are 3 more popular decks for each metagame:

Decks better represented online

Decks better represented in Brazil

Czech Pile

Show and Tell

Grixis Delver

Death and Taxes



For certain reason, decks with Grixis mana base are on the top popularity on MOL, being the reason behind cards like [mtg_card]Underground Sea[/mtg_card] and [mtg_card]Volcanic Island[/mtg_card] being so expensive. Could the financial access to the cards be the reason behind this result? We are not going to discuss this on this article, bur rather how this might impact the metagame and deck choices for future events. It must be noted that this analysis does not say that one less popular deck on certain meta is not well represented, just that it is better represented elsewhere. Even being less popular in Brazil, Grixis delver still one of the most used decks in the format, and the same can be said for Death and Taxes online.

Right on the first analysis, we can conclude that a metagame without Czech Pile is excellent for aggressive combo decks. I.E. decks like Storm always had positive matchup against Death and Taxes (despite the fact that [mtg_card]Thalia, Guardian of Thraben[/mtg_card] is a problem, she is the only relevant way to interact on game 1, and your sideboard is generally well equipped to deal with hatebears), Show and Tell ( due the number of discard spells) and infect (simply for being faster). One of the worst enemies for storm, Grixis decks, capable to combine disruption with a fast clock, have their density reduced on Brazilian meta, making what already was a good choice an even better one.

Looking from another point of view, the lack of storms on the metagame, in favor of slightly slower combo decks, such as Show and Tell and Infect ends up benefiting other hatebear decks, such as Maverick. As already said before, even if Grixis Delvers are not so popular in Brazil, they are common enough for you to take advantage of this positive matchup without being punished.  [mtg_card]True-Name Nemesis[/mtg_card]-based decks, such as UWR Stoneblade that won the Open São Lourenço are also good choices on the field. Dispite the fact that this single card alone is a strong tool to fight against board-oriented decks such as Death and Taces, the deck counts with the presence of [mtg_card]Stoneforge Mystic[/mtg_card] to help in the infect matchup.

Considering now the second question, and how the archetype distributionis different on the two fields, the data shows again differences between the Brazilian and the international community. The plots below show in percentage the distribution of archetypes on both metagames.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”4548″ img_size=”large” alignment=”center”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The data presented above shows that Brazilians prefer to use combo strategies (31,79% Vs 22,75%) and less control decks (36,42% Vs 49,80%). This again shows the lack of Grixis Control strategies on the field. Cards like [mtg_card]Leovold, Emissary of Trest[/mtg_card], [mtg_card]Hymn to Tourach[/mtg_card]  and similar are essential to keep combo decksat bay.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_text_separator title=”Conclusion”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The goal of this article was to analyse comparatively the Brazilian metagame with the International one. In order to do so, results of two major Legacy events were compared with results of one week worth of data from Magic Online extracted by the MTGGoldfish database.

The results have shown one lack for Grixis strategies on Brazilian metagame,in favor of a greater amount of Death and Taxes, Show and Tell, and Infect. Such result indicates that aggressive combo decks, such as storm, or board oriented decks such as stoneblade might be a good way to deal with this meta.

Considering the distribution of archetypes, it was perceived that Brazilians prefer to play combo rather control decks. This result clearly shows the lack of Grixis decks and also a lack of tools for effective disruption on the metagame.

In the  end, I am very pleased to see that even in such powerful and stable format, Legacy is still capable to create unique metagames in a local sphere, creating their own peculiarities and challenges. I expect that we, Brazilians keep our own individuality and I am curious to see how other nations’ metagames might be. See you next time![/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row] ]]> 0 Time to pull the trigger: The risks of combo decks on the legacy format Thu, 03 Aug 2017 10:00:37 +0000 Introduction – Hello, and welcome to another edition of the Arcane Laboratory. On this month’s article, we are still talking about the infamous combo archetype. On the last article, we talked about how threatful this archetype can be on bigger tournaments, and how we should be prepared to it. As requested by the readers, this time we will talk through the combo player’s perspective.

It is no surprise that combo decks on the Legacy format are fast enough to win the game with no interaction. Decks like BR Reanimator, Storm, Belcher, OOPS ALL SPELLS, Spanish Inquisition and even Show and Tell are capable of going off on turn 1, ending the game – or causing unreparable damage, such as putting a [mtg_card]Griselbrand[/mtg_card] into play. On the other hand, the format counts with some “meta police” cards, responsible to keep the combo decks at bay, granting response capabilities even on turn 0. We are talking about cards like [mtg_card]Force of Will[/mtg_card]; [mtg_card]Mindbreak Trap[/mtg_card]; [mtg_card]Surgical Extraction[/mtg_card]; etc…, but most importantly the famous FOW, on pre-sideboard matches.

On more aggressive decks, a turn 1 combo may require loads of resources to be performed, being with card selection; setups; mana accelerators and, most obviously, with the combo pieces. In cases when the sequence of plays are interrupted, the combo player have his/her gameplan severely damaged by losing important pieces, which were traded for a very low price, which some times may cost the whole match. Concerned with this problem, a very frequent question from rookie combo players is: when to pull the trigger? This discussion reminded me one interview from the storm master (and creator of The Epic Storm – TES), Bryant Cook, for the channel Lefacy’s MTG Training Grounds, where he discusses this issue in depth. For those who never saw the video, it totally worth your time:

During his interview, Cook comments that in cases when someone has a turn 1 kill in hand, he/she should go for it. The chances for an oponent to have one [mtg_card]Force of Will[/mtg_card]  in hand tostop the combo is about 40% (in case they play blue), and the scenario does not get better with the first land drop, when oponents gain access to cards like [mtg_card]Daze[/mtg_card], [mtg_card]Flusterstorm[/mtg_card], [mtg_card]Spell Pierce[/mtg_card] and many other threats. Dispite its excelent insights, this video is a bit outdated and does not considers the position of combo decks on the current metagame. Other than that, Cook does not make a real risk analysis, but rather focuses on make his lines of thought clear to other players, when he faces this kind of situation. In the end, it is believed that one satystic analysis of the Legacy metagame may offer precise tools for decision-making aid during risk evaluation performed by combo players. This approach also can offer valuable information about pairings and how well people are prepared to deal with combo om their sideboard. Considering the factors cited above, this article focuses on answering the following questions:

  • What is the chance to have my combo stopped on the first turn of the game, during a Legacy tournament with blind pairing, where the players are not aware of eachothers lists?
  •  What is the difference of risks to go off on the play or on the draw?
  • What should we expect in terms of responses on post-sideboard games?

As this column talks about basically mathemathics and probability inside eternal formats, the objective of today’s article was to create one probabilystic model of the chances for us to have a turn 1 combo interrupted, being on the play or on the draw. After calculating the risks of comboing off on the blind, we are going to analyse how well the legacy metagame is prepared to interact with combo decks after sideboard. It is believed that those resuls will gibe us some thoughts about how we should behave on different scenarios. This article focuses more specifically on the first turn of the game aiming to reduce variance (have response or not), and also because from the seccond turn and beyond there are cards with permanent hate (such as  [mtg_card]Thalia, Guardian of Thraben[/mtg_card];  [mtg_card]Gaddock Teeg[/mtg_card] and others), which are out of the scope of this study.


In order to acheive the purposed goal and answer the questions above, the following steps were performed: 1) one sample of the Legacy metagame was collected from the MTGGOLDFISH database, composed ofone weekwoth of lists that played on Legacy competitive leages on Magic Online. Afterwards,the pairing probabilities with each archetype were calculated; 2) based on the collected sample, most popular decklists were identifyed , and then was defined what are the most common cards for each deck, and in what quantity; 3) we looked on the lists how many cards are able to interact/answer turn 1 combos, being on the play or on the draw. The cards defined for this analysis can be seen on the table below; 4) based on the stablished lists and on the frequency of each card on then, the probability for someone to have an answer for a turn 1 combo on the initial hand was calculated on a hypergeometric distribution model – which models the probability of success of repeated random tests inside the same population. 5) With that in hand, allied with the pairing probabilities with each deck, we were able to cauculate the conditional chance of pairing with someone and he/she have a interaction card in their initial 7, having as a result the expected value to have the combo interrupted, without knowing what the oponent is playing. The expected value forumla can be seen below:

In case you are not familliar with expected value formulas, you can simply ignore this part and move on. On this formula, R represents the probability for someone to have an interaction card on their opening hand, playing with some specific deck (DI), and P is the probability of someone to pair with this deck.  We used weighted averageas the extimator for the expected value due the fact this is a generic metric, applicable to deck bluilding. The individual chances of response with specific decks may vary, but,the weighted average presentsthe overall expectation of the the overall metagame, forus to have a rought notion about how we shouldbuild our decks.

[vc_text_separator title=”List of cards selected as possible answer for turn 1 combos.”][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Turn 0 interaction cards:

[mtg_card]Leyline of Sanctity[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Force of Will[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Surgical Extraction[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Leyline of the Void[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Mindbreak Trap[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Misdirection[/mtg_card][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_column_text] Turn 1 interaction cards:
[mtg_card]Tormod’s Crypt[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Nihil Spellbomb[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Relic of Progenitus[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Duress[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Daze[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Flusterstorm[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Spell Pierce[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Stifle[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Pithing Needle[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Grafdigger’s Cage[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Invasive Surgery[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Unmask[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Coffin Purge[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Crop rotation[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Bojuka Bog[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Extirpate[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Spell Snare[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Swan Song[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Inquisition of Kozilek[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Thoughtseize[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Divert[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Cursecatcher[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Mind Bend[/mtg_card][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Conditional interaction cards (needs one accelerator):
[mtg_card]Chalice of the Void[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Thalia, Guardian of Thraben[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Gaddock Teeg[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Hymn to Tourach[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Thorn of Amethyst[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Collective Brutality[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Sphere of Resistance[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Containment Priest[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Ethersworn Canonist[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Phyrexian Revoker[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Warping Wail[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Null Rod[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Trinisphere[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Suppression Field[/mtg_card] [mtg_card]Runed Halo[/mtg_card][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The conditional interaction cards are the ones that need some kind of mana ramp to be played on turn 1, such as [mtg_card]Chrome Mox[/mtg_card]. The calculations presented below take into acount the chances todraw the pair (hate card+mana accelerator), and not the card alone. [/vc_column_text][vc_separator][vc_column_text] The final sample was composed of a total (n) of 302 lists, and 42 different decks. It is just another indicative of how healthy the Legacy format is.


For those that are interested on cauculations and tables, see below the list of the raw data used for the analysis. [/vc_column_text][vc_tta_accordion active_section=”1″][vc_tta_section title=”Close” tab_id=”1501685485615-3a9b7cba-c4b7″][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Open” tab_id=”1501685127929-4a92bb26-50d8″][vc_column_text]

[/vc_column_text][/vc_tta_section][/vc_tta_accordion][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text] The results of the calculations shows one optimistic perspectives for all-in combo players. With the increase of the number of Grixis strategies, the natural response of the metagame was the appearance of more decks focused on board control, such as Death and Taxes, Elves, Lands and so on. Those decks more focused on board interaction generally do not run the blue collor, and consequently [mtg_card]Force of Will[/mtg_card], which is the mostcommon turn 0 interaction in the format. Analysing the listed decks carefully and their density inside the metagame, we can assume that only 51.66 of the decks run this powerfull counterspell (notallways the 4 copies). Thisresult, alied with the conditional probability of an oponent to have one copy in hand (plus blue card) leads us to one expected value of just 20.58% of chances for them tointeract on the first on the draw.

When we move to the draw, and the oponent have the oportunity to have at least one single land drop, the things change a whole lot. The access to cards such as [mtg_card]Daze[/mtg_card], [mtg_card]Spell Pierce[/mtg_card], [mtg_card]Flusterstorm[/mtg_card], Or even discard spells such as [mtg_card]Thoughtseize[/mtg_card] increase the chances of answering the combo on the blind to 48.27%. Even so, despite the signigicant increase on the chances of survival of our oponents, the situation is very favorable for the combo player. A large amount of the decks will still have some hopeless openings against you, such as the famous: [mtg_card]Plains[/mtg_card]+ [mtg_card]Mother of Runes[/mtg_card], the favorite meal of Belcher players. Decks like Death and Taxes, Maverick, Lands and simillar are simply not able to interact with a very fast combo. They depend of at least the seccond land drop to rely on cards like [mtg_card]Thalia, Guardian of Thraben[/mtg_card], ou [mtg_card]Gaddock Teeg[/mtg_card].

With this, we already answered two of our questions:In a big tournament, where players dont know what their are playing agains most of time, turn 1 combos on the play have huge chances fora free win. When we are on the draw, the cances change a little bit, but the major expectation is the absolute success. Considering the fact that we play first 50% of our matches, imagining that decks like BR reanimator or Belcher, the final expected value is that on 65.57% of the matches that we try to win on turn 1 we will succeed easely. This resultsjust show how the Legacy format is unpreparedfor degenerate decks,but we say the same thing during sideboarded matches?

First thing that I want to note is that most of the time after the game 1, we have clear notion of against what we are playing with. For this reason, the data presented on the folowing part is not related exactly about risks of going off in a general metagame, but rather how the probability is distributed along the sample. Different deckshave different density of answers, and a good playermust know how to adapt on each situation.

If before sideboard the answer was allways; GO FOR IT! Postboard matches present two different paths for a player to follow. As already shown on the table above,  the probability of interaction on turn 0 on game 2 jumps to 48.27%,with the adition of tools tailored to deal with  combo decks (such as  [mtg_card]Surgical Extraction[/mtg_card], [mtg_card]Leyline of Sanctity[/mtg_card] ou [mtg_card]Mindbreak Trap[/mtg_card]). At least on the sideboard, the metagameis prepared for degenerated actions. Only 13.91% of the Legacy field have 0 copies of any of those cards.On the other hadnd, the density of them is low, and most of the cards have very specific answers that does not stop anycombo generically. For instance, [mtg_card]Leyline of Sanctity[/mtg_card] does not impede a [mtg_card]Griselbrand[/mtg_card] from hitting the battlefield, and  one [mtg_card]Surgical Extraction[/mtg_card] is generally unable to deal with [mtg_card]Goblin Charbelcher[/mtg_card]. Considering the arguments presented above, I keep my opinion that luck smiles for the ones who combo in the first turn. Some deckssuch as ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrills Storm) can even add more speed on their gameplan by adding [mtg_card]Chrome Mox[/mtg_card] on the deck to avoid specific (but slow) hate. Even so, we must always watch out for oponents who mulligan agressivelly to find answers!

When we are on the draw, thigs get pretty grim. The probability for them to have answers on turn 1 goes up to scarry 76.14%. Iwould never risk a combo with no information about the oponent’s hand, fearing [mtg_card]Flusterstorm[/mtg_card], [mtg_card]Coffin Purge[/mtg_card] or simillar. The answer for this puzzle is very simples: Timeto win the long and grindy game. In order to put more ways to interact against your combo, most of the “fair” decks opt to board out some of their threats, leaving a fertile ground for the ones aiming to play a longer game. The adition of cards like [mtg_card]Defense Grid[/mtg_card] or [mtg_card]Xantid Swarm[/mtg_card] afterboard allows the combo player to fight the hate in any stage of the game, regardless how much resource the oponent has.


This article aimed to analyse the riscs involved on turn 1 combos, considering   pairing probabilities and different responses present on the Legacy format. In order to do so, the projection of 4 scenarios was made based on a hypergeometric model of probability, to malculate the expected balue for a unknown oponent to interrupt us during our combo, using only the 7 initial cards on their hands, on both pre and post sideboard, on the play and on the draw.

The results point out that the metagame is very favorable for combo players,specially the fasterones. There are many decks that simply do not have defenses against turn 1 kills on the mainboard. After sideboard, we could observe that the density of threats increases substantially, specially when we are on the draw. Considering this scenarios, combo players must be ready for both accellerate their decks post board on the play, or to grind the longer game and fight hate on the draw.

Answering once per all the questions on the introduction. On the play, without knowing the oponent, should we pull the trigger? Myopinion is simillar to Bryant Cook’s: YES! The chances of winning are very high, and as we saw, the perspective is not to get better as time progress. This articlemade clear that a single land drop increase the chances of failure in up to 30%, and things get even worse with the seccond land drop, where hatebears start to pop out. The only esception for this situation for my are in post board games, where the combo player can prepare the deck to fight against the hate, and win the grindy match.

As limitations, this article limits itself to talk about turn 1 combos/interactions, in order to reduce internal variance of lines of play on distinct decks. Another limiting part of the article is that it does not take into account the fact information about the opponent, as it is a qualitative measure and cannot be mathematically modelled. In the end, the techniques used on this study use as parameter for the analysis staple lists from online databases. Specific lists from different players might change the numbers and expected values for responses to the combos. Even so, the approach used on the study serves as a reliable indicator in terms of probability, taking into account internal variance and discrepancies that are present in every single prediction model.

I do not know about you guys, but I am sleeving up my Reanimator; TES and Belcher for the parallel tournaments of the GP São Paulo. See you there with your FOWs! [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row] ]]> 0 Preparing for a Legacy GP: What to expect from combo decks? Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:00:42 +0000 Disclaimer:

This article has a purely mathematical approach, but don’t be scared! There won’t be complex formulas nor endless calculations. Just some few plots and basic concepts that will help us to foresee what is waiting for us in the future of such an interesting format like Legacy.

The problem:

The metagame is changing. Miracles, which once was considered one huge meta police, which maintained degenerated unfair decks at bay, is now gone. In such scenario, there is a real concern on the legacy community about how to deal with the combo problem. Such problem gets worse for some players that opt to play decks without blue, and consequently, without Force of Will, which is one of the best ways to battle against “unfair decks”.
On the other way, such dreadful scenario, where combos would run free and the chaos would reign, is not happening as expected. Loads of previous articles have being reporting that between the 5 main Magic archetypes (Control; Midrange; Agro; Tempo and Combo), the last one on the list have not been getting as many top 8s as expected, and almost no one have been seen on the top of the pod. Studies from reported that combo decks have less than 29% of appearance on top 8’s on major events, both in Brazil (CLC, Alpha legacy, Liga mineira de legacy), and U.S. (Qualifies GP Vegas; 4k Channel Fireball, Classics SCG). As the opposite as one might think, the absence of Miracles on the metagame resulted in a greater appearance of Grixis Delver/Pyromancer archetypes, which have typically good matchups against most of the combo decks.
Despite this indicative based on the sample we have, it is common sense that when battling a combo deck, your success is highly dependent of the amount of hate cards you have on your sideboard. In other words, once “fair” decks have lots of cards on the main board focused on field interaction, most of them need to replace those cards for the second and third matches in order to better react to the combo threats. Some examples that can be highlighted as anti-combo hate cards are Flusterstorm; Surgical Extraction; Aethersworn Canonist and Sanctum Prelate. Being said that, we can conclude that ignore the presence of combos on the field is dangerous, and you can end up exposing yourself to extremely polarized matches.
As an aggravating point, we are very close one huge Legacy GP, which is probably the biggest events of the year. In such uncertain field, we have to as ourselves: How much should we actually fear and prepare our decks against combo, for such a big GP like Vegas? How fast those degenerated combos can be and how little interaction can they provide?


In order to answer those questions, this article purposes one probability projection of an binomial model based on statistics extracted from Magic Online Championships on the week from 3rd to 10th of June. The Magic Online Sample was chosen due its great size, and also due the presence of some professional players on the field, which allowed us to make some statistically significant tests with one population similar of what is expected to be encountered inside a GP.
On simple terms, the aim of this quick study was to project, based on binomial distribution models, what is the probability of one player, inside one uncertain field (based on Magic Online), to be paired against one combo deck at least once during the 15 rounds of an GP tournament, and once paired, calculate the expected value for the match to end on the first few turns of the game. Basically, one binomial model is one way to estimate the chance of occurrence of certain predetermined result (in this case, be paired with a combo deck) within one certain number of random trials (in this case, during the 15 rounds of the tournament). See below the formula used for most of the calculations used on this article:

We can consider N the number of rounds on the GP (15); X the number of times we expect to be paired with an combo deck; p the probability of pairing with it on a single trial (generally the mean density of combo decks on the field), and q the inverse of this probability. For those that are not into math, you can simply ignore this part, and focus directly on the results.
To calculate the probability of pairing with a combo deck, the chance of occurrence of the event was measured through the sum of all combos identified on the sample divided by the total amount of decks. Once identified which decks can be considered combos, their speed in terms of how many turns they generally take to win the game – AKA: fundamental turn – was stipulated based on articles found on specialized forums related to those strategies. For instance, it was assumed that Show and Tell decks generally have their fundamental turn on 3, based on comments on MTG Salvation and on Channel Fireaball articles. In the same way, it was assumed the fundamental turn for the BR Reanimator as 1.


General sample:

In the end, the analysis considered one total of 424 lists, being composed of 52 different deck strategies. By observing the distribution by archetypes, the results found are similar to the ones previously reported in other articles on this website. The 3 main archetypes had an overall uniform distribution floating around 30%, which is one indicative of a healthy format.

When we consider this result and project the probability of pairings within the 15 rounds of the GP, we assume that the probability for someone to face certain archetype in one single round is equivalent to its density on the sample. For example, on each round, we have 23,08% of chance to face an agro deck, and then we can assume that in every 4 matches, we might be paired against at least one of them. The graph below shows us the results of the projection of the probability of someone to be paired against each one of the archetypes at least once, during the GP. It’s worth noting that this analysis does not consider differences between archetypes in terms of win rate, so we are assuming that the proportion of those densities would maintain itself across all the rounds of the tournament, regardless how well their current standings.

By observing the plot above, we can assume that after all the 15 rounds, we have almost 100% of chance to face at least once each one of the main archetypes of the Legacy format. Taking into account only the combo archetype, the results suggest that the mean density of its representation is around 30,77% of the metagame, with one pairing probability of 99,6%, and one expectation of every player having around 5 combo matchups by the end of the event. In summary, the bottom line is: we cannot ignore the presence of combo decks in such a huge event like this. The numbers are not in favor of those who are expecting to be blessede by luck, hoping to dodge this kind of opponent. More fragile decks, with less tools to deal with combos, such as Goblins, Enchantress or even Burn might not be the ideal choice for this field.
The problem with these results is: different combos have different speed, and some decks might have distinct matchups based on it. On the next part of this article, we will focus on answering this specific question: once facing a combo deck, what to expect in terms of its speed to win the game, and how little will be our chances to interact with it?

Combos and expected value for fundamental turns:

Between the 52 different decks we found on this analysis, 16 of them were considered combo/unfair decks. As already said before, its density is around 30,77% and the data related to the fundamental turn of each deck, and their respective sample sizes can be seen on the table below.

By analyzing the descriptive statistics of this sample, we can infer that it behaves like one normal distribution (see histogram below), with mean = 2,613403 and variance = 0,780969.In other words, when we face a combo player (without knowing which specific deck he/she is playing), we can expect that he/she will finish the gamy between the second and fourth turn, but most likely on the third.

It is clear that most part of the combo decks focus on finishing the game on turn 3, some examples that can be highlighted are Show and Tell, Elves and Infect. Despites that, we also have one significant number (19) of combos specialized on going off on turn 1, such as BR Reanimator, Mono Red Sneak Atack and Belcher – without giving the opponents the opportunity to defend themselves (unless they have Force of Will). In the end, we can conclude that slower combo decks, such as Enchantress, UG Cloudpost and High Tide, which generally try to go off after turn 5 have simply disappeared from the meta. It is believed that those decks were better in long and grindy matches (such as, miracles), but fell off in favor when the fair decks stated to use huge amounts of had disruption and mana denial.

Considering expected value for fundamental combo turns, we can assume that when pairing blindly against someone in the tournament, our probability to receive a combo on the first two turns (crucial for hatebear-based decks such as Death and Taxes and Maverick) is relatively low (7,49%). The fundamental turns just start to be statistically relevant for the turns 3 and 4, which together composes over two thirds of the probability distribution. In theory, this results are in favor hatebear-based decks, which rely on cards like Thalia, Guardian of Thraben or Gaddock Teeg and Meddling Mage to stop unfair interactions. Once those cards generally hit the battlefield on turn 2, the overall perspective is that the most usual combo decks are not fast enough to race them. Even though, there will be always a chance of a bad pairing along the way.
With all these results in hand, we now must ask ourselves how this single probability is reflected through the 15 rounds of a tournament, always with the expectation to be prepared to every possible opponent we might face. Will such decks still be well positioned for an event like a GP? The graph below shows us the projection of the probability of one single person to receive a combo in different turns during the whole tournament.

When we consider the same probability distribution projected on the 15 rounds of the GP, it is evident that our assumption about the probability to face a very quick combo is the opposite. By the end of the event, the chance of someone to be paired against a turn 1 kill combo deck is around 54,28%. When considering the turns 3 and 4, this probability jumps over to 99,6%, which is threatening. This findings have direct impact in the way players might build their decks/sideboards in order to reach the top places of the tournament. If in order to reach top 8, one cannot lose more that 2 matches, it is evident that this person must be prepared for a 54% probability. With that in mind, this article recommends as its conclusion that, regardless the color of the deck of choice, one always have some sort of interaction in their main/sideboard that can be cast without need for lands in play (in other words, on turn 0). Cards such as Leyline of the Void/Santicity; Mindbreak Trap; Surgical Extraction and/or Faerie Macabre are essential sideboard pieces. Another point that must be highlighted is that there is no perspective for non interactive decks that do not aim to win the game after turn 3. Such deck choice would lead to an 99% of chance for an guaranteed loss to a combo deck during the event. Such scenario excludes value-oriented decks such as Post, Enchantress, or Goblins as good approaches for the metagame.


This article aimed to analyze the threat of combo decks on this new Legacy metagame, and ponder how much should we be prepared for this archetype on a big tournament. In order to achieve such goal, binomial probability models were used to calculat the projection and expected values for someone to face combo decks during the 15 rounds of a GP, and once pairing with them, what was the probability to be comboed off on the first turns of the game.
The results showed that despite the fact combo decks do not represent an overwhelming proportion of the Legacy metagame right now, its presence is big enough to not be ignored. Such findings affect directly on the deck and sideboard choices. In the end of this article, the authors recommend that every single deck must have plenty of wais in their main boards to deal with turn 3-4 combos, and at least on sideboard one way to interact on turn 0. By analyzing the archetype alone, it is not recommended to use any deck that is not able to present meaningful interaction or end the game on the first few turns of the match, due the high chance of someone to face this archetype on the rounds of one GP.
In the end, we must ponder about the limitations of this study. Once it considers generic abstractions for fundamental combo turns of different decks, which might not be one exact representation of the real probability for them to happen. The sample selected for the study was based on Magic Online, and might not be an exact representation of one Grand Prix metagame. This study does not considers the probability of the density of certain archetype to fall off, as the brackets on the tournament advances, assuming that they might maintain the same for all the 15 rounds.At last, this study uses parametric statistics for discrete samples, which might not be ideal (even though applicable), which may cause some discrepancies with same studies with larger sample sizes.

]]> 0