First, is the probabilities of drawing at least 1 card/effect. This is accomplished using the HYPGEOMDIST function in Excel. This table is a small piece of what I use. I go down to 60 card/effects.
Cards drawn | |||||||
# Cards/Effects | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
1 | 12% | 13% | 15% | 17% | 18% | 20% | 22% |
2 | 22% | 25% | 28% | 31% | 34% | 36% | 39% |
3 | 32% | 35% | 39% | 43% | 46% | 49% | 53% |
4 | 40% | 44% | 49% | 53% | 57% | 60% | 63% |
5 | 47% | 52% | 57% | 61% | 65% | 69% | 72% |
6 | 54% | 59% | 64% | 68% | 72% | 75% | 79% |
So, if you have four copies of a card in your deck, the chance of drawing it in your opening hand is 40%.
But to gauge what a deck is doing, you need to understand what each card is doing. RDW can have 4 Rakdos Cacklers, 4 Stromkirk Nobles, 3 Vexing Devils, and 1 Thunderous wrath in it, but what effect is each card trying to accomplish?
Vexing Devil is not trying to fulfill the role of a Cackler or Noble. It's trying to fulfill the role of the Thunderous Wrath. It's meant to be a 1 mana burn spell to the dome of your opponent.
Thunderous wrath can do that, or it could do 5 damage to another creature. These are two seperate functions/effects. In my short-hand the effect of casting burn at an opponent's life is called "Range" and burning out a creature on the board is just "Removal".
Totaling the cards for each effect in the my example made up list gives us 4 Range spells (3 Vexing Devil and 1 Thunderous Wrath) and 1 Removal spell (Thunderous Wrath). The probabilities of drawing each effect on the list suggest casting Range spells early in the game. Having at least 1 of 4 Range cards in the opening 7 is a 40% chance. Later the deck wants to Miracle Thunderous Wrath when it could take out a creature with high toughness. The chance of drawing the 1 Removal spell by the 13th card drawn is 22%
Generally I use the number of cards drawn to represent the turns for the player on the play. 7 cards drawn is the opening hand and turn 1. 8 Cards drawn represents the card drawn at the start of turn 2. This math, of course, gets kinda thrown out once card drawing is introduced. I can kind of account for card draw when it is first used. I am not savy enough to account for it for later uses beyond the first.
The above chart is for the chance of drawing at least 1 of a card. Now lets see if an opening hand will more likely have 1,2, or 3 copies of an effect.
# of Cards/Effect | |||||||
# in Opening Hand | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
1 | 42% | 42% | 42% | 41% | 40% | 38% | 36% |
2 | 16% | 19% | 22% | 25% | 27% | 29% | 31% |
3 | 3% | 4% | 5% | 7% | 9% | 11% | 13% |
4 | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 2% | 3% |
5 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
So, if there are 13 copies of an effect in a deck, the chance of having just one copy of that effect in the opening hand of 7 is 36%. The chance of having 2 of that effect in the opening 7 is 31%. The chance of having 3 or more of that effect in the opening 7 is 16% (13% + 3%)
If, instead, it is turn 4 on the play and there have been no draw spells played (10 cards drawn), the chart looks like this:
# of Cards/Effect | |||||||
# drawn into hand | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
1 | 41% | 39% | 36% | 33% | 30% | 27% | 23% |
2 | 25% | 28% | 30% | 32% | 33% | 33% | 33% |
3 | 7% | 10% | 13% | 16% | 19% | 21% | 24% |
4 | 1% | 2% | 3% | 4% | 6% | 8% | 10% |
5 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 3% |
6 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
7 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
The chance of drawing multiples has gone up as the game progresses, and the chance of drawing just 1 card goes down eventually. If there are 13 cards that perform the same effect, that effect has most likely been drawn 3 or more times (37%) than just 1 (23%) or 2 (33%) times by the time 10 cards have been drawn.
So, when I look at decks, I'll be looking at percentages and at what turn a player could expect to play an effect, and then how often that player will draw the effect. All I have to do is figure what is an acceptable percentage for an effect to be packed into a deck. For that I'll have to continue examining deck lists. .
No comments:
Post a Comment