2c:null 2d:["$","title",null,{"children":"The Most Common Mistake | drisoth | Observable"}] 32:T4e5,It really is that simple. Players will obsess over finding the optimal order to sequence 3 slightly nuanced cards, and ignore that they could have played a deck that would have dragged them kicking and screaming to a win with 15+ misplays in tow. There is this pervasive thought that decks are high and low agency, and decks have wildly different returns to skill. While this is objectively true, it glosses over that mental energy is not an infinite resource. Playing a “low agency” deck gives you a wildly higher budget of mental energy when hard decisions occur (even ignoring that “low agency" decks are simply not that low agency in reality). Players will frequently excuse losses on “high agency" decks as due to misplays, and fail to realize misplays are inevitable on “high agency” decks. This is not an abnormal situation, this is the cost of doing business when you are overloading on choices. If you are playing control decks to have agency and influence over the game, you really should try decks you dismiss as “brainless” since I promise they have far more depth than you would ever imagine. Alternatively, if you are playing aggro to avoid having to think about stuff, I promise you are not actually avoiding complexity.33:T655,Stats are incredible for finding good decks. If deck A wins 5% more than deck B, deck A is almost certainly better. Might it be easier to play? Sure, but that leads straight back to: mental energy is not infinite, why put so much effort into getting back to parity, play the better deck, and find an edge from there. Now, stats aren't delivered on stone tablets from Mount Sinai, and saying stats are misleading is certainly true. There are real differences between tournament and ladder, both in terms of format, and matchups can be very different between average ladder skill pilots, and average tournament skill pilots. Thankfully, stats are generally wrong in predicatble understandable ways, sample sizes are easy to measure, and players can be filtered to higher skill populations, with information like rank, or with an outside list like tournament qualification. I can not say the same for what people tell you. I wouldn't call it lying, since I dont think people are intentionally trying to mislead others, but people are just wrong about reality frequently. People will tell you they went 8-2, and actually went 8-4 but dont count two losses because the deck was 2 cards different and that doesn't count in their mind. Or they lose two games, but were learning the deck. Or their opponent topdecked perfects and that should have been a win. Its not lying, but it is delusional. People will tell you a deck is broken without having played a single game of it, just mental games in their head. Stats may be difficult to interpret properly, but humans are less than worthless and should mostly be ignored.34:T525,Frequently players will tell you they broke it. They found a deck that is truely stronger than the rest. They tested it on ladder, and went 12-3 or something. They ask you to keep this private and not play it on ladder. The problem here is very simple. 12-3 means nothing. If this player tests 5 decks, one of them going 12-3 is barely even notable If this player is good they probably go ~60% with reasonable decks at baseline. Nearly 40% of the time, one of these decks is going to go 12-3 or better. No one tests their stuff enough to say they broke it. People want to show that they're smart and clever and good deck builders (TM), and simply refuse to even find out if their deck is good at all. Especially since the first time people play decks they look better than they are since no one has any clue what to expect. Worse, frequently these players will adamantly refuse to update their opinions as more information comes in: We've all heard the excuses - Only I can play it well. - Its a tournament deck - People have bad lists There is simply no substitute for playing games, I can't win the world cup by envisioning making a shot that goes in, and I can't win the Superbowl by imagining a touchdown. Play games, and show that your deck is good by winning. There is no substitute and no excuse.35:[{"id":"9a119488ebf53c5743d6fd6dacf5ce7cdec65373ac35d62841527e211fb4e34195b1a93149c4268bb7da64bcbe1c89a5a7fb72e38dbfd9a2cfc6fc517891c0fc","href":"https://static.observableusercontent.com/files/9a119488ebf53c5743d6fd6dacf5ce7cdec65373ac35d62841527e211fb4e34195b1a93149c4268bb7da64bcbe1c89a5a7fb72e38dbfd9a2cfc6fc517891c0fc","name":"Jorbs Tweet@1.png","type":"image/png","lastModified":1668273266272.843,"size":87586},{"id":"5a0148daa8e4e7683a6e6a7761ef7e0c2aeb671e9011ac49f329aeea99336ed09b48be9fab6b27a3850154e53f9da82a5efddd56b7e747139e4526a5cf9f60d9","href":"https://static.observableusercontent.com/files/5a0148daa8e4e7683a6e6a7761ef7e0c2aeb671e9011ac49f329aeea99336ed09b48be9fab6b27a3850154e53f9da82a5efddd56b7e747139e4526a5cf9f60d9","name":"Self Tweet.png","type":"image/png","lastModified":1668274360947.205,"size":663118}] 30:{"id":"1df1d7c5b98dd06a","slug":"the-most-common-mistake","title":"The Most Common Mistake","thumbnail":"4e5c4f13e1d1c7db01187d4c8a9025fc0f0c8ae85966b8e2a820d965f2205f4a","access_level":"unlisted","create_time":"$D2022-11-12T17:10:15.104Z","update_time":"$D2022-11-13T02:22:52.576Z","view_time":null,"first_public_time":"$D2022-11-12T17:30:23.638Z","has_unpublished_edits":null,"fork":{"id":"662080314eb2cb2c","slug":"blog-post","title":"Blog Post","owner":{"id":"f35c755083683fe5","login":"observablehq","name":"Observable"}},"stars":2,"starred":false,"owner":{"type":"team","id":"23c5a2ed92d8e965","login":"drisoth","name":"","avatar_url":"https://avatars-next.observableusercontent.com/48cb5165ce982efdc7961b0bb34b97a743585dec8fd6847e13ae4846bdeeb9a7","tier":"starter_2024"},"version":175,"publish_version":null,"role":null,"authored":false,"authors":[{"type":"individual","id":"aeace4ee4a865f46","login":"drisoth","name":"","avatar_url":"https://avatars-next.observableusercontent.com/48cb5165ce982efdc7961b0bb34b97a743585dec8fd6847e13ae4846bdeeb9a7","tier":null}],"members":[{"type":"individual","id":"aeace4ee4a865f46","login":"drisoth","name":"","avatar_url":"https://avatars-next.observableusercontent.com/48cb5165ce982efdc7961b0bb34b97a743585dec8fd6847e13ae4846bdeeb9a7","tier":null,"role":"editor"},{"type":"team","id":"23c5a2ed92d8e965","login":"drisoth","name":"","avatar_url":"https://avatars-next.observableusercontent.com/48cb5165ce982efdc7961b0bb34b97a743585dec8fd6847e13ae4846bdeeb9a7","tier":"starter_2024","role":"viewer"}],"comments":[],"custom_thumbnail":false,"trashed":false,"lapsed":null,"subscribed":null,"forks":1,"collection":{"id":"0b244db377607b92","slug":"articles","title":"Articles","owner":{"id":"23c5a2ed92d8e965","login":"drisoth","name":""}},"type":"notebook","body":{"titling":"auto","title":"The Most Common Mistake","cells":[{"id":0,"value":"# The Most Common Mistake","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":117,"value":"### Disclaimer","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":119,"value":"This is a think-piece purely on the subject of competitive CCGs. \n\nIf you are not explicitly optimizing for winning above everything else, this really isnt directed at you.\n\nIf you play a deck because you enjoy it, I strongly suggest you continue to play it. The spike mindset is a blatantly worse mindset in my opinion and should not be idealized.\n\nYou can still implement these ideas within constraints, by seeking good lists within your constraint of liking a specific archetype, but please do not interpret this as me telling you to do something you enjoy less because it will win more. This is intended to tell people how to win more, when that is the goal they have.","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":4,"value":"\n

","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"html","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":8,"value":"There is an ancient proverb in English of “Measure twice, Cut once”. Originally from carpentry, it stresses the importance of preparation rather than execution. CCG players would do well to apply this concept to their games.\n\nPlayers frequently obsess over every minutia of a game, going through each action with a fine tooth comb, trying to see if every micro decision could have been done better and miss the glaring misplay prior to the game even starting.\nI am here to tell you to:\n\n\n","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":41,"value":"### Play Good Decks","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":35,"value":"$32","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":88,"value":"### Finding Good Decks","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":92,"value":"The unwavering attribute of a good deck is simple\n\nIt wins.\n\nThere is no better indicator of quality than producing wins, if your interesting, novel, high agency deck is not winning, it is not good.\n\nIf you are losing to brainless curve out decks, my question is simple:\n\nWhy are we not playing that?\n\nIn fact, listening to good players is harmful in finding good decks. Good players will regularly put up impressive performances with terrible decks that no one should register.","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":101,"value":"\n

","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"html","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":110,"value":"Good players will reliably find you decks with these qualities\n\n- Slightly abnormal\n- 47-48% win rate\n- Intricate\n- High returns to skill\n\nWhich is a pretty good way to find mediocre decks with no objective reason to play\n\nInstead find players who are performing above their skill level.\n\nThey have found an edge, and frequently these players have found the truly good decks. The players with weak mechanical skills that regularly perform well are the actual good deckbuilders, by necessity they have found the good decks.\n\nThere is no reason to have a martyr complex and insist on playing a 45% deck to 65% win rate, impressive sure, but taking shortcuts is not shameful, it is smart. If you are ahead in skill, get further ahead with deck selection, dont even the odds.","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":137,"value":"### Stats","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":135,"value":"$33","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":157,"value":"### Avoiding Bait","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":161,"value":"$34","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":141,"value":"### When to not play good decks","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":143,"value":"In short, Never. Always play good decks.\n\nIn long, what decks are \"good\" changes.\n\nIf you are going to be much better than the average competitor, choosing to play objectively worse decks with high agency makes sense, you are expecting to get some of your cost refunded by your opponents being worse than you.\n\nIf you expect to be worse than the competition the reverse is also true, and recognizing you are not as good as the competition and playing worse decks that essentially force the game into coinflips is a difficult but mature decision.\n\nMetas can be inbred and drastically shift things from ladder play.\n\nThere are reasons to deviate from what appears to be good, but the reasoning is always the same:\n\n---\n\n**I am playing good (in context) decks**\n\n---","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","providerMetadata":"$undefined","attachments":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"}],"files":"$W35","stdlib":"1"}} 31:"$30:body"