Jump to content
Noelle

Matthew Monahan Articles

Recommended Posts

»Noelle    5845

It's literally as simple as saying there are the chances a thing happens then there is how good that thing is. It's true they're determined comparatively, that doesn't make it "circular." I really don't see why you've struggled so much with this. It's universally applicable and determines your win-rate, they're the only real factors because anything you look at in regards to the game can be thought of as how often it happens and how good it is. On whether this measure is useful, of course it is. There are inconsistent decks that win the game when they go off and there are consistent decks that aren't that strong like fire fist. The idea that power is something innate and abstracted from the format is something I've argued against a several times.

 

Not only with power, but also with consistency. Anti-Spell Fragrance may make your deck of spell cards less consistent but it has nothing to do with your deck itself, just as your spells pertaining less to the format like Dark Hole into floaters can make them less powerful. Both power and consistency are comparative, and this isn't circular. 

 

Ironically this entire argument is more circular than any of these definitions because I, Patrick, and maybe Johnny Li if I remember correctly have explained this a several times now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5845

I'll take it even further. When someone uses any other metric to theory out a deck, they're actually using one or both of these. Let's say you pick up a deck, play a bunch of games, and decide it's inconsistent. You put it down. Let's say you pick up a deck that you're able to play every game but your moves just aren't getting you there. So you put it down. A consistent non-powerful deck, a powerful inconsistent deck, it seems people work their way towards what they believe is a consistent and powerful deck. I can't think of a piece of theory that doesn't somehow call back to those two measures, even if the piece of theory is completely wrong. They're the underlying justification of cards to people whether they realize it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33402

No, you still have not defined it. You just keep saying that you have without actually doing so. No amount of saying "Oh it's obvious" or "I think everyone understand it" excuses a lack of a clear definition. If a bunch of other people have already defined it, then go ahead and copy/paste their definitions.

 

"A card has 1% power." What does that mean?

"How much consistency does Smashing Ground have?" How do you even begin to answer this question?

 

You say that power is "how good a thing is" and consistency is "the chances that a thing happens." These definitions are a bit sloppy, but sure let's work with that. Based on these definitions, why do we even care about consistency? "How good a deck is" is just a synonym for it's winrate. Why would we possibly care about anything else? There are no prizes given out at tournaments for "most consistent deck." At this point, you're just renaming one variable and adding in another variable that has no bearing upon the rules of the game. Try again.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5845

I meant power as "how good a thing is when it happens." Clearly the chance it happens and how good it is when it happens are two separate things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+mmf    23482

ok, so we know how often things like kirin and abc-buster dragon and toadally awesome are to happen.

 

what else is there to say about how good each of these things are for the people they happen to?

 

are we assigning power points to each of those cards, and saying, well, if you multiplied the consistency of each card by its power points, you could rank the decks by their objective goodness? you really don't see how this is a circular endeavour?

 

the power/consistency dichotomy never told us anything about power, it just handwaved it to the side and left it as the same vague unknowable entity that it's always been.

 

and yet, we continue on just fine, and talk about how good each of those decks are relative to each other. we dont need a metric like power points to do so. since i've come back, i've pretty much been calculating theoretical matchup ratios exclusively by reference to what vacuum theorists would call consistency. when the abc deck opens with its combo going first, i see no problem with saying that in the vast majority of cases, they're going to win if they're in game 1. then i can move on to metalfoes, and make a similar calculation with regards to kirin, and from there, i can finish out a good sketch of how the matchup between these decks should look "in theory." from there, i can playtest the matchup and see how my results line up with the theory, refine the theory, rinse, repeat, etc.

 

i guess you'll have to wait until atlanta to see if my method is actually going to work, but do you see the point? i can do all of this without reference to power or anything like it. all i really need to know is how often every good thing happens, because everything is so good now that it's completely redundant to try to split hairs over degrees of this goodness above and beyond the rate at which they occur. where is power actually tangibly helping me improve my win % in the real world? why do we need it to theorize about decks or matchups or metagames at all?

 

as someone who's talked to you, pat, and johnny all a fair bit throughout my time playing, i can say i've certainly gained a lot from all of these conversations, but never an answer to these questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33402
14 minutes ago, muh 100 godzillion said:

I'll take it even further. When someone uses any other metric to theory out a deck, they're actually using one or both of these. Let's say you pick up a deck, play a bunch of games, and decide it's inconsistent. You put it down. Let's say you pick up a deck that you're able to play every game but your moves just aren't getting you there. So you put it down. A consistent non-powerful deck, a powerful inconsistent deck, it seems people work their way towards what they believe is a consistent and powerful deck. I can't think of a piece of theory that doesn't somehow call back to those two measures, even if the piece of theory is completely wrong. They're the underlying justifies cards to people whether they realize it or not.

I literally never do this. I'm not just saying this to be a contrarian either. I believe that people who use this mentality are simply taking the wrong approach to deckbuilding because they are viewing decks as being good or bad in a vacuum rather than focusing on how their deck fits into the current environment. When I talk about why a particular deck is good or bad, I will always justify my opinion by describing its matchups in the current metagame.

 

12 minutes ago, muh 100 godzillion said:

I meant power as "how good a thing is when it happens." Clearly the chance it happens and how good it is when it happens are two separate things.

This is still exceptionally vague and nonsensical.

 

"The power of a deck is how good it is when it happens." - What does this even mean?

"The power of a card is how good it is when it happens." - I assume this means when I draw it? Ok, but how do we determine that? Or is it just intended to be purely subjective? It's not necessarily easy to agree upon which cards are good.

 

The general problem with your definition of power is that it begs the question, "How do we know when a deck/card/situation is good?" You later go on to say that cards are better than other cards if they have more power and consistency, but then power is how good a card is when we draw it. We're not really arriving at any meaningful conclusions here; we're just playing word salad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5845

No, not when you draw it. You can draw a Spell 100% of the time but if your opponent has Anti-Spell 100% of the time it's not happening and is therefore not consistent. 

 

I'm saying you're doing it without realizing you're doing it allen, it's the underlying mechanics of the theory that one uses. 

 

You're saying that I'm abstracting it from the format. How can, on the one hand, you hold these as circular because they're determined by other cards but then tell me I'm isolating it from the format? Me saying that it's comparative is precisely me likening it to any format in an attempt to make it universal!

 

At this point I don't know what to tell you about the vagueness. It just isn't vague to me, and I don't think it's hard for the average player to at least think they grasped it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+mmf    23482

nope, definitely not the underlying mechanics of matchup theory. we don't use it at. all. for this.

 

"when does pure zoodiac beat lawnmowing noids?"

"when it is more powerful and consistent than the other deck, you see we must tap into the immutable inner qualities of both of these decks so we can truly know the power and consistency of each" and so on.

 

"when does pure zoodiac beat lawnmowing noids?"

"well, let's start with going first in game 1. when you go first and start with at least one zoodiac combo with a few traps, and they don't open grass is greener, the zoodiac player usually wins. but if the noid player is going second and opens grass, they'll generally win that game 1" and so on.

 

in what way am i using "power" without knowing it in the latter case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33402
22 minutes ago, ACP said:

No, you still have not defined it. You just keep saying that you have without actually doing so. No amount of saying "Oh it's obvious" or "I think everyone understand it" excuses a lack of a clear definition. If a bunch of other people have already defined it, then go ahead and copy/paste their definitions.

7 minutes ago, muh 100 godzillion said:

At this point I don't know what to tell you about the vagueness. It just isn't vague to me, and I don't think it's hard for the average player to at least think they grasped it as well.

Lol ok

7 minutes ago, muh 100 godzillion said:

I'm saying you're doing it without realizing you're doing it allen, it's the underlying mechanics of the theory that one uses. 

I would argue the same for matchup theory.

 

The difference between matchup theory and power/consistency theory is that matchups can clearly be quantitatively defined, either through tournament data or testing. How to do good testing would be a subset of matchup theory. On the contrary, power and consistency cannot be quantitatively defined. You just throw random numbers for the sake of the argument. The problem with the theory is that you, nor anyone else who subscribes to it, cannot even answer the most simple and basic questions, and yet are trying to use this theory to arrive at complex results by utilizing fraudulent data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5845
12 minutes ago, mmf said:

nope, definitely not the underlying mechanics of matchup theory. we don't use it at. all. for this.

 

"when does pure zoodiac beat lawnmowing noids?"

"when it is more powerful and consistent than the other deck, you see we must tap into the immutable inner qualities of both of these decks so we can truly know the power and consistency of each" and so on.

 

"when does pure zoodiac beat lawnmowing noids?"

"well, let's start with going first in game 1. when you go first and start with at least one zoodiac combo with a few traps, and they don't open grass is greener, the zoodiac player usually wins. but if the noid player is going second and opens grass, they'll generally win that game 1" and so on.

 

in what way am i using "power" without knowing it in the latter case?

 

When did I say they were immutable? The format is always in motion. Someone that throws Hegel into this discussion should know the importance of this. 

 

It's easy to show how you're using it. There is them winning with that combination of cards and events (power,) and the chances it happens (consistency.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33402
21 minutes ago, muh 100 godzillion said:

You're saying that I'm abstracting it from the format. How can, on the one hand, you hold these as circular because they're determined by other cards but then tell me I'm isolating it from the format?

You're right, I should perhaps be a bit more clear on my criticism here. I'm saying that power and consistency are commonly thought of and applied in such a way that most people view them as being static, when in reality they are actually relative based on the definitions that you are using. Again, the real problem is that these terms are really more qualitative than quantitative, which inherently breeds an environment of subjectively when one actually tries to apply this theory to deck construction/deck selection. If I tell you that my deck is more powerful or more consistent than yours, it is next to impossible to prove whether I am right or wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5845

Consistency is a percentage chance, it's quantifiable. Sure, maybe not down to the absolute decimal, but approximately so. Power, I really have no idea how you would quantify, but it is clear that you can compare how good a thing is when it happens to how good another thing is when it happens. In Marxian economics there's something called relative form and equivalent form. The idea is that to compare something directly, there must be something common to both (in Marx's examples it's commodities and labor.) What is common to both when it comes to power? That's perhaps where the vagueness you mentioned takes root. I used to say it's "comparative impact on winning the game," but then I would have to explain away how consistency doesn't "impact winning the game," so the definition has to be something else. It's something I'll admittedly have to work on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33402
11 minutes ago, muh 100 godzillion said:

There is them winning with that combination of cards and events (power,) and the chances it happens (consistency.)

If you did away with the pronouns, then perhaps you might be able to arrive at a clear definition.

 

What is the power of the card? The probability that I win after playing the card? What about cards that may not provide me with an immediate win but perhaps shift the gamestate in my favor? Is the power of the card then the magnitude of the shift? What if the magnitude of the shift depends on the deck that I am playing against? What if the card itself doesn't really do anything, but in combination with some other card, it does? How do we extend this to decks? It's not clear.

 

What is consistency? The chances that it happens? The chances that what happens? The chances that I just play the card? What about for decks? Is my 40-card LV4 1800 vanilla deck not consistent if all of my opponents will be able to beat me on t1 since I only got to play 1 vanilla monster before the game ended? What are we actually measuring when we're talking about consistency?

 

More importantly, why have you not asked yourself these questions? These are fairly obvious questions and yet you brush them off as not really mattering because you just know that the theory is sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33402
1 minute ago, muh 100 godzillion said:

Consistency is a percentage chance, it's quantifiable. Sure, maybe not down to the absolute decimal, but approximately so. Power, I really have no idea how you would quantify, but it is clear that you can compare how good a thing is when it happens to how good another thing is when it happens. In Marxian economics there's something called relative form and equivalent form. The idea is that to compare something directly, there must be something common to both (in Marx's examples it's commodities and labor.) What is common to both when it comes to power? That's perhaps where the vagueness you mentioned takes root. I used to say it's "comparative impact on winning the game," but then I would have to explain away how consistency doesn't "impact winning the game," so the definition has to be something else. It's something I'll admittedly have to work on.

Consistency is a percentage chance of what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5845

How often whatever thing happens. Taking it to a whole deck you'd say the chance you win but the winning part is separate from the chance x happens part. I can analyze the chance something gets Kaiju'd in the game, for example, but figuring out how good or bad that is is separate. This is why I think the distinction is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33402

Again, stop with the "whatever thing."

 

What is the consistency of a card?

What is the consistency of a combo?

What is the consistency of a deck?

 

"Taking it to a whole deck you'd say the chance you win but the winning part is separate from the chance x happens parts." - What is X? The consistency of my deck is the chance that...? I play cards? I do one of the deck's "main plays"? Do I just define it as whatever I want to be? If I'm playing Domain Monarch, do I just decide that for this specific deck, I'm going to define consistency as the chance that I assemble Domain + Tribute monster t1? What if another Domain Monarch player disagrees with my valuation of consistency? How do we factor in if I assemble Domain + Domain on t2? Does that have any bearing upon the deck's consistency? What about t3, t4, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33402

Seeing as that, in my mind, you've failed to come up with good definitions for these variables and having failed to explain how to calculate these variables, what I'd like to know is why do you actually believe that this theory has any merit? Is because of a lack of a better theory? Is because you have heard other good players use these terms? Are you open to the idea that perhaps there might be a better theories out there that can be used to explain what we know about the game? Really, I think power/consistency is more of a heuristic or a philosophy than a theory, but that's just semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5845

I hadn't seen any other player use them prior to to me using them in 2015. I think it has merit because of examples like I provided above. A deck may win when it goes off but this may not happen often, a deck may be able to do whatever it does often but it isn't that good or help win much, etc. I also still think it's the underlying theory people use when building decks and that they "gravitate" progressively towards what, in their own mind, they consider powerful and consistent. Clearly in my own head it has merit, then, and I think it has merit to a lot of players that read Pat's book (which tbh I never got around to reading cus I hit the poli/econ/philo books last year and this year instead.) 

 

For calculating consistency of cards, decks, combos, you traditionally had to calculate the chances of drawing them. But people never really factored in the chance they get stopped, so the point of defining consistency as them "happening" is two-fold. First, it takes account of it actually going through, but also, by not restricting it to draws, it allows for other things like milling it, or a card that you play from the deck if such an archtype came out, etc. That was the main problem I had with your theories about hand strength or w/e it was, that it may not be universal cus there are decks that can come out that transcend the hand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33402

Examples don't validate a theory. I could use plenty of examples to "validate" my bacon, lettuce, and tomato theory, but that doesn't make it a good theory.

 

Road of the King's use of power and consistency was terrible. It just said that the definition for power was "obvious" and that consistency was "the rate of power," which literally makes not even one ounce of sense.

 

The number of subscribes to a theory, or those that claim is makes sense does not validate a theory either. That's just the ad populum fallacy. Again, most people who claim that they subscribe to these theory cannot even answer the most basic questions about it. That alone should be a red flag.

 

Saying that the theory is good because you think that people use it whether they are consciously doing so or not does also not validate the theory. I could make the same claim about my bacon, lettuce, and tomato theory.

 

When I say, "Why do believe that this is a good theory?", I'm looking for logical reasons, not "well you're the only one who doesn't like it, so it can't be that bad." This sort of reminds of the scene from the movie idiocracy where the main character is trying to explain to people of the future why plants don't need energy drinks. They just kept brushing it off as "but it's worked so far" and "but electrolytes" without being able to explain any of the fundamentals behind their theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5845

Oh I thought you were asking me for practical applications not logical reasons. Again I still need to work on defining power better. It makes sense to me and I believe it makes sense to others but that isn't an excuse for explaining it properly obviously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33402
Just now, muh 100 godzillion said:

Oh I thought you were asking me for practical applications not logical reasons. Again I still need to work on defining power better sometimes. It makes sense to me and I believe it makes sense to others but that isn't an excuse for explaining it properly obviously. 

Well I look forward to you doing that.

 

I think you should consider other lines of theory than just power/consistency though. Theoretical physicists don't just focus on one theory for their entire career. Given how unpioneered (for lack of a better word) Yugioh theory is, I think you're not doing yourself a favor by boxing yourself in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me.    59

I thought we had this discussion one year ago and that monahan was convinced that the power/consistency theory was flawed back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33402

I don't think that he ever went as far as to admit that the theory was flawed. We did have a similar discussion though. Both then and now, it seems like the people who subscribe to theory absolutely refuse to go into any detail beyond sort of the "Oh, it's obvious. You know what I mean, right?" While it may be a valid theory, I think we are quite far from proving it be such, and I think the popularity of the theory has more to do with the popularity of its earliest advocates and less based on the merits of the theory itself. DGz/the Yugioh community has always had a slight problem with taking what good players say at face value rather than actually asking the hard questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

It's kind of ironic here that you guys are looking at 'Consistency' and 'Power' in a vacuum while the terms are obviously only applicable together:

You multiple the Consistency by the Power and the outcome is the winrate. 

 

I'll focus more on Power and Consistency in my next posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

Reponse to Monahan and my view on the 'Power and Consistency' theory:
 

Let's take a Frog FTK deck:
Let's say that, you have combo A (combo+Mass Driver), and combo B(combo without Mass Driver, maybe it's sided out, or you just don't draw it)
There's the chance of you drawing the combo, let's say, 80%. When you resolve A, you win, so the power is 100%. When you resolve B, you may win
60% of duels, so the power is 60%. Then Monahan wants to add another layer to this, which is, that the play is not being prevented by an opponent.
There are multiple ways they can, from Anti-Spell Fragrance (You cannot activate the spell to begin with), to Solemn Judgment (you can activate, but it's
negated), to D.D. Crow (You can activate, but the combo is negated somewhere along the road), to a Life Gain trap card (the combo fully resolves, but
it does not cause you to win). Where do you draw the line between consistency and power here? I think what Monahan is getting at, is that in the case
of the Life Gain trap card, the power of the Frog FTK combo is 95% (if the odds of them having a life gain trap is 5%). As in 'when you draw &
get to resolve this combo, it will win you the game 95% of the time). He has already shown consistency = drawing it AND being able to play the cards.
But I don't know where D.D. Crow would fall - Consistency or Power?
 

A more clear example is Exodia. The consistency in which you open Exodia is X, but the power is 100%, since nothing in the game currently stops it.


Let's take Wind-Up hand loop. The consistency of opening the hand loop combo is X (ACP calculated this is a thread a while ago), and when it resolves
it may win you the game 95% of the time. So the power of the combo would be 95%. If your opponent can prevent the combo from happening, that reduces
the consistency. If your opponent lets your combo resolve, but has 1-card topdecks to turn the duel around (Pot of Avarice into Raigeki etc.), that
reduces Power. I think this example is pretty clear.
 

I do think that 'consistency and power are the same thing' is correct - there is only winrate. But that doesn't mean there's no value in understanding
seperate things. I think you can go even further and make more distinctions than only consistency and power. For example, I think that 'a play
cannot happen because opponent has Anti-Spell', and 'a play resolves but opponent topdecks Raigeki to kill your board', aren't so different after all.

If I had to make categories I would define them as following:

A: 'Draw Consistency going 1st': The odds of opening a combo goldfishing. (You can do this for multiple turns even, which results into multiple answers).
B: 'Draw consistency going 2nd': The odds of opening a combo goldfishing. ( ^ ) 
C: 'Draw + Diceroll Consistency': This is the combination of the above 2 numbers, but it also takes into account how often you actually would get to go 1st or 2nd. (Say, if 50% blinds 1st, and you blind 1st, it would be 75% of the going 1st number + 25%  of the going 2nd number)


From here, there are different interactions your opponent can perform to deal with this one way or another, but they all boil down to:


D: Hand Traps
E: A card already on field deals with it
F: A card that's not a hand trap, and not on field, deals with it later on 


I think these are the most important ones. Maxx "C" would be a combination of D and F: Maxx "C" itself doesn't fall into any category, but increases the odds of drawing a Hand Trap (D) or a card to deal with the field later on (F). Of course there are exceptions, such as 'your opponent plays Cup of Ace to let you draw 2' etc. These are so unlikely to happen that I won't take them into account. The most relevant 'exception' would be your opponent discards your cards in hand before you get to play. I would let that fall into E, since your opponent has to make board before they can discard your hand, Omega is the best example of this: it's an onfield card, that gets rid of a card in your hand, but when choosing between making Omega or Crystal Wing Dragon, you'll notice they are very similar: you either deal with a monster eff or you deal with a card in hand, therefore both are onfield threats. The same goes for Wind-Up Hunter loops, even though it's 'impossible' to get the cards discarded back (where with Omega, you could theoretically negate it's effect next turn), but it's still an 'onfield threat' in the sense that it has hit the field before you could make a play, just that it has already served it's purpose.

Note that I'm talking about consistency and power of decks, and certain plays a deck is capable of making, not individual cards, although you could do that as well. The total consistency and power of a deck is the combination of the power and consistency of it's combo's, which is a combination of the power and consistency of the individual cards, etc. Where 'combination' obviously doens't mean just add them together (individual combo pieces are worthless), the value changes for each card added. But the value in knowing how much value an individual card adds or substracts to the deck overall is necessary to know whether it's optimal to play or not. 'Value' here, means how much it adds to the power and/or consistency of the deck. The more it adds, the more value it has.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×