muh 100 godzillion

Matthew Monahan Articles

96 posts in this topic

The fact that they are applied together has nothing to do with the questions that I am asking. I know that they have applied together. I just want to what they actually are and how they are calculated. Telling me that you multiply them together to get winrate is a meaningless piece of information until they are clearly defined and there is some sort of algorithm that is used to calculate them. If w=p*c, but no one knows what p and c are, this isn't a very useful equation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to ACP:

Where ACP says '40 normal monster 100% consistency, the consistency is the problem here because linear and side-deck etc', that's wrong. The problem is the power level of the deck, and the fact that a 100% consistent 100% powerful deck in the game doesn't exist only shows that we can't have 5-card Exodia decks. You want the most consistent and powerful deck you can make. Power covers everything that consistency doesn't, so it includes side-deck counters as well. Definitely agree with deck selection and deck building focus though: you can make good decks, but it's mostly relative to the field, so you build to beat the field for each event, rather than trying to create the 'best deck' for a long period of time. This is not true and top duelists often choose completely different decks for each events, this shows how important deck selection is.


"we know what power and consistency are, but why should we care? The answer, hopefully, would be that they have something to do with your winrate." Definitely. The consistency and power are tools to use so you can easily see 'where' decks fail. For example, you won't be wasting time trying to make a deck more consistent if it's power level is just too low: but you will use time trying to find ways to make powerful combo's more consistent, etc. These tools make it easier to see 'where' a deck fails, so you know where to fix it, and it's also easier to see how the deck interacts versus other decks and what the influence of cards they may side is. In the end it's all about winrate, but we can't just write articles that say 'Perfect ygo theory = have highest winrate, the end'. That would make a good article but doesn't help understand how that winrate is achieved.


As for Card Advantage, I still believe this is true but I think seperations should be made. Card Advantage has never truly existed the way people used it, for example, Thunder Dragon wasn't as good as Pot of Greed. The way I currently see it is that Card Advantage is extremely important, but you must categorize the cards you have, and see which 'count' and which 'do not'. For example, I think that an onfield monster doesn't count as a card, because 4 or 5 monsters can be dealt with by 1 Raigeki. So an entire field of monsters may count for 1 card 'having a field'. This may seem like a stretch but it's just power creep: this has always been the case, people just need to apply it differently now. 'Scapegoat' has never been a +3, because a 0 ATK token is not considered a useful card. Nowadays having a monster on field isn't considered a useful card, because while you may attack etc, decks are too powerful and Raigeki/Dark Hole/TT/Mirror Force/Slumber etc. all show that the amount of onfield monsters you have do not matter. Note that I'm talking about vanilla monsters, which a useful effect here. Each trap counts for 1 card as well. Each field clearance card counts for 1 card. But there are monsters that count as well, they are 'defensive' or 'floodgate' monsters such as Vanity's Fiend, ABC, or Traptrix Rafflesia. The idea is that, for every 'fieldbreaking play' your opponent has, you can stop them once that turn by using Rafflexia or ABC, so they can only break the field if they have more outs than you have defensive monsters. Raigeki and Kaiju SLumber would be better than regular Kaiju's because of the Card Advantage they provide: being able to deal with multiple defensive monsters with 1 card. I may write about 'Modern Card Advantage' in the future to further eleborate on this subject, it's something I've dicussed with 'Me.' as well and we have gotten to similar conclusions on it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is... not a very sound equation at all.

 

you don't get a winrate by adding a coefficient to some arbitrary variable.

 

all you need to do is identify the odds of opening with certain combinations of cards that win the game for each side, the odds of drawing relevant counters for the opponent, etc.

 

where's power in this?

 

nowhere. no one invited him to the party. we don't need him anymore.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good thing no one ever thought thunder dragon was better than pot of greed.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Frogman:

I think in your example the answer would be that people choose Zoodiac over Metalfoes because it's equal in power level, but Zodiac has a higher consistency, so this theory still applies. In fact, Zodiacs consisteny rate is among 90%+, which means that the only realistic reason to play another deck is a deck that beats it. Say that an Infernoid - That Grass blind 2nd build can beat Zodiac, but only if it opens That Grass. The power level of the Infernoid build would then be higher but the consistency would be lower. That's not to say I think that's the case - but it definitely can become the case, and 'That Grass' is almost the definition of a high power low consistency card (requires playing 60-cards but good when resolved), so this theory is more relevant than ever in the current meta.

The equation works because that's how Monahan literally defines them. He literally says 'consistency is odds of X play 'being able to happen', while power is 'winrate while this plays has happened', opposing counters could influence either consistency (anti-spell) or power (raigeki) - I've explained this in my 'Respond to Monahan' post. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vig=scum said:

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.
 

Eliminate the examples and try again. You do not create definitions with examples. Examples are created by definitions. Clearly explain:

- What is the power of a card?

- What is the consistency of a card?

- What is the power of a combo?

- What is the consistency of a combo?

- What is the power of a deck?

- What is the consistency of a deck?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, vig=scum said:

Response to ACP:

Where ACP says '40 normal monster 100% consistency, the consistency is the problem here because linear and side-deck etc', that's wrong. The problem is the power level of the deck, and the fact that a 100% consistent 100% powerful deck in the game doesn't exist only shows that we can't have 5-card Exodia decks.

What I'm referring to is similar to the concept of portfolio diversification in finance. Take for example, two "plays" that a particular deck might have. We'll call them play A and play B. Each play has exactly one counter in the metagame, both counters are equally present in main decks and sidedecks in the metagame. When executed not in the presence of a counter, either play A or play B will win the game (if your opponent has the counter, you will otherwise lose). Which deck would you rather play?

Deck 1: Has a 100% chance of executing play A on t1

Deck 2: Has a 100% chance of executing play B on t1

Deck 3: Has a 50% chance of executing play A and a disjoint 50% chance of executing play B on t1

 

All 3 decks are equally powerful. Deck 3 is clearly the least consistent, but is arguably the safest choice. In sideboarding, our opponent will have to put in both counters, disrupting their own strategy more because they need to stop both of our plays. Do you see what I mean? Less consistent decks have more of a surprise factor, which under certain circumstances can be favorable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ACP said:

Eliminate the examples and try again. You do not create definitions with examples. Examples are created by definitions. Clearly explain:

- What is the power of a card?

- What is the consistency of a card?

- What is the power of a combo?

- What is the consistency of a combo?

- What is the power of a deck?

- What is the consistency of a deck?


By Monahan's terms or by my own terms?

By Monahan's terms:

The consistency of a card is the odds you will be able to play the card (combination of odds of drawing & opponent nog preventing the activation. Solemn Judgment is grey area and I'd like to explain Monahan but I'm sure it would fall under Consistency as well.
 

The power of a card is the odds that, when you play that card, you will win the game. (This is 0% because no card that exists can win you the game). But if you're taking an entire deck, you can then isolate cards within that deck, and say, come up with the power of Ratpier: the power would be, whenever you play this card, how often will it win you the game. This means you 'can' use all cards from your deck/extra deck that this cards creates, but you cannot use additional cards from your hand. Basically it says: if your hand was Ratpier and you weren't allowed to draw the entire duel (except if Ratpier allows it such as Emeral, which is grey area again), how often would you win the match?

The consistency of a combo is the odds of opening that combo without it being disrupted, prevented or negated by your opponent.

 

The power of a combo is the odds of winning - when you resolve it. 

The consistency of a deck is vague, but it's the combined number of the consistency of all cards and combo's within the deck. There's no 1 consistency of a deck, but rather, there are multiple. For example in Burning Abyss, there's the consistency of opening Dante, the consistency of opening Dante + Trap, consistency of opening double Dante etc. 

The power of a deck is also vague, but it depends on what consistency of the deck you take. There are probably multiple amounts of power as well.

 

For example you could have:

 

Play A: Dante 

Play B: Double Dante

Play C: Dante + Trap

Play D: Dante + double Trap

Each play would have their own 'consistency' and 'power'. (Although in this scenario they shouldn't overlap obviously). There is no 1 number of consistency of a deck, or power of a deck, but you can realistically say the consistency a deck has of opening different kind of plays and the power level of each of these plays, which will then result into you know what problems to fix. For example if the power level of Play D: Dante is high, you can play 30 BA + 10 S/T removal. If the power level of Dante + Trap is high, you aim to make that field. However what's interesting, is that when the power level of double Dante, and the power level of Dante + Trap are equal, you now look at which one you can make more consistency and decide how much BA + S/T removal + traps to play. I note S/T removal here, because Monahan included 'opponent preventing the play from happening' under consistency as well.


By my own terms: I've already concluded the problems with this and explained how I would like more categories and clearly define each. I don't fully disagree with either of you 2, I think the terms are very useful but could be further defined at the same time, which is what I've tried to do in my post where I came up with categories A, B, C, D, E and F. Which is obviously just a start and probably not complete yet.
 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ACP said:

What I'm referring to is similar to the concept of portfolio diversification in finance. Take for example, two "plays" that a particular deck might have. We'll call them play A and play B. Each play has exactly one counter in the metagame, both counters are equally present in main decks and sidedecks in the metagame. When executed not in the presence of a counter, either play A or play B will win the game (if your opponent has the counter, you will otherwise lose). Which deck would you rather play?

Deck 1: Has a 100% chance of executing play A on t1

Deck 2: Has a 100% chance of executing play B on t1

Deck 3: Has a 50% chance of executing play A and a disjoint 50% chance of executing play B on t1

 

All 3 decks are equally powerful. Deck 3 is clearly the least consistent, but is arguably the safest choice. In sideboarding, our opponent will have to put in both counters, disrupting their own strategy more because they need to stop both of our plays. Do you see what I mean? Less consistent decks have more of a surprise factor, which under certain circumstances can be favorable.


All 3 decks are not equally powerful. Power means the odds of winning the game when it resolves - all factors considered. In your scenario Deck 3 has the highest power level. This is probably what people would call 'Semantics', but this is what Monahan has been saying the entire time. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, vig=scum said:

"we know what power and consistency are, but why should we care? The answer, hopefully, would be that they have something to do with your winrate." Definitely. The consistency and power are tools to use so you can easily see 'where' decks fail. For example, you won't be wasting time trying to make a deck more consistent if it's power level is just too low: but you will use time trying to find ways to make powerful combo's more consistent, etc. These tools make it easier to see 'where' a deck fails, so you know where to fix it, and it's also easier to see how the deck interacts versus other decks and what the influence of cards they may side is. In the end it's all about winrate, but we can't just write articles that say 'Perfect ygo theory = have highest winrate, the end'. That would make a good article but doesn't help understand how that winrate is achieved.

If that is the case, then the focus needs to be on winrate first and foremost. I am not trying to say that best winrate = best deck, the end. That's obviously useless. I'm advocating for a top-down macro approach. Start from the idea that our goal is to maximize our prize winnings, then relate that to winrate. Then relate winrate to in-game decisions (technical play) and out of game decisions (deckbuilding, what you eat for breakfast that day, etc). Then break of all those down further, and so on. Then also concentrate on the most effective methods of calculating metagame percentages and matchups, etc. This is a much more clear line of thought then just starting from poorly defined terms like power and consistency right off the bat. It's not really clear what we're supposed to do with this information.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, vig=scum said:

As for Card Advantage, I still believe this is true but I think seperations should be made. Card Advantage has never truly existed the way people used it, for example, Thunder Dragon wasn't as good as Pot of Greed. The way I currently see it is that Card Advantage is extremely important, but you must categorize the cards you have, and see which 'count' and which 'do not'. For example, I think that an onfield monster doesn't count as a card, because 4 or 5 monsters can be dealt with by 1 Raigeki. So an entire field of monsters may count for 1 card 'having a field'. This may seem like a stretch but it's just power creep: this has always been the case, people just need to apply it differently now. 'Scapegoat' has never been a +3, because a 0 ATK token is not considered a useful card. Nowadays having a monster on field isn't considered a useful card, because while you may attack etc, decks are too powerful and Raigeki/Dark Hole/TT/Mirror Force/Slumber etc. all show that the amount of onfield monsters you have do not matter. Note that I'm talking about vanilla monsters, which a useful effect here. Each trap counts for 1 card as well. Each field clearance card counts for 1 card. But there are monsters that count as well, they are 'defensive' or 'floodgate' monsters such as Vanity's Fiend, ABC, or Traptrix Rafflesia. The idea is that, for every 'fieldbreaking play' your opponent has, you can stop them once that turn by using Rafflexia or ABC, so they can only break the field if they have more outs than you have defensive monsters. Raigeki and Kaiju SLumber would be better than regular Kaiju's because of the Card Advantage they provide: being able to deal with multiple defensive monsters with 1 card. I may write about 'Modern Card Advantage' in the future to further eleborate on this subject, it's something I've dicussed with 'Me.' as well and we have gotten to similar conclusions on it.

Well you also have to relate card utility to card advantage. Thunder Dragon is a +1 in card advantage and a -1 in card utility (usually). On a most basic level, card advantage was the idea of counting cards as a metric for who is most likely to win the game. See: http://www.thegameacademyonline.com/2011/02/01/whos-winning–-a-yu-gi-oh-article-by-allen-pennington/. The reason that card advantage has lost its application is that the metric no longer has much bearing. The theory of card advantage hasn't changed. Whether or not Raigeki is legal is irrelevant. It's just that the nature of the game has evolved to a point where counting cards is just not useful. The game is much more about combos than attrition.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, vig=scum said:

Response to Frogman:

I think in your example the answer would be that people choose Zoodiac over Metalfoes because it's equal in power level, but Zodiac has a higher consistency, so this theory still applies. In fact, Zodiacs consisteny rate is among 90%+, which means that the only realistic reason to play another deck is a deck that beats it. Say that an Infernoid - That Grass blind 2nd build can beat Zodiac, but only if it opens That Grass. The power level of the Infernoid build would then be higher but the consistency would be lower. That's not to say I think that's the case - but it definitely can become the case, and 'That Grass' is almost the definition of a high power low consistency card (requires playing 60-cards but good when resolved), so this theory is more relevant than ever in the current meta.

The equation works because that's how Monahan literally defines them. He literally says 'consistency is odds of X play 'being able to happen', while power is 'winrate while this plays has happened', opposing counters could influence either consistency (anti-spell) or power (raigeki) - I've explained this in my 'Respond to Monahan' post. 

im sorry, but this is exactly the sort of handwavy nonconstructive bullshit that comes out of power/consistency theorists these days. the only hard stance you took in this post at all was that "power/consistency is relevant, it's relevant here, it's as relevant as ever." you still haven't told me anything substantial or helpful about the current metagame, and you certainly didn't answer any of the questions i asked. yeah, i fucking bet these decks aren't exactly as consistent or powerful as each other. what am i supposed to do with that information? what does it tell me about how much each of them wins?

 

if it isn't already clear, i think one of the major flaws with the theory is that it attracts a sedentary, uninvolved approach to the game where you can play as little as you want but still feel like you're saying substantial things about what's going on in the game. it's coffeehouse yugioh for people that stopped playing because it was beneath them but they're so above it that they understand everything going on perfectly without having to touch a card. it's more like an elaborate form of storytelling than an actual theory that produces real-world results

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, vig=scum said:


By Monahan's terms or by my own terms?

By Monahan's terms:

The consistency of a card is the odds you will be able to play the card (combination of odds of drawing & opponent nog preventing the activation. Solemn Judgment is grey area and I'd like to explain Monahan but I'm sure it would fall under Consistency as well.
 

The power of a card is the odds that, when you play that card, you will win the game. (This is 0% because no card that exists can win you the game). But if you're taking an entire deck, you can then isolate cards within that deck, and say, come up with the power of Ratpier: the power would be, whenever you play this card, how often will it win you the game. This means you 'can' use all cards from your deck/extra deck that this cards creates, but you cannot use additional cards from your hand. Basically it says: if your hand was Ratpier and you weren't allowed to draw the entire duel (except if Ratpier allows it such as Emeral, which is grey area again), how often would you win the match?

The consistency of a combo is the odds of opening that combo without it being disrupted, prevented or negated by your opponent.

 

The power of a combo is the odds of winning - when you resolve it. 

The consistency of a deck is vague, but it's the combined number of the consistency of all cards and combo's within the deck. There's no 1 consistency of a deck, but rather, there are multiple. For example in Burning Abyss, there's the consistency of opening Dante, the consistency of opening Dante + Trap, consistency of opening double Dante etc. 

The power of a deck is also vague, but it depends on what consistency of the deck you take. There are probably multiple amounts of power as well.

 

For example you could have:

 

Play A: Dante 

Play B: Double Dante

Play C: Dante + Trap

Play D: Dante + double Trap

Each play would have their own 'consistency' and 'power'. (Although in this scenario they shouldn't overlap obviously). There is no 1 number of consistency of a deck, or power of a deck, but you can realistically say the consistency a deck has of opening different kind of plays and the power level of each of these plays, which will then result into you know what problems to fix. For example if the power level of Play D: Dante is high, you can play 30 BA + 10 S/T removal. If the power level of Dante + Trap is high, you aim to make that field. However what's interesting, is that when the power level of double Dante, and the power level of Dante + Trap are equal, you now look at which one you can make more consistency and decide how much BA + S/T removal + traps to play. I note S/T removal here, because Monahan included 'opponent preventing the play from happening' under consistency as well.


By my own terms: I've already concluded the problems with this and explained how I would like more categories and clearly define each. I don't fully disagree with either of you 2, I think the terms are very useful but could be further defined at the same time, which is what I've tried to do in my post where I came up with categories A, B, C, D, E and F. Which is obviously just a start and probably not complete yet.
 

I wanted your own definitions; how you would attempt to explain it most clearly. Half of these definitions are ok, and the other half are not at all clear.

 

What I'm trying to get people to realize here, is if:

- Everyone's definition of a term is different; that is, people cannot degree on the precise definition

- It requires 5,000 word essays on DGZ to even begin to define, and which point it is still not entirely clear

 

Maybe there's a better approach worth taking, you know?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vig=scum said:

All 3 decks are not equally powerful. Power means the odds of winning the game when it resolves - all factors considered. In your scenario Deck 3 has the highest power level. This is probably what people would call 'Semantics', but this is what Monahan has been saying the entire time. 

Ok then, calculate the power and consistency of all 3 decks that I've listed in the given metagame. Show your work with each step. Obviously it's a problem if you say that a deck's power is X and I say it's Y.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For those advocating on behalf of the power/consistency side, is power/consistency ever useful as something other than a means of estimating win rate? If consistency is the probability of of play occurring/a deck "working" and power is the probability that a play wins when it occurs, then the product of power and consistency is just the win rate, right? And if power and consistency can only be used to estimate win rate, how can they ever be defined other than for a particular play/sequence of plays, for a particular match-up? That is, if you are trying to calculate the power/consistency of a deck, that calculation must change depending on the match-up, as certain plays will occur more frequently and win more often against different match-ups. Furthermore, like mmf was touching on before, power here is just a measure of the opponent's consistency. Given that a play occurred, the probability that the play wins the game is exactly equal to the probability the opponent does not draw the combination of cards needed to stop the play. So from my viewpoint, not only is power/probability only useful for finding win rates, but it can only be defined in the context of match-ups, and power is nothing more than a measure of the opponent's consistency. At this point, all you have is a heuristic for estimating win rates, which I do think is useful in and of itself (and is also what mmf described in an earlier post).

 

From the posts I read, Allen never touched on the idea of estimating win rates this way, (i.e. estimating win rate by taking the most common plays in any match-up, then for each of plays plays calculating a probability which is equal to the probability you draw the cards needed for the play * the probability the opponent doesn't draw the cards to stop the play, and summing those probabilities). Here, the consistency of a play would be equal to the probability you draw the cards needed for the play, and the power of the play would be equal to the probability the opponent doesn't draw the cards to stop the play, and the win rate of the deck in that match-up would be equal to the sum of power * consistency for each play. To me, those seem like clear definitions, even if calculating some of the probabilities could get complicated. Basically, at its only useful/much simplified level, power/consistency can estimate the win rates in match-up theory, and is an alternative method to using empirical data from either past tournament results/testing sessions (which I believe is what Allen generally recommends to estimating win rates). Using empirical data, especially from testing sessions using proper testing methods, is almost certainly a better method overall, but perhaps not as useful if you have limited time.

Edited by Oh_The_Irony
8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Oh_The_Irony has the right idea here. For those who advocate power/consistency, the motive for utilizing this theory needs to be spelled out. Is the argument that power/consistency is an effective way of calculating matchups and winrates? If that is their goal, then this needs to be explicitly stated. Then I would like to find out how they plan to accomplish this goal. So far, I've gathered that some people of the power/consistency advocates believe that power*consistency = winrate, but then you have to show how power and consistency are quantified or this is entirely useless.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ACP said:

@Oh_The_Irony has the right idea here. For those who advocate power/consistency, the motive for utilizing this theory needs to be spelled out. Is the argument that power/consistency is an effective way of calculating matchups and winrates? If that is their goal, then this needs to be explicitly stated. Then I would like to find out how they plan to accomplish this goal. So far, I've gathered that some people of the power/consistency advocates believe that power*consistency = winrate, but then you have to show how power and consistency are quantified or this is entirely useless.

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 

 


Only thing that's left is going through the possible scenario's and calculating all this stuff

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, vig=scum said:

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 

 


Only thing that's left is going through the possible scenario's and calculating all this stuff

This seems like much of the same basic idea of classifying hand strength: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrkHy7ALgAM. In the video, I'm trying to tackle the same problem, just from a slightly more different angle. Rather than defining things like power and consistency, I'm just putting possible hands into four different "boxes" and then using this heuristic to explain why certainly decks are good or bad under certain circumstances. I think I also touch on some mild implications in regards to deck construction. I still think it's worth a watch.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched that, I think you dropped it somewhere during Monarch format, definitely good information in there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm going to take a dangerous leap and join in this conversation and attempt to make a meaningful contribution. 

 

In Yugioh, the Power of a deck, card, or combo is in most cases quantified by analogy. Someone will state that the power of this deck, card, or combo is below, above, or the same as another deck, card, or combo. The nature of Power in Yugioh is, unfortunately, dependent on outside variables that will exist as formats evolve and change into new ones and cards come and go in the game meaning any attempt at measurement will be distorted by the progression of time.

 

What we call consistency in Yugioh especially in the context of this theory is a conflation and confusion with the term efficient. I'm going to use that fateful argument that brought me to DGz as an example of how we contrast power vs efficiency(or consistency if you will) in order to make a meta deckbuilding choice. While Brilliant GoHam! DracoPals was immensely more efficient at achieving it's combos the advantage you gained in the particular format from the power of the Bunbuku Kirin engine far outweighed any benefit you gained from maxing out the efficiency of your standard DracoPal plays. With all this in mind, I see a definite application of this theory in deck building when considering including powerful cards that could be considered to use the Yugioh community's favorite term "bricky" but are just too powerful in several meaningful matchups(often including the mirror) of your format to not include.

Edited by TheGoldenTyranno
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely agree, there is no 1 best deck for an entire format, there are only best decks for each event and you have to adapt continuously depending on what people play, winrate is relative to the people and decks you play against and it cannot be looked at in a vacuum. 

1

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.