NOBS Cube 1 Results and NOBs Cube 2 Signup

[Ben Titmarsh]

Top place was tied three ways on 15 points.  Andy took it down having beaten Paul and myself.  Paul took second from his victory to me.  Charlie took 4th.  Russ, Ross, Amar and Kieran also ran!  Tom did not.

Drafting the cube was awesome fun and I'm keen to do it again next week if everyone else is. 

I suggest that when Return to Ravnica draft kicks in we crown an M13 NOBs champion who will take home the inaugural (and fictional) Foil Door to Nothingness trophy!

Assuming next week is our last draft in the M13 window, we have a two horse race on our hands!

1    Ben    36
2    Ross    34
3    Kieran    22
4    Charlie    21
5    Andrew    20
6    Levi    19
7    Russ    19
8    Nathan    14
9    Maor    10
10    Simon    8
11    Rebecca    8
12    Paul    8
13    Ray    4
14    Dan Waine    4
15    Dan Royde    3
16    Amar    3
17    Marek    2
18    Phil    1
19    Allan    1
20    Joe    1
21    Mills    1 

As an aside Russ made a very good suggestion this week.  Given round robin has notoriously high variance, how about allowing one free mulligan for 0,1,6 and 7 land hands?

Next week:

1. Ross

2. Kieran

3. Ben

4. Amar

5. Louis

6. Charlie

7. Paul

8. Russ

[Nick Lovett]

It actually slightly detracts from decks where 6 land hands are keepers - you don't HAVE to mul 6 lands, but it is an option for a deck. The reason it detracts from those decks is that by nature of being able to keep 6 land hands these decks are slightly more consistent but lose some of this advantage by alowing other decks to catch up with a free mul.

ross miles said:

I'd be keen on the muligan rule, what follows are a few thoughts.

We are hoping to avoid auto-muligan hands from deciding the outcome of games and trying to make every game play out so the winner is decided by drafting/play skill, without affecting the strategic balance of the game ...

0 and 7 landers seem obvious auto muls
1 landers are mostly auto muls?
6 landers are mostly auto muls?

I am particularly interested to see what other people think about 6 land hands, it seems in cube esp 6 land hands could be keepable given the number of non basics and likelyhood of multi colour decks ... If we include 6 land free muligan does that give too much of a boost to those decks where 6 may be keepable more times than other decks?

By changing the muligan rules we want to avoid signifcantly affecting the tactical decisions a player has, have we got the balance right or should it only be 0, 1 and 7 landers? Or 0,7 landers? Or should we go in the other direction and also allow hands where you don't have the colour of all your spells? Clearly not the last one, but I think 6 is worth some debate ...

[Ben Titmarsh]

I don't really see the problem with offering everyone a mulligan for 1 and 6 landers too.  If you happen to have a deck that means you want to keep one of these then fine.  I don't think as the player of that deck you are losing out enough that your opponent may mull his 6 land hand when you keep yours, as you are keeping it for a reason. 

I can only remember one time I kept a 6 lander, in a PTQ.. I was playing 16 lands and had 3 mountain, 3 forest and hellkite charger.  Pretty sure that was a mistake but i'll never know because I got DQed on turn 3 for misregistering my deck.

[Thomas David Baker]

Some lands are also spells (manlands).  Some lands (Maze of Ith) are only spells.  How would they be covered by this system? Given the statistics that Kieran broke out I think you are better off having no rule.  You definitely can't include anything to do with color as everyone has already said.  And as there are weenie aggro decks in cube that can happily keep one landers* I don't think you can include them either.

Given that you finished around 9.30 last night is it an option just to play full matches?

* = Isamaru, Goblin Guide, Serra Avenger, Lightning Bolt, Sacred Foundry, Aether Vial, Mirran Crusader -- that actually sounds like it couldn't possibly lose!

[Kieran Symington]

More 'interesting' stats from the article I've been reading. Assuming you have 17 lands:

A 1 land opener hits a land around 48% of the time on turn 1, and by turn 2 77% of the time. Having 3 lands by turn 3 is only 36% likely, though.

A 2 land opener will have hit a third land by turn 3 around 85% of the time.

A hand where you lack a specific colour of which you have 9 sources in your deck will only hit that colour 27% of the time on turn 1, 48% by turn 2 and 63% by turn 3. That's pretty awful, and those come up far more frequently than 1 land hands!

[Ben Titmarsh]

The sheet fact that this has gone in to so much detail, probably means it is contentious and we just shouldn't bother!  It's the kind of thing where a level of common sense is required... in my mind Raving Ravine is a land and Maze of Ith isn't but if there is a potential for people to get confused/annoyed then it's just not worth it.

[Kieran Symington]

Even if we never decide, at least I've learned loads about probabilities in Magic - certain to raise my skills to godlike levels!

[ross miles]

I say we still do it - will mean more games with good interaction

[Philip Dickinson]

why bother with the whole land restriction at all? couldn't you just allow one free mulligan per match on the condition that the player reveals their hand?

[Thomas David Baker]

You do change the nature of the game by allowing free mulligans.  But probably not to a giant degree.  If you want fair matches you would be better to play best of 3 though.  You could make it a Swiss competition not a round robin if you want to get finished earlier.  The results would more accurately reflect the better players/drafters then, which I assume is the idea?

[Ben Titmarsh]

Its all about Round Robin. Most people who have played agree its better because you get to play and catch up with everyone each week. In my view free mulligans would serve to reduce variance far more often then they would give one player an advantage and is therefore a huge preference over going back to swiss.

[Levi Hinz]

Reserve please!  I'm finally getting paid so now I have no excuse not to come and destroy you all.

[Thomas David Baker]

If you're locked in on round robin and best-of-one then I think you're going to see a lot of variance regardless of whatever rule you come up with for free mulligans.  Worth a try though I guess ... you can always reverse the decision.  I think the main reason you don't have this in the rules is because it would warp deck construction and make degenerate combo decks better ... which is much less likely to happen in a draft.  Is going to the extreme and just allowing one free mulligan regardless of hand taking things too far as an experiment?