NOBs?

[Levi Hinz]

Is NOBs still running?  I'm keen for some drafts, I've got to get 71 more PWPs this season to upgrade to big-boy pants.

1. Levi

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

[Nathan Gotlib]

We are most likely doing it man : ) hopefully there'll be 8 of us..

[Maor Shine]

happy to join  :) though i have to say from my experience so far mana screws soooooooo often, best of 1 may be problematic!

[Thomas David Baker]

Best of 1 is like a depressed cashew.*

* = it is the nut low.

[Dan Barrett]

Heh.

Best of one works (and is fantastic for fast turnover of rounds), but not in a game where variance applies to the ability to play resources.

[Philip Dickinson]

why don't you just try being luckier, scrub

Dan Barrett said:

Heh.

Best of one works (and is fantastic for fast turnover of rounds), but not in a game where variance applies to the ability to play resources.

[Levi Hinz]

In best of 3 you play 6-9 games.  Some of those you get manascrewed.  You count up wins in one way and determine your standings.

In round robin you play 7 games.  Some of those you get manascrewed.  You count up wins in another way and determine your standings.

What's your issue exactly?

[Levi Hinz]

Also sorry I bailed last night, work :/

I was so keen to play too!

[Thomas David Baker]

Deleted my previous reply as it didn't actually address what you were saying.

My issue with best of one is that it is less likely to correctly reflect best deck/best player in any given match.  I also believe it is less likely to reflect that over the course of all games despite there being a similar number of games as the game where one player had literally no chance is a straight up match win in best of one.

[Levi Hinz]

"My issue with best of one is that it is less likely to correctly reflect best deck/best player in any given match."

I think I get what you're saying here.  It's reasonable to say that "deck X beat deck Y" in best of one is less likely to infer "deck X will generally beat deck Y". 

"I also believe it is less likely to reflect that over the course of all games despite there being a similar number of games as the game where one player had literally no chance is a straight up match win in best of one."

This makes no sense at all, as "match win" is no longer a metric that has any meaning.  Mana screw causes "match" wins?  Who cares?   You have more "matches" to allow for this variance.  If deck X wins more best of 1 matches than deck Y, then it is just as likely to be the best deck.

Either [Game Wins] infer [match wins] infer [overall points], or [game wins] infer [overall points].

If anything it should make people play better because they can't say "I have a game to give in this match". 

[Paul Hodgson]

With round robin you are incentivised to draft for consistency over power, and there is no value in taking narrow sideboard cards that could otherwise help turn a bad matchup into one that is more favourable.

[Levi Hinz]

Ding, we have a winner, in that sideboarding is a skill worth rewarding.  Basically the only good argument for best of 3 heard here today. 

Explain to me how the consistency over power debate is different between 7 games in best of 1 and 6-9 games of best of 3.

[Paul Hodgson]

Deck a is powerful but inconsistent, it wins 2 games out of 3

Deck b is consistent, it wins each of its games

Deck a goes WLW WLW WLW takes home all the marbles.

Deck a goes WLW WLW W and has a 5 - 2 record

Deck b goes WW WW WW takes the marbles

Deck b goes WW WW WW W also takes the marbles

Assuming all player related factors are equal, and deck a's losses are attributable to mana issues or drawing the wrong cards in the wrong order then playing best of 1 is a disincentive to playing the powerful but inconsistent deck. Basically, if you have a game in the bank (as it were) for consistency issues then a wider variety of decks are valid choices. Choices are good?