They way I budget build is to buy singles as cheaply as I can, as well as trade for higher end cards if you have enough trade bait. When putting my budget together, I don't include the price of high end cards I may have gotten out of a pack or trade due to me not having spent as much, if anything on the card. Also, I like to limit myself to a set amount of dollars to spend on cards each weak, which allows for the building of stronger, non budget decks, albeit over time. This method would be best for eternal formats such as EDH, and Modern. The reason being, you wont have to worry about your expensive card that you just got rotating out, making it a mostly wasted expense.

Going point by point:

Hybrid method is the right way to go - the people for which budget decks usually are would not have the high end staples necessary for non-budget building. Like, a person would have a precon or two and try to mash them together to create a decent standard deck - I think this is the target audience.

EDH is eternal, so it has cards that are more expensive than normal Standard. I would set the budget for EDH at double what it is for standard. See below for point 3.

I would say that from my point of view, a budget deck would be 50 bucks for Standard and 100 bucks for EDH (it has eternal staples that are sometimes necessary). I would personally use TCG mid prices as the benchmark.

Also good to keep in mind is that people that strive towards budget decks are most of the time still learning the game, so keep complex interactions to a minimum (though I might be completely out of it on that assumption).

I usually go by a method somewhere between Per Card and hybrid. I will trade for pretty much anything if I think it's worth it (and can afford to, shocklands, why not? ABUR dual? Why bother?) For EDH, I generally just make the list, then I look at the price of the cards I need, and buy anything under about $2. Anything more, I trade for or find a replacement. With standard, I refuse to play anything over $5 (other than lands) that isn't played in eternal. I only play standard for funsies (not to be confused with fun) and always build the deck planning on playing it only once or twice, though I have been playing standard a lot more recently.

So what does budget mean to me? Well, it really depends on the format. In EDH, that mostly means no FoWs, fetches, duals, etc. I only started using shocks when they dropped to about $10 each, and only then I run 3 or less in all my decks. I try to avoid the super pricey cards unless they REALLY make the deck, and even then, if there's a way around it, I avoid it.

For other formats, budget shouldn't mean replace your shocks with gates and Thoughtseize s with Duress es, it should mean you actually build the deck focused on synergies rather than on good stuff 'cause thats what [insert pro player here] is playing. You can't take a good deck and make it cheaper, you have to take cheap cards and make a good deck.

I agree with smash10101's last point. If you try to build, say, Jund (to use a Modern example) without money cards like fetches or Tarmogoyf , you will just lose. To build on a budget, it may be easiest to choose a competitive, known archetype like Mono-Red Burn that relies more heavily on cheaper cards, or to brew something up yourself (more fun that way!).

Personally, I never spend more than 10 on any one card for a deck. You have to shop around, of course, to get cards like shocks this way, but it is possible. Also, trade!

You all have hit on points that great to mention, some of which I didn't mention in the article.

First and foremost - the difference between buying and trading up. A few of you have mentioned that you will buy the cheaper cards and trade for the more expensive ones. This is a great strategy that I use myself when building EDH decks, but her's the question: at what point do you lose the characteristic of being a budget deck? Is a budget deck solely characterized by how much money you pour into it? How does trading into the deck contribute to this?

Another point that I was pleased to see is that you cannot expect to build a top tier deck on a budget by simply replacing the power cards with watered down versions of that card. The Thoughtseize and Duress comparison embodies this. This will be part of the focus of the next article.

I'd like to hear some more discussion of the trading aspect though. If I buy $20 of commons/uncommons for a deck, but then trade for shocks and other high value cards, is the deck still considered to be built on a budget?

I believe what you get in value for trades, even if you go over the "budget" of your said deck would still constitute it being budget. This is because you didn't actually spend on the card(s). An outsider who doesn't know how you built he deck may not consider it budget though. What it really comes down to is if you consider it budget. One persons budget is not another's. It is what YOU allow your self to spend on the deck.

Now buying cards to use to obtain a card in trade should count towards your budget, but not cards you already own.

I think of deckbuilding as an attempt to compensate for limited access to cards with superior deckcrafting. To use an analogy, it's like learning to fight with your good hand tied behind your back; it forces you to learn how to use your off-hand well.

That said, the fact that I have a small collection DOES play into how I budget deck-build.

I typically build with the hybrid method, but with an asterisk. I am more willing to buy a moderately expensive playset if they are flexible cards for the cost. I am much more willing to cut Sylvan Caryatid slack on price than say Keranos, God of Storms because Caryatid works in almost every format for almost every green deck which isn't mono or aggro. Keranos, however, reveals cards going into my hand, which means I have a harder time bluffing. Not only is Izzet not terribly competitive this standard, therefore uncommon, but not every Izzet deck will want him. Not good budget card by my book.

I think $50 for a budget standard deck is a fair cost, with a card cap at $3-5 for basic inclusions and $10 for a few cards which are both good and flexible. In those restrictions, you aren't likely to splurge on a playset of a $10 planeswalker because the rest of the deck would have to cost $10.

EDH is a bit different because it is intended for round-table play. You can make a deck which will do well round-table for $100 or even less, but it is much harder to make one which can do 1v1 well. If there's any chance of 1v1, $150 is a solid budget.

Potentially off topic . . . but I'm curious about which commander people would consider the "best" budget option.

The story: I recently purchased the "Mind Seize" commander precon because I wanted a Nekusar, the Mindrazer deck. I heavily altered it right away and was left with a pile of random, not great cards, Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge among them. I have a very large junk collection (commons/uncommons dating back to portal) so I grabbed every kind of evasion/protection spell I could, along with a handful of scry effects, Doom Blade s, slapped in some land aaaaaaaaand . . . done: total cost probably under $40.

To my surprise, this deck has done very well against my other $150+ EDH decks in single and multiplayer scenarios. Why? Because Jeleva makes their budget your budget . . . allowing for very fun games and powerful plays out of a deck that (no joke) lives pretty much on only the commander plus Mizzium Skin , Lightning Greaves , Ponder , and other similar cards. Side note--I play Ashling's Prerogative (my first rare) for nostalgia and because my only creature is Jeleva.

So, again, to rephrase my statement above as a more specific question: which commander most allows you to minimize your budget while maximizing the impact/value of the cards you actually control/play/manipulate throughout a game?

I play Merieke Ri Berit and a bunch of enchantments that steal permanents, because I don't have expensive staples, but my opponents do.

For the purpose of this article series I will be considering only the TCG mid price as I build the budget deck - I have no way of knowing who can trade for what. It is still an interesting topic.

We still have to discuss a subject directly related to this article and the entire series: placing constraints on a budget. Tomorrow, I'll get into what I think a budget deck entails in a post, and continue in the next article. I'd like to see some more discussion on this!

And, @Kravian - There isn't a Commander that can be deemed the best at playing your opponent's deck for them. It greatly depends on their deck. If you're playing against a stompy Naya deck with Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge you won't have too much to steal. Conversely, going against a Merieke Ri Berit deck with a creatureless Talrand, The Sky Summoner deck will be fun.

While this is a respectable strategy, it is inconsistent. Building a deck that is strong because of the interactions it puts onto the battlefield is much more efficient and reliable. While it is difficult to find these synergies on a budget, it is still doable and can yield great results.

Standard is my favorite format... I think for a budget you can rely on an easy red/white/blue tempo deck. You can make it really good for $30, but if you only spend $10 on it (use Oppressive Rays , Lightning Strike , Voyage's End ) then it still can beat decks that go up to $100. It's my favorite way to play.

EDH is harder, because you can't really win on a budget against a control deck. An easy budget EDH is Talrand, Sky Summoner with counterspells, card draw, and his drakes. You can make one for about $30 that can beat, say, $600 Jund/Naya/Bant decks.

Tom Ross's Boss Sligh, with which he won the Invitational, is probably a good place to start in Standard budget. The thing's about 50 bucks.

A few things that I'd say. (I'm talking about standard here)
Tip #1: If you want to play control on a budget, you'd be best off giving up now. It CAN work, but the perfect alignment of cards must come up, and it's nigh impossible to make something as good as a real conrol deck. The main reasons control works so well is that you have access to a range of flexible options and powerful win cons. AEtherling s aren't too difficult to get right now, but as a whole, these win cons are expensive. (The only reason he's so cheap is because control players prefer elspeth, i.e. they think it's better.) Control players want flexible options, and as such, will dig into multiple colours to satiate their needs. White may have the best board wipes (in general) a card that control loves, but fails when it comes to Counterspell s. Our control deck is already in 2 colours. We probably need to go into red or black for spot removal options, (and maybe hand disruption) and all of a sudden we're in 3 colours. In order to make this work, you need lands. Shocklands and Temples are better than Guildgates, so there's $150 added to your deck just in lands. Someone may find a way to make it work in one format once, but it is extremely difficult to do. You're better off if you like the control style playing tempo, or perhaps midrange (though that's pretty difficult as well).Tip #2: As a general rule, the higher the mana cost of the card, the better the rarer card gets. I played in a format where it was commons and uncommons for a while in standard. I tried making dimir control, and the best win con i could come up with was... Marrow Bats . (ISD/RTR). The really hard to kill evasive 4/1 flier. It was probably the best control had. There were no AEtherling s, or elspeths, or anything that huge, there was Marrow Bats . At CMC 3 or less i get Doom Blade , Ultimate Price , Far / Away (kinda), Negate , Syncopate , Dissipate and as my grand draw spell i used Opportunity . Comparing my low CMC cards to a regular control deck's, you'll see that lots of these cards are in fact used in regular control decks. Sure, there's no Detention Sphere here, but Oblivion Ring would be pretty darn close if i were to splash white (for consistency reasons i couldn't). Opportunity is a solid card also, but it's no Sphinx's Revelation . The bottom line is: the higher the rarities go, the splashier and further away the power level of rares get. This means that you're better off sticking to decks where the cards are low CMC, as it means your cards are where they're strongest.
Tip #3: This means aggro and tempo are your best bets, as they rely on low CMC cards. Flashing back to my ISD/RTR C/U format, the best deck was probably gruul aggro. It had: Burning-Tree Emissary , Flinthoof Boar , Experiment One , Dryad Militant , Rakdos Cackler , Searing Spear , Ghor-Clan Rampager and Rancor . Heck, it was virtually a constructed deck. It was actually performing very well against regular standard decks. (I played a bant control at the time and it was winning probably 50% of the time). The only rare the deck really needed was Stomping Ground , and it was set. The reason this deck was so successful is that all of the best low-cmc cards favour aggressive strategies, whereas control players game-changers are at high cmcs. This is the same for tempo. One of the defining tempo cards in ISD/RTR standard was Delver of Secrets  ^Flip . A 50c common. Pillar of Flame was worth about nothing, Think Twice as well, Syncopate wasn't much. All of the good tempo cards aren't worth much.
Bottom line: In order of easiest to hardest to make on a budget, the archetypes are as follows: aggro, tempo, midrange, control.
Try to stick to less colours, as the lands will be cheaper.