More than 60, taboo?
Deck Help forum
Posted on Feb. 6, 2014, 8:51 p.m. by TGVahn
Is it honestly really poor form to show up to a FNM with a deck of more than just 60 cards?
I've just recently started playing and notice it seems to be par for the course to play 60 card straight for a standard and even modern format- and find it really hard to slim my own main deck down.
I would rad this for a better understand as to why you should run 60 cards
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/print.php?Article=12478
February 6, 2014 9:05 p.m.
TheAmazingSalsa says... #4
Well.. but if you're running 75 cards, of course you're not using the same amount of mana you'd use in a 60 card deck, right? But yeah, I prefer running a 60-card deck.
February 6, 2014 9:07 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #5
Taboo? Not really. Will the other kids laugh at you and call you a newb? Only behind your back.
Running the smallest deck possible gives you an advatage. That article, and many like it, explain why. As for Modern - no way would you want to play more than 60. Some mono colored decks even run fetches just to thin out the decks to get the right cards faster.
February 6, 2014 9:13 p.m.
ChrisHansonBiomancin says... #6
To be honest, I do feel like 75 cards main is a little much. You're effectively reducing the odds of getting you best cards by 25% which will make a noticeable difference over the course of one FNM. Ideally, you do want to run 60, but I have sometimes played decks with 61 or 62 if I really like the counts and don't want to give up any slots since the difference in odds is pretty negligible.
If you'd like some help slimming down your deck, you should post it on this thread.
February 6, 2014 9:17 p.m.
Yeh I love running fetches literally so that I can thin out as much of my deck as quickly as possible.
February 6, 2014 9:18 p.m.
TheAmazingSalsa says... #8
Well... my cousin runs a 150 card deck that's mostly fetching... Every single turn he's grabbing something from his library, shuffling repeatedly, and putting amazing monsters in just a couple of turns (Elvish Piper feelings)... even thought it's not Standard or anything, I'm just saying it's possible
February 6, 2014 9:25 p.m.
When I would run 75 card decks, it was long before there ever was such a thing as FNMs or widespread focus on mathmatically tuning decks on a non-professional level. It was mostly only for casual play. There were only 3 formats...Type 1, 1.5, and 2 (Vintage, Extended, and Standard to those that don't know). I was still able to make it pretty consistent due to the amount of tutors I ran in comparison to most people I played against. I could get ABUR duals for $10, which made color fixing pretty easy. Things like that were pretty different 15 yrs ago, at least around here.
February 6, 2014 9:27 p.m.
I have very little 60 card exactly decks. Its usualy 62, 64,or 68. I think its close enough to sixty and won't make a difference.
February 6, 2014 9:27 p.m.
There's a lot of maths that basically explains that it's imperative to only have 60 cards because you're limited to max 4 copies of any one card. The more cards you have, the less likely you are to draw what you need. Blah blah blah etc.
February 6, 2014 9:29 p.m.
Thebigshaggy says... #12
Battle of Wits was made for people who laugh at the norms! Godspeed, hellraiser!
February 6, 2014 9:30 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #13
Battle of Wits was made for people who consider winning to be optional.
February 6, 2014 9:32 p.m.
Playing more than 60 cards in your deck (or 40 for Limited) is a mortal sin and should be shunned.
February 6, 2014 9:39 p.m.
I have often found myself making decks with only 2 spots left for a card I want to draw at a 3 of interval, and just make the deck a 61. I haven't noticed a deficit by doing it, but I only do it when I have a 2 of that I really wish I drew a bit more but don't want to draw anything else less frequently.
February 6, 2014 9:42 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #17
If you want your deck to win as often as possible, run exactly 60 cards. If you don't really care and you're just trying to dick around, then card counts don't matter.
Simply put, there is always a "worst" card in your deck. Maybe it's really good some of the time, but other times it's just meh. Maybe your deck is trying to do one specific thing and this card just isn't as efficient at it as the rest of your cards. Regardless, there is always a "worst" card. If your deck is 61 cards and you find this worst card and remove it, your deck will be statistically better.
The best analogy I've ever heard for this situation comes directly from TappedOut.
Sleeve up any old 60 card deck. Now add one more card: A Chimney Imp . For those who don't know better, Chimney Imp is a terrible card. If you prefer, substitute Vizzerdrix for all those CI fanboys out there. Regardless, this 61st card is intentionally terrible. Now play 20 games and see how often that Chimney Imp (or Vizzerdrix ) sits in your hand. The games where it just sat there are the games you lost because your deck had 61 cards.
Maybe, just maybe, you got the play the little imp that could, and his pitiful damage gave you exactsies to win the game. Congratulations. I'm proud of you. But you know, I know, and your opponent knows, that you lucked out. Chimney Imp should never win you the game.
February 6, 2014 9:47 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #18
Just so I don't start the old flame war:
There is no rule stating that you have to have 60 cards. There are plenty of reasons to put extra cards in your deck. Your deck can still be competitive and fun if it has 61 cards in it. You just have to accept that, in mathematical theory, your deck could be better.
Not everybody has to min/max the stats on their decks in order to win all the time. Some people just want to be the honey badger. And honey badger don't give a fuck.
February 6, 2014 9:50 p.m.
A friend runs 100 card plus deck not commander and compensates for the mana. He still has plenty of wins. It just comes down to personal taste to me. I don't think its a sin. Yes, some cards in a deck will not be as good as others. It is just how you wish to run it.
February 6, 2014 9:52 p.m.
Exactly right on about people being a honey badger. I do agree with that.
February 6, 2014 9:53 p.m.
nobu_the_bard says... #21
Back in the day I used to run decks with ~80 cards frequently, because I couldn't bear the thought of not using my favorites. I rarely had more than 2 copies of a given non-basic in those decks, too. It may not be "optimal" but if it entertains you, don't let anyone talk you out of it. Just understand it might not be as "competitive" or "optimized" as some decks. "Suboptimal" doesn't necessarily mean you can't enjoy it.
If you post a deck that is "suboptimal" even I may suggest narrowing it down, but you never need to take a given suggestion. There's nothing wrong with turning down a suggestion and in fact, sometimes you should, because other folks' style won't match yours perfectly ever, and you'll never do anything unique if you only do as others do. "Thanks nobu but I like it at 200 cards" (or whatever) is an acceptable response.
Fetchlands and the like may make your deck more mathematically efficient, but they also make your wallet provably thinner in any case. :)
February 6, 2014 10:19 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #22
If you're just in it for the casual fun, more than 60 cards is perfectly acceptable. If you want to have a competitive deck, it's 60, period. There are rare occasions where I will side more Modern combo deck up to 61, but that's rare.
February 6, 2014 10:22 p.m.
reddead405 says... #23
i run 61 in my main deck and it works fine, i am considering making a large control deck at some point with a lot of card draw/deck manipulation. it really depends on weather or not you can compensate for the lack there of when it comes to drawing the right answers and threats.
February 6, 2014 10:25 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #24
People who win with Battle of Wits or win with 100 card decks - I want to know where you play. Those decks would never be competitive at my LGS. Not even for the best player. Are your stores made up of mostly new players?
February 6, 2014 10:32 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #25
I'm actually interested in SharuumNyan's question as well. I've played in shark tanks before and have seen these decks get crushed at less competitive stores. The only 100 card deck I've ever seen win is in EDH (what I did there, do you see it?).
February 6, 2014 10:44 p.m.
Still reading all the commentary posted above, but skimming it- seems to me its perfectly normal to run a small deck, and have cards in it to run it even smaller apparently?
Not exactly to my taste I have to say, but I DO understand the mechanics behind it, as someone said, mathematically, I suppose.
As for my deck in question: Izzet over yet?
I am definitely in the market for criticism and thoughts on slimming and making it more efficient.
February 6, 2014 11:08 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #27
I can only imagine how much drinking was involved in the meeting that vomited Battle of Wits onto the design table.
February 6, 2014 11:08 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #28
TGVahn - if you're looking to play for fun, and having singles of a lot of cards interests you, you might be more suited to play Commander.
If you want to play competitive Modern, your deck will never be successful. Having that many different cards in a deck is like playing a game of chance. Occasionally you will have the right cards in your hand at the right time to win a game, but 9 times out of 10 you won't. Modern is a fast format, and it's all about getting the right cards out as quickly as possible in a somewhat predictable way. All the cards in a deck should have synergy, and nothing superfluous should be in there.
February 6, 2014 11:22 p.m.
Thebigshaggy says... #29
You, of course, realize that research and development makes cards that aren't necessarily meant to see competitive play. No amount of drinking or "vomiting of cards" resulted in cards like Door to Nothingness and I've never seen that, Maze's End , or Biovisionary win a two out of three at my local store. Doesn't mean you need to take all the non-sixty-card-net-decks out of the whole GAME. Weird homebrews that are fun to play will always exist and it's not "taboo" to play however many cards you want.
If someone wants to run 75, run 75! Run two-hundred fifty. No need to be so Spike all the time. I've been top eight at FNMs with 62, 65, or 68 card decks.
February 7, 2014 1:09 a.m.
No matter how many cards are in your deck, if anyone asks, always say, "60." - They will laugh at you and call you a newb otherwise.
February 7, 2014 1:29 a.m.
@MagnusMTG: That's because playing more than 60 in a competitive environment is usually done by...well...noobs or people who don't understand probability.
February 7, 2014 5:34 a.m.
For more info, the friend I speak of doesn't just play 100. That used to be all they do around sixty for competitive. I'm SURE I understand probability when I run 62. The only 3 exactly 60 card decks I have is my infect which is only that way because i can't find Inkmoth Nexus cheap. My boros standard and my modern storm deck which I think the people who helped for lots.
February 7, 2014 12:50 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #34
In single games the statistical differences between 60 and 65-ish cards aren't significant enough to notice. However, at a certain point over the course of several games and matches the differences will stack up to the point where you'll end up not drawing a key card from the larger deck that you would have from the 60-card deck, causing you to lose one more game than you otherwise would have.
It's possible to build enough extra consistency/redundancy into a 61+ card deck that will cancel out the statistical disadvantage (this is how Commander decks and Battle of Wits decks are able to work at all), but it's difficult, and you have to really know and pay attention to what you're doing.
February 7, 2014 1:11 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #35
It depends on the format too Rhadamanthus. A 65 card deck disadvantage will be noticed a lot faster in Legacy than it will in Standard.
And Thebigshaggy - I wasn't calling for Battle of Wits to be removed from the game. I'm just saying that it must have taken some out-of-the-box thinking (or much drinking) to think of a card so weird.
February 7, 2014 1:31 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #36
I didn't think it was relevant to go into that sort of detail since it's difficult to verify, but yes that might be true.
February 7, 2014 3:39 p.m.
Battle of Wits was first introduced in Odyssey, along with cards like Traumatize . Milling was a major theme in the block, so having a card that won by giving you a larger library made sense.
February 7, 2014 7:11 p.m.
deathtouch_roadrunner says... #38
I think 61 card decks are fine, especially if the number of non-land cards is 38 or less and/or the 61st card is a land.
Card consistency cuts both ways so in general the 61st card is for two things: adding an extra land, or adding a 4th-of something. In both these cases you are increasing your chances of getting a card you absolutely want to get (particularly in the land instance). However, you are also decreasing slightly the overall odds that any other particular card is drawn on a given draw.
You can calculate the odds. For top decking one of 3 in 60 you have a 5% chance. For top decking one of 4 in 61 you have a 6.56% chance. On the other hand your chance of top decking as first card another card you had 4-of in the original 60 goes from 6.67% to 6.56%. And these percentages compound down the line somewhat, though I'm too lazy to do the math.
Really any number of cards is fine if you know what probabilities you need of getting X number of each specific card within N turns and you're happy with them.
ljs54321 says... #2
I wouldn't necessarily consider it poor form. I used to regularly run 75 card decks myself, but that was before apps like Mana Math. Exactly 60 cards is more of a "rule" for greater consistency.
February 6, 2014 8:55 p.m.