Running 75 over 60 in the main?
Deck Help forum
Posted on Feb. 19, 2018, 10:46 p.m. by SeekerofSecrets
So the first thing i learned about deck building was to never go over 60 cards. I heard things like "It'll hurt your consistency" or "you'll never pull what you need." But what if i play a deck that that the worst thing it can do is topdeck its combo engine?
I play a restore balance list (5 Color Wombo Combo) and if you don't know anything about the archtype just note that seeing a Restore Balance in your hand is absolutely awful. My solution to this is to increase deck size, this will lower the chances of seeing one.
I broke the deck up into 6 categories and in the 75 card list we would play
15 lands
15 threats
12 cascade
21 posts
9 utility
These numbers stay true to the ratios of my original list (which runs beautifully and is very tuned) and plays 4 of each kind of post/cascade that we have access to (its really cool it turned out to be 75, almost like it was meant to be;))
In theory the 75 card deck should run just as smooth as the 60 card deck but I'm worried about the strain it will put on my mana base. Unfortunately we are almost already running the max of sudo fetches and i dont know of any other fetches that can search for any basic.
I would love some thought on this topic, it seems solid in theory and a hilarious way to make the jankiest archtype in modern even more janky
SeekerofSecrets says... #4
smackjack not necessarily, i would increase my cascade spells by 2, which would give me the same chance of top decking one (in either deck they would make up 16% of my deck)
What's interesting is that i ran my theory through a hyper-geometric calculator and my chance of seeing one or more cascade spell by turn 3 went from 86% to 84% so im not sure what caused the drop.
February 20, 2018 7:42 a.m. Edited.
I really do not think that seeing a RB in your hand is that bad. You still have 2 in the deck. Sure, they discard 1 card less, but you still get their lands and creatures, which is more important anyways, since the rest of their hand will lack either lands or wincons in most cases.
February 20, 2018 7:52 a.m.
SeekerofSecrets says... #6
Boza It's not so much about it sitting dead in our hand, it's more about the amount of times we can use the combo. You'd be surprised at how many decks can recover rather quickly after a turn 3 rb. Normally it takes hitting it twice to secure the game and having that third is our safety net.
I know i have ways to put it back in my library of course but its by no means a consistent solution
February 20, 2018 8:04 a.m.
SeekerofSecrets says... #7
Catalog9000 it's a pretty unorthodox way of playing so no worries! But basically we need to be able to hit all 3, 1 is not enough to close a game, 2 is usually ok, but that third is our saftey net.
The problem with the deck is that you can't have any spells under 3 mana so we are inherently slower then every other deck. So we can't handle 1 and 2 drop threats/removal, our answer is multiple rb to get them off the field and out of there hand
February 20, 2018 9:02 a.m.
I am not a fan of running more than 60 cards in a deck. Yes, you can make the odds proportional, but you get stuck using inefficient or worse cards to accomplish the same purpose. The third copy of Restore Balance is your safety--it serves as insurance. While nice, it is not overly necessary to your deck. I do not think the added security is worth running additional copies of worse/more inconsistent cards.
That said, my experience with running more than 60 cards is a bit more excessive than running 75 cards: running 240 cards. I'll admit my view on the subject might be a tad skewed by that experience.
February 20, 2018 9:26 a.m.
SeekerofSecrets says... #9
cdkime honestly if I decide that 75 cards is not worth then I will likely keep 3 rb in the main 60, like i said earlier the deck functions fine and is very consistent, I just find myself mulliganing to 5 more than I'd like to. This just seemed like an interesting solution that seemed to be worth discussing.
75 is better than 60 right?: This is an example of what it would look like, It's important to note that the only new cards are fetchlands and Greater Gargadon (which used to be in the list and is a very solid card). I'm gonna try and sleeve it up this week and see how it feels
February 20, 2018 10:11 a.m.
The reason the Hypergeometric calculator showed a small drop in finding a cascade spell is because your percentage of deck seen by turn three is smaller in a 75 card deck than a 60. And really that's the math that matters. What percent are you losing specifically because you drew Restore Balance and how much is going to 75 reducing the chances versus what percentage are you losing specifically because you didn't draw a cascade spell and how much does going to 75 increase those odds.
Now my personal feeling is that staying at sixty is going to be better, simply because drawing one RB is not as disastrous as not hitting a cascade spell.
February 20, 2018 3:48 p.m.
SeekerofSecrets says... #11
Dracoson so with a 60 card deck we have a 58% chance of not seeing balance in the first 3 turns and it increases to 65% with 75.
I'm starting to think that it might not be worth it. In testing the mana base has lost considerable consistency and i dont think that it is worth a 7% increse.
I guess i didnt take into account just how fragile my mana base already was
February 20, 2018 4:08 p.m.
There's always a best card in your deck and a worse card in your deck. The only reason to play more than 60 cards is if you're playing Battle of Wits. Even then, that's still a really shitty deck.
If you don't like it when you draw Restore Balance, play something out of the Yahenni's Expertise cycle, As Foretold, or Jace, the Mind Sculptor.
smackjack says... #3
Sure, the risk of you drawing restore balance gets lower with 75 cards, but your chances of getting a cascade lowers just as much.
February 20, 2018 1:24 a.m.