What do YOU think about 61 cards???
General forum
Posted on Oct. 4, 2013, 3:56 a.m. by aeonstoremyliver
I've read several articles and forums regarding the '61st card.' Many are in support of, in fact Nassif won PT: Kyoto 2009 with a 61 card deck (and many 1x ofs). Others are definitely against due to the mathematical percentages of drawing key cards.
That being said, what do YOU think about this, TappedOut community?
aeonstoremyliver says... #3
So glad I'm not the only one who does this, ShadowLand!!!
I build 61 card decks usually, also because I have a lot of tutors, ramp, and draw that could negate the downside. In Aggro/RDW type decks with little to no draw/tutors, I run strictly 60. Just my three cents!
October 4, 2013 4:05 a.m.
ShadowLand says... #4
Haha, nice! I run tons of ramp usually too. So I don't usually see a drawback
October 4, 2013 4:18 a.m.
chandlerwrx06 says... #5
I would have to say I do my best to stick right at 60, At 61 will you see THAT big of an issue with consitancy? No. If I go to 61 it is in the decks with ramp and ways to pull the cards I need/want like aeonstoremyliver said. I have only ever run into this issue when brainstorming a new deck Idea. Or trying to build some theme/ mechanic based deck. I wont run more than 61, for some reason 61 sits ok in my mind, but 62? Dude screw that.
October 4, 2013 4:22 a.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #6
What's funny is I play with this cat that had a Myr deck, when Scars of Mirrodin was Standard legal, and had about 100 cards in it. It was surprisingly consistent and he even placed 2nd at a local FNM. No joke. He's since skimmed his decks down, though.
On another note, Battle of Wits should not count in this thread :-P
October 4, 2013 4:32 a.m.
chandlerwrx06 says... #7
yeah, the crazy 200 + decks dont count. . . cuz theyre silly. Just like Maze's End based decks. . . i mean ive seen them do work. . but come on. Its like looney tunes
October 4, 2013 4:35 a.m.
i think it depends on the format, and the meta in that format. disregarding an eternal format like legacy or vintage, and focusing specifically on standard, if the cards in that rotation of standard had Tutors and loads of good, cheap cantrips then a 61 card deck could and probably is happening.
October 4, 2013 4:48 a.m.
Izanagi_Deus says... #10
The very idea of a 61 card deck makes my skin crawl. The owner of my favorite local LGS jokes (at least I think it's a joke) that he'll ban anyone he catches running a deck over 60 cards (with the clear exception of EDH, of course).
October 4, 2013 5:22 a.m.
61 Cards- Magic Russian Roulette by Patrick Chapin.
Tl;dr- playing with more than the minimum ruins your odds by more than you think and isn't worth playing that extra card.
If I could have it my way, I'd play a 40 card deck (or even 30 or 15 if I could).
October 4, 2013 5:42 a.m.
ShimmerVoid says... #12
There was once when I had trouble deciding which card to cut so I ran 61 for a bit. I eventually made the cut and went down to 60 as I'm OCD like that.
The few games I played with 61 felt no different than the ones I did playing with 60 but then again, how am I supposed to tell right? :)
October 4, 2013 6:13 a.m.
MonsterFinder221 says... #13
Heh, sylvannos, i agree with you, but i still find it quite hard to trim down my 64 card deck. (I think i'm being a hypocrite.)
October 4, 2013 6:29 a.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #14
Depends, I run 61 in my modern deck because the 61st card is my 3rd Peer Through Depths and there's literally nothing I can get rid of without hindering the way the deck runs, and 2 just doesn't get it done.
October 4, 2013 7:18 a.m.
SharuumNyan says... #15
In most cases, the 61st card will mathermatically make your deck slightly suboptimal. No one wants to play with a suboptimal deck.
October 4, 2013 8:39 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #16
Not every deck can respond to every situation, so you need to be able to make your deck excel in its niche and be consistently playable outside its niche. Running 61 cards mathematically hurts both of those odds.
When you're running 60 cards in your deck, one of those cards (or one set) is going to be the "worst" card, just like one of those cards is going to be the "best" card. There's always a card in your deck that you will never be sad to draw, and there's always a card that you'll only be happy with in certain situations. Such is the flow of MtG.
If you extend that logic to your whole deck, then you can also assume that there is a "best" 30 cards in your deck and a "worst" 30 cards in your deck. Using simple averages, half of your deck is going to be better than the other half.
When you add in the 61st card, you're inflating the size of the "worst" half of your deck, making it statistically more likely that you'll draw any of those cards you don't necessarily want to see right now.
"But, how do you know it's one of the "worst" cards in my deck? You don't even know what card it is." Good question. If it was one of the "best" cards in your deck, it would have already been in the mainboard, and you wouldn't have to worry about this situation.
The 61st card is always the worst one. Literally. You shouldn't play the 61st card.
/end rant
October 4, 2013 8:43 a.m.
ShadowLand says... #17
But your worst card could still be a good card, or perhaps you want the consistency of not having a 2-of of any card . . .
October 4, 2013 9:15 a.m.
SharuumNyan says... #18
I don't agree with that best card / worst card analysis. It all depends on the state of the game. Having a 7 cmc card in your opening hand is not ideal, but it doesn't mean it's a bad card. Late game that card is probably going to be awesome. And having an Essence Scatter in your deck could be great one game, but awful if you play against a creatureless deck.
A 61 card deck is an incomplete deck in my opinion, not because you've added bad cards, but more likely because you haven't found the best synergy yet.
October 4, 2013 9:32 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #19
@SharuumNyan, but trying to play for every game state at once is going to make your deck worse. In your example, Essence Scatter is probably a dead card against 30% of the Standard matchups right now. By including it mainboard, you run the risk of having a strictly useless card in your hand. Situations like that need to be taken into account before you add a 4th Essence Scatter as your 61st card. Maybe the deck is just stronger at 3.
The point remains that there is always a "worst" card that is less useful a larger percent of the time. Good deckbuilding tries to find synergies between the "worst" card and the rest of the deck so that the deck runs smoothly regardless, but the "worst" card is still the "worst".
October 4, 2013 9:45 a.m.
SharuumNyan says... #20
Nope. There's no such thing as a worst card in an optimized deck. I'm just not buying it. Having a "worst" card means your deck isn't finished yet. A good deck is a well oiled machine, with all pieces working together in harmony. None of the pieces is less important than another - or you need to pick better cards.
And I used Essence Scatter as an example, not because I'm recommending anyone play it mainboard in standard right now.
October 4, 2013 10:18 a.m.
Every time this discussion comes up, I always point people towards this article:
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/standard/12478_61_Cards_Magic_Russian_Roulette.html
Every time I build a deck, it is always exactly 60 cards. The difference might not intuitively feel noticable, but when you play many games with a deck it will show.
October 4, 2013 10:21 a.m.
I have had luck with a range of 60-65 cards.... the key is to balance the deck.
October 4, 2013 10:37 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #23
That link was exactly where my argument was based. It nails down every reasoned argument for 61 cards. It's just not worth it.
The article is a good read, btw. Very informative and well put.
October 4, 2013 11:14 a.m.
the difference's in percentages that you guys are talking about are only noticeable over the course of 100's of games. You will not be able to physically notice the difference between 60 and 61 cards. You would have to chart out exactly what you drew and when you drew it over the course of 100's of games with both a 61 card deck and a 60 card deck to see the actual difference for yourself. But there is no way that over the course of playing a few games at a FNM that you'll see the difference.
October 4, 2013 11:25 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #25
It won't make a difference you can feel immediately, but there is a significant statistical difference either way.
There will be games where the difference literally never shows itself, like those times you sideboard 7 cards in against a touch matchup but then never see any of those cards.
There will also be times where you draw Farseek turn 2 instead of Arbor Elf , and you end up ahead because your mana was more consistent that game than the previous one.
The only real difference there is that it's harder to quantify the second scenario because there's no tangible difference between the cards in your mainboard. If you never draw a sideboard card, you can always use it as an excuse as to why you lost. The same reasoning can apply to your mainboard draws, you just won't be able to feel it as intuitively.
By dropping to 60 cards, you'll find that you win 2% of the games you were losing before due to "deck hate". 2% is a small number, but little statistical differences mean everything between two equally skilled players.
October 4, 2013 11:34 a.m.
I don't know how accurate the 2% is because it's situational, dropping down to a 60 card deck will mathematically increase your chance to draw other cards in your deck, yes that part is correct, but you still need the right card to begin with. Besides, all that 2% means is that if you lost 100 games to so called "deck hate", that you would have only lost 98 instead. Like I said, not something you will be able to physically notice as your playing with out intense mapping of each play of each game. This 2% only accounts for your losses as well, I'm sure the amount of games that you won because of that 61st card balances things out. Whether it was because you increased your chances of drawing a specific card because you went from a 2 of to a 3 of that card , or simply because you added a 1 of and drew that card.
October 4, 2013 12:12 p.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #27
Mathematically and statistically I do agree that the 61st card does make a difference, albeit a small one, but it can be significant.
My take on it is that if you're running insane amounts of tutoring, deck thinning, and card draw, the effects of the 61st card would be nullified. If we take that 61st card and put it into an Aggro deck with zero card draw, the end result would be unfavorable.
In conclusion it depends on what sort of deck you're running on whether or not to include the 61st card.
October 4, 2013 1:54 p.m.
lord_of_the_snakes says... #28
if your 61st card is a tutor, like Demonic Tutor , then it's ok, but otherwise NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT
October 4, 2013 3:05 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #29
Even if your #61 is a tutor effect, it would still be more efficient as #60.
October 4, 2013 3:09 p.m.
lord_of_the_snakes says... #30
@NobodyPicksBulbasaur, i have a friend who actually did the math, if your 61st card is a tutor, you are more likely to get the cards you need. (my friends have way too much spare time)
October 4, 2013 3:23 p.m.
patrickloyd says... #31
i would run a 60 card deck, for me it is 30 mana to 30 other. to keep things balanced. you should give it a try, i have never had to mulligan since i started doing this
October 4, 2013 3:35 p.m.
@bantam1234: But Demonic Tutor isn't the 61st. worst card in most decks. It's usually in the top five. The only time it sucks to draw it is when you needed to draw an out, and now you can't win because you won't have the mana after tutoring. That's really rare for that to happen. In this instance, you're better off cutting one of the non-tutors in the deck.
There's a reason Legacy decks don't run Personal Tutor , Worldly Tutor , and Grim Tutor every chance they get. If you're going to play tutors, you want to start cutting other cards first.
As for everyone else saying 61 or more is fine, link us to some examples and I'll bet you we can find cards to cut to trim it down to 60. We could probably come up with ways to even cut it down to 40.
October 4, 2013 5:05 p.m.
just because you take a 61 card deck and say, "you can cut this and make it a 60 card deck" doesn't mean you made it better, it just means you took out a card and made it a 60 card deck. if you have a deck with 25 land and 12 different cards all 3 of's are you going to remove just one card and say this is your worst card, no, because there are two other copies of it in the deck and saying that would mean that the other 2 copies are the worst card in the deck and should be removed as well. All you would be doing is trying to cut it to 60 and not actually removing the worst card in the deck or necessarily making it better.
October 4, 2013 5:22 p.m.
HarbingerJK says... #34
I think it's pointless, all having 61 cards does it distract your draws by 1 card. My OCD also kicks in and irks me if it's not exactly 60
October 4, 2013 5:39 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #35
@Bantam: It might make the odds of drawing each other card slightly better simply because it's a tutor, but it would have an even greater effect if it were card #60 and not #61. Then you have a greater chance of drawing every card in the deck, including the tutor.
@Abenz: There is always a worst card, even if it seems like a great card for your deck. Sometimes that card is your 4th Trostani, Selesnya's Voice whom you never really want to see in multiples. That doesn't mean the other 3 copies of Trostani aren't powerhouses, it just means that playing 4 at once sometimes loses value.
Choosing the right number of copies of each card to play is just as important as choosing which cards to play in the first place. Sometimes trimming from 4 to 3 makes a deck less clunky, even with cards that seem like your "best" cards.
For a further example, there's a reason decks don't run more than 2 AEtherling , even though it's a beast and wins games. You only need to see one to win. The third and fourth copies end up clunky and bad.
October 4, 2013 5:40 p.m.
most decks don't run more than 1 or 2 AEtherling because he gets used in a lot of control decks which can't afford to draw multiples of him early when they need to use their control to limit their opponent. Plus they also use things like Sphinx's Revelation where they can draw multiple cards and can find it easier (almost like a tutor) as opposed to their one draw per turn which would severely limit how often they see him. If they didn't have ways to get through their library quickly like that, then running only 1 or 2 would mean they probably would never come across what is most likely their main win-con. In that case that would mean that there would be more decks running 3 or 4 copies instead to increase their chances of drawing him, even if they only need to draw one to win the game.
October 4, 2013 6:27 p.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #37
@patrickloyd That's an interesting concept, however if your mana curve stops at 3-4, 18-20 lands are plenty. In a ramp deck other than Elves one should play at least 24 if not 25-26 lands. I run 26 in my mono green 12 Post deck...
Speaking of which, I run lots of card draw, tutoring, and Primeval Titan in the aforementioned 12 Post deck. Prime Time especially makes for superb deck thinning, and in that scenario the 61st card is unnoticed. In my Legacy RDW I tested 61 cards, and believe me, there is a difference.
@sylvannos Worldly Tutor
in the right deck serves as functionally another copy of any creature in your deck. It works well with many 1x ofs in a tool box build and can often find an answer if needed.
In my opinion a 61st card in the following decks could be good (Eternal formats in mind):
Ramp when using Farseek , lots of fetches, and Primeval Titan .
Control when there is access to lots of tutoring and card draw ala Brainstorm , Sensei's Divining Top , and the like.
Some combo decks could support it with the correct amount of card draw and tutors
Mono Black Control if Dark Confidant and other draw mechanics are present
The 61st card would be bad in the following decks:
Aggro, especially Red Deck Wins
Some combo decks due to consistency
Tempo decks like Delver, The Rock, and Maverick
Any Standard deck at the moment due to the restricted card draw and tutoring
Any Vintage deck due to the speed at which the format is played, thus consistency is extremely important
October 4, 2013 6:30 p.m.
Nikodeemus says... #38
I run 61 in my mono black modern deck but it ramps with Crypt Ghast and the extra card is just a third Liliana of the Dark Realms . It was consistent before with 60 cards and just 2 Liliana's and it's still consistent with 61 and a 3rd Liliana while increasing my chances of drawing her and getting the ramp out faster.
January 11, 2014 2:19 p.m.
Dalektable says... #39
The difference between 60 and 61 may not be incredibly noticable, i always stick to 60 cards. I'll go to great lengths to make it so. This could just be my slight OCD kicking in but yeah, i stick to 60 on the mark.
January 11, 2014 2:49 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #40
I don't fully understand the logic that playing tutors allows you to play 61 cards. What you should be doing when you include tutors is to lower the number of your other cards to compensate (like the toolbox in a Birthing Pod deck). By removing a redundant copy each of 4 different spells and replacing them with 4 tutors, you functionally increase the odds of drawing all of them while adding versatility.
I won't argue that the one extra card is going to make you suddenly lose every game, but I still hold that your deck will be statistically worse with even just one extra card in it.
January 11, 2014 3:03 p.m.
I just run 60 because 61 is a prime number. It bothers me when I can't reset my mana with even stacks.
January 11, 2014 3:37 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #42
I would not put over 60. Takes some time to work it down sometimes, but it is almost always better.
January 11, 2014 3:52 p.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #43
Wow people are still commenting on this thread? I totally forgot about this lol.
I'm curious to hear what @meecht (I think he teaches statistics) and @Epochalyptik have to say in regards to this...
January 11, 2014 7:49 p.m.
I took a Statistics class in college. That's it, lol.
The amount of probability that 61 cards add as opposed to 60 is negligible. However, in tournament play, you want to restrict any variables that will impact your game, and your library size is a variable.
January 11, 2014 8:21 p.m.
ShadowLand says... #45
I still almost always run 61 cards, the other day I was playing a game and wasn't seeing my one 2-of in the deck, I realized that I was at 60 cards, said what the heck, and threw in a 3rd one of it. The next game I played, I saw it opening hand and it played in perfectly.
Is it because I put in that 3rd copy that I drew it? Probably doubtful. But it did seem to change the game. My decks just always feel comfortable at 61. I don't know how to explain it. Maybe I'm OCD for prime numbers. I have no idea.
January 11, 2014 8:40 p.m.
hungerwolf says... #46
I understand that for the optimal chance to get what you need, the fewer the cards the better. That's why it's recommended to stick to the absolute minimum of 60.
That said, I don't think that adding an extra card to have a 3-of instead of a 2-of will hurt the odds THAT much. In fact, it may be beneficial in some builds if there are two cards that are equally essential to increase the odds that you will draw into either or both. I know you could just remove from elsewhere in the deck, but sometimes that's not really feasible depending on what your deck is designed to do and how it does it.
January 11, 2014 8:49 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #47
61 is not beneficial. 60 is better odds wise. The difference is so very small, but if you are making an argument for one over the other 60 is better. 61 might make it easier then figuring out what to cut, or how to better use your sideboard. If you are asking which of those 2 is better, then the answer is 60.
January 11, 2014 8:58 p.m.
I appreciate that somebody brought up "61 Cards- Magic Russian Roulette by Patrick Chapin" so quickly. That article preaches the truth.
If you play with 61 cards, you're in denial.
Think of it this way:
If you could play with 30 cards, wouldn't you? It would skyrocket your consistency through the roof.
If you could play with 45 cards, wouldn't you, for the same reason?
The smaller the number of cards in your deck, the higher your consistency will be. That's not Magic elitism; that's math.
Battle of Wits notwithstanding, 60 is best - always and forever.
January 11, 2014 10:48 p.m.
hungerwolf says... #49
So say it's a 45 card deck- That means you're going to have a two-of. Would you rather stick with that and see it in 1/19 draws or would you rather have the 4 and have the higher chance of seeing it? It's not just a pool, it also matters what is IN the pool.
January 11, 2014 10:56 p.m.
The problem with your example is that you can't use a 45-card deck.
If you have 30 cards and only 2-ofs, your consistency is going to be higher than 60 cards with only playsets.
Also, what's IN your deck doesn't really matter, either. 60 cards is the lowest number you can have, so it's going to be your highest bet for consistency. If you have only 1-ofs, then you have a set amount of consistency. But if you have 61 cards and only 1-ofs, your consistency goes down further.
ShadowLand says... #2
I have ALWAYS built 61 card decks, and it's just been a tick with me, I don't know why. I don't really know the difference though with draw, because I've never played with 60. So it may not be helpful to you.
October 4, 2013 4 a.m.