Show me what's not a 7.

[Slyvester12]

Y'all ever notice that despite the near infinite possibility of deck building, with all of its myriad choices about budget, strategy, meta, somehow everyone always makes a perfect 7/10? What are the odds?

Hey, Morg, I've gathered you have a mild interest in stats. What are the chances that EVERY deck in EDH is either cEDH or a perfectly balanced 7?

Sarcasm aside, it boggles my mind that no one ever considers their deck underpowered. "Well, I have no ramp, draw, interaction, combos, or recursion, so I'd say it's a nice, fair 7." OUT OF WHAT, 100?

I understand all of the arguments that people are biased toward 7 because it's a passing grade, it's exactly halfway between neutral and great, people overestimate things, etc... But come on, why even mention a power level if it's relative to your kitchen table buddies. I bet one of them is just playing an old Yu-gi-oh deck and pretending it fits in MtG rules. How are you supposed to come up with a reliable rating when you're testing against Exodia?

Okay, rant over. Link me some decks that are anything but a 7. I don't care if that's bird tribal (you still around Belwas?) or your now-banned Sliver Hulk deck that abuses Flash (Soren?). Just as long as it's not a 7.

[Bonethor]

I like to live dangerously! This should be a 6, but it might be more

https://deckstats.net/decks/108636/2326986-niv-mizzet-reborn-casual-engin/en#show__stats

Edit: I kind of get what you mean, but I like to use a scale where cEDH is more than 10, so 9-10 are reserved for high power / fringe cEDH, 7-8 try to follow their plan but are somehow suboptimal, 5-6 is casual and precons are usually 3-5 range.
less than 3 is usually jank on purpose. I think the scale just gets too congested otherwise. I kind of feel bad now for posting that since it might actually hit 7

[Elan Morin Tedronai]

https://deckstats.net/decks/9282/1782352-total-nature-of-the-beast
Readily built. 40 creatures including Marath, Will of the Wild. 10 Instants and Sorceries. 15 artifacts and enchantments, some of which are rocks like Gilded Lotus and the Signets and Borderposts. Other Tribals like Aether Charge and Mayael's Aria. 35 lands.


https://deckstats.net/decks/9282/347720-utopian-draconom-wall-icon
Lacking however strong artifacts and enchantments and Tiamat at the moment. 50 creatures. 1 Planesewalker Sarkhan Unbroken. 5 spells. 8 artifacts and global enchantments. 35 lands.


https://deckstats.net/decks/9282/1197131-enhanced-adaptive-enchantment
Almost built. Without only possibly Enduring Ideal and Sythis, Harvest's Hand. 30 creatures. 1 Planeswalker in the face of Calix, Destiny's Hand. 7 global enchantments. 18 auras. 7 Sorceries. Only Sol Ring. 35 lands.

I love that number by the way. I was born on 7th February, 1986.

[Slyvester12]

@Elan Morin Tedronai
I would probably not include your full birthday on a forum post. Unlikely to come back to haunt you, but that's kinda tempting fate.

Also, what are you ranking those?

[Elan Morin Tedronai]

Oh, yeah. Now I saw that it's power level. First, I thought it was a card type number. OK, well, I think I would boast for 8/10 on the Draconom(wall)icon. But, yeah generally such level 7/10 are the Total Nature of the Beast and Enhanced Adaptive Enchantment. Yeah. Don't want to argue with you. You are bigger EDH player and deck builder than me. I don't have more than 3 EDH decks. I also am proud to show them.
Regards and Merry Christmas:
Chavo

[Morganator 2.0]

Hey, Morg, I've gathered you have a mild interest in stats. What are the chances that EVERY deck in EDH is either cEDH or a perfectly balanced 7?

Mild is putting it lightly. We've talked about power levels one or two or three times.

I really can't solve this right now unfortunately. I mean, I'd like to try, but I have a lot on my plate. So I shouldn't. I shouldn't mess with this. I shouldn't even be spending time making this post. Even if I want to. I have other things to do.

...

Hey do you know what my favorite thing about Deckstats is? The stats!

Screw it, let's do this. Get ready for a long post.

So the answer to "what are the chances that EVERY deck in EDH is either cEDH or a perfectly balanced 7?" is zero or very close to zero. If you're asking what are the odds that most decks are at 7, that I can try and help with.

I imagine that most people consider the rating to be a percentile rating. This is different from percentages. What this means is that if you were to take one of the strongest decks and call it a "10" and one of the weakest decks and call it a "1" with 8 other increments in between, your deck would be at position 7. Either that or as you said, everyone thinks that their deck is average, and because the school system shows that 70% is generally the class average on a bell curve, they assume that their deck must be at 70% or a 7. If we were treating this like a percentage rating, on average we would expect people to rate their decks closer to 5 or 6. This is not the case.

As for finding out the chances that a given deck is a 7 versus any other rating... you'd think it would be about a 10% chance right? If you have 10 options for power level, and you guess your deck's strength at random, you're going to be correct about 10% of the time. Makes sense yes? Unfortunately, that's not how percentiles work. Continuing with the classroom analogy, if we have 100 students and ordered them from lowest grade to highest grade, the student at percentile 50 (and most percentiles around 50) would have a grade of about 70%. Percentiles work differently. It is quite possible that the majority of people have decks around the 70th percentile (power level 7 out of 10). I don't think it's likely, but it is possible. So in order to find out what the odds are that most decks are a 7, we would need some numbers to work with. This thread is a good start.


I'm not sure if this part will help, but it might. Do you remember this thread where I wanted to make a commander league for everyone? With everyone being double vaxxed I wanted to give this a shot, so I got some friends together and we finalized the ranking system. We wanted to get people to rate their own decks so we had to make sure that the ratings were concise. Here's what we ended up with.

A-Rank
These are the competitive commander (cEDH) decks. The best of the best. They are refined and as well made as you can make them.
•   You’re using a consistent game plan that you can enact in over 90% of the games you play.
•   You have multiple combo lines, a resilient game plan, and/or combo protection.
•   Your deck can consistently (not occasionally) either:
o   Threaten a win on turn 3 or 4
o   Stop a combo by turn 3 or 4

B-Rank
These are the fringe decks. They're not as fast or as consistent as Rank A, but they can still do amazing things, and only just fall short of greatness.
•   Like rank A these decks are refined to perform really well, but they are less consistent, less resilient, and a little slower.
•   Game plans are still consistent and can be enacted most games.
•   Decks will try to threaten a win (or stop one) on turns 5 to 7. They might be able to win sooner, but not consistently.

C-Rank
Stronger casual decks end up here. Decks have a focused game plan, but there are noticeable flaws with consistency and interactive power. Their games aren't fast, but individual card power is still very high.
•   Games will end around turn 9, but it’s unlikely that anyone is counting at this point.
•   Individual card strength is high. Cards have good synergy with each other and the commander.
•   Decks can still have combos as win-conditions, but strong synergies and incremental damage are more common here than in ranks A and B.
 
D-Rank
Your "average" casual decks end up here. There is a very general gameplan and a core strategy, but there are issues with trying to enact the plan.
•   While there is an overarching strategy, there is no key line of play. The deck knows how it wants to win, but it is lacking in power and consistency. Variance between games is high.
•   No combos at this point (unless they are super janky and convoluted) but mass combat damage and strong synergies between cards are common.

E-Rank
Low-power decks. Commander pre-cons would be rank E.
•   Decks will almost exclusively win with incremental damage.
•   Card choices are not optimized.
•   If you weren’t in any other ranks, you’re rank E.

If you’re torn between your deck falling into one of two ranks, go with the higher rank.

The league never fired (due to logistical reasons) but I did get a chance to do some preliminary testing with this rank system. I wandered the tables and asked people "Read this. What rank do you think the deck you're using is?"

Any guesses as to what people said?

Most players said that their deck was C-rank.

That was interesting to me. I specified that "D" should be the average and yet everyone was still inclined to rank their deck just above average. Even more strange, if you were to transpose the 5 ranks onto the 10 power levels, you would expect the usual rating of "7" to line up with "B-rank". That wasn't the case here. The same people that would say their deck is a "7" would also rate it at "C". Very interesting.

If you happen to want to talk about this rank system more, please only bring it up here if it is relevant to this discussion. Otherwise, you can post in the old thread.


Alright, enough rambling and stalling. Time to go over my decks. All decks are viewable through my profile link.

Edric = 9. This is a cEDH counterspell deck but it has fallen out of favor with the recent power creep.

Sisay = 8. Formerly competitive (was likely a 10) before Paradox Engine got banned. It's good at the toolbox stax strategy, but has trouble with closing the win.

Krenko = 7. A fringe competitive goblin swarm. Strongest Krenko I've seen but that's likely me being pretentious.

Scarab God = 6. A strong casual deck but it's too slow in the early game to make it's way into fringe and competitive pods. This used to be the deck I tend to pull out when people say "my deck is a 7". I would win ... often.

Haldan+Pako = 6. Strategy is to play Pako by turn 3, then figure out how to win with my opponents' cards as this deck has no combos or win-cons built-in. Except for commander damage through Pako.

Brudiclad = 5 (maybe 6, haven't tested it enough). Token deck. Mostly wins with that construct token from stuff like Karn, Scion of Urza. This is my go-to deck when people say "my deck is a 7". This deck still usually wins, but it's a closer game. I'd like to think I'm winning here due to skill.

Vaevictis = 5. A casual disruptive deck that wins with Primal Surge... or at least wants to. This deck is an even match against most decks where the owner claims "7".

Licia = 4. The idea here was to make a deck that can win with both Near-Death Experience and Test of Endurance. Mostly wins with commander damage. Deck is kinda slow and runs out of cards to cast frequently.

Mishra = Unknown. Individual card strength is high, but the strategy is weak. The deck is a huge glass canon. I have no idea how to rate it.

[Elan Morin Tedronai]

Respectable B-Ranking of Draconom(wall)icon while lacking stuff like Cavern of Souls. Also pretty much respectable C-Ranking or "Stronger casual decks" in my opinion of Total Nature of the Beast and Enhanced Adaptive Enchantments. It's not pre-con but close to it with aggravation of the Beasts, Baloths and Behemoths. While, yeah Adaptive Enchantment was a gift for my Birthday 2 years ago, but it went through a lot of modifications and updating especially with latest Theros and Modern Horizons 2. So, it's strong modified pre-con that deserves C or at least D. Adaptive Enchantment itself is strong edition in my opinion, so I made some improvements in it to boast such pretension.
Regards: Chavo

[Bizarro Soapy]

I've yet to see a Galea, Kindler of Hope deck that wasn't a 3

[The Golgari Guy]

I don't really like numerical power level scales. However, if I was forced to use such thing, I would say that my Meren deck is "more than a 7" (https://deckstats.net/decks/149180/1755348-meren-aristocrats-midrange) and that my Doran deck is "less than a 7" (https://deckstats.net/decks/149180/1953356-doran-king-of-treefolks).

Probably the first would be like a B in Morgan's scale and the second one would be like a C- .

[Elan Morin Tedronai]

For Totem Speaker, Aether Charge and Krosan Groundshaker, I was inspired by Morganator's list of All of the Tribal Cards. I was amazed by their existence from Legion's days. The Speaker and the Krosan are about to be tested and gotten first by tomorrow.
Regards:
Chavo

[Kale87]

Solid 7.

https://deckstats.net/decks/142661/2171039-8-9th-edition-commander

[Potato Chop]

Before each game, you randomly choose your commander from the selection. No plan. No strategy. No interaction. Not a single card that will do what you want every time. Enjoy a beautiful, solid 2 or 3. As far as good times with friends go, though, this is a pure 10/10, and that’s why I play Magic.

https://deckstats.net/decks/151238/2326965-so-we-were-playing-magic-and-t/en

BUT WAIT! Sometimes this deck can be good. Here’s an explanation:

This deck is very chaotic. Meaning, it’s almost never going to play the way you intend. The best part, however, is that it’s got a heck ton of cards that screw with your opponents. So if you get the right cards out, everyone is playing “chaos.” In many situations, you end up playing your opponents’ decks, inheriting their board states, forcing them to cast the wrong spells at the wrong time, etc. And while your pool of opponents (hopefully) consists of three reliably powerful decks, their pool of opponents consists of two powerful decks and… you. Thus, simply by you being there in combination with symmetrical effects that rely on each player’s opponents for benefits, you are putting your opponents at a disadvantage.

TL;DR: This deck is so chaotic that it puts you at an immediate and mathematical advantage.

[Morganator 2.0]

So I have a question for everyone. What are you using as a baseline to determine your decks' power level?

I based mine on the A to E scale that I made and just treated power 10/9 as A-rank, 8/7 as B-rank and so on. I then gauged that if it was a stronger C-rank deck I call it a 6 and a weaker one is a 5, and so one for each deck. I think that another part of this is that I've seen the upper limit. I've seen what decks at power 10 can do. I know that my decks are not that (despite how often other players say they are).

So that's my system, and it seems like it lined up with the way The Golgari Guy and Potato Chop rated their decks, but I'm having trouble understanding the other ones. When you say your deck is an 8 or 7, what makes you pick that number? What makes you say that your deck is above average, instead of just being average.

And while I'm asking questions, do you Slyvester12, have any decks that you can say aren't a 7?

[Mynus]

When I first started playing someone was trying to explain power level to me, I am now convinced they don't know anything about power levels, but they told me that a Pre-con was typically around a 4-5. Using that logic, I thought that an upgraded pre-con should probably be around a 6-7. So, I just assumed this was accurate and for a long time I thought most of my decks were 7s; they are not. I actually hate the number system, I think telling someone your deck is a 7 means absolutely nothing, because most people have different definitions of the levels or because people have a very hard time honestly evaluating their own decks.

I have actually stopped asking about power level numbers, but instead I try to ask what turn a deck can typically win on. I personally like a game that lasts past turn 4-6. This question has served me much better than the power level idea. If someone tells me anywhere between turn 3-5; I know that my decks are probably not going to compete in that scenario. My most focused deck is probably my Gyruda deck, but that deck isn't winning quickly at all. I would like an experienced player to look through my decks and tell me their "power level," but I don't think most people actually want to take the time to do this. Again, for me if a commander games goes 10-15 turns, I am okay with that, because that usually means I got to do something, I may not win, but at least I had opportunities to do something cool. In a game that ends on turn 4, I am probably not actually doing anything.

Command Zone just did a video and they mentioned something I like, they asked the question - Is your deck built to win? or Can your deck win? I think this distinguishes a lot of players; my decks "can" win, but I don't build a deck simply to win. I would rather have a theme/goal and try to do that thing.

Here is the Gyruda deck I mentioned (edited to show categories):
https://deckstats.net/decks/154132/1747383-gyruda-blink-clone-bounce-edh


The goal of this deck is to get Gyruda's ETB as much as possible, which means its primary wincon is Mill.
Personally, I would put this at a 6, and according to the letters, it may fall in in the C-D range. Am I accurate?

[Bonethousand]

So I have a question for everyone. What are you using as a baseline to determine your decks' power level?

I try not to use numbers or letters to communicate the power level my decks. As a teacher, I've seen first hand how oversimplified and frustrating even a well-thought-out grading scale can be to the interpreter of that grade. I have a pretty consistent playgroup, and so I only have to employ the rule 0 talk every once in a while, but when I do I try to represent a couple key things about my deck.

1. Potential to go-off in a single turn: I let people know roughly the number of combos or if the synergy of the deck allows for enough value all at once to create a lethal board state. I don't really talk about what those win-cons are, just the probability.

2. Jank/Flavor: I like to communicate up-front about how much of the deck/theme is made of pet cards and fun stuff vs. how much is optimized. Again, general mentioning of this is enough brief context to satisfy people.

3. Win-rate: Lastly, if it's a deck I've played before I like to drop in how well it's done against other decks of comparable power. I don't necessarily keep track of my stats objectively, but if I truly believe in my heart that my deck is jank, but it consistently stomps the table, I'll mention that. Same if the deck has a boogieman-der at the helm, but it just gets hosed every time.

Honestly, if I mention these three things, people tend to immediately go, "Oh, sweet, I have a 6 I can play too." Or they'll decide to put their Urza deck away and have mercy on me. But, no matter how well constructed my ranking system is, I always have to explain the number anyways, so I just skip it.