Man, all of your videos have the most useful content for all the players who want to improve on their game. None of the other creators provides something similar to this. Muito obrigado
Exactly right, his competitive play advice is incredible and some of the best competitive content online. I believe, he or CFB realized this and saved his content for a paid subscription service. CFB might have specifically told him to stop because the advice he was giving was a major part of their subscription service.
Exactly right, his competitive play advice is incredible and some of the best competitive content online. I believe, he or CFB realized this and saved his content for a paid subscription service. CFB might have specifically told him to stop because the advice he was giving was a major part of their subscription service.
The first topic is very interesting. I think i was doing it intuitively mostly correct, but never really could grasp why exactly i was sideboarding this way. Great tips!
to expand on second point, even if your deck literally has a blank piece of cardboard, mulliganing it doesn't take it out of your deck. Even if you mull you still might draw it again and be down 2 cards. Keeping at least guarantees you won't draw it again, so you'll -only- be down one card.
Another reason is that your "virtually 6 cards hand" might still be better than the average 6 cards hand. At this point, there is no reason the mulligan
Old video I know but… I play an aggro deck in Standard and when my out is top-decking burn spells, it’s often better for me to play my lands and go to no cards in hand because they end up feeling much more comfortable tapping out against me. Means that if I do rip the right card, it’s far more likely to get through. Idk if that’s true at tournament level but on Arena it works pretty well.
Good video! Two things I would like to add: 1. about mulliganing. One thing you didn't mention in the first video while talking about risk reward analysis is the fact that when mulliganing you can just get unlucky and an unkeepable 6. This is imo also a factor when discussing that 7 cards with 1 blank piece is a free mulligan. Because mulliganing can additionally always run into that risk. (+ the fact that you can just draw the blank piece later on in the game anyways) 2. about playing out lands. I know that this video is mainly for Arena formats (std/historic), but especially with the addition of faithless looting or brainstorm it might have be important to add that additional lands can count as blank pieces of cardbaord as reason to keep lands in hand (not just for discard/landfall).
Very useful info in this video. And I’ve told people a lot about playing lands over holding them…that being said I’d say one of the best reason to hold lands in hand is when your deck has “loot” or “rummage” effects where you discard and draw in the same action. For example if you are playing a deck in MID, and you have the celestus in play, holding back a land may mean that you can trade that land later for a “real card”.
This content is so good. I came here from CGB's channel a while ago and I'm so glad I did. I've learned a lot from watching him play, and I'm at a point now where I feel like I get a whole lot out of your theory explanations. This is truly some next level mtg tutoring. Thanks so much for the lessons!
On the subject of playing lands rather than holding them: I hold that it is ok to hold one land in your hand. if you need one more mana for cards you draw into you can play it. If you draw a second land, you can play the one you were holding, and keep the new one in your hand. (or the other way around if you were holding a more useful land than you drew.) I do agree that you should not hold more than one land in your hand at any time (aside from the cases where you draw 3 lands, such as the start of the game, or a bad draw spell. One land still gives you the bluff potential at minimal risk. You can still be hurt by tax effects, but I consider that to be a worthy tradeoff to keep my opponent guessing about that last card.
Yes this "hold one land" is a basic heuristic, the point he was making in the video is that the downsides of this approach are often difficult to anticipate but very impactful and the upsides are usually not very high, such that doing it by default is often a mistake
@@lifitcg He specifically mention holding more than one land. I believe he said three, although I did not rewatch the video to see. I have seen people who will stop playing lands once they have 4-6 on the field, and that definitely is a mistake. The only time that holding one land will catch you is if your opponent catches you with an unexpected tax, which I personally consider to be a balanced trade off, but that is my belief, and you are free to disagree.
PV explained in the video why "holding one land" can be incorrect as well. Say you have 7 lands and you're holding 1 in hand, you choose not to play it. Next turn you draw and play Showdown of the Skalds, and you flip over 3 lands and Goldspan Dragon. You can't play it, because you didn't play that land last turn! You can only make 4 additional mana which isn't enough. This is a total disaster and shows why holding 1 land is often incorrect as well. Besides, if you had 7 mana and didn't cast anything on your turn, your opponent should already know the card in your hand is a land anyways.
Thank you so much for this video! It has been long time since I feel like I’ve learned so much about the game I love the most! Keep up the great work :-)
I imagine that most folks have at least some sense of point 3, but the tricky part for them might be navigating when to hold and when to play. Then they see people who they respect or believe are better at the game holding their lands and default to that option, when really they should default to playing if they aren't certain they are better off holding. I've definitely tried to help newer or less experienced folks with the first two points on multiple occasions, but it never would have occured to me to mention the third to them, despite how important it can be
On the "already a mulligan misconception" I totally agree with the thin value of the redundant card which will always be grater than zero and I would also add that its value grows even more when you also add the possibility of this situation happening again on the mulliganed hand. At this event this "free" mulligan decision will cost you one full usefull card. As always great read, great view, great stuff 👌
One addendum to the second point I wished you highlighted - there are decks with cards that are actively worse in your hand than in your library - e.g. self mill/dredge with creeping chills or narcoamoeba, or miracle cards, then it is actually most often correct to mulligan hands with those cards as if they were a "blank" or even worse, a loss of value. Nonetheless, great content and a pleasure to listen to. I am definitely guilty of doing number 3 too often :D
Even as a veteran player, those insights were really useful, that's what I call quality content. And by the way, what deck would you recommend for upcoming MIQ? Not really expecting an answer, but would be great to hear your insight into current meta. Temur Lukka got me 3 7 win runs in the Metagame Challenge, but I haven't played Standard since then, so idk how meta has changed.
In my opinion having a hand with good cards and one dud still counts that hand as ok. And mulliganing an ok hand have a risk of getting a bad hand. Not sure if that risk is worth it if just one card is a dud (and like you said, sometimes it might even still hold value). With holding land for bluff i agree with you. I sometimes keep one land in hand if i have enough on the board to play whatever would come top deck next turn. It all comes down to the situation on the board rather than one way being better than the other.
Ótimo vídeo, com ótimas ideias. Para mim já valeu pela ideia de usar Augurio do Mar e sacrifica-lo antes da habilidade de entrada. A ideia de voltar o planinauta com Aether Gust também é sensacional.
Great video as usual. On Brainstorm... would you consider a video explaining how to use that card efficiently? I see many many people now in Historic randomly casting it and it's making me nervous haha. Thank you, keep on the good work!
Another thing with sideboarding and bringing a card in all the time is maybe you have some cards in the main that, for each matchup, are bad against them and the sideboard card is the next best card but not quite good enough for the main deck but better than blanks
Hi PVD! I just wanted to ty. I am a free to play Historic player, but since the Mystical Archives arrived, I just cannot afford the wild cards until the meta stabilizes. So, I thought this month mytich was out of reach. Then I watched your deck guide for rogues standard, I studied it, and now boom! Mythic 97% win rate. No kidding I havent played standard since dominaria. So thanks to you!
For second misconception, i think having something like Lightning Storm in your opener while playing adnaus should be at least be considered for mulligan because it's really bad vs discard and you can lose to having it in your hand instead of your deck Also if you have stuff like Faithless Looting in your deck, you should hold lands to discard if you draw looting
Great content as always. The only thing I don't 100% agree is the third point. While it's true that bluffing is a much smaller upside than the potential disaster that could happen if you sandbag your lands, the number of exceptions is so large I would try to evaluate the choice to play/not to play the land on a case by case basis.
Just as an example, you stressed before the importance of "blank cardboard", and lands held in hand can still be put on top of the deck with brainstorm or discarded with faithless looting.
@@francescoalfieri6448 He did also give landfall as an example of a good "real" reason to hold your lands for later, so I think the point that it's ok to hold your lands if you have a legitimate tactical reason to do so was fairly clear, the idea is just that the downsides of not playing lands can be hidden and the upside of vaguely bluffing is not very high
Hah, thanks for the legacy example, PV, definitely appreciated! You got me feeling obligated to sign up on your patreon now :p (I would have got around to it at some point regardless, though!)
When I have two cards in hand that are bad in the matchup, I don't think "those cards are useless better mulligan", but "well at least I'm not gonna draw them when I don't want it" !
I feel like I haven't fallen into the last trap partly because I either draw so few lands it's not worth holding onto them, or so many that my opponent can figure out I've got no action pretty easily.
The mulligan idea is exactly backwards. If you have a second Embercleave or whatever but you would keep the other 6 after a mulligan you might as well keep now and have an extra card. Bluffing people is overrated, especially on Arena wich F6s automatically if you have nothing. For a bluff to do something you opponent would need to pick up something and play aruond it and that has to matter in some way. and lets be real: most people cant do that and half the one that could wont bother,
Well the mulligan idea is not "backwards" it's 2 separate points. The first point (in the video) is that going from 7 to 6 cards is often not "free" even if one of your cards appears useless (e.g. if they could thoughtseize/shatter one of your embercleaves, or play Lili OTV and plus, or you just happen to want to play the 2nd cleave). The second point (which you mention here) is that even if 1 card in your hand is guaranteed to be a dud/blank, if the remaining cards are already good then mulliganing isn't necessarily going to upgrade your hand. I agree that I would have liked to hear something about the 2nd point in the video. You're probably also right about bluffing in general being overrated, but a lot of people can hear that advice and think "well it's all upside right, either I successfully bluff the good players or I harmlessly hold land in my hand and my thoughtless opponent ignores it", so the message from PV that 'no, it's not as harmless as it might seem and will actually hurt in the long run in a bunch of spots' is probably much more useful/persuasive.
The other night I was down to 1 health and I I bluffed my way through 10 turns by having just one card in my hand being a land haha I have no idea why he didn't go for the kill after 3/4 turns but it was humorous none the less haha
I have already been told that if i want to bluff a land on my hand, i should play the next land i draw, so i wont miss a land drop and still have something for the opponent to fear
Very insightful especially the last tip. Does that apply to Draft also or just Constructed? Especially like in Strixhaven with an expensive mana sink like the Campus' Scry ability. Is it also generally worth it to remove bluff value to get more lands in play in case you want to scry same turn and hopefully be able to cast what you draw as well?
I think the best way to describe it would be a risk/reward analysis. If you hold the land what are the odds this will come back to bite you in the butt later on. Like the more mana hungry your deck is (multiple campuses, you're quandrix/prismari), the more risk you have for holding multiple lands. You may want to switch to holding a single land or no lands in these cases. I think PVD is stating that people generally evaluate this risk/reward wrong by overvaluing the bluffing as a reward vs the risk of not being able to make the bigger plays later in the game.
While true, if you’ve been in topdeck mode for a turn or two most players aren’t going to play around things unless they are comfortably ahead and can afford to. You just lose too many percentage points by playing around specific top decks most of the time. If you know your deck has no card draw or ways to spend extra mana off a single topdeck (moving equipment, activating utility lands, for example) then sure. But most decks have some sort of way to spend extra mana. Like you may think you’ll never need 8 mana in monored, but that’s enough to play cleave with 1 attacker then move it to another creature on blocks.
not to mention many times it is super obvious the opponent is holding lands in hand. And sometimes its just feel embarrassing to to not play them because of that, honestly.
I recommend UW auras a lot. It's Historic deck, but it only needs a few rares (8 engine cards, Lurrus and lands), and the deck is incredibly good. Sideboarding is also pretty straightforward, and there is a good sideboard guides (I use sideboard guide written by streamer TheKey (it's on his Twitter), it's a bit outdated, but still great for general recommendations). I have over 70% winrate in BO3 events with that list, and it's cheaper than any other t1 deck in Historic, and even cheaper than most standard decks. My best record with it was 19 wins in a row in Mythic rank BO3. No other deck ever performed so well for me, and considering how cheap it is, I can't recommend it more.
So some cards are good to have as a contingency or a backup plan in game two just in case the opponent adapts after game 1 but those cards shouldn't be in the main deck?
Yes, this is a good summary of the point he makes about Gargaroth at 4:30. If you expect your opponents to have trouble with your Plan A in game 1 then you often shouldn't have cards in the maindeck (like Gargaroth) that detract from (or don't contribute to) this Plan A, but if you expect most/all opponents to be prepared for your Plan A in game 2 then you often want to sideboard in a Plan B that's good against the cards that beat your Plan A
@@lifitcg I appreciate this. Now what about the last round if the game extends that long? Should the winning player keep their strategy from game 2 or should they default back to the original Plan A to throw the opponent off guard?
@@stoiccrane4259 In the example with Gargaroth you will most likely keep the Gargaroth in game3 because you aren't fully changing your strategy by bringing in Gargaroth, you simply have 2 different threats that attack from different angles. Your opponent is not going to board out their negate-type cards again just because they saw Gargaroth, so there is not much upside to going back to "pure ultimatum" for game 3. On the other hand, in different decks in other formats where you actually do completely transform your strategy while sideboarding this is an interesting question. Usually you can justify a particular configuration as being more optimal even if you are totally 50/50 on what the opponent will do. Sometimes you can just pick one option at random, because you believe that either one has the same chance of winning and you want to be more unpredictable in the long run, but this kind of situation is extremely rare.
The mono red list that shows up in every video, was it a list you were testing with/against for a league weekend at some point? I ask because I haven’t seen any Magda typically, but if it’s pro-level tech than I want to experiment with it.
Esse vídeo foi MT brabo, valeu PV.. Mano, pense que a galera toda assiste e curte pelo que você tem a dizer tlg. Compare com youtubers q fazem toda uma ceninha pra parecer profissional e vc mete logo um colchão e foda-se pq o importante é o que sai do seu cérebro kkkk
It can happen in the later game, when each player has dealt with the other's threats, and while topdecking, you get two otherwise useless Mystical Disputes.
The windrobber, heartless, negate explanation, Is beautiful. Thank you.
Thanks :) glad it was useful
Man, all of your videos have the most useful content for all the players who want to improve on their game. None of the other creators provides something similar to this.
Muito obrigado
:D
Exactly right, his competitive play advice is incredible and some of the best competitive content online.
I believe, he or CFB realized this and saved his content for a paid subscription service. CFB might have specifically told him to stop because the advice he was giving was a major part of their subscription service.
Exactly right, his competitive play advice is incredible and some of the best competitive content online.
I believe, he or CFB realized this and saved his content for a paid subscription service. CFB might have specifically told him to stop because the advice he was giving was a major part of their subscription service.
The first topic is very interesting. I think i was doing it intuitively mostly correct, but never really could grasp why exactly i was sideboarding this way. Great tips!
This channel is gold.
Dude, truly
Thanks, glad you like it!
@@LoveBystroem ñqruqr4urqrrqrurñru uuururrrw AAA 2
to expand on second point, even if your deck literally has a blank piece of cardboard, mulliganing it doesn't take it out of your deck. Even if you mull you still might draw it again and be down 2 cards. Keeping at least guarantees you won't draw it again, so you'll -only- be down one card.
Another reason is that your "virtually 6 cards hand" might still be better than the average 6 cards hand. At this point, there is no reason the mulligan
Old video I know but… I play an aggro deck in Standard and when my out is top-decking burn spells, it’s often better for me to play my lands and go to no cards in hand because they end up feeling much more comfortable tapping out against me. Means that if I do rip the right card, it’s far more likely to get through. Idk if that’s true at tournament level but on Arena it works pretty well.
"Sometimes you want blank pieces of cardboard" is such powerful advice
man I've been playing for the last 16 years and I still find this insightful.
Single land bluff works very well if you take a turn or two to empty hand your lands then hold on flood.
Good video! Two things I would like to add:
1. about mulliganing. One thing you didn't mention in the first video while talking about risk reward analysis is the fact that when mulliganing you can just get unlucky and an unkeepable 6. This is imo also a factor when discussing that 7 cards with 1 blank piece is a free mulligan. Because mulliganing can additionally always run into that risk. (+ the fact that you can just draw the blank piece later on in the game anyways)
2. about playing out lands. I know that this video is mainly for Arena formats (std/historic), but especially with the addition of faithless looting or brainstorm it might have be important to add that additional lands can count as blank pieces of cardbaord as reason to keep lands in hand (not just for discard/landfall).
This post brought to you by MATTRESS GANG
Don't hate. The man has CREDENTIALS
o/
Magic has driven me to the point, were I to, live in a padded room.
Very useful info in this video. And I’ve told people a lot about playing lands over holding them…that being said I’d say one of the best reason to hold lands in hand is when your deck has “loot” or “rummage” effects where you discard and draw in the same action.
For example if you are playing a deck in MID, and you have the celestus in play, holding back a land may mean that you can trade that land later for a “real card”.
I want to add, I’m not saying I know more than PV here…that should have been phrased more like a question instead of fact. 😊
This content is so good. I came here from CGB's channel a while ago and I'm so glad I did. I've learned a lot from watching him play, and I'm at a point now where I feel like I get a whole lot out of your theory explanations. This is truly some next level mtg tutoring. Thanks so much for the lessons!
Thanks, glad you liked it :)
I really appreciate the cadence of your videos!! it certainly makes the content more enjoyable! and you always explain things so well!
Thanks!
The last one really hit home, I always do keep lands to bluff, never thought it could be a bad thing. Great advice as always :)
On the subject of playing lands rather than holding them: I hold that it is ok to hold one land in your hand. if you need one more mana for cards you draw into you can play it. If you draw a second land, you can play the one you were holding, and keep the new one in your hand. (or the other way around if you were holding a more useful land than you drew.) I do agree that you should not hold more than one land in your hand at any time (aside from the cases where you draw 3 lands, such as the start of the game, or a bad draw spell. One land still gives you the bluff potential at minimal risk. You can still be hurt by tax effects, but I consider that to be a worthy tradeoff to keep my opponent guessing about that last card.
Yes this "hold one land" is a basic heuristic, the point he was making in the video is that the downsides of this approach are often difficult to anticipate but very impactful and the upsides are usually not very high, such that doing it by default is often a mistake
@@lifitcg He specifically mention holding more than one land. I believe he said three, although I did not rewatch the video to see. I have seen people who will stop playing lands once they have 4-6 on the field, and that definitely is a mistake. The only time that holding one land will catch you is if your opponent catches you with an unexpected tax, which I personally consider to be a balanced trade off, but that is my belief, and you are free to disagree.
PV explained in the video why "holding one land" can be incorrect as well. Say you have 7 lands and you're holding 1 in hand, you choose not to play it. Next turn you draw and play Showdown of the Skalds, and you flip over 3 lands and Goldspan Dragon. You can't play it, because you didn't play that land last turn! You can only make 4 additional mana which isn't enough. This is a total disaster and shows why holding 1 land is often incorrect as well.
Besides, if you had 7 mana and didn't cast anything on your turn, your opponent should already know the card in your hand is a land anyways.
If you watch this video on an Oculus Rift, is it PVD VR?
Sheldon Cooper is laughing.. me too
Thank you so much for this video! It has been long time since I feel like I’ve learned so much about the game I love the most! Keep up the great work :-)
Thanks!
including the decklists of what you're talking about will make these videos that much more timeless. loving the content so far
yeah I try to get decklists included most of the time, sometimes they are a bit outdated though xP
I imagine that most folks have at least some sense of point 3, but the tricky part for them might be navigating when to hold and when to play. Then they see people who they respect or believe are better at the game holding their lands and default to that option, when really they should default to playing if they aren't certain they are better off holding.
I've definitely tried to help newer or less experienced folks with the first two points on multiple occasions, but it never would have occured to me to mention the third to them, despite how important it can be
Your insight is the best, and you give great examples to clearly explain the reasoning. Thank you!
Thanks!
yay, a new infusion of wisdom to enjoy!
On the "already a mulligan misconception" I totally agree with the thin value of the redundant card which will always be grater than zero and I would also add that its value grows even more when you also add the possibility of this situation happening again on the mulliganed hand. At this event this "free" mulligan decision will cost you one full usefull card. As always great read, great view, great stuff 👌
One addendum to the second point I wished you highlighted - there are decks with cards that are actively worse in your hand than in your library - e.g. self mill/dredge with creeping chills or narcoamoeba, or miracle cards, then it is actually most often correct to mulligan hands with those cards as if they were a "blank" or even worse, a loss of value.
Nonetheless, great content and a pleasure to listen to. I am definitely guilty of doing number 3 too often :D
Yeah thats true, some cards are better in your deck. It's not very common, but definitely can happen
As a new player, i love how good your videos are, thank you 🥰
Thanks, appreciate it!
@@PVDDRMTG 🥰
One of your best videos to date! Enjoyable and informative!
Thanks!
Great video, I always keep 1 land in hand but not more
Thank you Champ! Reminded me the mainboard-sideboard of a past deck.
Goos stuff as always, thanks PV
o/
Even as a veteran player, those insights were really useful, that's what I call quality content.
And by the way, what deck would you recommend for upcoming MIQ? Not really expecting an answer, but would be great to hear your insight into current meta.
Temur Lukka got me 3 7 win runs in the Metagame Challenge, but I haven't played Standard since then, so idk how meta has changed.
In Standard I honestly think every good deck is viable right now, the meta is pretty balanced. Personally I chose Sultai Ultimatum
In my opinion having a hand with good cards and one dud still counts that hand as ok. And mulliganing an ok hand have a risk of getting a bad hand. Not sure if that risk is worth it if just one card is a dud (and like you said, sometimes it might even still hold value).
With holding land for bluff i agree with you. I sometimes keep one land in hand if i have enough on the board to play whatever would come top deck next turn. It all comes down to the situation on the board rather than one way being better than the other.
Love the content man. Good points and examples as well.
Thanks!
Ótimo vídeo, com ótimas ideias. Para mim já valeu pela ideia de usar Augurio do Mar e sacrifica-lo antes da habilidade de entrada. A ideia de voltar o planinauta com Aether Gust também é sensacional.
Obrigado :D
Great video as usual. On Brainstorm... would you consider a video explaining how to use that card efficiently? I see many many people now in Historic randomly casting it and it's making me nervous haha. Thank you, keep on the good work!
It might be a bit narrow of a video but I'll see :)
So true. When I have decks with brainstorm in them my mulligan rates go wayyyyyy down.
Another thing with sideboarding and bringing a card in all the time is maybe you have some cards in the main that, for each matchup, are bad against them and the sideboard card is the next best card but not quite good enough for the main deck but better than blanks
Awesome video. Really opened my mindset toward deck teching!
love this channel!
Thanks!
PVDDR's 1x speed is most people's 2x speed
Hi PVD! I just wanted to ty. I am a free to play Historic player, but since the Mystical Archives arrived, I just cannot afford the wild cards until the meta stabilizes. So, I thought this month mytich was out of reach. Then I watched your deck guide for rogues standard, I studied it, and now boom! Mythic 97% win rate. No kidding I havent played standard since dominaria. So thanks to you!
Nice, good job :)
man... the sheer amount of times I lost because I held more lands in hand than I should is just off the charts hahah
For second misconception, i think having something like Lightning Storm in your opener while playing adnaus should be at least be considered for mulligan because it's really bad vs discard and you can lose to having it in your hand instead of your deck
Also if you have stuff like Faithless Looting in your deck, you should hold lands to discard if you draw looting
Excelente, vídeo, PV! Ótimas ideias e insights para os jogadores mais amadores que nos fazem refletir! Desejo a vc td de bom, abç!
Obrigado! Abraco
Great content as always. The only thing I don't 100% agree is the third point. While it's true that bluffing is a much smaller upside than the potential disaster that could happen if you sandbag your lands, the number of exceptions is so large I would try to evaluate the choice to play/not to play the land on a case by case basis.
Just as an example, you stressed before the importance of "blank cardboard", and lands held in hand can still be put on top of the deck with brainstorm or discarded with faithless looting.
@@francescoalfieri6448 He did also give landfall as an example of a good "real" reason to hold your lands for later, so I think the point that it's ok to hold your lands if you have a legitimate tactical reason to do so was fairly clear, the idea is just that the downsides of not playing lands can be hidden and the upside of vaguely bluffing is not very high
Hah, thanks for the legacy example, PV, definitely appreciated! You got me feeling obligated to sign up on your patreon now :p (I would have got around to it at some point regardless, though!)
haha nice, thanks!
When I have two cards in hand that are bad in the matchup, I don't think "those cards are useless better mulligan", but "well at least I'm not gonna draw them when I don't want it" !
I feel like I haven't fallen into the last trap partly because I either draw so few lands it's not worth holding onto them, or so many that my opponent can figure out I've got no action pretty easily.
Oh boy, I'm getting really attached to this mattress
❤️
yeah it'll be sad when it's gone
@@PVDDRMTG just like professional magic! I wish you the best in this transition!
for the lands: i always keep one land and if i draw a land i play one of them
This Channel is amazing
Thanks :D
Ótimo vídeo. A parte de segurar lands pra dar o blefe é bem comum, principalmente no magic no papel, e muitas vezes custa o jogo.... :D
vlw!
Fantastico canal PV! Parabéns!!
vlw!
Great video as always🎉🎉🎉
GOAT content
:D
Excellent examples and explanations, thanks!
Thanks!
The mulligan idea is exactly backwards. If you have a second Embercleave or whatever but you would keep the other 6 after a mulligan you might as well keep now and have an extra card.
Bluffing people is overrated, especially on Arena wich F6s automatically if you have nothing. For a bluff to do something you opponent would need to pick up something and play aruond it and that has to matter in some way. and lets be real: most people cant do that and half the one that could wont bother,
do you have a youtube channel I can check out for your expert advice?
Well the mulligan idea is not "backwards" it's 2 separate points. The first point (in the video) is that going from 7 to 6 cards is often not "free" even if one of your cards appears useless (e.g. if they could thoughtseize/shatter one of your embercleaves, or play Lili OTV and plus, or you just happen to want to play the 2nd cleave). The second point (which you mention here) is that even if 1 card in your hand is guaranteed to be a dud/blank, if the remaining cards are already good then mulliganing isn't necessarily going to upgrade your hand. I agree that I would have liked to hear something about the 2nd point in the video.
You're probably also right about bluffing in general being overrated, but a lot of people can hear that advice and think "well it's all upside right, either I successfully bluff the good players or I harmlessly hold land in my hand and my thoughtless opponent ignores it", so the message from PV that 'no, it's not as harmless as it might seem and will actually hurt in the long run in a bunch of spots' is probably much more useful/persuasive.
Great content!
Thanks so much for all the videos! How painful is mana tithe!
I love your videos and advices. Made my play wo much better! Thx
Thank you :) glad they've been helping
O PVzão!! Podia deixar uma legenda pros conterrâneos Brasucas em português hein!!
The other night I was down to 1 health and I I bluffed my way through 10 turns by having just one card in my hand being a land haha I have no idea why he didn't go for the kill after 3/4 turns but it was humorous none the less haha
I have already been told that if i want to bluff a land on my hand, i should play the next land i draw, so i wont miss a land drop and still have something for the opponent to fear
Very insightful especially the last tip. Does that apply to Draft also or just Constructed? Especially like in Strixhaven with an expensive mana sink like the Campus' Scry ability. Is it also generally worth it to remove bluff value to get more lands in play in case you want to scry same turn and hopefully be able to cast what you draw as well?
I think the best way to describe it would be a risk/reward analysis. If you hold the land what are the odds this will come back to bite you in the butt later on. Like the more mana hungry your deck is (multiple campuses, you're quandrix/prismari), the more risk you have for holding multiple lands. You may want to switch to holding a single land or no lands in these cases. I think PVD is stating that people generally evaluate this risk/reward wrong by overvaluing the bluffing as a reward vs the risk of not being able to make the bigger plays later in the game.
Great champ! Well done!!
Holding lands is especially bad on MTG Arena because the game tends to broadcast to your opponent whether you have instant-speed interaction.
Dude these tips are so true.
really good content
Thanks!
It's a niche example but I love getting multiple Yorvos in my Ozolith deck... Just turns my 4/4 into a 9/9!
Playing you last card gives your opponent the go ahead to do anything they want on their turn.
While true, if you’ve been in topdeck mode for a turn or two most players aren’t going to play around things unless they are comfortably ahead and can afford to. You just lose too many percentage points by playing around specific top decks most of the time.
If you know your deck has no card draw or ways to spend extra mana off a single topdeck (moving equipment, activating utility lands, for example) then sure. But most decks have some sort of way to spend extra mana.
Like you may think you’ll never need 8 mana in monored, but that’s enough to play cleave with 1 attacker then move it to another creature on blocks.
Está muito bom! Saudações de Portugal
not to mention many times it is super obvious the opponent is holding lands in hand. And sometimes its just feel embarrassing to to not play them because of that, honestly.
pv tu é uma lenda cara
Please, never move the mattress, i'll miss it too much, it's part of the channel now :P
it will have to be moved eventually :(
Yea, the only time I bluff with a land in hand is if I'm playing against a discard heavy deck and it's my last card.
But how can I correct being on the draw 80% of the time in arena?
O brabo ta on
All these concepts actualy make me want to try bo3.
Any recommendations for a budget deck that allow you to learn to pilot these ?
Mono Red is actually pretty good I hear, as well as Mono White, and both are pretty cheap. You can find some lists on MtgGoldfish.
I recommend UW auras a lot. It's Historic deck, but it only needs a few rares (8 engine cards, Lurrus and lands), and the deck is incredibly good. Sideboarding is also pretty straightforward, and there is a good sideboard guides (I use sideboard guide written by streamer TheKey (it's on his Twitter), it's a bit outdated, but still great for general recommendations).
I have over 70% winrate in BO3 events with that list, and it's cheaper than any other t1 deck in Historic, and even cheaper than most standard decks. My best record with it was 19 wins in a row in Mythic rank BO3.
No other deck ever performed so well for me, and considering how cheap it is, I can't recommend it more.
So some cards are good to have as a contingency or a backup plan in game two just in case the opponent adapts after game 1 but those cards shouldn't be in the main deck?
Yes, this is a good summary of the point he makes about Gargaroth at 4:30. If you expect your opponents to have trouble with your Plan A in game 1 then you often shouldn't have cards in the maindeck (like Gargaroth) that detract from (or don't contribute to) this Plan A, but if you expect most/all opponents to be prepared for your Plan A in game 2 then you often want to sideboard in a Plan B that's good against the cards that beat your Plan A
@@lifitcg I appreciate this. Now what about the last round if the game extends that long? Should the winning player keep their strategy from game 2 or should they default back to the original Plan A to throw the opponent off guard?
@@stoiccrane4259 In the example with Gargaroth you will most likely keep the Gargaroth in game3 because you aren't fully changing your strategy by bringing in Gargaroth, you simply have 2 different threats that attack from different angles. Your opponent is not going to board out their negate-type cards again just because they saw Gargaroth, so there is not much upside to going back to "pure ultimatum" for game 3. On the other hand, in different decks in other formats where you actually do completely transform your strategy while sideboarding this is an interesting question. Usually you can justify a particular configuration as being more optimal even if you are totally 50/50 on what the opponent will do. Sometimes you can just pick one option at random, because you believe that either one has the same chance of winning and you want to be more unpredictable in the long run, but this kind of situation is extremely rare.
muito bom, Paulo
The mono red list that shows up in every video, was it a list you were testing with/against for a league weekend at some point?
I ask because I haven’t seen any Magda typically, but if it’s pro-level tech than I want to experiment with it.
I’ve tested magda with 7 dwarves and rim rock knight. It can be pretty powerful, especially when you get to tutor up your cleave.
Not really, it's just a default list that my editor plugs in to illustrate what I'm talking about, but no special tech or anything
Who’s mattress is that?
Misconception nr. 4: you can make living of pro play
cool video. Very useful
Thanks!
Disdainful stroke hits all those top end cards.
Still the mattress. Like your videos :)
Thanks!
Esse vídeo foi MT brabo, valeu PV..
Mano, pense que a galera toda assiste e curte pelo que você tem a dizer tlg. Compare com youtubers q fazem toda uma ceninha pra parecer profissional e vc mete logo um colchão e foda-se pq o importante é o que sai do seu cérebro kkkk
ahuahuahu eh que sinceramente agora nao tem como fazer algo mais profissional
I feel you
you played when top when it was legal, truly the intentions of one to see the other player suffer.
Holy moly, who keeps up 6 mana to DOUBLE mystical dispute on a dragon 🤣🤣
It can happen in the later game, when each player has dealt with the other's threats, and while topdecking, you get two otherwise useless Mystical Disputes.
@@rowerewolf yeah I understand the situation but I thought it was funny especially if it was post board
Como eu explico pra minha mãe que eu precisei aprender inglês pra entender um brasileiro?
auhahuhau fala que ingles eh a llingua do mundo ;P
Br sendo br e o barulinho do zap pipocando no fundo, mas porra puta vídeo bom, mandando ver mano.
ahuahua acontece :P
I am going to buy a Glowforge 3D printer and replicate the mattress wall.
Watch at .75, thank me later.
i'm starting to get confortable with the mattress. :d
The mattress is back Kappa
It never left haha
@@PVDDRMTG nice Paulo :) obrigado pelos vídeos, espero que possam continuar. Abraço.
reprint ambusher you cowards. Nice video like always.
Anyone who follows point 3 is just asking for an Armageddon.
You have an accent and you talk very fast. If you want to come across better to more people, slow down.