Great video! I'd love to see a follow-up video that maybe presents some curve templates for the main deck archetypes. I have a general understanding of how to divide between ground, space, and events/upgrades, but it would be great to see some analysis.
The stuff presented, the theory and the numbers, are all Very Good and thanks for putting it together, it helps a Lot... But I just wanted to shout out how clean and smooth the Presentation itself is. Clear, Concise, well paced and goes into detail when necessary but doesn't overdo the main points & bloat the slides. Great work on the Presentation :)
We are new to TCGs with SWU being our first. This is an excellent resource for beginner TCG players of all ages. Your methodology and unpacking of beginning game theory is easily to comprehend. It feels like I'm talking with new friends after a weekly play tournament. Your content is refreshing, and hope your channel continues to grow.🎉🎉
From personal experience, I can say you live by these concepts during a match! :) Amazing video, thanks for the info and insight, Hope to see ya at the next tourney!
I love how you add in the weekly change and emphasizing that we can have snap shots of expectations. This video has helped me better articulate my deck building advice to people I'm looking to introduce to the game.
Although a good video for us entrenched players, I would not show this to a new player 😅 I think it’s important to focus on the fun side of it for casual new players. “What leaders look cool to you? What cards look fun?” Etc.
Good stuff! Thank you. I realized that I do a lot of this but with a more casual approach; I.e. goldfishing opening hands over and over, playing casual games to get a feel for the consistency (or lack thereof) win or lose, and just seeing if the goal of the deck is being accomplished. Again, all a math-less approach but trying to accomplish the same goal. Still, I like the idea of using math moving forward. That can help with confidence, which is not to be underrated. Looking forward to the in-game analysis video. Thanks again!
@@duesexistat5016 This is a great point! The thesis of the video isn't that people need to sit down and do hours of math for a deck to be well thought-out-but to provide one framework for asking deckbuilding questions and verifying assumptions. Fishbowling and testing are other tools to verify deckbuilding questions. The advantage is that you gain exposure to new questions or situations that you may not have considered otherwise. The disadvantage is that you can get bad information due to environmental factors (player skill, biases, cope).
@@PlusTwo.Cardboard Well said. For the record, I didn’t take away that we should be math heavy while building. I like that your approach involves math to help get us to a better starting point, before running a bunch of games. My buddy took this approach to his Bobba ramp deck to ensure consistent ramp on turn two, and it worked! Example: he is running the full ramp package in green/black but also includes 3 Recruit so that he can dig for ramp on turn one if he doesn’t have it in hand, while Recruit also can be useful in the late game to dig for what you need (usually reinforcement walker, naturally).
Nice. Reminds me of something you’d see on the two plus two poker forums circa 2003 before solvers and GTO except it’s SWU. It’s interesting though. Sabine is a popular deck but the best players I know would rarely play it in a tournament. They almost always settle on something more in the middle. The players that do I’ve noticed are very good in the mirror so get the extra wins crushing the mirror to make deep runs.
Your analysis is spot-on. The issue with taking Sabine to a tournament that you intend to win (not top-win) is that you KNOW that Sabine is currently checkbox #1 for any competent opposing deck. At this exact moment, any deck that someone is taking to a tournament has probably been tested against Sabine, and has some kind of strategy. So if you're expecting your experienced opponent to have tested against your deck, and probably to have found a winning strategy, eventually you're going to run out of random decks to beat, and drop a match. Eventually this will not be the case; the meta will evolve, and people will begin to make concessions to Sabine to beat whatever deck is new and popular. But at the moment, Sabine is absolutely one of the Top 3 decks, and very few players are actively willing to concede that matchup. I think it's still a great deck to take if your goal is to top, since it has tons of inherent power and can create non-games by just drawing god. But the later rounds of the tournament, I think it becomes very difficult to win out, since every opponent should have some kind of plan for your deck; and Sabine has some bad matchups into one of the other best decks: 2x cunning.
Incredible information. Thank you. I was working on a Han yellow with a heavy discard package and force users to utilize force throw. I struggle with figuring out what my deck should be.
Thanks for your video. I really need to work on my probability love thinking. Too much of my deck building is for sure on the side of oh this is such a cool combo not as much of how likely is this combo.
After watching, my question is how many goals and questions should we be considering? In my mind, I went to thinking about my deck but then also making questions about how it deals with other decks as well. That list got VERY long, very quickly.😅 so what do we prioritize in those questions? Is there a recommended amount of goals a deck should have? Where do side boards come in when addressing these things? I’m sure some of these will come up later, but I’ll ask them now anyway🤷🏼♂️😂
@@ajrazberry Good question! I think the important thing is that not every deckbuilding question needs to be exhaustively answered. A lot of your questions will be solved in a checklist fashion. "If my opponent can remove my two drop, do I have a plan? Or do all of my three drops (wing leader, fleet lieutenant) require my two drop to live?" You don't necessarily have to do the math on that question: just acknowledging it and having some kind of gameplan is probably sufficient ("I will keep two different three drops against decks with three cost removal: one stable play, and one synergy play.") Exhaustive validations are more important for specific, complicated situations that involve multiple conditions. For example, if you keep finding that your deck loses in a certain way (my Rey leader keeps getting surprise striked immediately on entry, putting me too far behind), you can start trying to build a specific solution by thinking of the situation you're trying to avoid (do I try and remove all their units? Do I play Obi-wan? What happens if Obi gets bounced? If I have no board and Obi dies solo, do I still lose? Should I just play Young Han?"). So to answer your first question: it's totally fine to start TESTING a deck before you've completely validated it. Your gameplay will tell you which question represent major problems, and which are maybe less relevant.
Very few players I know (even great players) exhaustively validate their deck objectives. It's usually unnecessary, and I definitely don't want to give the impression that every single choice in your deck requires a ten hour mathematical deep dive. That time is usually better spent just getting reps in (or doing anything else!) Exhaustively answering a question is usually only necessary when there is a game-critical disagreement in a testing group, and the correct answer is not immediately clear (the conversation of Sabine not seeing a two-drop, for example, is I think critical to the deck's strategy. I disagreed with one of my testing buddies who advocated for 11 two-drops, which is what spawned this discussion). If your testing group is one person (yourself! As every player starts!) then you can use this tool when there seems to be an important question with multiple viable solutions. So there is no specific number of goals that we're shooting for. More questions is generally better because it means we've done a bit of mental preparation for our games ahead of time. But, as you say, we can have hundreds of questions; so it's also important to hold these questions to a threshold to ensure that we're being efficient with our testing.
Great video! I love the deeper analysis across larger tournaments. I was curious how you would analyze the other affects that adding one more 2 drop has? Specifically, it takes away a card slot for an extra Darksaber or Wrecker or Poe or whatever it may be. Is there a way to evaluate expected value across a tournament let's say, of having a lower chance to brick versus a higher chance to hit that 5 drop more often? Thanks!
When you were doing the math at around 13:10 about hands over a tournament, how come there you used the 97% number for multiplying but earlier (11:17) when checking how "often" you will whiff, you used the 17% number instead? This made me wonder why we didn't use the 3% number in the part at 13:10 but I believe I'm not understanding how to use it properly. I can just match the process, but I don't understand the why. Thank you
@@maahesghulainn9480 Chance to draw playable over two hands is 97%. Chance to draw unplayable is when both hands whiff, so .17^2 = 3%. If you're trying to draw playable all day, it means you need to be in the 97% chance scenario every hand you draw.
It's really good content. The debate for the no. of 2 drops in Sabine reminds me as a player of MTG long before on the question of how many lands I needed in a 60-card deck... and sparked me to think of the choice for 13th and 14th 2 drops. Should it be specforce, ketsu... or R2?
Great video! I'd love to see a follow-up video that maybe presents some curve templates for the main deck archetypes. I have a general understanding of how to divide between ground, space, and events/upgrades, but it would be great to see some analysis.
The stuff presented, the theory and the numbers, are all Very Good and thanks for putting it together, it helps a Lot...
But I just wanted to shout out how clean and smooth the Presentation itself is. Clear, Concise, well paced and goes into detail when necessary but doesn't overdo the main points & bloat the slides.
Great work on the Presentation :)
We are new to TCGs with SWU being our first. This is an excellent resource for beginner TCG players of all ages. Your methodology and unpacking of beginning game theory is easily to comprehend. It feels like I'm talking with new friends after a weekly play tournament. Your content is refreshing, and hope your channel continues to grow.🎉🎉
Great video! Looking forward to more math!
From personal experience, I can say you live by these concepts during a match! :)
Amazing video, thanks for the info and insight, Hope to see ya at the next tourney!
Truly looking forward to the growth of this channel. The SWU community has needed this! Thank you for your efforts, and shared knowledge.
This is one of the best competitive videos i've seen. Please put out more of those!
Great video! Love the detail!
Cant wait for Part 2!
Great Video!
This is great thanks for putting it together. Brewing for this game has been a great wind down for me. Really like the data driven approach.
As someone with a stats background but new to deck building this was so helpful!
really great video!
Great video. This type of content is exactly what I've been looking for.
I love how you add in the weekly change and emphasizing that we can have snap shots of expectations. This video has helped me better articulate my deck building advice to people I'm looking to introduce to the game.
Although a good video for us entrenched players, I would not show this to a new player 😅
I think it’s important to focus on the fun side of it for casual new players. “What leaders look cool to you? What cards look fun?” Etc.
Amazing to see this kind of content, thank you. Looking forward to seeing your channel grow!
Loved every minute! Can’t wait for the next one!
Troy yamaguchi: the art of war
I think a video detailing how you do these calculations would be interesting for the math-lovers!
As a new player to the TCG world this is very interesting and overwhelming. I feel like developing these skills will take a while to master.. 😢
Thanks very nice video
Great stuff mate - good on you for taking the time to put such a thoughtful piece together.
King moves! Can’t wait to watch this series.
Loved all of this. Loved the math and theory. ❤
Incredibly insightful and well presented! I shouldn't say this but I would pay for these lessons 👀 keep it up 👏🏻
I like this format. Keep going.
Amazing insight! More videos like this
Interesting. Looking for more 😊👍
Good stuff! Thank you.
I realized that I do a lot of this but with a more casual approach; I.e. goldfishing opening hands over and over, playing casual games to get a feel for the consistency (or lack thereof) win or lose, and just seeing if the goal of the deck is being accomplished. Again, all a math-less approach but trying to accomplish the same goal. Still, I like the idea of using math moving forward. That can help with confidence, which is not to be underrated.
Looking forward to the in-game analysis video. Thanks again!
@@duesexistat5016 This is a great point! The thesis of the video isn't that people need to sit down and do hours of math for a deck to be well thought-out-but to provide one framework for asking deckbuilding questions and verifying assumptions.
Fishbowling and testing are other tools to verify deckbuilding questions. The advantage is that you gain exposure to new questions or situations that you may not have considered otherwise. The disadvantage is that you can get bad information due to environmental factors (player skill, biases, cope).
@@PlusTwo.Cardboard Well said. For the record, I didn’t take away that we should be math heavy while building. I like that your approach involves math to help get us to a better starting point, before running a bunch of games.
My buddy took this approach to his Bobba ramp deck to ensure consistent ramp on turn two, and it worked! Example: he is running the full ramp package in green/black but also includes 3 Recruit so that he can dig for ramp on turn one if he doesn’t have it in hand, while Recruit also can be useful in the late game to dig for what you need (usually reinforcement walker, naturally).
Phenomenal content!
Nice. Reminds me of something you’d see on the two plus two poker forums circa 2003 before solvers and GTO except it’s SWU.
It’s interesting though. Sabine is a popular deck but the best players I know would rarely play it in a tournament. They almost always settle on something more in the middle. The players that do I’ve noticed are very good in the mirror so get the extra wins crushing the mirror to make deep runs.
Your analysis is spot-on. The issue with taking Sabine to a tournament that you intend to win (not top-win) is that you KNOW that Sabine is currently checkbox #1 for any competent opposing deck.
At this exact moment, any deck that someone is taking to a tournament has probably been tested against Sabine, and has some kind of strategy.
So if you're expecting your experienced opponent to have tested against your deck, and probably to have found a winning strategy, eventually you're going to run out of random decks to beat, and drop a match.
Eventually this will not be the case; the meta will evolve, and people will begin to make concessions to Sabine to beat whatever deck is new and popular. But at the moment, Sabine is absolutely one of the Top 3 decks, and very few players are actively willing to concede that matchup.
I think it's still a great deck to take if your goal is to top, since it has tons of inherent power and can create non-games by just drawing god. But the later rounds of the tournament, I think it becomes very difficult to win out, since every opponent should have some kind of plan for your deck; and Sabine has some bad matchups into one of the other best decks: 2x cunning.
Wow!
This content is godlike!
I very much appreciate your insight. I think this will be very helpful! Please keep going
Great video.... the trial by math of Ketsu Onyo.
Nice breakdown and theory crafting. Would love to know how you evaluate a single cards value as well.
Troy is the Goat 🐐
Great content, keep it coming.
Yes! Yes! Yes! More please! Sub'ed!
The math on Mana curves, unit types, and upgrades/events would be helpful.
great video
Legendary video! I'll watch every one from here on :)
Incredible information. Thank you.
I was working on a Han yellow with a heavy discard package and force users to utilize force throw. I struggle with figuring out what my deck should be.
Loving the content already! This is the content I’ve been hoping for!
Thanks for your video. I really need to work on my probability love thinking. Too much of my deck building is for sure on the side of oh this is such a cool combo not as much of how likely is this combo.
After watching, my question is how many goals and questions should we be considering? In my mind, I went to thinking about my deck but then also making questions about how it deals with other decks as well. That list got VERY long, very quickly.😅 so what do we prioritize in those questions? Is there a recommended amount of goals a deck should have? Where do side boards come in when addressing these things? I’m sure some of these will come up later, but I’ll ask them now anyway🤷🏼♂️😂
@@ajrazberry Good question!
I think the important thing is that not every deckbuilding question needs to be exhaustively answered. A lot of your questions will be solved in a checklist fashion. "If my opponent can remove my two drop, do I have a plan? Or do all of my three drops (wing leader, fleet lieutenant) require my two drop to live?" You don't necessarily have to do the math on that question: just acknowledging it and having some kind of gameplan is probably sufficient ("I will keep two different three drops against decks with three cost removal: one stable play, and one synergy play.")
Exhaustive validations are more important for specific, complicated situations that involve multiple conditions. For example, if you keep finding that your deck loses in a certain way (my Rey leader keeps getting surprise striked immediately on entry, putting me too far behind), you can start trying to build a specific solution by thinking of the situation you're trying to avoid (do I try and remove all their units? Do I play Obi-wan? What happens if Obi gets bounced? If I have no board and Obi dies solo, do I still lose? Should I just play Young Han?").
So to answer your first question: it's totally fine to start TESTING a deck before you've completely validated it. Your gameplay will tell you which question represent major problems, and which are maybe less relevant.
Very few players I know (even great players) exhaustively validate their deck objectives. It's usually unnecessary, and I definitely don't want to give the impression that every single choice in your deck requires a ten hour mathematical deep dive. That time is usually better spent just getting reps in (or doing anything else!)
Exhaustively answering a question is usually only necessary when there is a game-critical disagreement in a testing group, and the correct answer is not immediately clear (the conversation of Sabine not seeing a two-drop, for example, is I think critical to the deck's strategy. I disagreed with one of my testing buddies who advocated for 11 two-drops, which is what spawned this discussion).
If your testing group is one person (yourself! As every player starts!) then you can use this tool when there seems to be an important question with multiple viable solutions.
So there is no specific number of goals that we're shooting for. More questions is generally better because it means we've done a bit of mental preparation for our games ahead of time. But, as you say, we can have hundreds of questions; so it's also important to hold these questions to a threshold to ensure that we're being efficient with our testing.
Great video! I love the deeper analysis across larger tournaments. I was curious how you would analyze the other affects that adding one more 2 drop has? Specifically, it takes away a card slot for an extra Darksaber or Wrecker or Poe or whatever it may be. Is there a way to evaluate expected value across a tournament let's say, of having a lower chance to brick versus a higher chance to hit that 5 drop more often? Thanks!
When you were doing the math at around 13:10 about hands over a tournament, how come there you used the 97% number for multiplying but earlier (11:17) when checking how "often" you will whiff, you used the 17% number instead? This made me wonder why we didn't use the 3% number in the part at 13:10 but I believe I'm not understanding how to use it properly. I can just match the process, but I don't understand the why. Thank you
@@maahesghulainn9480 Chance to draw playable over two hands is 97%.
Chance to draw unplayable is when both hands whiff, so .17^2 = 3%.
If you're trying to draw playable all day, it means you need to be in the 97% chance scenario every hand you draw.
It's really good content. The debate for the no. of 2 drops in Sabine reminds me as a player of MTG long before on the question of how many lands I needed in a 60-card deck... and sparked me to think of the choice for 13th and 14th 2 drops. Should it be specforce, ketsu... or R2?
Where’s the next one?
LITTLE GUY IN CORNER
Appreciate ya big feller
Where's da patreon
Yeah, this is great math and statistical analysis. But have you considered that Thrawn looks cool
great video, how can i contact you? which is your mail? i play han yellow a lot and i would like to talk about some ideas