What's with all the Card Advantage articles?

[Notepad]

Tan and Tait started it off. Now its a site-wide discussion over at SCG. They're all arguing and discussing card advantage.

I could understand this if it was sparked by a want to spread some Magic theory, which it has become it seems. Although the discussion is a little heated and splintered.

However, this whole thing was not sparked by a desire to actually spread knowledge, it was sparked by their readers wanting to learn about it. It all began as this "get rich quick" type of lesson. The little BNet Skript Kiddiez who read SCG's content are too dumb to figure out the game, so they wanted to learn about Card Advantage, hoping the lesson would help turn them into the next Moshowitz.

Tough luck, kiddiez. I'll bet not even a fourth of them understand the discussions which are going on now. I'll bet every time they read about "virtual card advantage" they just about die from a brain rupture.

 

[Reverend Love]

BORING! If it's not a discussion on the merits of Craw Wurm then BLA!

 

[Spiderman]

What about Gray Ogre and Pearled Unicorn?

It seems you answered your own question, SeFRo.

Plus,

However, this whole thing was not sparked by a desire to actually spread knowledge, it was sparked by their readers wanting to learn about it.

Those two statements seem contradictory there. If someone wants to learn about it, the teachers are spreading knowledge.

Unless you mean that it wasn't initiated by the "teachers", but hey, whatever started the discussion, it's always good to discuss.

 

[Reverend Love]

I honestly think half their authors just like to hear themselves talk about magic...

Want to raise your game? Play great players who kick your butt. Analyze why you lost, tweak as required and press on young cowboy.

There's no golden article, nor cow that will magically make teh gooder.

 

[Mikeymike]

Originally posted by Reverend Love
I honestly think half their authors just like to hear themselves talk about magic...

I kind of agree with RL here, because I'm pretty sure it was the sorta-feud between Tait and Sullivan that started this whole thing. Now their pride & reputations are on the line in a public forum, this could go on for awhile.

Personally I think its a tad bit ludicrous anyway, trying to give the idea of card advantage such an objective definition in their words. There are entirely way too many variables to pigeon-hole a single card into a single category - as an individual card's "card advantage value" almost always changes in any shift of any given scenario.

Since I'm rambling anyway, I think that tempo advantage is actually more important than card advantage anyway, if ever so slightly. It is tempo advantage that puts you in the position to win the game and forces your opponent to alter his/her gameplay strategy. That's a completely different argument though.

 

[orgg]

Personally, I think that Tan nailed the card advantage with "T.H.E.F.U.C.C.," and one person then added a little bit pointing out that basic land late in the game counts as "-1" since it's no longer useful. Granted, gut feeling already knew that, but it is good to have words for that gut feeling.

I like Tait's wrighting, but he was simply WRONG on his take of Card Advantage. Flat Out. A token producer IS card advantage of a sort, and should not be ignored.

I think the more (well thought out) articles on the largest basic of Magic is a good thing for all those who wern't around to see the originals pop up, or read about it in The Duelist... even if it said that you could Flare multiple targets in The Duelist... Heh.

 

[Notepad]

Originally posted by Spiderman
Those two statements seem contradictory there. If someone wants to learn about it, the teachers are spreading knowledge.

Sorry about that. I was ticked majorly at the time and wrote up that post hastily. I am much the mega moron, sad! ^.^

Okay, now that I got the token Engrish line out of the way...

What I meant was this whole thing was not out of a want to actually spread knowledge for the benefit of the readers, it was instead started because the readers just wanted to know the bottom-line way to win the game, thinking card advantage is it.

Granted, that will sounds contradictory.

While Tan and Tait are thinking they are educating...
...the readers who said "card advantage" merely wanted a quick-copy scheme for winning the game without having to use any of their own experience, skill, or thinking. They don't want to learn, they just want the card list.

To put it metaphorically: They don't care about the class; they just want the answer sheet to the final exam, and Tan and Tait think they're teaching a class who actually care about the class.

 

[Spiderman]

True, and I'm not over there, so I don't know how the "teaching" and "discussing" is going, but perhaps if they cause one of those persons (or even an innocent bystander) to think a little more, that's pretty good.

Like orgg said, there's always new people coming into the game who haven't been exposed to the theories of Magic that have been written about before and may not know they exist

 

[Notepad]

Yup, orgg has a good point there. The more theory articles, the better.

However...this little tirade of card advantage over there at SCG has produced some fun little forum arguments. The result of this "win games quick" scheme is that the people talking the theory are more or less fighting for readers and head-nodders. Just my take on it, though.

Metaphor:
The two professors, fighting to have a larger attendance to prove he is right, dangle out that final exam sheet, whether or not it is the answers to the exam or not.


Of course, Tan isn't falling prey to this very much. Tait, is, though. Funny quote by him in one of the forums was something like "So you decree for 20 soldier tokens. Congrats, you have 20 tokens. That is not card advantage."

I'd like to have 20 soldier tokens over one measily card any day.

 

[Reverend Love]

This is all the card Advantage I need....

 

[Rooser]

LOL, Rev

 

[Notepad]

Originally posted by Reverend Love
This is all the card Advantage I need....

BEST. DREAMCARD. EVER.

Yes, no???

 

[Gizmo]

However there is certainly a correct formula of card advantage and how it is achieved, in my opinion. Magic is a game of mathematics, and that means it can be brought about to a correct conclusion, all you have to do is define the equation correcntly

I was close, once in about 1998, to really nailing one aspect of it. I felt for a while that I could really and truly explain card advantage in a way that would tell you what to do in every situation... and I think you can, it's just that the equation you work towards is fractal in nature, each section simply opens up a new subsection, and the solution to that subsection depends on the solution to the sub-subsection... and so forth. I wound up in a mess of Active Cards, Inactive Cards, Dead Cards, Zombie Cards, Hanging Cards, Phantom Cards... and gave up. There IS an equation, and I think that the better the player, the better his graps of that equation (be it a conscious or subconscious grasp). But trying to define that equation is rather like trying to draw a map of the world by looking out of your window.

The more great strategic minds throw themselves at the solution, the better. It makes for an interesting debate if nothing else, sort of like the Unified Theory for physics.

 

[Mikeymike]

Holy Crap! Gizmo, how's life been treating you? Good to see you.

But trying to define that equation is rather like trying to draw a map of the world by looking out of your window.

Exactly. I suppose if it is going to be cracked, it will take your neighbor looking out of his window, and his neighbor doing the same, etc. etc.

My pet project (aka I work on it once every month for 10 mins at a time) is trying to work on a "Card Efficiency" table. I'm trying to give cards a single value based off a few different variables. The variables include

- Pure Generated Card Advantage (think Ancestral Recall)
- Situational Card Advantage (think WoG)
- Tempo Advantage (Moxen score very high, Gaea's Skyfolk score above average, Platinum Angel scores low b/c it comes out so late)
- Long-term benefits (Whispers, Cursed Scroll score well, Dark Ritual wouldn't)
- Synergy rating (Death Pits of Rath scores much higher b/c I'm also playing Goblin Sharpshooter)

Situational Variables
* Metagame rating (How is Naturalize vs. most other decks out there?)
* Opponent rating (How is CoP Red vs. my opponent's Goblin deck)
* Game Format (1v1, MP variant)

I have 3 big tasks ahead before I can move forward with this:
1 - I have to make sure I do not miss any variables
2 - I have to figure out a system how to score a card in each category, and how to weight it.
3 - I have to take these scores and actually build a formula out of them. This is where my rusty math is going to bite me in the ass.

Hey, if anyone wants to help feel free.

My 2 main goals are to constuct it in a way that both the individual category scores mean something (when you need a high-tempo card to fill out the 3-spot in your deck) and that the overall formula can acurately capture the general power level of a certain card.

 

[orgg]

Gizmo, Tan did something VERY close to that in his article HERE

To quote, since that'll be quicker for the more general people who don't want to go through the intros and Tan's flavor. This is the ammended text from the next article in his series.

Tan's Highly Educational Formula for Uber-Card Counting
Rule 1a: Whenever a card moves to your hand or may be played as though in your hand (like Flashback), that's +1 CA

Rule 1b: Whenever a card leaves your hand or may no longer be played as though in your hand, that's -1 CA

Rule 2a: Whenever a permanent moves to or acts as though it's on your side of the board, that's +1 CA

Rule 2b: Whenever a permanent leaves or stops acting like it's on your side of the board, that's -1 CA

Rule 3a: Whenever a card in hand is "dead" or practically useless, that's -1 CA even though it's still in your hand. Do not count another -1 CA from Rule 1 if the dead card later leaves your hand.

Rule 3b: Whenever a "dead" card in hand becomes useful again, that's +1 CA even though no new card moved to your hand.

Rule 3c: Whenever a permanent in play is "dead," practically useless, has no additional effect on the game, or whose effects are all counted by one of these rules, that's -1 CA even though it's still on the board. Do not count another -1 CA from Rule 2 if the dead permanent later leaves your side of the board.

Rule 3d: Whenever a "dead" permanent in play becomes useful again, that's +1 CA, even though no new permanent moved to your side of the board.

Additional Rule 4: CA does not change just because the characteristics of a card or permanent change (for example, a change in a creature's power/toughness; a 1/1 is as good as a 10/10 for our simplified count).

Additional Rule 5: Cards in the library, graveyard and removed from game zone do not affect CA until:

1) they cause a card to enter or leave your hand

2) they cause a card to be playable as though in your hand, or stop being so playable

3) they cause a permanent to enter or leave play on your side of the board

4) they cause a permanent to act as though it's in play on your side of the board, or stop acting so

5) they cause a card or permanent to become "dead"

6) they make a "dead" card or permanent useful again

This even takes into account extra land late game by wrighting it off as -1 card because it's not any real use. It's... brilliant, I think, for counting how the game's ebb and flow happens.

 

[Master Shake]

This is where I really start to question the mechanics of card advantage.

Tan defines card advnatage as anything beyond the initial draw of the turn, which causes you to have more resources open then your oppenet(Paraphrasing)

Now, there are some cards that force you to skip your draw phase, but obviously produce card advantage, like Necroptoence and Yawgmoth's Bargin. Trading life for cards seems to be a good ability.

But... what about:

Solitary Confinement
2W
Enchantment

Skip your draw step.
At the beginning of your upkeep, discard a card, if you do not, sacrifice Solitary Confinement.
Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you
You can not be target of spells of abilities.

Is the card advnatnage on Confinement -1 each turn, or is it more then that?

And to me, it seems like because a card does not produce card advnatage, it is like being told the card is not good, because it does not give you any more resources.

In most cases, however. Once you have this, and Squee, you do not need anymore resources.

Also, there is another article... more like a paper. I think I downloaded it, but it is about the mathematics of magic. about 30 pages on choices and how they can affect the outcome of the game. I like the paper far more then the theory of Card Advntage, because it does not dance around things, yet says the same thing that it takes Tan a very long wind to do it in.

- The more things you kill, the longer you will live and the shorter your oppenet can hope to.
- The more life you have, the less likely you are to lose via damange or loss of life
- The more damage you deal, the closer your oppenet is to losing.

I have not read it in some time, if I can find it I will post it, it is rather interesting, but a bit older.

 

[orgg]

Solitary confinement works like this in terms of card advantage:

You play it from your hand. -1
It comes into play, and if the opponent has nothing, it does nothing. +0.

Every turn:
-1 card discarded.
-1 card not drawn that turn.

-2 CA per turn, on top of -1. If your opponent isn't affected by it, than it's -3 the first turn...

Now bring in rules 2b and the rules three into the mix, and compute the CA for your OPPONENT.

If he has creatures and is trying to damage you, that's essentially +(HOWEVER MANY CREATURES) CA in your favor.

If he's got things that will go '2-D Dome,' that's +(Whatever he can't hit you directly with, as long as he can't hit your creatures with it, either).

Oscar has other articles that came after the 'Tan's Highly Educational Formula for Uber-Card Counting' that detail your questions, Master Shake. Go to Starcitygames.com and look at his more recent articles.

I remember the Magic Math paper. It was interesting... (*theorgg checks his favorites to see if he favor'd it) http://www.kibble.net/magic/index.htm
That's in my favorites. I don't know if it works right now, but I'll post the URL anyway.

 

[Gizmo]

How am I?
Well. The short version. Best mate met girl. Girl left best mate for me. Quit magic. Got engaged for a year. Got dumped.

Anyway. From reading Tan's summary there, it goes down the exact same road I was going down in 1998. What I found however was that the information this knowledge gives you should not be acted upon during the match, at least not without taking into account many other factors. It was a way of keeping count, but one in which you wouldn't know the score until the final whistle had blown. It's like playing snooker in the dark... you don't know who's won until you turn the lights on at the end of the game and count up the points.

example...

a) I am holding Disenchant. Fine.

b) My opponent has neither artifact nor enchantment.

c) Disenchant is now -1 CA. Ok. With it.

d) I also have a Merfolk Traders. I can use this card's ability to translate my -1 CA Disenchant into a useful card (+1 CA effect). This is a good thing. I do it.

e) My opponent plays Phyrexian Processor. I feel foolish. His Phyrexian Processors sits there and creates wave after wave of Phantom Cards, generating +infinity CA. I lose.

The formula says losing the Disenchant is a good thing. But it isn't necessarily, and until the game is over and my opponent hasn't played any artifacts or enchantments I dont KNOW it's a good thing. I can make a judgement as to whether it will be good. But that's when any pretense of science goes out of the window.

I've uploaded the aborted Card Advantage article I was writing, for anybody who is interested.

www.ceilican.co.uk/cardadvan.doc

As you can possibly tell, the route I was going down to make it accessible (with full examples) was getting me tied into knots.

 

[Spiderman]

Hey, good to see you again. So did you pick up Magic again or did this conversation/thread just catch your eye?

I think you might need to talk to Tan about it, but it seems you're trying to cover all the bases, including the future, which to me is just about impossible. You're never going to know all the possible plays until indeed, the game wraps up. I think Tan is covering it at the particular moment in time, so when you used your Disenchant with the Traders, it was indeed +1 CA, as there was no way of knowing your opponent is going to play a Processor.

 

[Mikeymike]

Spidey has a point (about it being difficult to predict the future), but I think you can have an idea about what's coming up...

Specifically if you know the Metagame, and have an idea what your opponent is playing main and post-sideboard. That would give you a better idea as to what that Disenchant is worth while sitting in your hand.

Disenchant itself is at its strongest when actually sitting in your hand waiting for your opponent to play art/encht, if you can blow up their (most likely) key component immediately you will often gain important tempo advantage, as that turn they were probably committing resources and play decisions based on that permanent being in play.

But in the same breathe a card like Disenchant is also at its most vulnerable b/c it can either be a dead draw, Cabal Therapy/Duress fodder, etc.

I think the scoring system proposed by both you and Tan needs to abandon whole integers, along with single-instance values in order for it to really be as accurate as possibe. However in doing so you start to enter gray-areas of subjectivity in weighting certain values, and also adding core complexity to an equation that you'd like to be as simple as possible b/c its being done in real-time.

In case that last paragraph made no sense, I'll re-use your example....

a) I am holding Disenchant. Fine.

b) My opponent has neither artifact nor enchantment. But I also know that my opponent relies on particular art/encht to greatly increase their odds of victory

c) Disenchant is now +0.5 HV (Hand Value). It scores as such in the following categories...
-1 HI (Hand Instance) For being an immediately useless card
+0.5 MV (Metagame Value) because I know my oppoent is playing dangerous art/encht spells
+1 EV (Efficiency Value, generic rating incorporating tempo and card advantage ideals) b/c if I do get to use it against my opponent's threats, they will lose far more than I do investing 1 card and 1W right before my untap step.

d) I also have a Merfolk Traders. I can use this card's ability to translate my Disenchant into a new card. However, I do not know that this new card will be immediately useful, so I cannot assume that I am truly gaining +1CA.
But if I hold onto my Mefolk Traders, that too will have a -1 HI value for being immediately useless and +0.5 EV for being able to replace future poor draws for an overall -0.5 HV. Something to consider

- So if I can play the Merfolk Traders, and pitch something else instead of my Disenchant I hold on my +0.5 HV
- If I hold onto my Traders and my D'chant, I effectively have an immediate 0 HV. +0.5 from my D'chant, and -0.5 from my Traders.

Don't look at my above values as being true context, I'm merely using them to portray a different view of the given scenario.

The actual number scoring values themselves are victim to subjectivity of the individual user. This is good in that a particular player will rate particular effects differently given their play style and the situation. It is bad in that it is very difficult to set standards for.

The various categories add a lot of complexity to the thought process behind every individual card and its possible interactions. But it is in my opinion a necessary evil if you are to matricize a reliable statistical engine into the game of Magic - just as you would chess.

Anyway, the above is an example of why I haven't been able to perfect a system. And I thoroughly admit that it might be impossible for me to ever do so by myself, though it is fun to play with.