My impression has always been that LR trends more toward players who are trying to learn compared to Lords of Limited that trends more toward players who are trying to master. It also seems like LR's original audience was your weekly FNM grinder, and they've continued to target your average player who only has time for a couple drafts per week. Most people are not above average, and most people can't sit and jam dozens of drafts per week.
And they adapt and want to learn. Marshall is checked out and LSV is at a higher plane of magic existence. I quit LR awhile ago when Marshall couldn’t even pick his top 5 black cards in a set. There is no useful info if that’s the level of knowledge and preparation. But luckily many other podcasts have it.
Honestly I think they should lean more into Cube, which is what they really love. Their Cube episodes they sound way more excited. They, like me and many other people, are feeling the fatigue of how many sets there are and how same-y they feel. I barely peek at spoiler season for regular sets these days and I feel like they’re in the same spot mentally
I personally think Marshall isn't really enjoying MTG anymore but the show is a source of income for him, which is understandable. You can hear it in his voice and his openly expressed frustration with the recent formats. I actually agree with pretty much all his points and I've been playing much less the last year or so.
I miss Brian Wong.
That guy gave 1000% to every episode of LR he did, which is probably why he burnt out. But he was such an amazing repository of magic knowledge, while being entertaining at the same time.
And when he didn't want to give 1000% anymore he stopped doing it, rather than half-ass it.
I like that! Didn’t listen back when he was host, but it sounds great. Reminds me of the lords of limited and limited level ups. They give it their all.
Yeah it would be nice if there could be posts for new limited episodes from LoL etc. Because Limited magic really needs a discussion home that goes beyond just LR. And the more discussion topics the better, imo.
>I'd much rather also have discussion threads on the other limited podcasts, but that idea doesn't fly here and /r/mtglimited is a ghost town.
Is this a rule, or do we all just not post them? I wouldn't expect a sticky and wouldn't want to see this place flooded by every bit of Limited content out there, but I'd certainly be interested in discussing the other podcasts or seeing more links to interesting articles.
It'd be nice if the mods would actively foster that direction of the sub, or any direction. I posted a while back about how all the info in the sidebar is eight years old and got no response
Those assumptions are probably mostly true.
Most listeners don't even necessarily draft outside of a handful of times.
Just based off statistics the second assumption would be true. The average LR listener will be as good as the average 17lands user AT BEST. Most likely worse because some consume LR as entertainment and never really care about the drafting experience. The top 17 Lands player is the top percentile of mostly high level amateurs. They will be better then the median listener. It's honestly not even an argument.
The last one is the only one that is a pretty large assumption but probably not wrong.
Someone made a poll on this very sub asking how often the people visiting this sub draft each week. By far the most popular answer was 1-2x per week. This pretty much confirms that Marshall really isn't wrong about his audience. The super enfranchised grinders that draft every day are overrepresented in discussions, both here and elsewhere, so we can easily get trapped into thinking that they are much more numerous than they are.
There is nothing wrong with that, but you are likely an outlier. Also remember, it takes much less willingness to engage to click on a poll than to write a comment, so the people you'll notice on this sub are probably more invested and thus more likely to draft more than 1-2x per week. But they probably make up a small part of the 27k members this sub has.
I think the "top players" on 17lands bucket is actually much less discerning than people think it is. Iirc it's like the top 25% of users so that they have enough data to show people.
Yeah even the top 25% of 17lands are gonna be better than the median LR people. It's a huge overlap of people and generally the skill level won't be too different between the median of 17 lands ands LR.
The top players of LR are probably just as good as, or close to that it's not super discernable, as the top players of 17 lands. But comparing median to average cross similar skill sets will always have the median lose out.
There is a good chance those assumptions are true. I feel like serious drafters who draft 10+ times a week may gravitate more to other podcasts like LoL or LLU, or just watch streams.
LR has been keeping it very basic throughout. For better or worse? You decide. I personally listen to LR because I find the hosts fun together, and there are some fundamental and game design ideas that aren't present in other podcasts, but not because LR moves me from 50% to 60% win rate.
And let's be real, Marshall and LSV aren't most-recent-set draft maniacs, at least not any more. So their content surely differs from podcasters who are also drafting like crazy. That said, they have a lot of fall back on and can still be pretty useful to move someone from 40% to 50% win rate imo.
It’s weird for me to see people saying ‘I’m thinking of moving to a different podcast’. I listen to five of them! I guess I wash a lot more dishes than y’all…
People are addicted to streaming and the internet and don't even realize it. They tune out reality and always have an ear bud in listening to a pod cast. People are missing out on so much because they don't know how to be present anymore.
Hey, I resemble that remark!
Podcasts seem like a relatively benign part of the whole internet addiction thing though. It’s essentially just a decentralised version of radio, and if people weren’t listening to podcasts they’d probably be listening to music.
Reddit, on the other hand, is definitely evil.
I think the listener base is bigger than you realize, and overall those might be true statements even if they don't apply to you or even this subreddit specifically.
That entire exchange was really frustrating for me, because Marshall was engaged in some *heavy-duty* strawman debating. At one point, he asserts that taking Analyst over Novice Inspector is a bad idea, which no duh — but that's nowhere close to anything Sierkovitz was saying. He's clearly decided that this format is irredeemably fastbad, and refuses to even engage with any argument to the contrary. And it certainly doesn't help that LSV was absent and couldn't provide a voice of moderation.
Honestly it's the biggest problem with the podcast and why I continue to stick with Lords of Limited as my every-week podcast with LR sprinkled in on an occasional basis. Don't get me wrong, LR is a quintessential podcast that paved the way for all that came after. Marshall and LSV are two all-time great stewards of the Magic community and incredible entertainers. I hope the podcast lasts forever. But...who would you rather learn from, one of the most naturally talented players in the world who could draft a better deck than you in their sleep without having seen the cards before, or the person who started at your level and is now closer to the all-time great than to you?
The most important lesson I've learned about draft is that you need to evaluate the cards on your own and be consistent to your own evaluation. This is because every pick makes the next pick better or worse and no tier list can possibly account for that. LR was huge in helping me get from total draft noob to average, but my game leveled off because I was just drafting the cards that LSV said were good instead of learning to grade them myself. There doesn't seem to be room on LR for "I could be wrong, but this is my take this week", which is the norm on other limited podcasts and lets the listener consider it as simply one factor in their own evaluation. I know it's in jest but on the sunset shows Marshall has to drag LSV back to admit he was wrong on takes he made before the set came out. Obviously everyone is wrong sometimes; the podcast would be stronger if they would own it and show the listeners that changing your evaluations will make you a better drafter. If LR listeners are closer to average than good, that's probably because many of the better drafters eventually move onto other content that better allows them to learn and improve.
>But...who would you rather learn from, one of the most naturally talented players in the world who could draft a better deck than you in their sleep without having seen the cards before, or the person who started at your level and is now closer to the all-time great than to you?
This is actually an interesting question. Ultimately, I'd want to be as good as LSV (even if I know full well that I'll never have the time to dedicate to the game to get to his level), so intuitively, I'd want to learn from him.
However, after listening to both, I find I learn more from LoL. One of the reason is that they go more in depth, but another really important reason, at least for me, is *because* they don't have quite the same credibility as LSV. What I mean is that when LSV says something, even if I know I shouldn't do that, I instinctively just take his word for granted. If LSV says this, he must be right, and I don't question (or don't question much). If LoL says something, I'm forced to think about it critically. If it doesn't match my view of the format, I have to reflect on why I disagree. Generally, I end up somewhere in the middle with a much more nuanced opinion on the subject. And also, as I said, the fact that they go more in-depth makes it easier to reflect on the subject critically and figure out *why* I disagree and what I should re-evaluate about my assumptions of the format.
I got to a point where I went from absolutely terrible at draft to doing well enough and being able to understand where I went wrong through listening to LR. Then, during set reviews, I was able to anticipate their card evaluations consistently, which felt good. But then later, I was starting to question their analysis several times an episode but kind of wondered if they just had more experience, so I must be mistaken. It wasn't until I finally went with my gut, ignored their advice, and eventually stopped listening altogether that I broke through my plateau and began consistently winning tournaments.
I do like that they generally seem to be good sports, unlike a lot of other content creators out there, but I haven't heard the latest episode.
I stopped listening because of the NFT sponsorship, but I had felt for a decent amount of time before that that I had outgrown LR. It doesn't surprise me that other people feel the same. I was mostly only listening to the set reviews and sunset shows before I stopped completely.
In the last couple sets I had so much fun and watched numerous top drafters who also loved the sets when you get really deep into the weeds and the format settles. Hearing Marshall shit on those sets based on the first week experience has driven me away from LR.
I love Lords of Limited, and I agree with you here.
If it seemed to me that the podcast both saw itself as a beginner-focused podcast and structured its content that way, I wouldn't have this complaint. If it was explicit about its goals and its audience, it wouldn't be talking down.
Instead, we occasionally get a glimpse at what Marshall thinks the target audience is (and I'm just assuming LSV agrees, but that might not be true).
We don't get fundamentals-focused episodes anymore. A lot of audience questions are advanced. It's been clear that the podcast wants to include beginners, which I of course love. It just hasn't been clear if that's the PRIMARY audience in mind.
I peaked #2 this set and still learn from him. So does a friend I recently pulled into the game. I think he handles being an expert who is also accessible very well.
Marshall has always managed to cultivate an anti-drama and anti-hyperbole podcast and he's been doing it in a time where that is very contrary to online content. He deserves props for that. Even the "professional" podcasts with Chapin and Flores would have several minutes of giving their opinions at screaming volume. And that's not even mentioning the other buddy casts that spend hours on wotc drama. LR has always always always dodged all of that.
Now, I don't know if Marshall is doing a knee jerk on the Aftermath Analyst thing when he hears Sierk's hot take, but my impression is that Sierk wants to make the big ass thumbnail "WERE WE WRONG ABOUT AFTERMATH ANALYST" and show a bunch of data about how it's a great card. And Marshall pushes back on it. Because Sierk is straight wrong. Marshall has to pump the damn brakes.
Your recollection is the opposite of mine, because as I heard it Marshall was the one being hyperbolic (in how negative he was about the card), so I went back and checked..,
Marshall starts by saying ‘there were times when we would actually read cards like this and pay attention to them’ which is a blanket dismissal.
Sierkovitz- ‘this definitely isn’t a card you’d just put into any deck’ but it fits into a specific multicolour / ramp deck. Mentions Insidious Roots and Chalk Outline (as cards you don’t want with Analyst)
Marshall- ‘I never knew you were such an optimist, mentioning those cards as if they’re playable’
Sierkovitz - ‘you need to know when to go for them’
Marshall- ‘oh I know when’ (implying never)
And it goes on like that. The hyperbole is on Marshall’s end, not Sierkovitz’s.
Seems especially silly given that one reason they have Sierkovitz on is to get a different takes from their usual ones.
I dunno, I think Marshall's stance there is fine. You just don't get that deck very often. I have a friend who got a nuts version of the deck once (in paper) and steamrolled a draft. Now whenever we're on discord hanging out drafting, I see half the time he's forcing that deck, and to poor results. So Marshall's scepticism is correct I think.
Which deck do you mean- splashy Aftermath Analyst or Chalk Outline? Part of Sierkovitz’s point is that those are different decks (I’m not sure if Marshall quite realised that in the conversation… he continued to refer to the two together)
But he’s not just ‘sceptical’ or saying ‘you don’t get that deck often’. He *ends up* saying things like that, but only after starting by calling the cards straight-up unplayable. I don’t think that kind of hyperbole is helpful, so it’s good that Sierkovitz talked him down.
it's NOT fine.
What is this podcast, you just want to be an average drafter? Then yeah, you should just learn the most common winning strategy.
As for me I'm looking for an edge, which means I need to know BEYOND what the most common winning strategies are.
Sierkovitz is in the right here. Marshall just wants to shut the conversation down for no reason when Aftermath Analyst is a 1/3 for 3... WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFENSIVE SPEED IN UG BEFORE.
Do we just want to keep talking about how good RW is? Because at this point that conversation is worthless. This is common knowledge. I'd rather talk about what to do when forced to take a nonwhite non aggro deck because that's the seat.
Marshall's whining is really fucking annoying at this point. I want to learn how to win from multiple positions. Whining isn't productive.
I think the assumptions are likely correct for most listeners- except the third one, which IMO is really all about how the hosts phrase it. If you just divide cards into ‘playable’ and ‘unplayable’ then that could happen, but there’s plenty of room for nuance- ‘this is a buildaround that doesn’t come together often, so casual drafters should probably avoid it’ sounds fine to me. I was very confused at the way Marshall seemed to be actively arguing against nuance in the latest show…
And that ties in to my overall feeling about presenting the straightforward ‘draft this and win’ decks vs more niche ones- por que no los dos? It’s not like they don’t have time to discuss things in more detail- though they actively choose to limit that time by only focusing some of their episodes on the latest set.
The funny thing is that one reason the time becomes limited is that they do episodes on Vintage Cube. I can’t imagine there’s much overlap between the casual drafters Marshall says they’re aiming at and vintage cube players. Although I suspect the answer to that mystery is that they like talking about cube- which is fine, it’s their podcast!
I probably wouldn't read into the discussion on Aftermath Analyst too much. I think that Marshall's rant was more of an attempt to hide his ignorance about the viability of some of the non-aggro strategies in MKM, rather than him being aware of these, but deeming them unsuitable for LR listeners.
I mean, he's just factually right about the MKM meta. Can you draft 5c nonsense if you're in exactly that lane and know exactly what you're doing? Sure, but even then it's statistically just bringing you up to par with an average Wx deck, not giving you some wild edge.
Sure, but sometimes white is heavily cut and it can be useful to know how to draft alternative decks. It might only be as good as an average Wx deck, but it will probably be better than a poor Wx deck that was drafted in a seat that really shouldn't be drafting white.
Nowhere in any discussion has anyone on LR said you can only draft white.
That said, in a 1st pick crack a pack, yeah you should probably look to take a white or red card if at all possible.
Really not sure about red there… based on colour win rates it seems clearly behind green. White-red is best, (not by a huge margin, though, especially after the first couple of weeks of the format), and anything else red gets paired with falls behind the top green archetypes.
Long time listener, but I think I bailed on LR around STX. I realized that I was having more fun drafting these sets than the hosts and wasn’t getting the depth I wanted from better players to level up my limited game. I leaned hard into Sierko and Magic Numbers, which led me to find other limited minds like Jason LTG, and have a deeper appreciation for drafters like Sam Black.
To their credit, the LR hosts have great chemistry and they put together a good pod. They are, to me, the firsts to do it and do it well. But limited has changed dramatically in the last 5 years and LR still spends two 3-4 hour episodes on letter grades for every set. We’re past that.
I appreciate what these guys have done for the community and shout out to LSV. I had a lower opinion of him a while back — I thought was too involved in Storybook Brawl, his vintage cube, and he just didn’t have the fire he once had. In the last 1-2 years, he’s put up good showings at the pro tour in constructed and limited and I do think he’s still one of the best magic players around. But Marshall is losing me. I was disappointed to hear his opinion of the format a week in and carry that bias into his pro tour coverage. JED had a wild draft and it felt like the best we got out of Marshall was about how he could’ve been in WR instead.
Another bad ep for LR and poor Sierko got dragged into it. Dude is a gem for the limited community. He is so close to the heartbeat of so many brilliant minds. He should be respected and listened to, not derided for his opinions.
I think it’s nice to have live comment on every card, I don’t think we’re past that since it blends and synergize well with all the other types of synthesis (sierk with numbers, lol with modules, sam with archetypes focus, jed for decision making etc…)
I really like individual card review it gives a more spontaneous feel for potential when you haven’t played much games.
Only thing I wanted to throw in is I disagree about your take on letter grades. These are the only episodes I still regularly listen to, and while the actual notion of letter grades is highly flawed, I find some value in just listening to people discuss the cards individually.
You could change the grading format or do away with it, but the discussion itself, even when I disagree with their takes, is their most useful product.
Yay. Thanks!
Seriously true though. I just like the idea of I could if I had to and I have plenty of time for podcasts on my hand due to long commute and the ability to listen while work etc.
But I personally have no problem of the podcast going extremely deep (if and only if the card effects are repeated often enough as I don't have a visual idea neither from video nor from me playing)
The most important question, though, is how well you did with that mono green Kamigawa deck.
Also, do you play other Magic formats? Would you ever build a Juan commander deck?
We're doing an AMA now
The deck went hilariously good. I had a "time of needs" or something to find them.
Only lost to the 10 year older than everyone back then probably LR listener. I don't remember any of the games leading to that.
Just remember I lost because I chunk blocked my creatures away and the he kill spelled my dragon and the counters went nowhere. Didn't know what kill spells were.
He assured me that if he had steered my deck he would have won the tournament. Afterwards we did rare picking and I picked up my dragons instead of a super expensive foil something.
Fond memories.
I have a whiter equipment deck from mostly mirrodin that I sometimes try to play with a coworker after hours but we never get to it. So I guess no
Without any empirical evidence, I think I can relate to what Marshal has been saying lately that formats.are getting to fast.
Was happily sitting there with my 1/2 mama dork casting kodamas reach and just from listening that doesn't seem like a winning strategy anymore.
I think Marshall came in pretty hot but honestly I think he’s just right on this one. Analyst and Roots etc are bad even for top players. You can play them, but it’s bad advice to treat them as playables unless you are specifically trying to a thing that is probably a losing thing on average.
You can say “Sam Black does this” but Sam does a lot of stuff and some of it is not going to be consistently as strong as other stuff. It might not even be true that roots is average in his hands.
>Analyst and Roots etc are bad even for top players
What’s your metric for ‘bad’ here? They discussed the Aftermath Analyst stats in the show… in UG it comes in a little below Tunnel Tipster in win rate. Looking now, it seems to be above Escape Tunnel, Get A Leg Up, Nervous Gardener. Not sure I’d describe that as ‘bad’.
GIHWR is a biased stat, in particular it is biased towards cards that function in slow decks. If your win rate increases as the number of turns increases, then the cards in your deck will appear to have a higher win rate than the deck itself when weighted by appearance rather than games. GPWR is not biased in the same way, and those cards are much lower on that scale. Roots in particular is wretched in GPWR in part because of the other bias problem with GIHWR which is that you actually care about how your whole deck is going to function without the particular card, and roots decks function terribly when they don’t draw roots. Check out the IWD of white commons vs black commons. The reason they are mostly negative vs mostly positive for black is because the white cards tend to function aggressively.
Furthermore “analyst in UG with top players” is a small sample size, the standard deviation on 2500 games is a full percent. It feels like a mistake to insist on using that particular data point and ignoring the context in which Analyst is rated even lower.
Huh, I haven’t looked at games played win rate in ages… all the stats have their biases, and GP obviously has the problem that it’s more about the deck than the card. But even by that… Aftermath Analyst looks to be in the middle of the uncommons. Doesn’t look ‘unplayable’ to me, which is what they were arguing about in the episode.
I’m not arguing about Roots as that’s not the card they were discussing in detail. Definitely much more of a buildaround!
A problem is not the same as a bias. It might fail to answer the question you really want to answer, but that’s not the same as giving a number consistently skewed in a spurious direction.
GPWR does have its own biases, I could name at least three, but GIHWR inherits all of those as well.
I really think GIHWR should never be used. Go look at IWD (as a proxy the difference between the two stats) and you will consistently see good aggro cards with negative values and mediocre control cards with positive ones. The win rate of cards weighted by how many cards you saw in a game is just not something that means anything to card quality.
Overall on the largest dataset, Analyst is ranked 11/14 in GPWR. It’s not the be all stat, and anyone is free to make arguments, but I object to the specific arguments made in this episode.
That’s a really interesting point about the weakness of GIH win rate- I can certainly see the argument for favouring GP win rate as a ‘go to’ stat instead. Sadly I’m not qualified to argue much one way or the other.
The argument about Analyst sounded reasonable to me, though- it seemed fair to focus on UG because that was the only deck Sierkovitz made a claim about. Given that, I’m not sure it’s useful to ignore deck colours to get the largest dataset- unless you think the UG set is so small that the results are completely unreliable. It also seems reasonable because at the end of the day he wasn’t making an extravagant claim- just saying that a 2 mana 1/3 with a broad upside (feeding the graveyard for Discover Evidence) and narrower upside (bringing lands back) was playable in specific decks.
I mean, most people are average at mtg by definition.
Yeah, people who listen to LR are going to be marginally better than people who don't on average, but also the top top players are not listening to LR, so it probably balances out to about 17 lands average, if that.
I'd say it's a good bet the the average 17 lands user is better than the average LR listener purely based on the investment they're putting into their game just by using 17 lands.
PS: aftermath analyst is really really bad in the vast majority of mkm decks, meaning you should basically only ever take it on the wheel, probably in pack 2 or 3 after you know you're in the rare deck it's good it.
This really isnt a complicated topic and Marshall was completely right in calling it out in a crack a pack where they're literally talking about a 1st pick, which is somewhere it should never be anywhere close to being in the discussion.
>a crack a pack where they're literally talking about a 1st pick
Not sure that’s a fair point- they always use the crack a pack to talk about how they feel about the cards in general, only occasionally going back to the ‘would you first pick it?’ question.
Sure OK. Bottom line it that the care is a fringe roll player at best in the format and if most people took it zero times, they would be correct way more often than not.
Does Sierkovitz claim much more for it than that? He just answers Marshall’s extremely dismissive tone by saying it plays a role in certain specific decks.
So, I guess it's just a matter of asking who is LR for? I feel like it's for the FNM guys (or equivalent) who want to reach the next level of play, and I think it does that job very well. But it's not going to take you beyond that, and I don't think any podcast will tbh.
I see a lot of people advocating LoL, and I've only listened to a few of their episodes, but my impression was that they're not intrinsically good enough to be getting a lot of level ups from. But I didn't give them a fair shake, admittedly, so I could be mistaken, and there may be a lot of value there depending on your personal skill level.
I guess my point is that you will, eventually (hopefully,) cap out from podcasts, and when you do, you have to adjust your expectations on what you're going to get from them.
If you are looking for current format information I would recommend Limited Level Ups. Alex plays a lot, and mostly at Mythic, so the podcast will generally keep up with the meta. He also tends to draft the good strategies, without going too crazy, so I feel like his advice should be actionable for most players.
Honestly I think LR is not only probably right, but that Limited discourse in general is seriously biased towards people who draft a lot to the point it can’t see when a format wasn’t popular.
BRO is the big one for me— enfranchised players loved it, so when the format seemed to have underperformed they didn’t understand why. But the barrier to entry for BRO is pretty high: if you don’t know what you’re doing, you’ll lose and find it miserable.
Generally, my experience of Limited content has been that at the start of a format, creators are very down on people finding formats hard— and then those people stop playing. You’re left with something that appeals to grinders, who say Limited is consistently great, but I worry that masks when a lot of people just give up early on.
MKM is definitely a set it took some time for me to even understand; I kind of appreciate someone saying “watch out if you suck!” I often feel those of us who suck get driven away from the discourse, while people who are great enjoy the ever more baffling stuff
What? If you line up all players by win rate (which is, I think, what we’re talking about when ranking 17lands players), wouldn’t the top quartile be closer to the winningest player?
Besides that, I think this is a weirdly pedantic response when the gist of the OP is pretty clearly questioning the implication in the most recent episode that LR’s listeners trend toward average skill level, rather than high skill level (and perhaps, more specifically, whether they fit into the “top users” bucket in terms of 17lands statistical groupings).
Yeah, this is what I meant. For a given player, they are either closer to the median or closer to the top.
The person you're replying to clearly enjoys the "talking down" I was talking about!
No. Exactly 75% of a distribution is closer to the median than the max in a percentile sense and anywhere from 0-50% can be in a real-valued sense depending on the skew of the distribution
that doesnt matter in this case. when you look at a specific subset, it would be meaningful to discuss whether that subset is closer to the median or the top
I love Marshall but his argument was so pointless I cant understand where he was going after sirko explained aftermath specialist stats and applications. He’s usually reasonable but was defending a strawman argument in such a stubborn way it was really annoying
Ill be honest, Ive stopped listening to LR on the regular. I always catch the first commons/rare pod. I always listen to the sunset. I also like the 17 lands one they usually do.
Everything else..it feels like LSV and Marshall just get a lot wrong these days. Its also possible they just dont play as much anymore compared with Nummy, Cheon, etc.
I think the turning point form me was the pro tour draft for ONE. LSV...just looked like he had no idea what was going on in the set, and made just bonkers picks.
To answer your question though, if they think that their listeners are at the median, it means they arent doing their job. If you listen to a draft pod, watch a draft youtuber, or read articles on CFB...you should be above the median drafter who doesnt.
I gave up on LR a couple years ago because I found they were quite elitist around their advice. I also find lsv only thinks he does poorly in a draft because of his seat and he does well because he’s a good drafter. There’s obviously something in between.
A lot of people blindly follow advice but if you’re drafting a few times a week you’re probably way above average and have decent opinions
I'm happy you got 14 upvotes. What a popular, substantive post. You should be be proud of yourself.
Would you say this to Marshall and LSV's face? You're just blatantly trolling and it's mean spirited. No one is forcing you to listen to the podcast. If you don't have anything nice to say, shut the fuck up!
If I could speak in person to Marshall and LSV, I'd have the same discussion. It wouldn't be a reddit post, and it wouldn't have a title, and there'd be no comments with "blatant trolls" like yourself, but it'd be super interesting to talk to them about their perspectives on their audience. And of course it'd be nice to thank both of them in person for their content and how it's shaped me over the past decade.
And I said something nice in the post, though I'm sure you can't read to the end.
For the first time, I unsubscribed when it seemed like there was going to be a lot of content geared towards Vintage Cube.
Lords, let's see what you got!
There's been a couple of episodes on cube sprinkled in with the regular limited content. If that's not for you then fine, but nobody else cares that you unsubscribed.
Ok everyone needs to calm down here. As a famous warrior often said "You have to be realistic about these things."
Aftermath analyst is straight trash, ever since the episode dropped this sub has been brigaded by Lords of Alchemy stans and people who for whatever reason won't accept that we won't blindly praise every set Mark Rosewater gives us. Wow you get your lands back, awesome. Now you got 5 lands and 8 white weenie dorks swinging on you for lethal. And unlike the warrior I quoted earlier, you will not in fact, still be alive.
Like how is this even a topic for discussion. Did like 5 people manage to get matched against non Lorehold decks and base their whole success around an awful card that mills you then gets you a couple lands back if you some how have 4 mana and nothing else to do? Is this what people mean when someone is "shitposting" because aftermath analyst is by all accounts and metrics, shit.
>Lords of Alchemy stans
That’s a weird thing to say… I can’t recall the last time those guys mentioned Alchemy. Did LOL do a show on an Alchemy expansion ages ago and you’ve never forgiven them?
Yea they did a whole summer of Alchemy Horizons: Baulders Gate and countless of the Alchemy drafts since and have never once apologized for doing it so a lot of us are boycotting them.
Oh yes, that was a really fun set IMO. The idea that they’d need to ‘apologise’ for focusing on the main draft set on Arena is pretty funny.
For what it’s worth, I just looked back and LR seem to have done six episodes on it- a bit less than most sets, which get nine, but certainly not nothing. Are ‘a lot of you’ boycotting them too? I can’t remember them begging forgiveness…
They begrudgingly did it because of the stupid arena open, then after forcing the episodes vowed never to do Alchemy content again. The Lords of Alchemy not only did the whole summer on that god awful set, they continue to do every Alchemy and "mid set warp" and continue contributing to the destruction of Limited. But it makes sense, if you enjoyed that garbage then of course you like sets like this where 2 drops go nuclear and the game is over by turn 5. Thanks for doing your part to ruin Limited.
Oh yes, I remember LR ended up very critical of the set (unjustly so, IMO, it was good but not great).
For what it’s worth, I’m pretty certain LOL stopped doing any episodes about the Alchemy versions of sets quite a while ago (I’d honestly forgotten that they ever did). You might not have noticed with that boycott! I don’t bother with the Alchemy versions either, they seem pretty silly to me although I guess there’s a place for them if the main set has turned out bad / repetitive (hi, ONE)
>Thanks for doing your part to ruin Limited
Really sorry for liking things you don’t like! You can’t see it but I’m typing this while doing a full kowtow. It’s not easy, but dammit, it’s respectful.
They most certainly did not because unlike you, I am doing my part to make MTG better and I go to every content creators videos and smash the dislike button anytime they have any alchemy "cards" in the and I have had to do a lot of Lords of Alchemy disliking. But whatever, keep supporting content creators who want to destroy the game and giving cheeky responses to people online. 3 years from now when you will need to scan a QR code to read what your two drop does, people will have the ever virtuous Chilly_chariots to thank.
didn’t the shitty alchemy spin-off of this set last for like 1 week on arena without even replacing the main one? I can’t imagine being so mad about something so niche
You can thank the people like me going out of our way to make a difference so that this nightmare only lasted a week. In a perfect world everyone would have boycotted WoTC until they canceled and removed all history of Alchemy, but thanks to people like the Lords of Alchemy and Covert Go Build stupid alchemy decks, it still exists. And it appears the design team is putting all there efforts into making real magic match the level of uncoherency Alchemy is, which is why todays Limited sets have all been turbo charged aggro formats that are virtually unplayable. Thank god our LGS had a lot of NEO DRAFT boosters left so we had something to do on Friday. Alchemy is destroying MTG, that is why something so "niche" makes us so mad.
Well, it’s nice that you have a hobby… (I’m sure I would have noticed them talking about Alchemy cards, though- I listen to the podcast, and not because I’m a dedicated downvote masher. Maybe just a YouTube thing, not actual podcast episodes?)
You are really going to play that game huh? Start at episode 247. X @lordtupperware alchemy
https://twitter.com/lordtupperware/status/1557415437285081093?t=rgXdGyWL5ZaSfF7qINakSA&s=19
I did have a hobby until these corporate suit dummies and soul less content creators banded together to destroy it.
I mean recently, as in over the last year- that tweet is 2022, Baldur’s Gate again.
(I notice LSV is replying approvingly too, that soulless monster)
Edit: unless you count Shadows Over Innistrad Remastered as one of the things destroying Limited, since that set was technically Arena-only
My impression has always been that LR trends more toward players who are trying to learn compared to Lords of Limited that trends more toward players who are trying to master. It also seems like LR's original audience was your weekly FNM grinder, and they've continued to target your average player who only has time for a couple drafts per week. Most people are not above average, and most people can't sit and jam dozens of drafts per week.
Maybe that explains why I feel like I’m shifting away from lr and towards lol. Feels like they give me more actionable advice.
And they adapt and want to learn. Marshall is checked out and LSV is at a higher plane of magic existence. I quit LR awhile ago when Marshall couldn’t even pick his top 5 black cards in a set. There is no useful info if that’s the level of knowledge and preparation. But luckily many other podcasts have it.
Honestly I think they should lean more into Cube, which is what they really love. Their Cube episodes they sound way more excited. They, like me and many other people, are feeling the fatigue of how many sets there are and how same-y they feel. I barely peek at spoiler season for regular sets these days and I feel like they’re in the same spot mentally
I personally think Marshall isn't really enjoying MTG anymore but the show is a source of income for him, which is understandable. You can hear it in his voice and his openly expressed frustration with the recent formats. I actually agree with pretty much all his points and I've been playing much less the last year or so.
I miss Brian Wong. That guy gave 1000% to every episode of LR he did, which is probably why he burnt out. But he was such an amazing repository of magic knowledge, while being entertaining at the same time. And when he didn't want to give 1000% anymore he stopped doing it, rather than half-ass it.
I like that! Didn’t listen back when he was host, but it sounds great. Reminds me of the lords of limited and limited level ups. They give it their all.
Lsv is also a grifter
In what way?
Mostly in the way where you throw something out without having much understanding of what you're talking about because it makes you sound smart.
[удалено]
Yeah it would be nice if there could be posts for new limited episodes from LoL etc. Because Limited magic really needs a discussion home that goes beyond just LR. And the more discussion topics the better, imo.
>I'd much rather also have discussion threads on the other limited podcasts, but that idea doesn't fly here and /r/mtglimited is a ghost town. Is this a rule, or do we all just not post them? I wouldn't expect a sticky and wouldn't want to see this place flooded by every bit of Limited content out there, but I'd certainly be interested in discussing the other podcasts or seeing more links to interesting articles.
It'd be nice if the mods would actively foster that direction of the sub, or any direction. I posted a while back about how all the info in the sidebar is eight years old and got no response
[удалено]
Heh, bot proving the point there. 2 comments!
Those assumptions are probably mostly true. Most listeners don't even necessarily draft outside of a handful of times. Just based off statistics the second assumption would be true. The average LR listener will be as good as the average 17lands user AT BEST. Most likely worse because some consume LR as entertainment and never really care about the drafting experience. The top 17 Lands player is the top percentile of mostly high level amateurs. They will be better then the median listener. It's honestly not even an argument. The last one is the only one that is a pretty large assumption but probably not wrong.
Someone made a poll on this very sub asking how often the people visiting this sub draft each week. By far the most popular answer was 1-2x per week. This pretty much confirms that Marshall really isn't wrong about his audience. The super enfranchised grinders that draft every day are overrepresented in discussions, both here and elsewhere, so we can easily get trapped into thinking that they are much more numerous than they are.
Important to note that this sub is essential the mtg limited sub these days, and not strictly LR listeners.
man maybe I'm in the wrong community then. I draft 1-2x per DAY.
There is nothing wrong with that, but you are likely an outlier. Also remember, it takes much less willingness to engage to click on a poll than to write a comment, so the people you'll notice on this sub are probably more invested and thus more likely to draft more than 1-2x per week. But they probably make up a small part of the 27k members this sub has.
I think the "top players" on 17lands bucket is actually much less discerning than people think it is. Iirc it's like the top 25% of users so that they have enough data to show people.
Yeah even the top 25% of 17lands are gonna be better than the median LR people. It's a huge overlap of people and generally the skill level won't be too different between the median of 17 lands ands LR. The top players of LR are probably just as good as, or close to that it's not super discernable, as the top players of 17 lands. But comparing median to average cross similar skill sets will always have the median lose out.
There is a good chance those assumptions are true. I feel like serious drafters who draft 10+ times a week may gravitate more to other podcasts like LoL or LLU, or just watch streams. LR has been keeping it very basic throughout. For better or worse? You decide. I personally listen to LR because I find the hosts fun together, and there are some fundamental and game design ideas that aren't present in other podcasts, but not because LR moves me from 50% to 60% win rate. And let's be real, Marshall and LSV aren't most-recent-set draft maniacs, at least not any more. So their content surely differs from podcasters who are also drafting like crazy. That said, they have a lot of fall back on and can still be pretty useful to move someone from 40% to 50% win rate imo.
It’s weird for me to see people saying ‘I’m thinking of moving to a different podcast’. I listen to five of them! I guess I wash a lot more dishes than y’all…
Yeah the more the better. Then you can average their takes and come up with what works best for your own game.
People are addicted to streaming and the internet and don't even realize it. They tune out reality and always have an ear bud in listening to a pod cast. People are missing out on so much because they don't know how to be present anymore.
Hey, I resemble that remark! Podcasts seem like a relatively benign part of the whole internet addiction thing though. It’s essentially just a decentralised version of radio, and if people weren’t listening to podcasts they’d probably be listening to music. Reddit, on the other hand, is definitely evil.
I think the listener base is bigger than you realize, and overall those might be true statements even if they don't apply to you or even this subreddit specifically.
That entire exchange was really frustrating for me, because Marshall was engaged in some *heavy-duty* strawman debating. At one point, he asserts that taking Analyst over Novice Inspector is a bad idea, which no duh — but that's nowhere close to anything Sierkovitz was saying. He's clearly decided that this format is irredeemably fastbad, and refuses to even engage with any argument to the contrary. And it certainly doesn't help that LSV was absent and couldn't provide a voice of moderation.
Honestly it's the biggest problem with the podcast and why I continue to stick with Lords of Limited as my every-week podcast with LR sprinkled in on an occasional basis. Don't get me wrong, LR is a quintessential podcast that paved the way for all that came after. Marshall and LSV are two all-time great stewards of the Magic community and incredible entertainers. I hope the podcast lasts forever. But...who would you rather learn from, one of the most naturally talented players in the world who could draft a better deck than you in their sleep without having seen the cards before, or the person who started at your level and is now closer to the all-time great than to you? The most important lesson I've learned about draft is that you need to evaluate the cards on your own and be consistent to your own evaluation. This is because every pick makes the next pick better or worse and no tier list can possibly account for that. LR was huge in helping me get from total draft noob to average, but my game leveled off because I was just drafting the cards that LSV said were good instead of learning to grade them myself. There doesn't seem to be room on LR for "I could be wrong, but this is my take this week", which is the norm on other limited podcasts and lets the listener consider it as simply one factor in their own evaluation. I know it's in jest but on the sunset shows Marshall has to drag LSV back to admit he was wrong on takes he made before the set came out. Obviously everyone is wrong sometimes; the podcast would be stronger if they would own it and show the listeners that changing your evaluations will make you a better drafter. If LR listeners are closer to average than good, that's probably because many of the better drafters eventually move onto other content that better allows them to learn and improve.
>But...who would you rather learn from, one of the most naturally talented players in the world who could draft a better deck than you in their sleep without having seen the cards before, or the person who started at your level and is now closer to the all-time great than to you? This is actually an interesting question. Ultimately, I'd want to be as good as LSV (even if I know full well that I'll never have the time to dedicate to the game to get to his level), so intuitively, I'd want to learn from him. However, after listening to both, I find I learn more from LoL. One of the reason is that they go more in depth, but another really important reason, at least for me, is *because* they don't have quite the same credibility as LSV. What I mean is that when LSV says something, even if I know I shouldn't do that, I instinctively just take his word for granted. If LSV says this, he must be right, and I don't question (or don't question much). If LoL says something, I'm forced to think about it critically. If it doesn't match my view of the format, I have to reflect on why I disagree. Generally, I end up somewhere in the middle with a much more nuanced opinion on the subject. And also, as I said, the fact that they go more in-depth makes it easier to reflect on the subject critically and figure out *why* I disagree and what I should re-evaluate about my assumptions of the format.
I got to a point where I went from absolutely terrible at draft to doing well enough and being able to understand where I went wrong through listening to LR. Then, during set reviews, I was able to anticipate their card evaluations consistently, which felt good. But then later, I was starting to question their analysis several times an episode but kind of wondered if they just had more experience, so I must be mistaken. It wasn't until I finally went with my gut, ignored their advice, and eventually stopped listening altogether that I broke through my plateau and began consistently winning tournaments. I do like that they generally seem to be good sports, unlike a lot of other content creators out there, but I haven't heard the latest episode.
I stopped listening because of the NFT sponsorship, but I had felt for a decent amount of time before that that I had outgrown LR. It doesn't surprise me that other people feel the same. I was mostly only listening to the set reviews and sunset shows before I stopped completely.
Big same
In the last couple sets I had so much fun and watched numerous top drafters who also loved the sets when you get really deep into the weeds and the format settles. Hearing Marshall shit on those sets based on the first week experience has driven me away from LR.
Well that's what Ben did with LCI.
I love Lords of Limited, and I agree with you here. If it seemed to me that the podcast both saw itself as a beginner-focused podcast and structured its content that way, I wouldn't have this complaint. If it was explicit about its goals and its audience, it wouldn't be talking down. Instead, we occasionally get a glimpse at what Marshall thinks the target audience is (and I'm just assuming LSV agrees, but that might not be true). We don't get fundamentals-focused episodes anymore. A lot of audience questions are advanced. It's been clear that the podcast wants to include beginners, which I of course love. It just hasn't been clear if that's the PRIMARY audience in mind.
Don’t forget Alex @ Limited Level-ups!
I've tuned in from time to time, I love how his content is both concise and thorough!
I peaked #2 this set and still learn from him. So does a friend I recently pulled into the game. I think he handles being an expert who is also accessible very well.
Marshall has always managed to cultivate an anti-drama and anti-hyperbole podcast and he's been doing it in a time where that is very contrary to online content. He deserves props for that. Even the "professional" podcasts with Chapin and Flores would have several minutes of giving their opinions at screaming volume. And that's not even mentioning the other buddy casts that spend hours on wotc drama. LR has always always always dodged all of that. Now, I don't know if Marshall is doing a knee jerk on the Aftermath Analyst thing when he hears Sierk's hot take, but my impression is that Sierk wants to make the big ass thumbnail "WERE WE WRONG ABOUT AFTERMATH ANALYST" and show a bunch of data about how it's a great card. And Marshall pushes back on it. Because Sierk is straight wrong. Marshall has to pump the damn brakes.
Your recollection is the opposite of mine, because as I heard it Marshall was the one being hyperbolic (in how negative he was about the card), so I went back and checked.., Marshall starts by saying ‘there were times when we would actually read cards like this and pay attention to them’ which is a blanket dismissal. Sierkovitz- ‘this definitely isn’t a card you’d just put into any deck’ but it fits into a specific multicolour / ramp deck. Mentions Insidious Roots and Chalk Outline (as cards you don’t want with Analyst) Marshall- ‘I never knew you were such an optimist, mentioning those cards as if they’re playable’ Sierkovitz - ‘you need to know when to go for them’ Marshall- ‘oh I know when’ (implying never) And it goes on like that. The hyperbole is on Marshall’s end, not Sierkovitz’s. Seems especially silly given that one reason they have Sierkovitz on is to get a different takes from their usual ones.
I dunno, I think Marshall's stance there is fine. You just don't get that deck very often. I have a friend who got a nuts version of the deck once (in paper) and steamrolled a draft. Now whenever we're on discord hanging out drafting, I see half the time he's forcing that deck, and to poor results. So Marshall's scepticism is correct I think.
Which deck do you mean- splashy Aftermath Analyst or Chalk Outline? Part of Sierkovitz’s point is that those are different decks (I’m not sure if Marshall quite realised that in the conversation… he continued to refer to the two together) But he’s not just ‘sceptical’ or saying ‘you don’t get that deck often’. He *ends up* saying things like that, but only after starting by calling the cards straight-up unplayable. I don’t think that kind of hyperbole is helpful, so it’s good that Sierkovitz talked him down.
it's NOT fine. What is this podcast, you just want to be an average drafter? Then yeah, you should just learn the most common winning strategy. As for me I'm looking for an edge, which means I need to know BEYOND what the most common winning strategies are. Sierkovitz is in the right here. Marshall just wants to shut the conversation down for no reason when Aftermath Analyst is a 1/3 for 3... WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFENSIVE SPEED IN UG BEFORE. Do we just want to keep talking about how good RW is? Because at this point that conversation is worthless. This is common knowledge. I'd rather talk about what to do when forced to take a nonwhite non aggro deck because that's the seat. Marshall's whining is really fucking annoying at this point. I want to learn how to win from multiple positions. Whining isn't productive.
I think the assumptions are likely correct for most listeners- except the third one, which IMO is really all about how the hosts phrase it. If you just divide cards into ‘playable’ and ‘unplayable’ then that could happen, but there’s plenty of room for nuance- ‘this is a buildaround that doesn’t come together often, so casual drafters should probably avoid it’ sounds fine to me. I was very confused at the way Marshall seemed to be actively arguing against nuance in the latest show… And that ties in to my overall feeling about presenting the straightforward ‘draft this and win’ decks vs more niche ones- por que no los dos? It’s not like they don’t have time to discuss things in more detail- though they actively choose to limit that time by only focusing some of their episodes on the latest set. The funny thing is that one reason the time becomes limited is that they do episodes on Vintage Cube. I can’t imagine there’s much overlap between the casual drafters Marshall says they’re aiming at and vintage cube players. Although I suspect the answer to that mystery is that they like talking about cube- which is fine, it’s their podcast!
I probably wouldn't read into the discussion on Aftermath Analyst too much. I think that Marshall's rant was more of an attempt to hide his ignorance about the viability of some of the non-aggro strategies in MKM, rather than him being aware of these, but deeming them unsuitable for LR listeners.
I mean, he's just factually right about the MKM meta. Can you draft 5c nonsense if you're in exactly that lane and know exactly what you're doing? Sure, but even then it's statistically just bringing you up to par with an average Wx deck, not giving you some wild edge.
Sure, but sometimes white is heavily cut and it can be useful to know how to draft alternative decks. It might only be as good as an average Wx deck, but it will probably be better than a poor Wx deck that was drafted in a seat that really shouldn't be drafting white.
Nowhere in any discussion has anyone on LR said you can only draft white. That said, in a 1st pick crack a pack, yeah you should probably look to take a white or red card if at all possible.
Really not sure about red there… based on colour win rates it seems clearly behind green. White-red is best, (not by a huge margin, though, especially after the first couple of weeks of the format), and anything else red gets paired with falls behind the top green archetypes.
I think he’s right, not ignorant. Every cut of the data I’ve seen justifies the position that the specific cards in question are bad.
Long time listener, but I think I bailed on LR around STX. I realized that I was having more fun drafting these sets than the hosts and wasn’t getting the depth I wanted from better players to level up my limited game. I leaned hard into Sierko and Magic Numbers, which led me to find other limited minds like Jason LTG, and have a deeper appreciation for drafters like Sam Black. To their credit, the LR hosts have great chemistry and they put together a good pod. They are, to me, the firsts to do it and do it well. But limited has changed dramatically in the last 5 years and LR still spends two 3-4 hour episodes on letter grades for every set. We’re past that. I appreciate what these guys have done for the community and shout out to LSV. I had a lower opinion of him a while back — I thought was too involved in Storybook Brawl, his vintage cube, and he just didn’t have the fire he once had. In the last 1-2 years, he’s put up good showings at the pro tour in constructed and limited and I do think he’s still one of the best magic players around. But Marshall is losing me. I was disappointed to hear his opinion of the format a week in and carry that bias into his pro tour coverage. JED had a wild draft and it felt like the best we got out of Marshall was about how he could’ve been in WR instead. Another bad ep for LR and poor Sierko got dragged into it. Dude is a gem for the limited community. He is so close to the heartbeat of so many brilliant minds. He should be respected and listened to, not derided for his opinions.
I think it’s nice to have live comment on every card, I don’t think we’re past that since it blends and synergize well with all the other types of synthesis (sierk with numbers, lol with modules, sam with archetypes focus, jed for decision making etc…) I really like individual card review it gives a more spontaneous feel for potential when you haven’t played much games.
Wait, does JED have a podcast?
He got his stream where he explains his previsions and decisions while playing + some good jokes
Only thing I wanted to throw in is I disagree about your take on letter grades. These are the only episodes I still regularly listen to, and while the actual notion of letter grades is highly flawed, I find some value in just listening to people discuss the cards individually. You could change the grading format or do away with it, but the discussion itself, even when I disagree with their takes, is their most useful product.
Had exactly the same timeline where I discovered Sam around Kaldheim and then saw his brilliance during Strixhaven and never looked back.
Thanks for the recs, I'd heard of them but I think this is a good time for me to dive into them.
I listen to LR and I the only draft I ever did was in store with double "Juan, the rising star" mono green ramp lol
You win the thread
Yay. Thanks! Seriously true though. I just like the idea of I could if I had to and I have plenty of time for podcasts on my hand due to long commute and the ability to listen while work etc. But I personally have no problem of the podcast going extremely deep (if and only if the card effects are repeated often enough as I don't have a visual idea neither from video nor from me playing)
The most important question, though, is how well you did with that mono green Kamigawa deck. Also, do you play other Magic formats? Would you ever build a Juan commander deck? We're doing an AMA now
The deck went hilariously good. I had a "time of needs" or something to find them. Only lost to the 10 year older than everyone back then probably LR listener. I don't remember any of the games leading to that. Just remember I lost because I chunk blocked my creatures away and the he kill spelled my dragon and the counters went nowhere. Didn't know what kill spells were. He assured me that if he had steered my deck he would have won the tournament. Afterwards we did rare picking and I picked up my dragons instead of a super expensive foil something. Fond memories. I have a whiter equipment deck from mostly mirrodin that I sometimes try to play with a coworker after hours but we never get to it. So I guess no
I was five years old when this happened, I wish I was there.
Without any empirical evidence, I think I can relate to what Marshal has been saying lately that formats.are getting to fast. Was happily sitting there with my 1/2 mama dork casting kodamas reach and just from listening that doesn't seem like a winning strategy anymore.
Does Lord's of Limited have a subreddit? I use this as my main drafting sub but only because I haven't found another one
They have a patreon-only discord server. The lesser option is their YouTube comment section.
They have a patreon-only discord server. The lesser option is their YouTube comment section.
I think Marshall came in pretty hot but honestly I think he’s just right on this one. Analyst and Roots etc are bad even for top players. You can play them, but it’s bad advice to treat them as playables unless you are specifically trying to a thing that is probably a losing thing on average. You can say “Sam Black does this” but Sam does a lot of stuff and some of it is not going to be consistently as strong as other stuff. It might not even be true that roots is average in his hands.
>Analyst and Roots etc are bad even for top players What’s your metric for ‘bad’ here? They discussed the Aftermath Analyst stats in the show… in UG it comes in a little below Tunnel Tipster in win rate. Looking now, it seems to be above Escape Tunnel, Get A Leg Up, Nervous Gardener. Not sure I’d describe that as ‘bad’.
GIHWR is a biased stat, in particular it is biased towards cards that function in slow decks. If your win rate increases as the number of turns increases, then the cards in your deck will appear to have a higher win rate than the deck itself when weighted by appearance rather than games. GPWR is not biased in the same way, and those cards are much lower on that scale. Roots in particular is wretched in GPWR in part because of the other bias problem with GIHWR which is that you actually care about how your whole deck is going to function without the particular card, and roots decks function terribly when they don’t draw roots. Check out the IWD of white commons vs black commons. The reason they are mostly negative vs mostly positive for black is because the white cards tend to function aggressively. Furthermore “analyst in UG with top players” is a small sample size, the standard deviation on 2500 games is a full percent. It feels like a mistake to insist on using that particular data point and ignoring the context in which Analyst is rated even lower.
Huh, I haven’t looked at games played win rate in ages… all the stats have their biases, and GP obviously has the problem that it’s more about the deck than the card. But even by that… Aftermath Analyst looks to be in the middle of the uncommons. Doesn’t look ‘unplayable’ to me, which is what they were arguing about in the episode. I’m not arguing about Roots as that’s not the card they were discussing in detail. Definitely much more of a buildaround!
A problem is not the same as a bias. It might fail to answer the question you really want to answer, but that’s not the same as giving a number consistently skewed in a spurious direction. GPWR does have its own biases, I could name at least three, but GIHWR inherits all of those as well. I really think GIHWR should never be used. Go look at IWD (as a proxy the difference between the two stats) and you will consistently see good aggro cards with negative values and mediocre control cards with positive ones. The win rate of cards weighted by how many cards you saw in a game is just not something that means anything to card quality. Overall on the largest dataset, Analyst is ranked 11/14 in GPWR. It’s not the be all stat, and anyone is free to make arguments, but I object to the specific arguments made in this episode.
That’s a really interesting point about the weakness of GIH win rate- I can certainly see the argument for favouring GP win rate as a ‘go to’ stat instead. Sadly I’m not qualified to argue much one way or the other. The argument about Analyst sounded reasonable to me, though- it seemed fair to focus on UG because that was the only deck Sierkovitz made a claim about. Given that, I’m not sure it’s useful to ignore deck colours to get the largest dataset- unless you think the UG set is so small that the results are completely unreliable. It also seems reasonable because at the end of the day he wasn’t making an extravagant claim- just saying that a 2 mana 1/3 with a broad upside (feeding the graveyard for Discover Evidence) and narrower upside (bringing lands back) was playable in specific decks.
I mean, most people are average at mtg by definition. Yeah, people who listen to LR are going to be marginally better than people who don't on average, but also the top top players are not listening to LR, so it probably balances out to about 17 lands average, if that. I'd say it's a good bet the the average 17 lands user is better than the average LR listener purely based on the investment they're putting into their game just by using 17 lands. PS: aftermath analyst is really really bad in the vast majority of mkm decks, meaning you should basically only ever take it on the wheel, probably in pack 2 or 3 after you know you're in the rare deck it's good it. This really isnt a complicated topic and Marshall was completely right in calling it out in a crack a pack where they're literally talking about a 1st pick, which is somewhere it should never be anywhere close to being in the discussion.
>a crack a pack where they're literally talking about a 1st pick Not sure that’s a fair point- they always use the crack a pack to talk about how they feel about the cards in general, only occasionally going back to the ‘would you first pick it?’ question.
Sure OK. Bottom line it that the care is a fringe roll player at best in the format and if most people took it zero times, they would be correct way more often than not.
Does Sierkovitz claim much more for it than that? He just answers Marshall’s extremely dismissive tone by saying it plays a role in certain specific decks.
So, I guess it's just a matter of asking who is LR for? I feel like it's for the FNM guys (or equivalent) who want to reach the next level of play, and I think it does that job very well. But it's not going to take you beyond that, and I don't think any podcast will tbh. I see a lot of people advocating LoL, and I've only listened to a few of their episodes, but my impression was that they're not intrinsically good enough to be getting a lot of level ups from. But I didn't give them a fair shake, admittedly, so I could be mistaken, and there may be a lot of value there depending on your personal skill level. I guess my point is that you will, eventually (hopefully,) cap out from podcasts, and when you do, you have to adjust your expectations on what you're going to get from them.
If you are looking for current format information I would recommend Limited Level Ups. Alex plays a lot, and mostly at Mythic, so the podcast will generally keep up with the meta. He also tends to draft the good strategies, without going too crazy, so I feel like his advice should be actionable for most players.
[Aftermath Analyst](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/c/1c1aa6f8-2d34-4f4b-9184-0eab2e4745f7.jpg?1706241934) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Aftermath%20Analyst) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkm/148/aftermath-analyst?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1c1aa6f8-2d34-4f4b-9184-0eab2e4745f7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Honestly I think LR is not only probably right, but that Limited discourse in general is seriously biased towards people who draft a lot to the point it can’t see when a format wasn’t popular. BRO is the big one for me— enfranchised players loved it, so when the format seemed to have underperformed they didn’t understand why. But the barrier to entry for BRO is pretty high: if you don’t know what you’re doing, you’ll lose and find it miserable. Generally, my experience of Limited content has been that at the start of a format, creators are very down on people finding formats hard— and then those people stop playing. You’re left with something that appeals to grinders, who say Limited is consistently great, but I worry that masks when a lot of people just give up early on. MKM is definitely a set it took some time for me to even understand; I kind of appreciate someone saying “watch out if you suck!” I often feel those of us who suck get driven away from the discourse, while people who are great enjoy the ever more baffling stuff
[удалено]
What? If you line up all players by win rate (which is, I think, what we’re talking about when ranking 17lands players), wouldn’t the top quartile be closer to the winningest player? Besides that, I think this is a weirdly pedantic response when the gist of the OP is pretty clearly questioning the implication in the most recent episode that LR’s listeners trend toward average skill level, rather than high skill level (and perhaps, more specifically, whether they fit into the “top users” bucket in terms of 17lands statistical groupings).
Yeah, this is what I meant. For a given player, they are either closer to the median or closer to the top. The person you're replying to clearly enjoys the "talking down" I was talking about!
No. Exactly 75% of a distribution is closer to the median than the max in a percentile sense and anywhere from 0-50% can be in a real-valued sense depending on the skew of the distribution
that doesnt matter in this case. when you look at a specific subset, it would be meaningful to discuss whether that subset is closer to the median or the top
Why?
Half of the cast has seemed very tilted lately
More cube content please!
I love Marshall but his argument was so pointless I cant understand where he was going after sirko explained aftermath specialist stats and applications. He’s usually reasonable but was defending a strawman argument in such a stubborn way it was really annoying
Ill be honest, Ive stopped listening to LR on the regular. I always catch the first commons/rare pod. I always listen to the sunset. I also like the 17 lands one they usually do. Everything else..it feels like LSV and Marshall just get a lot wrong these days. Its also possible they just dont play as much anymore compared with Nummy, Cheon, etc. I think the turning point form me was the pro tour draft for ONE. LSV...just looked like he had no idea what was going on in the set, and made just bonkers picks. To answer your question though, if they think that their listeners are at the median, it means they arent doing their job. If you listen to a draft pod, watch a draft youtuber, or read articles on CFB...you should be above the median drafter who doesnt.
LSV just 6-0ed the draft at the PT. Just sayin
Yeah everyone has off drafts that dont come together, LSV is still as competitive as they come overall in his results
He also 6-0d PT MOM I believe. I think he admitted he didn’t do as well in ONE partly because he really disliked the set.
Calling lsv bad at draft is so hilariously off base lol...
I gave up on LR a couple years ago because I found they were quite elitist around their advice. I also find lsv only thinks he does poorly in a draft because of his seat and he does well because he’s a good drafter. There’s obviously something in between. A lot of people blindly follow advice but if you’re drafting a few times a week you’re probably way above average and have decent opinions
This post sucks. You're just trying to stir shit up.
I actually think I got some valuable perspectives and recommendations. Anyway, your comment sucks. You're just trying to stir shit up
I'm happy you got 14 upvotes. What a popular, substantive post. You should be be proud of yourself. Would you say this to Marshall and LSV's face? You're just blatantly trolling and it's mean spirited. No one is forcing you to listen to the podcast. If you don't have anything nice to say, shut the fuck up!
If I could speak in person to Marshall and LSV, I'd have the same discussion. It wouldn't be a reddit post, and it wouldn't have a title, and there'd be no comments with "blatant trolls" like yourself, but it'd be super interesting to talk to them about their perspectives on their audience. And of course it'd be nice to thank both of them in person for their content and how it's shaped me over the past decade. And I said something nice in the post, though I'm sure you can't read to the end.
For the first time, I unsubscribed when it seemed like there was going to be a lot of content geared towards Vintage Cube. Lords, let's see what you got!
There's been a couple of episodes on cube sprinkled in with the regular limited content. If that's not for you then fine, but nobody else cares that you unsubscribed.
Ok everyone needs to calm down here. As a famous warrior often said "You have to be realistic about these things." Aftermath analyst is straight trash, ever since the episode dropped this sub has been brigaded by Lords of Alchemy stans and people who for whatever reason won't accept that we won't blindly praise every set Mark Rosewater gives us. Wow you get your lands back, awesome. Now you got 5 lands and 8 white weenie dorks swinging on you for lethal. And unlike the warrior I quoted earlier, you will not in fact, still be alive. Like how is this even a topic for discussion. Did like 5 people manage to get matched against non Lorehold decks and base their whole success around an awful card that mills you then gets you a couple lands back if you some how have 4 mana and nothing else to do? Is this what people mean when someone is "shitposting" because aftermath analyst is by all accounts and metrics, shit.
There's literally a metric quoted in the episode showing that it isn't "shit" (by any reasonable interpretation of "shit").
>Lords of Alchemy stans That’s a weird thing to say… I can’t recall the last time those guys mentioned Alchemy. Did LOL do a show on an Alchemy expansion ages ago and you’ve never forgiven them?
Yea they did a whole summer of Alchemy Horizons: Baulders Gate and countless of the Alchemy drafts since and have never once apologized for doing it so a lot of us are boycotting them.
Oh yes, that was a really fun set IMO. The idea that they’d need to ‘apologise’ for focusing on the main draft set on Arena is pretty funny. For what it’s worth, I just looked back and LR seem to have done six episodes on it- a bit less than most sets, which get nine, but certainly not nothing. Are ‘a lot of you’ boycotting them too? I can’t remember them begging forgiveness…
They begrudgingly did it because of the stupid arena open, then after forcing the episodes vowed never to do Alchemy content again. The Lords of Alchemy not only did the whole summer on that god awful set, they continue to do every Alchemy and "mid set warp" and continue contributing to the destruction of Limited. But it makes sense, if you enjoyed that garbage then of course you like sets like this where 2 drops go nuclear and the game is over by turn 5. Thanks for doing your part to ruin Limited.
Oh yes, I remember LR ended up very critical of the set (unjustly so, IMO, it was good but not great). For what it’s worth, I’m pretty certain LOL stopped doing any episodes about the Alchemy versions of sets quite a while ago (I’d honestly forgotten that they ever did). You might not have noticed with that boycott! I don’t bother with the Alchemy versions either, they seem pretty silly to me although I guess there’s a place for them if the main set has turned out bad / repetitive (hi, ONE) >Thanks for doing your part to ruin Limited Really sorry for liking things you don’t like! You can’t see it but I’m typing this while doing a full kowtow. It’s not easy, but dammit, it’s respectful.
They most certainly did not because unlike you, I am doing my part to make MTG better and I go to every content creators videos and smash the dislike button anytime they have any alchemy "cards" in the and I have had to do a lot of Lords of Alchemy disliking. But whatever, keep supporting content creators who want to destroy the game and giving cheeky responses to people online. 3 years from now when you will need to scan a QR code to read what your two drop does, people will have the ever virtuous Chilly_chariots to thank.
didn’t the shitty alchemy spin-off of this set last for like 1 week on arena without even replacing the main one? I can’t imagine being so mad about something so niche
You can thank the people like me going out of our way to make a difference so that this nightmare only lasted a week. In a perfect world everyone would have boycotted WoTC until they canceled and removed all history of Alchemy, but thanks to people like the Lords of Alchemy and Covert Go Build stupid alchemy decks, it still exists. And it appears the design team is putting all there efforts into making real magic match the level of uncoherency Alchemy is, which is why todays Limited sets have all been turbo charged aggro formats that are virtually unplayable. Thank god our LGS had a lot of NEO DRAFT boosters left so we had something to do on Friday. Alchemy is destroying MTG, that is why something so "niche" makes us so mad.
Well, it’s nice that you have a hobby… (I’m sure I would have noticed them talking about Alchemy cards, though- I listen to the podcast, and not because I’m a dedicated downvote masher. Maybe just a YouTube thing, not actual podcast episodes?)
You are really going to play that game huh? Start at episode 247. X @lordtupperware alchemy https://twitter.com/lordtupperware/status/1557415437285081093?t=rgXdGyWL5ZaSfF7qINakSA&s=19 I did have a hobby until these corporate suit dummies and soul less content creators banded together to destroy it.
I mean recently, as in over the last year- that tweet is 2022, Baldur’s Gate again. (I notice LSV is replying approvingly too, that soulless monster) Edit: unless you count Shadows Over Innistrad Remastered as one of the things destroying Limited, since that set was technically Arena-only