Sabledonk - math and analyzation

[Darkmot]

But you're assuming that I play Vilegar. What's a Luxchomp player to do? "Tech" in 4 Spiritombs and 4 Sableye to avoid the donk? That completely ruins your consistency and your chance to win a game in the mirror. And even in Sableye vs. Sableye starts, a Sabledonk can still win the flip and donk you. In fact, adding 4 Sableye into a Vilegar list increases the chance that you'll get a Sableye start instead of a Spiritomb start. It's pretty lame, but the presence of Sableye in your deck can actually lead to a loss.

Now I am thinking, that you really think, that most Metagame Decks, that we have now, will survive these new rules.
Believe me, I wouldn't even play LuxChomp at nationals, because it will have many problems against most decks.
LuxChomp will for example have even more problems vs. Sablelock....
LuxChomp will really have problems vs. a Turn1 Gyarados....
SP Decks will even have more problems vs. non SP Decks, because Judge destroys the´m and everybody is going to play JUdge....
VileGar was just an example btw, not assuming, that it will be played, but TRainerlock will be deifnitly played....
LuxChomp will just be (sry for that, but after my testings that was my result) to slow!
We have to make new decks, that can manage the NEW metagame.

-Darkmot.

 

[toxictaipan]

I like how you all have spent a whole page arguing about something I covered a whole page ago.

So, does anyone want to explain what happens when the "good" players get donked out of top cut because they faced Sableye in 2 or 3 rounds (or however many loses it takes to get knocked out of top cut at nats)? Because, you know, that's a realistic possibility here. Your ability raise your base win percentage with your br00t4l skillz is completely negated when you don't even get a turn.

EDIT: And that's not even counting the legitimate loses you're likely to encounter when you're actually outplayed by your opponent! That's right, you get bonus loses!

You can't argue with statistics. If Sabledonk has a favorable matchup against almost every deck, then it does not matter if your opponent has any skill or not. They will not get a chance to use it.

If a deck is guaranteed to win on Turn 1, WITHOUT giving your opponent ANY chance to prevent it in ANY way most of the time, how in the world does the deck need to get lucky? It wins most of the time! You have to get lucky to beat it, not the other way around!


Skill is irrelevant when you don't get to actually use it. Okay, don't believe me? Here's an analogy.

I challenge the world's best chess player to a match, me being his number one, most newbiest fan. He's so confident in his skill (and my lack of skill) that he offer to let me setup the board how I see fit in order to better my chances against him. So, I set the board up to where he's in checkmate from the very beginning of the game. He instantly loses without getting a chance to use his world class skill.

And that's basically how Sabledonk works.

 

[SLOW DECK]

Suggestion for everyone is

1. BUILD an iDonk deck.
2. Test the iDonk deck to gainst 3 SP pokemon to see if you can win 16 out of 20.
3. Face a deck with 4 tombs.
4. Tweek your list to "get lucky against a tomb start. BTW, a good tomb player would NEVER EVER EVER have only one TOMB and one NON TOMB bench. (Yes I know there are many BAD players)
5. Go back to 2, and seef you can still donk 3 SP 15 out of 20 times.

Not easy to "tech" a uxie donk or iDonk list to handle both.

 

[Spidy]

Thats better then most decks but whatever...
Make a geuss why for every expected face in top cut one does horribly...

Give me a deck that has better statistics then:

-50% mirror
-75% random
-60% "anti" deck

if mirror is your worst matchup then your deck is bdif IMO

And about the collectors, one important thing to note is that uxie had to face 3/4 pokemon often and collector would hinder you but sableye will have to face 1 or 2 pokemon way way more often and against those collector actually helps you

And I dont see a ro having 75% against anything ever. Most matchups right now are more then 60-40 or something like this, you mostply can outplay bad opponents but against "real opponents" sabledonk will be the best :O

And I really think that "bad" players will loose more then 60% o games because their deck either doesnt have the counter measure or they dont know what to do

no deck does, but it isnt always the deck that decides the winner, its the players skill
sure there is a luck factor in every game, but usually one player can consistently beat several other people cause they know what to do

it makes them win way more than those percentages you posted

sabledonk has those percentages but offers no way to raise them, either it happens or it doesnt
so it can never rise above those percentages to where it needs to go to make top cut

the problem is the deck is all luck, after the flip (sometimes before) i can look at both opening hands and tell the winner
sure it might be a scrubs best chance at beating a really good player but the also have that same chance against someone terrible

---------- Post added 04/21/2011 at 02:37 PM ----------

If a deck is guaranteed to win on Turn 1, WITHOUT giving your opponent ANY chance to prevent it in ANY way most of the time, how in the world does the deck need to get lucky? It wins most of the time! You have to get lucky to beat it, not the other way around!

your acting like the deck will win 95% of the time
thats not the case
it will win 60%

and in tournaments, where it needs to constantly win, it wont cause each game is only a 60% chance. it sounds good and stuff, but lets look at the chances of winning 3 in a row

60%^3=21.6%

thats not even 1/4 of the time

maybe the odds are in it favor in 1 game

but it has to get very lucky to keep winning

 

[NoPoke]

@Spidy.

Anyone who wins any tournament got lucky at some point. Sometimes it is obvious and sometimes not but in pokemon to actually win you did get lucky. Its one of the features of pokemon that I like. The luck tends to mix up who wins. The best players don't take everything. The worst players don't always finish last.

Get a hundred people in a room and ask them to flip a coin and one of them is going to flip a long series of heads. Your arguement of the odds being low are incorrect when the number of trials is high.

donk decks don't care about the opponent and they are bad for that reason alone. A donk deck is not the same as a deck that donks. Any tournament deck can potentially pull off a t1 win but in the case of a donk deck that is close to all it can do.

A fast format almost always has donk decks


======

Your assertion that a donk deck has no way to raise its outcomes is correct but it misses the point that the particular statement is true for all decks. If my deck has a 60-40 match-up against yours then nothing I do will change that once our lists are handed in. Maybe I will outplay you and maybe I wont but at that point it is not the decks advantage or disadvantage that is being expressed but mine and your skills.

T1 wins are just incompatible with our tournament structure and incompatible with elo as a way of inviting players to worlds. It pains me to say it but a fast format is the death of elo.

 

[toxictaipan]

your acting like the deck will win 95% of the time
thats not the case
it will win 60%

and in tournaments, where it needs to constantly win, it wont cause each game is only a 60% chance. it sounds good and stuff, but lets look at the chances of winning 3 in a row

60%^3=21.6%

thats not even 1/4 of the time

maybe the odds are in it favor in 1 game

but it has to get very lucky to keep winning

No. But it has a 60% chance to win every game. If everyone is playing it, SOMEONE has to win the tournament.

The "good players" and "legitimate decks" are likely to be knocked out because they are always at a disadvantage. Then it comes down to which ever Sableye player is the lucky one who wins the coin flip.

Maybe not all of the good players will lose, but most of them will. That's what 60% is: most. You're not supposed to be able to go into every matchup with a guaranteed 60% chance of winning. That means your opponent only has a 40% chance. That's a disadvantage, and that's not right.

You aren't supposed to have any kind of guaranteed advantage over your opponent before the match begins. I don't see why that's so hard to comprehend.

I'm not saying this deck will sweep all the good players at nationals. I'm not saying everyone will quit the game. I'm not saying the deck wins 99.9% of the time. What I AM saying is that the deck goes against everything the game is about. And that's all that really matters.

EDIT: I don't know what's more mind-boggling. That fact that this deck even exists, or the fact that people don't realize how big of a problem it really is.

 

[Pajamas]

For everyone who's saying "durrr, 60% isn't good enough to make top cut", do yourself a favor and read up on how to use the binomial distribution.

Based on past experience, let's assume that all 7-2's and better plus half of the 6-3's will make the cut at U.S. Nats. Several people have already demonstrated that Sabledonk is much like a certain fictional cologne... 60% of the time it works every time. Using the binomial distribution, we can calculate that for any given person, their odds of going 7-2 or better are 23.2%, and going exactly 6-3 is 25.1%. Consequently, the odds of making top cut with Sabledonk are 23.2% + 0.5 * 25.1% = 35.7%.

Now, let's throw that back into our trusty binomial distribution, and we can say with over 99% certainty that for every 100 people who play Sabledonk, at least 25 of them will make the cut. In fact, odds are better than 50/50 that at least 36 of them will make it.

To suggest that this deck isn't going to make the cut is absurd.

 

[Blue Blur]

I'm curious though, with this thing's existence will Worlds be dominated by it? If so, and if it were to win all divisions and in top 4 for each spot...how would they print 4 sets for one deck? Would P!P really give so much money to people running such a silly deck that goes against SOTG and drives away their customers/players?

 

[Shen]

@Pajamas: That's true but we still don't even know how popular the deck is going to be =/ More people are concerned with countering it than playing and perfecting it. I'm sure we will see it, some better and more creative then others... but remember you'll also have the "bad" builds too.

Also, this reminds me of a solution I wish to propose for the community: Someone should type up a below average yet still playable Sabledonk list for the front page of the Gym. Netdeckers will play it, and not only do we know the list but we know it'll be bad >.>

 

[meganium45]

The Answer is out there, and it works in most every deck, and does not hurt consistency.

With the Answer, you lower the donk percentage down considerably, and really make it seem like the deck will win slightly less than half the time.

The end is not near, it is not here.

The deck will have to be reckoned with, but so did Chatterlock, and people had to adjust.

I am a firm believer that the end is not near.

Vince

 

[hueglin]

Also, this reminds me of a solution I wish to propose for the community: Someone should type up a below average yet still playable Sabledonk list for the front page of the Gym. Netdeckers will play it, and not only do we know the list but we know it'll be bad >.>

Kind of related to this point, and something no one has really brought up is the Sabledonk playing on their first turn. While it may not take the greatest amount of skill in the world, there still is some skill involved in playing through your whole deck in one turn in a way that allows you to KO all the opponent's Pokemon.

The Sabledonk player will still have to make numerous quick decisions about what cards to play in what order. Anyone who is net decking and not practicing with how the deck works will probably misplay. So I don't think its fair to say that "anyone" can just pick up the deck and win with it. By the same token, anyone who builds a working list and masters how it works will get all of the advantages that have been mentioned in this thread.

My personal view is that the best thing to do to solve this and other donking problems is to remove the win condition of knocking out all of the opponent's in-play Pokemon and replacing it with an extra prize card penalty. Any time a player starts a turn without a Pokemon in play, their opponent takes a prize.

Another thought that might help is to make the swiss rounds be best 2 out of 3 but keep the 30 min + 3 time restriction.

 

[jeffrey123]

Alex2k's rant, Sabledonk.

I tested 5 games against this deck, playing Regigigas with black and white techs, along with multiple high HP basics (5 100 hp Pokemon, 4 Sableye, 2 90 HP Pokemon). It didn't even matter. If I whiffed on the Sableye start or flipped tails, I lost. Plain and simple. No need to test more than that, it's kinda obvious anyways.

There are a few main things I would like you to keep in mind before defending Sableye ever again.

1. Children starting the card game for the first time.
What's going to happen to little kids when they go to their first premier event (which is supposed to be a blast) and get donked every game? Do you really think that they will continue to bother playing after that terrifying experience? I know that personally, if my first tournament had me getting donked every game, I would pick my stuff up, leave, and never return. Very irratating, could cause multiple accounts of tears, outbursts, and most of all, very stinky diapers.

2. Points.
I'll say it a billion times. This points system is terrible. Many top players are on the brink of either having a season where they make it to worlds, or whiff due to being donked by anyone (including terrible rating players). This is really going to leave a bad taste in every player's mouth (besides the ones who donk their way to becoming national champion. Will it even matter who is crowned "national champion" if the winner donks to #1?)

3. Health of the game
With one deck being essentially "BDIF", everyone will play this. Much like GG, Sableye will become the most powerful deck in the format. The problem? The game is decided turn 1. Rounds will have to be decreased to 5 minutes? Why have 30 minute rounds now if every game is dropping in or less minutes? Not healthy for P!P, not healthy for the community, and certainly not good for anyone else.

So basically, I hate this card and hope they rotate or do something, or this game will be terrible.

 

[ninetales1234]

Why have 30 minute rounds now?

Because *one turn* with the deck will take more than 5 minutes!:tongue:

 

[jeffrey123]

Ok but who cares, if you go first you win anyways -__-

 

[The Gorn]

Somebody try running a Sabledonk decklist through the Pokepedia deck analyzer and see if the results match the results listed in this thread. (I want to see what it comes up with.)

 

[Shen]

Depends on your basics.

No cards except Sableye matter, so we will assume that the deck list is a working one. The only other thing that matters is the number of your basics.

With 10 basics, the chance that you start with Sableye is: 53.88%
With 11 basics, the chance that you start with Sableye is: 51.37%
With 12 basics, the chance that you start with Sableye is: 49.36%
With 13 basics, the chance that you start with Sableye is: 47.72%
With 14 basics, the chance that you start with Sableye is: 46.37%
With 15 basics, the chance that you start with Sableye is: 45.26%
With 16 basics, the chance that you start with Sableye is: 44.35%

Doubtful you'll go higher or lower than those numbers.

As the number of basics you run in the deck decreases, the chance of starting with Sableye increases 'cuz you have a higher chance of hitting a mulligan and drawing again. Some could argue that choosing to run less of other basics is helpful but that can still hurt the deck's ability to donk.

 

[uuuufff]

Sabledonk has arguably the best match-up percentages in the format due to the fact it can donk ~60% of the time against pretty much any deck, but it's bad for the reason that you don't even have a shot at winning those other ~40% of games, no matter how good of a player you are.

As Pyjamas said, you're pretty much going to win "60% of the time, every time". Unless you get very lucky, you're almost certainly not going to make top cut or gain a substantial amount of points (or depending on your ranking, perhaps no points at all or a loss in points), no matter how good you are. A deck like Luxchomp, while it might not be 60-40 in every match-up, can outplay other decks when piloted by a good player, to the point where it can win and do well at events.

Here's an example: Let's say Chris Fulop were to run Luxchomp at US Nationals. In a 9 round event, assuming he didn't drop, he would most likely end up 7-2 or 8-1. Now give Chris the Sabledonk deck, and he's most likely going to end up 5-4. Why? because despite Sabledonk's good match-up percentages against virtually everything, you can't outplay people at all with the deck. You're either going to donk or lose.

It's a crude example, but I think it illustrates the point well. I think the only people running that will run Sabledonk at events are players that aren't particularly confident in their skills, both in-game and in deck construction (Sabledonk lists are pretty stock standard). It won't take over the format, in my opinion. So stop worrying, get some sleep and enjoy your life.

 

[toxictaipan]

Here's an example: Let's say Chris Fulop were to run Luxchomp at US Nationals. In a 9 round event, assuming he didn't drop, he would most likely end up 7-2 or 8-1. Now give Chris the Sabledonk deck, and he's most likely going to end up 5-4. Why? because despite Sabledonk's good match-up percentages against virtually everything, you can't outplay people at all with the deck. You're either going to donk or lose.

It's a crude example, but I think it illustrates the point well. I think the only people running that will run Sabledonk at events are players that aren't particularly confident in their skills, both in-game and in deck construction (Sabledonk lists are pretty stock standard). It won't take over the format, in my opinion. So stop worrying, get some sleep and enjoy your life.

Here's an example: Let's say Chris Fulop were to run Luxchomp at US Nationals. He runs into a Sabledonk deck and loses, due to the donk being successful. Now he has a losing record and will likely be paired with another 0-1 (at least, this is how I think parings work, correct me if I'm wrong. I still don't completely understand all that stuff in all my years of playing). Let's just say, for the sake of your argument, that 40% of the Sabledonk decks in the field hold true to their statistic and lose their first match due to the 40% lose rate. Now, since it's statistically probable, and thus a fair assumption to make, let's say Chris loses this match also because the Sabledonk player was able to successfully pull off the donk this time around. Chris is now at 0-2. Maybe he won't lose this match, though. Maybe he'll beat his opponent... just to go on to the next round and face another Sabledonk, one of the "lucky" ones.

Heck, let's say Chris manages to win his first match. The player he beat is then donked by Sableye a couple times throughout the course of the tournament. Chris's tie-breaker now officially sucks, lowering his overall chances of making topcut if he someone miraculously manages to out luck and outplay every opponent he faces throughout the tournament.



What was that about skill, again?

 

[yoyofsho16]

The Answer is out there, and it works in most every deck, and does not hurt consistency.

With the Answer, you lower the donk percentage down considerably, and really make it seem like the deck will win slightly less than half the time.

The end is not near, it is not here.

The deck will have to be reckoned with, but so did Chatterlock, and people had to adjust.

I am a firm believer that the end is not near.

Vince

...are you saying that you have the answer? or merely that there MUST be one?
If the former, i will give you money to know. Please Vince, SOS!

 

[uuuufff]

Here's an example: Let's say Chris Fulop were to run Luxchomp at US Nationals. He runs into a Sabledonk deck and loses, due to the donk being successful. Now he has a losing record and will likely be paired with another 0-1 (at least, this is how I think parings work, correct me if I'm wrong. I still don't completely understand all that stuff in all my years of playing). Let's just say, for the sake of your argument, that 40% of the Sabledonk decks in the field hold true to their statistic and lose their first match due to the 40% lose rate. Now, since it's statistically probable, and thus a fair assumption to make, let's say Chris loses this match also because the Sabledonk player was able to successfully pull off the donk this time around. Chris is now at 0-2. Maybe he won't lose this match, though. Maybe he'll beat his opponent... just to go on to the next round and face another Sabledonk, one of the "lucky" ones.

Heck, let's say Chris manages to win his first match. The player he beat is then donked by Sableye a couple times throughout the course of the tournament. Chris's tie-breaker now officially sucks, lowering his overall chances of making topcut if he someone miraculously manages to out luck and outplay every opponent he faces throughout the tournament.



What was that about skill, again?

Look, your example pretty much hinges on a LOT of people running Sabledonk (the odds of playing 2 in a row are really low unless a LOT of people are running the deck), which I just don't think is going to happen. I think that Sabledonk's inability to outplay people will DETER people from running it (which was/is my main point), making it not such a huge issue.

Yes, if half the field turns up to US nationals with Sabledonk, it's going to be a pretty crappy tournament, as you said. However, I don't think many players are going to run with the deck, because it can't win past the first turn (as well as the fact some players would probably feel guilty for playing the deck and might shy away from it because of that... not all, but some).