Is there a such thing as a mathematically perfect 60 card MTG

>>49835798
no

>>49835828
why not? There has to be some kind of deck configuration that guarantees good draws

60 Chancellor of the Dross

>>49835966
That's not how probability works at all.

>>49835798
There is. Technically any and every deck can be made that way but you'd just be cheating.

>>49835966
Short of something weird like manaless dredge, I don't think there's anything that garuntees you won't get screwed.

Best I think you could do would be monogreen with Dryad arbors, mana dorks, and land mana sinks to ensure as much consistency on a curve as possible, but that still wouldn't be good, just consistent.

>>49835798
This card a complete mess. What's it supposed to do?

>>49835798
thats not how probability works anon

>>49835798
It can't be done because your deck has to be shuffled to the point that it's sufficiently random. You can stack your lands and spells in order, but that's called a mana weave, and it's an automatic DQ in anything except kitchen table and it's always a dick move. If you don't like the hand you draw then mulligan to six and scry 1.

>>49836072
>60 Chancellor
I like the way you think

File: 99.jpg (59KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 312x445px

The only way what OP wants would be possible is if basically all your cards had free cycling, which doesn't exist in Magic-- even a deck full of pic related could make you run out of life before you'd be guaranteed to hit a land.

>>49836838
>and scry 1

what

some new casual rule?

>>49835798
>never flood
>never screw
>probability-based game

This week, in /tg/ is bad at Magic, math, and life in general...

>>49838227
Yes, if you consider sanctioned MTG event as casual events

File: b8be58796bb60f9ee5d5b709b3c8397d.jpg (64KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x375px

>>49835798
Is there a way to make a mathematically perfect coin?
As in, a coin that never gives you a long streak of tails, and always alternates heads-tails-heads-tails-heads-tails-...

>>49835798
No. Oops All Spells runs no lands and even it can even get screwed/flooded.

>>49836771
Turn all spells on the stack into 2/2s that cast the spell they were when they die. That's some mid 90s Magic level of obnoxious right there.

>>49838227
Have you been playing kitchen table under a rock for the past year?

>>49835798
yes, you can make super consistent decks
Just not exactly your opening hand requirements, that's silly

the "before the game begins, kill an opponent" deck
Dredge shenanigans, with 0 lands
manaless decks, like 0 drops and alternate cost cards
decks based on man lands

decks designed to run on one land are the simplest to work consistently and cheapest tho; i have a pauper green deck that works on one land and consistently pumps out about 6-7 mana turn 3... with one land

>>49835798
its all about shuffling mathematically perfect

>>49836143
Oops all spells has no lands
Belcher has 1

>>49841627
Which means unevenly 7-9 times to achieve peak randomness

>>49835798
Let's assume that your deck runs at least 7 spells, which I think is a generous assumption. Then it is perfectly possible to draw an opening hand with 7 spells and 0 lands.

>>49843981
I was so close. I was going to use the same example, but with 7 lands.

>>49835798
20 Black Lotus
20 Channel
20 Fireball

>>49837357
>Fluctuator
>$20 cycling deck

>>49844081
>opening hand
>7 fireball
>7 black lotus
>7 channel
>6 fireball 1 channel

etc, etc, etc.

>>49835966
Youre pretty fucking stupid.

>>49846691
Then you mulligan and have another chance. You could even mulligan 4 times and still win on turn 1 as long as you're on the draw and the fourth card you need is on top of your deck.

>>49849412
>if you get the right random start the deck is perfect

No shit fucktard.

>>49842756
>Which means unevenly 7-9 times to achieve peak randomness

The whole "shuffle a deck 7 times for maximum randomness" assumes a 52 card deck of playing cards that are ordered by suit and rank before shuffling. If this weren't the case it would be impossible to measure the randomness resulting from shuffling.

Do you organize your deck by playsets before each shuffle?

>>49835798
Sure, just stack the seven cards you want in your opening hand on the top of your deck when no one's looking.

>>49835798
Well you can just play Vintage dredge and not give two shits

File: 01.jpg (31KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 223x310px

>>49838541
last time i played, this is what i was seeing

>>49846675
And how do you plan to cast that Fluctuator when you draw zero lands?

>>49851221
No it's not.

It's based off a study some anon did on mtgsalvation and found that pile/riffle shuffling 7-9 times is the way to go.

Fuck off.