The Complaint of "Luck"

[anon34370798]

@TheRedArmy Why do you get likes and not me ?
In my opinion, I’m awesome too ?

[TheRedArmy]

@anon34370798

@TheRedArmy Why do you get likes and not me ?In my opinion, I’m awesome too ?

Hey, you won’t hear me argue you on that. You have three things going great for you:

1. Plays Netrunner
2. Is French
3. Awesome avatar.

It’s enough for me. People are too picky these days!

[Minotower]

@anon34370798: please read your original statement, it’s not correct, that’s all I said.

Regarding running a bigger deck to bridge a skill gap, the difference in odds for agenda accesses is way too small to compensate for the higher variance in drawing econ and ice in balanced quantities, basically the series thing you were explaining.

[Giesch]

Ok, so assuming we want to win just this one game by being a lucksack instead of getting better at the game:

Why not play a consistently good deck that also has the ability to roll people with variance, rather than bringing a giant stack of cards and hoping they whiff on r&d? Even if your goal is to get lucky against people who are better than you, you’re still better off with a deck that can consistently exploit those times when you get lucky. Like NEH. With 49 cards.

[TheRedArmy]

@Giesch

Ok, so assuming we want to win just this one game by being a lucksack instead of getting better at the game:

Why not play a consistently good deck that also has the ability to roll people with variance, rather than bringing a giant stack of cards and hoping they whiff on r&d? Even if your goal is to get lucky against people who are better than you, you’re still better off with a deck that can consistently exploit those times when you get lucky. Like NEH. With 49 cards

You won’t hear me argue with you; I’m a proponent of smaller decks, and I’ve always felt 46 was a crutch for runners

I agree a smaller deck that utilizes variance with more good cards and less bad cards (like NEH or Haarp pre-MWL, where you can just lucksack into nuts from time to time) would be superior to a large deck. But I wanted to make sure his concept got across so we can at least be on the same page when we complain about Faust/Cutlery/Anarchs/IG/Museum…etc.

[anon34370798]

Still, I think “lucksacks” (great expression :p) have a huge advantage over talented people, if their plan works.

For that random small store championship, you may or may not have luck 4 times in a row but without talent, you will never have talent 2 times in a row. And earning talent is way more difficult to get luck.

There’s some winning decklists that are just piles of random cards, so that should have happened a lot of times

I don’t really understand another thing. You Stimhack guys all value consistency over high standard deviation / dillution, but you’re 90% of the time playing in 49 corp deck, why is that ? 8% more dillution is better than lower var, anyone made real calculations ?

What is the true loss of a 49 deck ?

It’s a 3-4 years automatism in corp deckbuild but I don’t know exactly what I’m loosing there.

[anon34370798]

@Minotower

@anon34370798: please read your original statement, it’s not correct, that’s all I said.
[/quote][quote=“anon34370798, post:53, topic:7108”]
ie getting 2 agendas in a 100 cards deck with 20 agendas is harder than getting 2 agendas in a 50 deck with 10 agendas, unless you multiply your numbers of access by a number I did not calculated.

Hmm, you’re right, it’s pure self-made guesstimate.
I should document this with real numbers to be more serious.

[shanodin]

Don’t have time to read the whole thread right now but this article about luck (There’s No Luck in Netrunner) might be interesting food for thought for the OP @DarkInterval - posting now in case I forget to come back and read through.

[Podoboyz99]

@anon34370798

What is the true loss of a 49 deck ?

Solution: Plany SYNC, TWIY, Cybernetics Division, and Medtech exclusively.

[TheRedArmy]

@Podoboyz99

Solution: Plany SYNC, TWIY, Cybernetics Division, and Medtech exclusively.

It’s interesting that Weyland is the only one without a smaller deck option. I wonder if it’s for fear that it might be too easy to assemble a scorch combo, or something along those lines. Or else if it’s purely a fluff consideration - Weyland is the one more associated with all the subsidiaries and smaller companies they own, etc.

[x3r0h0ur]

They get atlas, and access to TFIN, I don’t think its combo worries.

[pj1]

This is interesting topic, let’s try and use a bit more math here

Let’s consider 49 and 54 card decks with 10 and 11 2-pointer agendas. Let’s pretend that corp has not drawn any cards from this deck, and runners is making a 4-card deep multiaccess.
What are the probabilities that he will get 1 or more agendas?

49 card deck: 1 - 39/4938/4837/4736/46 = 61.1797%
54 card deck: 1 - 43/5442/5341/5240/51 = 60.9772%

So you are actually slightly bit more safe as Corp with 54 cards deck, by 0.2025%.

So purely from agenda protection perspective it would make sense to run bigger deck. But the downside would be the increased variance and lower chances of drawing your power cards (Caprice, Biotic, etc).

[pj1]

I also did a quick calculation of doing this with 20 agendas in 98 cards deck, and the probabilities of stealing any agendas is 60.5118%.

So the Corp keeps getting more happy the bigger deck they have. However the difference is still very small even with double deck size…

[Minotower]

Totally true, this is because 10 agendas in a 49 card deck is slightly more than 1/5. So each time you add 5 cards, you decrease agenda density and thereby lower the odds to draw one. But the effect is so small that the downsides far outweigh it.

PS I assume you mean 20 agendas in a 99 cards deck.

[pj1]

No, I did the calculation with 20 agendas and 98 cards, basically exactly doubling the 49 cards deck.
Probabilities of any agenda in 4-access:
1 - 78/9877/9776/96*75/95 = 60.5118%

So there is benefit even if you straight double the agenda number and deck size - you will lower the chances of agenda stolen by about 0.6679%.

[anon34370798]

@pj1 With 99 you’ve got 60.08%, and 45 you’ve got 64.86%.

45 - 64.86%
49 - 61.18%
50 - 64.28%
54 - 60.98%
…
99 - 60.08%

x9 or x4 long decks pays 3% on a 4 card R&D multiaccess. That seems to be paying a lot of var for what it gives, no ?

[Jai]

Please show your working.

[Giesch]

@pj1

the downside would be the increased variance and lower chances of drawing your power cards (Caprice, Biotic, etc).

You also increase the chances of getting all-ice-no-econ or all-econ-no-ice opening hands. From the Frank Karsten article that got linked the last time Syntax did this to a thread:

An alternative way to grasp this is by thinking about extremes: If you’re playing a ten-card deck, then it is effectively impossible to get mana screwed or mana flooded, but if you’re playing a million-card deck, then a card drawn will not noticeably affect the ratios in your remaining decks, and there is no smoothing or deck thinning effect.

In the netrunner analogy, think about a 49 or 54 card foodcoats list. Every non-econ card you draw in a game increases the ratio of econ cards that are left in your deck. When you mulligan, and have drawn four of your 5 and they’re all ice and agendas, the 5th one is a little more likely to be a hedge or campaign. But if you increase the number of cards in the deck, then the change to the ratios of your remaining cards will be reduced. So a foodcoats list with the same percentage of ice/econ at 49 and 54 cards will draw no ice or no econ in more games with the 54 card build.

[Minotower]

Conclusion of the exercise: this is the reason (about) everybody plays 49 in corp.

Only way I could see myself deviating from this is in a future meta where I want to go for 8 3-pointers in a 59 cards deck.

[StashAugustine]

I suspect that GRNDL is meant to be their rush deck and that was apparently deemed worthy of both a massive influence hit and bad pub at 45 cards. And it’s not like they’d print an identity that was basically a strict upgrade in the same faction