MTGO
ARENA
PAPER
Tournament Preparation Like a Pro: Ladder and Series
What is this Article About?
Preparing for a tournament is a key element for any competitor. The ability to perform well in the competition is directly connected to your initial level and how you have prepared. You can have a great or bad day and therefore do a bit better or worse, but sudden mastery will never appear out of nowhere.
This article aims to explore the theory behind such preparation, and as we will see throughout it, includes some elements that are frequently overlooked.
Two Methods of Preparation
This subject is broad and can be extensively studied, as seen in advanced sports like basketball or football. However, in this discussion, we'll focus on "playing games," a crucial aspect of preparation.
Suppose you're gearing up for a Magic: The Gathering tournament. In that case, you'd naturally want to play games of Magic: The Gathering. However, how you engage in these games, in which context, and your specific reasons for playing are all questions that don't necessarily have clear-cut answers.
Ladder Play
A common method of preparation involves playing on the MTGA ladder or participating in the leagues offered by MTGO. Depending on the format, one could be arguably better than the other, but they both share numerous similarities. These include playing against random opponents. You don't know what your opponents will play, their dedication to the game, or their initial skill level. All you know is that they are your opponents, and you have minimal control over their commitment to the particular game you're playing.
Ladder play is an excellent method for gaining practice and building automaticity with the deck
Such factors suggest that the key takeaways mainly come from your side of the board, as the opponent's side is subject to varying and often unpredictable circumstances. This makes ladder play an excellent method for gaining practice and building automaticity with the deck you're using. However, it leaves you with many unanswered questions as you have no control over the opponent's side.
Series
An alternative approach is to participate in series. I define "series" as taking part in one-on-one matches with a known opponent. This method provides several compelling advantages, such as the ability to select the decklist you play against, their sideboard plan, the way they play the match-up and so on. Essentially, you have the ability to dictate all the variables.
Series play adopts a scientific approach to gameplay, akin to conducting an experiment in a lab where you can control all the conditions. This offers the opportunity to try on the exact experiment you want, and as many times as desired. For instance, you might want to play 20 games of the current best deck mirror match post-sideboard. To get such an experience on the ladder, it could take you an entire day without even being sure to get there.
Series are about answering questions and you can get really creative about the variables of the experiment. For instance, you could play with a specific card in your starting hand if you want to avoid situations where it's not drawn at all. Another example would be to completely remove a card from one deck to face the match-up scenarios when this specific card is not drawn. This could be tricky to do online but it's very easy to do in person.
The main issue with series is the organizational burden as you need a common timeframe with a specific individual, and both players need to have time, the knowledge to play the specific deck you need them to, etc.
Quick list of experiments you can run while playing your series
- Placing a specific card in your starting hand
- Completely removing a card from one deck
- Giving your opponent a specific (sideboard) card in starting hand
- Playing in a specific way (eg: ask your opponent to not counter draw spells and only threats in control mirror)
Balancing Ladder play and Series
To summarize my train of thought, the Ladder provides questions while series offer answers.
However, Ladder play is not particularly efficient at providing answers because you cannot choose your opponent, and the series are inefficient at presenting questions due to their organizational burden.
My go-to approach involves alternating both, playing on some type of ladder until a specific question arises, at which point I'd seek a partner to find the answer.
My go-to approach involves alternating both, playing on some type of ladder until a specific question arises, at which point I'd seek a partner to find the answer.
Previously, I believed that focusing solely on a series was more beneficial. Indeed, it can be highly productive and offers deep insights into the various match-ups, in addition to being an innovative tool for formulating sideboarding strategies. Innovation in is more often the result of testing a multitude of failed ideas than conceiving great ones. Hence, the faster you can discard ineffective ideas, the sooner you’ll find the successful ones.
I Was Overlooking a Key Part of the Equation
However, I was overlooking the importance of motivation and ease of organization in tournament preparation. Arranging a series can be a pain, whereas entering a ladder match only requires a click on the “play” button. But in reality, the button is much more “win” than it is “play”. As I mentioned earlier, ladder opponents aren't always committed, and if you are, it boosts your win rate considerably. Seeing "VICTORY" flash across your screen repeatedly throughout the day can be a significant mental boost, helping you put in the necessary hours.
Certainly, engaging in series to answer questions is more effective than playing on the ladder, but the most crucial point is to play at all.
There have been tournaments where my motivation was off, making it difficult to overcome my laziness.
There have been tournaments where my motivation was off, making it difficult to overcome my laziness. In these situations, minimizing losses is far more beneficial than striving for an unreachable height. Ultimately, we are humans participating in tournaments, not invincible deities.
Methodological insights
On the Play or On the Draw?
The traditional approach to playing series involves deciding on a set number of main deck and sideboard games to be played, with half of them being on the play, and the other half on the draw. I recommend playing those play/draw games in a row before switching o get a better sense of the dynamic. It feels more difficult to grasp this dynamic when alternating between play and draw.
Number of Games
In the past, I was rigid about sticking to the predetermined number of games. For instance, if we agreed on 6, we would play exactly 6 games. Over time, I realized the main objective is to answer questions. If both players feel like they've found the answer they were seeking, it can be acceptable to end the series at that point. I even recall one instance where we conducted a one-game series. On the other hand, there are situations where you might not find the answer you're looking for despite playing 10 games. In such cases, it can be meaningful to keep playing.
Finding the Right Questions and Answers
However, this process is highly susceptible to cognitive bias because you often come with not only a question but also a potential hypothesis about the answer. If you allow yourself to conclude a series after a few games because you got the answer you were seeking - likely the hypothesis you initially had - then what exactly have you learned? You've merely confirmed your initial bias. It is the benefit of experience to understand this nuance, which offers some shortcuts, but I would advise caution when deciding to end a series prematurely.
I have been very attached to the results of the series. However, based on statistical reasoning, I've learned that they are rarely meaningful. Let's say you toss a coin 10 times. The probability of getting exactly 5 heads and 5 tails is only about 24%. Therefore, your interpretations of the games are just as important as the results themselves.
The question for which you are looking for an answer might sometimes be “how to solve this specific match-up from X’s side?”. In such a case, the article I wrote about sideboarding strategies can be a useful tool to craft hypotheses.
Conclusion
The theory of Magic and meta-magic are two topics I am particularly passionate about. I've spent countless hours, perhaps even years, attempting to comprehend them and experiment with various strategies. However, just because these subjects captivate me doesn't necessarily mean they will intrigue others in the same way.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could share your thoughts on these topics in the comment section. If there are specific areas you would like me to delve into, your suggestions would assist me in prioritizing my future focus.
Until next time,
Rémi Fortier
As a contributing author for mtgdecks.net, I have the opportunity to share my ideas and earn an income for the effort and time dedicated. If you want to support those articles, I kindly ask you to consider disabling your ad blocker. Your support directly contributes to my ability to continue producing quality content. Thank you!