Comments on: Rhythmik Study: Taking a Mulligan on Current Theory

By: Neros

Neros — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:02:27 +0000

Never thought about practicing with bad hands and trying to figure out whats good and bad about them. Normally I just go with the odds. High mana costing hand I’ll throw back with one land. If its low casting cost I’ll debate about keeping it.

By: Wyrath

Wyrath — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:24:08 +0000

It is a bit shocking that people play on automatic so often. I will always gauge the individual hand, my opponent’s deck (if known), if it is a game with or without SB and so forth before deciding on a mulligan. I’ve even kept no mana hands on the draw against certain decks like Reanimator and/or Ichorid if the hate is there (Crypt, Macabre, Leyline).

All in all a very nice article that I found extremely informative.

Keep ‘em comin’.

By: Travis R. Chance

Travis R. Chance — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 01:33:48 +0000

Love, love, love this article, Jeph. You continue to bedazzle me!!!

By: ChrisKool

ChrisKool — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:36:14 +0000

I love mulligans. When are you going to bring me some live-play videos?! I want to hear the voice of you!

By: AndrewBerke

AndrewBerke — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:30:20 +0000

Nice article Jeph, I definitely agree to most of your points, and this kind of thinking has definitely allowed me to exponentially increase my game after returning from a long break.

The thing about Magic that I enjoy, and sometimes hate, is that in certain situations, making abstract plays and/or awkward calls will sometimes put you ahead in the game. Looking into plays and hands subjectively is also a great lesson that I would encourage many players to learn early, it makes mulling a lot easier (doing so effectively is pretty difficult, especially with the factor of variance,) and also gives a player the baseline for becoming a skilled mage who looks at situations on a per-turn, per-player, per-deck basis, which allows them to effectively decide the values of their cards and plays for the entire span of the match.

Great article, hopefully I’ll catch ya at the next PTQ buddy!

By: Aznsilly

Aznsilly — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:02:33 +0000

Very interesting article, I have recently realized that I should mulligan more, though not usually because of one land hands. The 4-5 land hands are the ones I end up keeping and wishing I hadn’t, especially if 1 or more of those lands are fetches. I have had those hands turn into mana flood games much more than I expected.

Also, I agree with the last point Zage made, unless your worst matchup is really prominent, or your other bad matchups are close to your worst matchup.

By: Zage

Zage — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:37:29 +0000

90% not mulliganing that one-land hand in the sideboarded game shows that the first poll result wasn’t accurate. I think the result should be read more not that they automatically mulligan, but that 60% believe they should often mulligan a 1 land hand.

Like the 40% giving specific cases for not mulliganing, the 60% probably has that same set of cases, but used ‘unless’ instead of ‘because’.

I liked the two other results though, and the explanation that came with them. It’s very true that some hands are keepable against certain decks and unkeepable against an unknown field. Sometimes a great hand is even not keepable if the opponent has the deck to beat exactly that hand.

One last thing: I wouldn’t suggest assuming your opponent is playing your worst matchup. What if that matchup is only 5% of the field? Then you’re needlessly mulliganing hands that are fine/good/great against 95% of the field, just for the offchance you could have had incredible bad luck of facing your worst matchup!