This week I’m here to discuss how one goes about predicting a metagame. Often, I find that no duelists can really tell you why or how they make their metagame calls because they "just know." They can’t or won’t explain the mechanics behind their conclusions. Where does that leave you? You’re looking at a mountain of work . . . or are you?
Personally, I’m skeptical of arbitrary claims based on nothing, rather than observed facts and accurate conclusions derived from such. Here’s a popular statement: 
"my testing has proved that this deck is the best deck in the format." How do you respond to that? Try these:
1) "How did you arrive at that answer?"
2) "What testing method did you use to determine this?"
3) "Who did you test with?"
4) "What are the assumptions behind the conclusions being made, if any?"
Again, these players rarely explain how they arrived at their conclusions. To debunk outstanding claims like these requires due diligence and proper testing. I’ll outline a framework you can use to determine the right choice to make for any metagame. I’m not going to promise that it will be easy, or quick, or that it won’t require much effort. The players who consistently make it to the top in tournaments do not do it by mere talent alone. It takes work: often hard work. It takes time and patience. It takes courage to form your own conclusions based on the facts you uncover. The top tables are not reserved for those who want achievement handed to them. You have to earn it, and they do that. But there is such a thing as working smarter, not harder. The caveat here is that you want to increase the quality of testing results with the lowest amount of effort going to waste.
Stage One: Observation and Data Collection
Before you start testing, you should first observe the metagame by gathering data. I see some players who test first, and then ask questions later. Afterward, they wonder why they aren’t getting the results they want. The first step to making the correct metagame read is to pay attention to the claims made by the gaming public. Investigate them thoroughly by keeping these questions in mind:
1) What do most players consider the best deck(s) in the format? Why?
2) How are these decks the best?
3) What are the underlying assumptions about the metagame held by the majority? What about the minority?
With these questions in mind, you can make good use of online forums. I don’t view trading card game forums as very useful unless they have established experts available to answer questions. By "established," I mean that their expert status is verified by objective criteria. The Upper Deck Judge Forum is an excellent example of a discussion area that has valid experts available to answer questions. Other than that, I have yet to find a forum with deck and metagame questions that has a panel of objective experts (or more rare: a lack of condescending opinions). Maybe I’m asking for too much. You can use forums as a tool to gauge public opinion and gather stock lists. That’s it. I don’t place much validity in the thousands of claims or opinions made every day that vary by the mood of the poster.
Talking to players on a one-on-one basis is important too, especially with the better ones. You’d be surprised at how easy it is to get answers out of expert players. You just have to ask for advice and you’ll get it. The experts tend to think alike in many respects and the majority of them talk to each other anyway. Don’t be afraid to take notes either or seek clarification. I had to re-clarify a lot of concepts taught to me by Matt Tuxford (Top 4 competitor at the recent Orlando Shonen Jump Championship) this weekend at The Duelist Genesis Sneak Preview and that required some note-taking after we were done.
Stage Two: Testing and Myth-Busting
In this stage you’re taking all of the data you’ve gathered and putting it through the meat grinder. What you want out of this stage is nothing but lean, mean, fighting machines . . . err . . . decks. This is the most important stage. Never do testing without research.
You are searching for the answer to the most common question concerning decks: how do you know a deck is worth running at all? You can answer this question only by testing. There are many ways to test and you can spend hours doing it. The question is, how do you know when enough is enough? The key lies in establishing standards—or what I like to call "filters"—to cut out a lot of the fat. This was a subject of great debate between Josh Graham (recent Top 16 finalist at the Toronto Shonen Jump), Matt Tuxford, and I.
It’s all about standards. There are standards you have to meet before you even consider a deck to be worth taking to a premier event. While Graham and Tuxford differ slightly in their opinions, they consider the following as concrete standards for a deck to meet:
1) The initial hands must almost always be playable.
2) It must do well against expected decks before side decking.
3) It has to be able to accomplish what it was built to accomplish.
4) The side deck must not hurt the deck’s consistency.
5) It has to perform even better against the expected decks after siding.
Let’s examine these more closely.
What does it mean when someone tells you that your hands must be consistent? The term "consistent" is highly subjective. It means different things to different duelists. An easier word is "playability." Obviously, if your hands aren’t playable, then your deck can’t really perform very well. You can deem a hand as "playable" if it is able to make plays for the first three turns of the game without fail. There is great emphasis on hand strength in the game, and for good reason. A slightly bad hand can put you at a huge disadvantage. In high-level competitive play, you can’t run a deck that doesn’t do anything worthwhile until you’ve drawn four or five times. You’ll get out-paced very easily.
Doing well against the expected decks is very important. You can’t expect much from a deck that can only win half its games against the field. Testing your deck un-sided is important because you get a grip on the inherent strengths and weaknesses of your build. The impression that I gathered from the above players is that they don’t even consider a deck worth playing if it cannot perform well against the expected metagame. What is the definition of "doing well against the metagame?" The answer is difficult to explain only with words so I encouraged them to explain it as a ratio. Assuming you’re using the standard ten-game testing method, a deck is worth running if it can win 60 percent or more of its games against every deck in the format. I admit that the criteria is a bit harsh, but it’s useful. It immediately eliminates 90 percent of the concepts you probably would have built a deck around. This "filter" does most of the work for you. If you can’t win six games out of ten against every deck in the format, then you need to make improvements or move on to the next strategy.
Next is figuring out whether your deck can accomplish what you built it to accomplish without too much hindrance from other decks. A good example is Monarchs. You built the deck to summon Monarchs to create the biggest gap in card presence possible, but your testing shows that you are barely winning games and your Monarchs aren’t major contributing factors to those wins. Something is wrong there, don’t you agree? Your concept may be flawed or it may not be properly supported. Also, games won by chance don’t count as evidence of a sound concept and you should not count them as wins in testing.
After your initial testing, you move on to side deck testing. This is where a lot of players get stuck. Building a deck is an art form in itself and the same can be said about side decking. I’ve been sabotaged more times by a poorly built side deck than anything else. Unless your main deck is really that good against everything (never happens) and your in-game skills are that spectacular, a poorly built side deck is an ankle weight you don’t want. If you’re playing cards that don’t work well with the main deck, then you’re looking for trouble. You want to test your side deck plan as thoroughly as you do your main deck. I’ve known players who can create main decks that are like works of art, but when you look at their side decks they can’t tell you how they came up with them. I think the statement "I just kinda threw stuff together just in case" can be classified as the single most popular rationalization for a questionable side.
Don’t skimp on the performance of your side deck. If your matchup against a particular deck is 7/10, then it needs to be 9/10 after you side for game 2. It’s vitally important to know how less experienced players, good players, and expert players will side against you. Side heavy against the top two decks that hurt you the most and side less for the lower difficulty matchups. If you can’t squeeze more wins out of your deck after siding, then your side deck is flawed or the deck needs to be scrapped in favor of something else.
Final Thoughts
Next week I’ll cover Phase Three with additional tips and tricks. I’m confident that with a basic framework to expand upon, you’ll reap better rewards from your tournament-testing labor. Making accurate metagame calls is not something that’s achieved by revelation or meditation. It just takes work, and lots of it. You have to treat this process like a detective novel: follow every lead, investigate every detail, and examine every implication.
Until next time, remember to stay focused and have fun!
—Bryan Camareno