Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post Reply
Han_Heinrich
Starter
Starter
Posts: 11
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 5:46 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by Han_Heinrich »

Hello fellow SWCCG enthusiasts,

Here is some statistical data drawn from the decklists and Final Standings of Day 2 of Worlds 2010. I do not claim that this is in any way statistically significant, as even 61 players is still a small sample size. Nevertheless I find the data interesting (and I obviously had too much time ;-)

Just some points before we start:
- I have only just returned to the game about 2 months ago. So if not every classification of decks is correct, please bear with me.
- I hope that no major errors crept in, but after reading (de-cyphering) trough 120 decklists and cross-indexing player names and standings things "might have happened".
- If there is an "official" PC statistician/historician that normally does these things - sorry, I didn't know - I didn't intend to step onto anyone's (damp) toes.


Presentation:

Name of the Objective (+ specification of decktype where possible/necessary) - # of players (final day 2 rank of players*) - Results
[For the "Results" (Games won - Games lost) I counted time wins as half a win and time losses as half a loss; byes are not counted at all.
*: d - player dropped sometime before round 8]


DARK SIDE

Hunt Down (v) - 13 players
- regular HD(v) Mains - 8 players (3-23-33-34-35-47-d-d) - Results: 11-15
- HD(v) "Build-a-Vader" - 4 players (19-39-43-44) - Results: 5-11
- HD(v) (Ties) - 1 player (32) - Results: 3-1

EndorOps - 13 players
- regular EOps (DampToes) - 5 players (12-13-37-40-46) - Results: 11-9
- EOps (AT-STs with Guns) - 4 players (6-7-8-36) - Results: 11,5-3
- EOps (DSII sectors) - 1 player (15) - Results: 2-1,5
- EOps (Star Destroyers) - 1 player (26) - Results: 2-2
- EOps (Tanks) - 1 player (49) - Results: 0-4
- EOps (Speeder Bikes) - 1 player (d) - Results: 0-1,5

Court of the Vile Gangster - 7 players
- Court (Scum) - 5 players (11-38-d-d-d) - Results: 7-8
- Court (Mains) - 2 players (28-31) - Results: 3-4

SYCFA - CPI (v) - 6 players (24-48-d-d-d-d) - Results: 6,5-12

Hunt Down (non-v) - 3 players (1-4-21) - Results: 6-6

Hoth CR(v)- 3 players (5-17-29) - Results: 8-3

Carbon Chamber Testing - 3 players (25-45-d) - Results: 0-10,5

Dark Senate - 2 players (18-30) - Results: 5-3

Watto (No Money...) - 2 players (2-d) - Results: 3-3,5

Imperial Entanglements - 2 players (10-16) - Results: 3-5

Ralltir Operations - 2 players (27-42) - Results: 3-4,5

Others (decks played by only 1 player):
ISB (20) - 3-1
Coruscant CR(v) (41) - 0-4
Imperial Occupation(v) (14) - 3-1
Invasion (Droids) (9) - 2,5-1
Black Sun Agents (22) - 3-1


Dark Side decks that went 4-0:

EOps (DampToes) - EOps (ATSTs) - Court (Scum) - Hoth CR(v)


Best decks by Win-percentage [only decks that went positive and had at least 3 players]:

EOps (ATSTs) - 79,31%
Hoth CR(v) - 72,73%
EOps (DampToes) - 55%

"Viable" decks [Win-% at least 40% and at least 3 players]:

EOps - HD(v) - Court - HD(non-v) - HothCR(v)



LIGHT SIDE

ThroneRoomMains - 13 players
- TRM (Mains) - 11 players (6-17-20-22-25-28-30-31-46-d-d) - Results: 19-23
- TRM (Freedom) - 1 player (34) - Results: 1,5-2
- TRM (RevoChoke) - 1 player (49) - Results: 0-2,5

Watch Your Step (non-v) - 7 players (15-19-26-42-47-d-d) - Results: 13-11,5

We'll Handle This (v) - 7 players
- WHT(v) (Mains) - 6 players (12-13-27-32-36-43) - Results: 10,5-12,5
- WHT(v) (Asteroids) - 1 player (d) - Results: 0-2

Rebel Senate - 6 players (24-29-48-d-d-d) - Results: 8-10

Profit - 4 players (1-3-4-7) - Results: 14-2

Quiet Mining Colony - 4 players (5-11-d-d) - Results: 5,5-9

Sonn (v) - 4 players
- Sonn(v) (Kashyyk) - 2 players (40-41) - Results: 5-2,5
- Sonn(v) (NightClub) - 2 players (2-16) - Results: 7-1

Watch Your Step (v) - 3 players (10-18-35) - Results: 6,5-3

We Have A Plan - 3 players (9-33-39) - Results: 8-4

Hidden Base (non-v) - 3 players
- HB (StarCruisers) - 1 player (8) - Results: 3-1
- HB (X-Wings) - 1 player (38) - Results: 3-1
- HB (Quads) - 1 player (d) - Results: 1,5-0

Hidden Base (v) - 2 players
- HB(v) (Mains) - 1 player (21) - Results: 3-0
- HB(v) (Rogues) - 1 player (37) - Results: 1,5-2

Yavin 4 CR (v) (Freedom) - 2 players (23-d) - Results: 1-6

We'll Handle This (non-v) - 2 players (14-45) - Results: 4-3,5

There Is Good In Him - 1 player (44) - Results: 1-3


Light Side decks that went 4-0:

Profit x2 - Sonn(v)(NightClub) - TRM
[On Day 2: Profit only lost to EOps (ATSTs), HD (non-v) - Sonn(v)(NightClub) only lost to EOps (ATSTs)]


Best decks by Win-percentage [only decks that went positive and had at least 3 players]:

Profit - 87,5%
HB(non-v) - 78,95%
Sonn(v) - 77,42% [NightClub alone: 87,5%]
WYS(v) - 68,42%
WHAP - 66,67%
WYS(non-v) - 53,06%

"Viable" decks [Win-% at least 40% and at least 3 players]:

all of the above plus: TRM - WHT(v) - RebelSenate


Have fun interpreting the data,

Artie "Han" Heinrich
Last edited by Han_Heinrich on September 2nd, 2010, 5:23 am, edited 3 times in total.



User avatar
WiseMarsellus
Member
Posts: 17421
Joined: February 26th, 2007, 9:33 am

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by WiseMarsellus »

this is really good stuff, and well presented. thank you.

when trying to determine win/loss for each side, i found that dark side appears to have gone 98.5-107.5 while light side looks to be 116.5-101.5. this appears to be a 12 game discrepancy and i count only 59 dark decks here to light's 61. the two missing dark decks would explain 8 of the games, but i am at a loss to account for the other 4.
tom kelly
Image Image Image Image
check out my youtube page for swccg video content, and my twitch for swccg live streams!

Han_Heinrich
Starter
Starter
Posts: 11
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 5:46 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by Han_Heinrich »

WiseMarsellus wrote:this is really good stuff, and well presented. thank you.

when trying to determine win/loss for each side, i found that dark side appears to have gone 98.5-107.5 while light side looks to be 116.5-101.5. this appears to be a 12 game discrepancy and i count only 59 dark decks here to light's 61. the two missing dark decks would explain 8 of the games, but i am at a loss to account for the other 4.
Thanks for the checking - I just saw, that I forgot the 2 Ralltiir Ops decks - I will update my data.

Maybe the discrepancy in games comes from my handling of timed wins and losses. There were some players who had two that added up to a + or -1, which are in reality two games. Although that still should add up on both sides. I'll see if I can find something.
[Update: I found that there is one more DS TimeLoss than there are LS TimeWins in the Standings - that accounts for some of the discrepancies]

Artie
Last edited by Han_Heinrich on September 1st, 2010, 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
WiseMarsellus
Member
Posts: 17421
Joined: February 26th, 2007, 9:33 am

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by WiseMarsellus »

ah, that could be it. yeah i was just wondering if maybe it was rops, because it would be quite surprising if no one in the event were to have played it

i am surprised at some of the stats. i had thought there was virtually no rebel senate, but it turns out to be the fourth most played light deck. i also thought wys was underrepresented at worlds, but with 7 players it certainly was not. i'm surprised that there were only 2 dark senates: i played dark senate and ran into senate counters half the time so people were expecting it at least.

looks like the notable no-shows were: deal, mistryl, bhbm, dark combat, lu v, mwyhl, and light senate,
tom kelly
Image Image Image Image
check out my youtube page for swccg video content, and my twitch for swccg live streams!

User avatar
mr007agent
Member
Posts: 6853
Joined: October 30th, 2002, 1:43 pm
Location: South Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by mr007agent »

Han_Heinrich wrote: DARK SIDE

Hunt Down (non-v) - 3 players (1-4-21) - Results: 6-6

Best decks by Win-percentage [only decks that went positive and had at least 3 players]:

Hoth CR(v) - 72,73%
EOps (DampToes) - 65,22%

"Viable" decks [Win-% at least 40% and at least 3 players]:

EOps - HD(v) - Court - HD(non-v) - HothCR(v)
How is HD classic "viable" when it went 6-6? With those places I would think to see the win percentage higher so maybe it is a typo.
Michael Richards
Rogue 84
PC Volunteer
Shadow 43 - Dantooine Flight Leader
http://omega.uta.edu/~mhr7680/dantooineswccg.html
-007-
ImageImage

User avatar
darkjediknight11
Communications Advocate
Posts: 22850
Joined: April 17th, 2005, 5:26 pm
Location: Chicago
GEMP Username: djk11

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by darkjediknight11 »

mr007agent wrote:
Han_Heinrich wrote: DARK SIDE

Hunt Down (non-v) - 3 players (1-4-21) - Results: 6-6

Best decks by Win-percentage [only decks that went positive and had at least 3 players]:

Hoth CR(v) - 72,73%
EOps (DampToes) - 65,22%

"Viable" decks [Win-% at least 40% and at least 3 players]:

EOps - HD(v) - Court - HD(non-v) - HothCR(v)
How is HD classic "viable" when it went 6-6? With those places I would think to see the win percentage higher so maybe it is a typo.
I think if 2 of the top 4 players used it to get them there (5-3 record, is 62.5% good enough?), you could safely call it viable

Han_Heinrich
Starter
Starter
Posts: 11
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 5:46 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by Han_Heinrich »

mr007agent wrote:
Han_Heinrich wrote: DARK SIDE

Hunt Down (non-v) - 3 players (1-4-21) - Results: 6-6

Best decks by Win-percentage [only decks that went positive and had at least 3 players]:

Hoth CR(v) - 72,73%
EOps (DampToes) - 65,22%

"Viable" decks [Win-% at least 40% and at least 3 players]:

EOps - HD(v) - Court - HD(non-v) - HothCR(v)
How is HD classic "viable" when it went 6-6? With those places I would think to see the win percentage higher so maybe it is a typo.
The seperate stats for the deck are:
[player rank] - [result]
1 - 3-1
4 - 2-2
21 - 1-3

[Of course, when you include Day 3 results, the stats of the deck change.]

I arbitrarily defined "viable" as a deck that gives you a chance to at least go about even [40%+ win percentage]. Of course this definition is arguable.
So it is a good thing that the data contains the information one needs to apply other definitions of "viable" decks. I just had to define it somehow and I listed the criteria I used.
But that's why I wrote "viable" in quotes ;-)

Peace,

Artie

_maul
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 5682
Joined: June 16th, 2004, 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by _maul »

This is great!

DVD ROTS
LS Region: Coruscant
LS Region: Coruscant
Posts: 1446
Joined: December 30th, 2004, 4:14 pm
Location: Stanford, CA/Northern NJ
Contact:

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by DVD ROTS »

Very cool. Thanks!

Just a quick note, the EOPS that you've grouped under "Damp Toes" are actually two distinct versions of EOPS; the Team Albany version with vehicles (used by Sokol, Twigg, and Kingery Day 2 and all of these + Chu Day 3) and the actual "Damp Toes" version with mains and things (played by Konsker, Steve Kim, etc). Considering that the TA version put three players in the Top 8, I think it should definitely go down as its own deck (no disrespect to the other version, which was also pretty neat but not as brutal on mains).
Kevbozzz wrote:When you're crushing Hyperdrive with BHBM, Booker doesn't come rappelling through your kitchen window demanding that you play real decks.

Han_Heinrich
Starter
Starter
Posts: 11
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 5:46 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by Han_Heinrich »

DVD ROTS wrote:Very cool. Thanks!

Just a quick note, the EOPS that you've grouped under "Damp Toes" are actually two distinct versions of EOPS; the Team Albany version with vehicles (used by Sokol, Twigg, and Kingery Day 2 and all of these + Chu Day 3) and the actual "Damp Toes" version with mains and things (played by Konsker, Steve Kim, etc). Considering that the TA version put three players in the Top 8, I think it should definitely go down as its own deck (no disrespect to the other version, which was also pretty neat but not as brutal on mains).
Thanks for letting me know. I am still gaining experience with the format and those are the details that have escaped me.

I have updated my list and the EOps (ATST) deck has in fact outperformed all the other dark decks with a win percentage of almost 80%.

Congratulations Team Albany,

Artie

cardlicker
Booster Pack
Booster Pack
Posts: 120
Joined: December 5th, 2007, 10:54 pm
Location: Pipersville, PA

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by cardlicker »

Artie, this data analysis is amazing! Your contribution to the SWCCG playing community cannot be overrated. I feel that this kind of sharing enriches the value of this entire forum and is worth reading - even studying - to improve people's understanding of the meta, including my own. So, in two short words, thank you. :-D
Justin Montgomery
PA/NJ Network
Team Phoenix
Image

cardlicker
Booster Pack
Booster Pack
Posts: 120
Joined: December 5th, 2007, 10:54 pm
Location: Pipersville, PA

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by cardlicker »

Han_Heinrich wrote: Imperial Entanglements - 2 players (10-16) - Results: 3-5
Artie "Han" Heinrich
C'mon, Joe Olson! You and I were the only two players running IE. You gotta represent! I only say this because I respect your ability to run the deck, as I have seen your decklists from other tournaments, and I have learned a lot from them, and you. :)
Justin Montgomery
PA/NJ Network
Team Phoenix
Image

retwin316
LS Region: Corellia
LS Region: Corellia
Posts: 3833
Joined: March 14th, 2007, 4:55 pm
Location: Indianapolis, In
Contact:

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by retwin316 »

I don't understand what this means "EOps (AT-STs with Guns) - 4 players (6-7-8-36) - Results: 11,5-3"

What do those results mean? 11,5-3?

User avatar
darkjediknight11
Communications Advocate
Posts: 22850
Joined: April 17th, 2005, 5:26 pm
Location: Chicago
GEMP Username: djk11

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by darkjediknight11 »

retwin316 wrote:I don't understand what this means "EOps (AT-STs with Guns) - 4 players (6-7-8-36) - Results: 11,5-3"

What do those results mean? 11,5-3?
he's european, so he uses commas for periods. it's 11.5-3 (he counted TW's as 0.5 points)

thehooky
LS Region: Endor
LS Region: Endor
Posts: 4037
Joined: April 20th, 2005, 5:56 am
Location: The globual we all reside upon

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by thehooky »

the originality astounds me! I was hoping for more dispersion of deck types!

Uber-Obi
Reflections Pack
Reflections Pack
Posts: 226
Joined: April 4th, 2007, 8:45 am
Location: Hannover, Germany

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by Uber-Obi »

The moment the decklists from worlds were out, I thought to myself: You should take some time and study the meta... but I never had enough time. A big THANK YOU for having the same idea and the time to do this. Great work! Maybe we meet at the Europeans this saturday???
Image
WiseMarsellus wrote:no one ever expects the 25 card combo of death!

gogolen
LS Region: Coruscant
LS Region: Coruscant
Posts: 11228
Joined: May 2nd, 2005, 3:52 pm
Location: Somerdale, nj
Holotable username: gogolen
GEMP Username: gogolen

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by gogolen »

Agreed, this was absolutely awesome work. I had no idea there was that much HD-V in the room, as I didnt see it being played anywhere near me all day.
Image

PC Store Manager
Kevbozzz wrote:I agree 100% with Gogolen's responses.
Now streaming games on Youtube & Twitch- please subscribe to my channels- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjqwgj ... Xu5T9vp4AQ
Twitch- https://www.twitch.tv/gogolen

NEW & RETURNING PLAYER ARTICLES- https://forum.starwarsccg.org/viewt ... 32&t=50486

Han_Heinrich
Starter
Starter
Posts: 11
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 5:46 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by Han_Heinrich »

cardlicker wrote:Artie, this data analysis is amazing! Your contribution to the SWCCG playing community cannot be overrated. I feel that this kind of sharing enriches the value of this entire forum and is worth reading - even studying - to improve people's understanding of the meta, including my own. So, in two short words, thank you. :-D
You're welcome. I also play Magic and I have done some coverage work and metagame analysis, mostly of local PTQs but also of one of the german GPs. I am just a decklist junkie and a statistics buff myself, and I hoped that other people could benefit from it too.
I always say: "Numbers are a nerd's best friend." ;)

darkjediknight11 wrote:
retwin316 wrote:I don't understand what this means "EOps (AT-STs with Guns) - 4 players (6-7-8-36) - Results: 11,5-3"

What do those results mean? 11,5-3?
he's european, so he uses commas for periods. it's 11.5-3 (he counted TW's as 0.5 points)
Yep - that's it. I tried to explain the numbers in my first post under the headline "Presentation" - but maybe I should have made it more clear with an example.

Uber-Obi wrote:The moment the decklists from worlds were out, I thought to myself: You should take some time and study the meta... but I never had enough time. A big THANK YOU for having the same idea and the time to do this. Great work! Maybe we meet at the Europeans this saturday???
Ah well - sometimes I have too much time. But I'm using the analysis myself to get a better overview over the metagame. And I was hoping a little bit, that not so many Europeans will read this ;)
See you in Bochum!

gogolen wrote:Agreed, this was absolutely awesome work. I had no idea there was that much HD-V in the room, as I didnt see it being played anywhere near me all day.
Thank you. I know myself that "looks can be deceiving" at tournaments. And it seems to me that scouting is not so commonplace at StarWars tournaments. Probably because most games take their time.

User avatar
imrahil327
Tournament Advocate
Posts: 30705
Joined: July 3rd, 2006, 3:51 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Worlds 2010 - Data Mining Day 2

Post by imrahil327 »

Stickied by request.
Image
Hunter wrote:Sebulba's W-L record is like...Always and 1. Tebow's is nowhere near that percentage.
allstarz97, about M:TG wrote:I feel like Michael Jordan playing baseball.

Post Reply

Return to “2010 Worlds - Philadelphia, PA - August 12-15, 2010”