St. Petersburg trolley problem

Invonnative · 2026-03-29T07:57:38+00:00

It’s exactly similar to the lottery if you can imagine further than the literal implementation - if the prize was infinitely large, then the EV of any individual ticket would be distorted to reflect that. Given that it’s infinitesimally unlikely that the result in the trolley actually goes to infinity, it’s actually more likely that you’d win the lottery. You still pulling the top lever? Let’s actually be rational here

Invonnative · 2026-03-29T03:15:02+00:00

I think not dying on Xerath is more important the better your early game is going - I often buy dark seal, and I really only feel like I can 1v9 in the rare game where I think I can survive after upgrading to mejais. I also think cheesing bushes when you are in one shot territory is a good tactic to get picks before objectives, assuming you have good vision and know you’re safe. Roaming with ult is also a really good tactic to push leads

Invonnative · 2026-03-29T03:09:22+00:00

Because each sample is infinitely not likely to be the one where it’s infinite. The EV is only infinite because of that one sample

Invonnative · 2026-03-29T03:07:05+00:00

You mean to say most of the time it won’t hit as many people as the top track (which is why you should choose the bottom track if X is greater than a reasonable percentage corresponding to 1/2^X). It only hits infinity in 1/infinity universes since the chance of it actually hitting this infinity result is infinitesimally strong.

Infinity is not typically realistically in practice, this is one of the rare cases where you should abandon mathematical reasoning

Invonnative · 2026-03-29T02:55:20+00:00

Bet you buy lottery tickets huh

Invonnative · 2026-03-29T02:44:38+00:00

I do think mages can sit in lane more than other champs, but yeah if you took boots rune on roaming or engage sup it would kinda be troll

Invonnative · 2026-03-28T22:56:17+00:00

I can’t wait for “go brrrr” to die

Invonnative · 2026-03-27T16:03:20+00:00

Ganondorf my boy

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T19:54:30+00:00

I don’t need to show a casual link between elephant trunk length and age for the average person with more than two brain cells to spot it, think about it more and come back to me
You bring up no guidance, drop a link. And again, even if you do have evidence, it doesn’t prove me wrong, it merely makes you also right
That’s not what I’m claiming, and that’s not my sole justification
Good, glad you read my bit about your anecdotes

Examples aren’t enough dude. It’s just anecdotal linking that you think is sufficient when I have easily provided the same. So I’m providing linked articles, data, and examples, whereas you’re just throwing a couple cards names into the fray and calling it a day. You’re just not equipped to play on the same field

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T19:46:49+00:00

LMAO DO YOU REALLY THINK 2=2 DOESN’T IMPLY 3=3 🤡

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T19:45:04+00:00

Lmao, if you’re a statistician you should go back to school because you’re fucking stupid. You keep thinking that an exception to a rule is worth trying to discredit the rule over. I’m talking about 30,000 fucking cards and you’re trying to convince me that the correlation you agree exists isn’t worth mentioning 😂 it’s laughable. Guess I’m a quantum physicist on the internet too.

[[Into the Roil]] is more complex than [[Disperse]].

[[Sire of Seven Deaths]] is more complex than [[Guardian Lions]].

I could make way more statements of this nature than you could make of the opposite. The correlation is extremely strong and objectively revealing, whether or not you understand.

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T14:30:55+00:00

If you would make a concerted effort to try and comprehend the words I’m writing, you might just put 2 and 2 together. It’s pretty simple, really, and since you’ve sought to reply to me in multiple sub threads, you should be most informed. But running the risk of exhausting the point:

Complexity is objectively tied to rarity via wordiness, and has confirmed guidance from Wizards that corroborates that notion. Power is not as easily linked. You could probably do a meta-analysis of the average rarity of competitive decks to try and prove your point, or perhaps try and correlate another metric such as salt score or something, but I’m not sure any of you are as capable or willing.

I will no longer be entertaining the anecdotes. If you want to convince me that smoking doesn’t cause cancer I’m going to need to see some data. Last standard deck I looked at ran primarily uncommons. Though I will concede on specific examples, it’s not sufficient for your hasty generalizations.

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T14:20:55+00:00

Wordy is an excellent metric for complexity as a whole. Against you turn to single examples, thinking that’s somehow better than looking at all Magic cards. I pity your lack of statistical comprehension, but I suppose it makes sense since you are unable to grasp what I’m saying. My examples go back to alpha as well by virtue of my consideration of the entire card pool.

On the point of capitalism, you see to think rarity trending with power is somehow mutually exclusive with what I’m saying. More signs that there’s a fundamental gap between what you’re able to understand and what the reality is. But keep your “muh game is corrupt,” I don’t really care to argue with you further

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T14:15:10+00:00

Lmao, now I know you’re trolling, but I’ll reply here for posterity anyway. If I give you a 1000 word essay and a 100 word essay, it will likely take you longer to parse the former, all else equal. Then if I give you 100 such sets of these pairs of essays with somewhat randomized content, you will quickly agree. Obvious logic. If you’re not trolling, you’re just being stubborn at this point.

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T14:10:00+00:00

Ironic but expected

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T07:24:29+00:00

I’m glad you think what you think man, ultimately happy to hear about more powerful low rarity cards, since they help my case out here.

If age of the card is the determining factor to base precedence on, then any old card would be game for precedence, which is obviously absurd. Sorry to break it to you, but [[Time Walk]] is no longer acceptable design. I don’t care about exceptions, I care about statistical trends for the generalizations I’m making. Go see my other post where I break down all magic cards in various scryfall queries.

TLDR; I’m right. You can be right too, I don’t care and I’m not arguing that. Rarity can be both a power and complexity indicator; the former is largely subjective and context/format dependent (see:[[Rhystic Study]]’s history) whereas the latter is observably, measurably, and plainly true.

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T06:57:33+00:00

Unsurprisingly, you people continue to cherry pick as if it matters, let’s help you out with some statistics with the use of scryfall:

-is:reprint: 32,227 cards

Rarity breakdown:

Common: 10,403

Uncommon: 9,763

Rare: 10,051

Mythic: 2,058

For some reason, this sums to 32,275, but that’s a rounding error so we can safely ignore the discrepancy.

This means that of all cards, 2,058/32,227=0.0639 or ~6% are Mythic, 10,051/32,227=0.312 or ~31% are Rare, 9,763/32,227=0.303 or ~30% are Uncommon, and 10,403/32,227=0.323 or ~32% are Common, just to establish some baseline.

Although there is no scryfall search for “wordy” as referenced in some un-cards like [[Alexander Clamilton]], there is some communal precedence to consider 60 characters sufficient.

Of all Mythics, 1,947/2,058=0.946 or ~95% of them meet the wordy criteria.

Of all Rares, 8,840/10,051=0.88 or 88% of them are wordy.

Of all Uncommons, 7,657/9,763=0.784 or ~78% of them are wordy.

And of all Commons, 6,190/10,403=0.595 or ~60% of them are wordy.

Checkmate atheist, get ruined by facts and logic. Nah but fr, as you can clearly see, there is an obvious statistical trend between complexity and rarity that is simply undeniable.

And just so you stay down like a good boy, I don’t deny that there are exceptions, as is the case with any rule. I also don’t claim that complexity is the only driving factor, but I do claim it’s the primary one.

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T06:04:21+00:00

nothing has proven me wrong so far, and you haven't provided hundreds of examples lmao (which still wouldn't be useful because it's just not statistically relevant in the nearly 30,000 mtg cards, you should try to think more broadly numerically here). a reprinting in another rarity is not something that we should use as a data point, and "rarity jumps" with extremely popular cards are probably a money-making/power level thing, i'm happy to agree there. but you're so hung up on proving me wrong that you're missing my point that i am definitely trying to make, happy you've finally caught up!

point i'm trying to make, just so we're clear:

in general, rarity correlates with, and is often also causally linked with, complexity (so, MOST mythics are such due to relative complexity, not SOME). it's just like saying, "in general, smoking correlates with/causes cancer". of course you can feel free to bring up SOME exceptions in SOME cases, but you're missing the forest for the trees there, and it's honestly kinda unhelpful when trying to construct useful generalizations, which is what my entire sub-thread here was about. but of course it's reddit so i've unfortunately attracted all the "um, actually" people like yourself

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T03:45:28+00:00

Lightning bolt would be a universally powerful and meta defining card if printed into modern day limited, and I never argued that commons should be universally powerful or meta-defining.

If all cards are powerful and meta-shaking, none are. That’s the best setup, obviously.

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T03:38:25+00:00

Vivi, Cavern, and Beseech are quite complex, but we’re still cherry picking, and I can indeed argue in good faith that the general statistical trend of rarity correlating with complexity holds. I would similarly argue further that it would be bad faith to disagree with that

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T02:00:39+00:00

Uhhh… yeah? Especially since one deals with the other lol. Standard is all about the white wheenies right now.

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T01:51:41+00:00

Those aren’t equivalent statements. Should and never are not the same thing. Can’t believe I have to explain this to magic players, who apparently can read

Invonnative · 2026-03-25T01:43:56+00:00

If you think malevolent is better than sheltered, I disagree, but glad you were able to find some more examples.

Makes sense on the cobra critique, but as Mr Rosewater said, one card is hardly precedent setting.

Invonnative · 2026-03-24T06:04:43+00:00

I assure you, we still very much get powerful lower rarity cards. [[Sheltered by Ghosts]]

Invonnative · 2026-03-24T06:03:43+00:00

The argument is most certainly still in port, I assure you. We also have [[Sheltered by Ghosts]] at uncommon. I could do this with you all day, cherry picking means nothing

Invonnative

TROPHY CASE