Teachers around the United States have a fear of Test. Not giving a test they made to the students. We actually sadistically enjoy that. But watching their students take a test administered by the State. Every year it seems closer and closer to the day when student's performance on a test will weigh heavily on the teachers employability. I'm not here to talk about State Testing and its flaws but rather your Play Testing and its possible flaws.

What I like to discuss with you are some common flaws that happen when we prep for a big tourney. Testing for FNM isn't really that big and in my personal opinion goes against the grain of what FNM is supposed to be. Testing should involve hours of work and they pay off should be worth it. Holding a shiny FNM foil isn't worth the time or effort. I have heard of some FNM's that are so competitive you feel the need to prep. I can't see those as being very fun at all. I think everyone should leave their inner Spike at home on Fridays.

But when you do test try to avoid these flaws.

Testing against a gauntlet of decks with no experience with those decks.

This is true in any format but the more cards available the more this is true. When TEPS was legal in Extended I played it religiously. Knowing when to take Mulligans and which spell to play when became second nature. At a high school chess tournament one of the players from another school was boosting how his deck was able blast TEPS and Zoo. Well I had to call him to the mat and see if his boost were legit. They weren't. After beating him like 6 games in a row he asked to see my deck. Turns out it was within two cards of the deck he had been testing against. He just didn't know it well. His lack of skill with TEPS skewed his testing results.

Testing against yourself only.

I'm not casting aspersions against your play skill but really you can't get valid results when you're the only one behind the wheel. Imagine a simple scenario. You're playing a control deck versus a midrange deck. In the control hand you have a Counterspell waiting and the midrange has two cards it's going to play over the next two turns. The first is a really strong play but the second is a game winning bomb. If you honestly don't know what the opponent has you often will counter the strong play and it's a good enough card to warrant the counter but knowing the bomb is coming up next you might wait and hold on to that lone counter. Or turn the tables. You're the Midrange and you know the counter is waiting for you. Obviously you would play different. The second you say "The midrange player would probably do this" you've made your testing flawed.

Not switching decks with your playtest partner.

In every game there is a human element. Some of us can look at the same cards in the same situation and come up with radically different plays. If you only play one deck and your partner test with the same deck over and over your result are null and void. Maybe the deck doesn't fit his/her style. Maybe you are just better than they are. Maybe you are equals in skill and your deck is better but only marginally. Maybe your deck truly dominates the matchup. Any of these things could be a factor and you won't know it unless you switch the decks and play an equal number of games. By switching you avoid almost all issues listed.

Assuming all wins or losses were the deck and not player error.

Too many of us assume that we made no errors in a testing session. When in truth probably 80% of games have a flaw somewhere. During testing you should always recap every game and look for possible misplays. This way you not only help avoid future errors but you also get a more accurate feel for the matchup. Be careful though. Just because you find a play error in a game does not mean that the deck you played would have won. It might still have lost but just not as badly. "Well, I would have beaten that Jund deck if I would have done _____________ instead."

Not testing Post-Board.

Now we're in the meat of the big bad word Laziness. Think about a tournament scenario. At least HALF of your games will be Post-Board. Really about 60% to 67% will involve the sideboard of your decks. That means you should test with decks that have been boarded in more than your maindeck. That holds especially true for match ups that you have a maindeck advantage with. Figure this, you've tested the maindecks and know that you should come out on top. You're opponent has done the same. It's an easy conclusion to assume that your opponent would hope to win via sideboard strategy. Wouldn't you?

How to test with sideboard is tricky. In the real tournament your opponent will only have 15 sideboard cards and some of those would be aimed at other deck types. So how many cards should you let your opponent bring in for testing purposes? In general I allow 8 on the average. I figure that is pretty close to the max any one will design against me. There are some exceptions:

• If I'm going to carry a deck that is an overwhelming favorite in the current meta like Jund was before ROE then I'll allow more slots.
• If I'm going extremely rogue I may limit the number for the same reasoning.
• If one of the sideboard cards that would effective against me is also effective against many of the top decks I might allow more changes since having that card in the board has multiple uses.
• If a card only hoses me and is ineffective versus the popular decks I decrease how many sideboard cards I would use.

All in all it's tricky but in the end it's worth it.

Falling in Love.

Yes that's right Love is bad for playtesting. I'm not talking about finding your sweetheart I'm talking about your deck. I often find myself committing this error. I get a deck idea, build it, play it and come hell or high water I'll keep it. I will bash my head against the wall over and over trying to make the deck work because I just love it. I will tune and retune hoping to find a way to win my unwinnable match ups. Sure I may be 25% against a popular deck but still I remember those 25 wins more than the 75 loses and tell myself I can win with this deck. Like a woman that stays with an abusive husband I just want it to get better so much that I stay way to long. Unfortunately, I'm not so awesome of a player that I can just grab a new deck last minute and expect any real level of success.

Playing the Funsies Mulligan.

Many players will just Mulligan back to 7 in their testing. This is bad and will skew your results. Not much explanation required here. Imagine how good All In Red would be if you could have free mulligans.

Not testing the Mirror.

Often the most grueling part of testing is playing against the same exact list. It's painstaking and can be boring but you must do it. I don't care how novel and unique your deck list is. It will be copied by someone. With all of the minds out there playing this game and the vast amount of blogs and forums where new ideas are shared you're bound to find someone playing your list. If your deck is proving out in testing the more likely someone has the same plan. Of course if your deck is bad then you don't need to worry about the mirror as much.

Not using a Pencil.

This is a habit of mine now that I write for you. I carry a notebook around and jot a lot of stuff down in it. Basically so I can make future Classrooms out of it. You should do the same for your testing. Write everything down. Not just win/loss records but also notes on what won you the game or what beat you. This will lead to the best analysis possible. I know a lot of smart people and I don't think anyone can retain all of the information you can glean from complete testing. It serves no point to gain the info but not keep it in some fashion.

The notes also help me in another fashion. I often get extremely nervous before a PTQ or GP. By reading over my notes I feel more secure and prepared for that day. It's kind of a security blanket for my knowledge.

The Bell

That's it for today. Hopefully you can get your testing in line and avoid these pitfalls. Class dismissed.