And by "Spoon" I actually meant "Metagame"?

Think it over. What if Magic, had no metagame. To many competitive players, they wouldn't notice any difference. They play the game and pick their deck, not paying any attention to their local metagame.

To have no metagame it would mean that every deck was designed by that individual in a vacuum. Or perhaps that everyone is battling with the exact same deck.

It seems trippy to suggest, the metagame must exist.

And yet, as I said, many players all but ignore it.

College philosophy papers have been written dissecting that title line, "There is no spoon." It's a deep quote, perhaps written while on a bad acid trip, but I find a meaning in it. In the matrix, what is there, isn't really there, and when you realize that - you can control it.

I began outlining some bullshit equation that outlined my theory on what it took to win a tournament, but it got convoluted and increasingly stupid. Basically, picking the wrong deck can be overcome through luck and sheer player ability. Those would usually make it to the Top 8, and then it becomes further a study of the metagame in the hands of eight capable deck pilots.

Picking the right deck is crucial for the new player who doesn't have the pro player's ability.

Consider Player A: Who has a skill 30% better than Player B. Ignore what that percentage means or how to determine it. What it means is that Player A is going to benefit 65% of the time over Player B in strategy and tactical decisions.

[easybox]Brief Tangent

As a kid, I played a lot of chess. I never competed much, except online. I studied many of the grandmasters but I came to love the games of Mikhail Tal. The Wizard of Riga. I found it fascinating that he would aim to complicate the board trusting that he would know better how to come out with an advantage over his opponent. He relied on this law.[/easybox]

So if Player A feels that he or she is at a disadvantage based on deck matchup, it is to his or her benefit to complicate the board or to force their opponent to make complicated decisions.

The best example I can think of is the case of Fact or Fiction and Gifts Ungiven. The better player has an inherent gain to have their opponent decide how to split piles of cards. Many many games were won on the back of a player choosing poorly how to split.

Consider Fact or Fiction, at worst you were gauranteed one card you wanted (on a split 4 / 1) and at best you're getting four cards, at least one of which is something you want. Sure your opponent might split 5 / 0, but that is an edge case done for a specific reason and so is discounted.

Gifts Ungiven always nets you two cards, and in the decks built around it, should always end in your favor.

At this point I began composing a "Law" built around the inherent play advantage over an inferior player and how that plays into their match's determination. But in the end I gave up as it only grew more complex and less awesome.

Remember, we're playing a world ignoring the metagame. But what about luck?

I'll talk about luck another day. For now let me just say that some players get attributed luck based on their skill, and some are truly just lucky. I am neither.

Do you see why skill is so important? Why you must play and play and play to learn and learn and learn? Until you do, you'll always be at a disadvantage to better players. And until you do, you'll never be one of those better players.

There is no spoon.