First of all Mike, I think you are leaving us without certain key pieces of information that would help us evaluate the idea of just saying “go” on turn 3. What were his first 2 land drops. This is vital because the lands that kithikin decks play tell us a lot about the contents of their hand. If his turn 1 play was a heights it should change the thought process, and similarly if the second drop was a clachan.

Overall I think that just saying go is a pretty abysmal play because it only works if the opponent is terrible. If I am playing kithikin against someone and they miss their third land drop and are playing some G/x deck I would certainly not play 2 creatures on my turn 3. This is because the opponent has not mulliganed a lot and so you should respect their hand. I find it highly unlikely that a player would keep a hand with 2 forests as the only lands against kithikin unless they had multiple sweepers are were waiting for their mana to come online.

Putting the above aside, the lands the opponent has played tells you a lot about whether or not to sandbag the lands. If their turn 1 land was a heights sandbagging the land becomes more appealing because it increases the chance that on turn 3 they will play a 2 drop AND a 1 drop (which they held on turn 1 to allow them to play heights). If the land was a clachan on turn 2 it indicates that the kithikin player probably has no other lands in hand and is thus less likely to lay 2 creatures which means that sandbagging the land is definitely wrong.

If I were in your position Mike I would most likely not have held the land because it only works if the opponent is a complete buffoon. However, if the opponent does look pretty sketchy and played a heights on his turn 1 I think the play becomes more defendable.

I hope this is at least somewhat coherent.

Asher

The basic point here is that it’s not going to take many lands to put away White Weenie, especially if you’re going to reset the board next turn, so developing your mana, something you would do in essentially EVERY OTHER MATCH-UP, isn’t the priority.

The real problem is that this play is so cool, and it’s correct so rarely. I’m still not convinced this is the absolute best play, so I look forward to more follow-up. One variable is still who am I playing and how good is he, really? A significant number of States players, even “good” ones are going to commit more regardless of how nuanced my play is.

Should be:

If our hand wouldn’t be so strong (backup sweeper, Kitchen Finks and a Colossus), the bluff play makes more sence.

The question is it worth it thou’, since if the opponent doesn’t call the bluff and he/her just goes with land, attack, go, or doesn’t even have a potensial drop in hand, suddenly you missed your land drop for no gain at all. Going with Wayfinder or Rampant is cleaner in that sence that if your opponent doesn’t do anything threating on his/her turn, you can just play colossus instead, forceing them to act.

In the end, I mean, your (or Ravitz’s) play has a very high potensial and might be the optimal play, I’m just saying there are loopholes in that plan. If our hand would be so strong (backup sweeper, Kitchen Finks and a Colossus), the bluff play makes more sence.

To kenseiden – Patterend thought is the enemy of correct play. I’m going to be following up on this, actually. And yes, I actually have two new videos done and will probably release about three this week, starting later today. Tell all your friends!

To bzander – Why does the opponent necessarily know that we are a three color deck? Does it actually help us if he knows we are a three color deck and we are stuck with double Forest? (By the way most Pros will keep most two land hands).

A sidenote, I think I could imagine myself to do that play, i.e. fake I’m mana screwed to let my opponent get blown out by a sweeper in a States tournament or something along those lines. However, I don’t think I would dare to try to pull that off in a Pro Tour or something along those lines. Basicly, your representing that you kept a 7 card hand with 2x Forest as lands in a tri-color deck. I would be very suspiscous if someone I know is a good player would try that on me.

And I really enjoyed the puzzle by the way.

Ravitz play seem to be a ‘next level’ intelligence. That’s how we explore all options we have. You play ‘blue’ without actually playing islands. Pretty cool indeed.

The problem with this is that in my learnings on how do we play control is I feel like I must land drop every turn. My play would be rampant growth for a mountain. Grabbing a Swamp seem too much like “I am going to Jund Charm you out next turn”, and a THIRD turn Rampant Growth seem so innocent… so “frown, I dont have nothing more to do, so i’ll grow mana to keep going”.

Any more videos? nham nham nham ^^’