the fact that someone asked the question would suggest hat it may influence their decision

it really depends on if you are trying for the best hand or it you are trying to have a better hand that you opponet

assume hands can be rated from 1-100 (uniform distribution)

in the first case mulligan if you hand is bellow average (50 or lower)

in the second case if you opponent mulligans they could get a hand from 1-100 and you should keep and 51+ hand you have, if they keep you can assume they have a 51+ hand and you only keep hands that are 76+

The point I was making is that in M:tG, I know that if I take a mulligan and you don't, I'll have 6 cards in hand and you'll have 7. That's an objective, measurable difference that needs to be considered. All the discussion about card parity, 40% optimal hands, better hands, worse hands, and gambling on a passable hand is all subjective.

The decision you are making is based half on objective information (the cards in your hand and your knowledge of your own deck) and half on "feel" or judgment of the other half (the cards in your opponent's hand and your knowledge of your opponent's deck). Knowing whether or not your opponent takes a mulligan isn't nothing, but it does not turn your subjective judgment into objective fact. It's information, sure, and I can get behind the general argument here that the more information you have before making a decision, the better. I'm just saying that the quality of that information is more than likely to be outweighed by the objective information you have available to you.

So, let me ask you this. If you have to mulligan first, and your hand is barely passable, what do you do? Do you keep it or pitch it?

If I have to mulligan first, I'm looking at my hand and asking what the odds are that I'll get something better to work with if I mulligan. If I mulligan second, I'm looking at my hand and asking what the odds are that I'll get something better to work with if I mulligan. The fact that my opponent did or didn't take a mulligan himself doesn't tell me much about whether or not I'll get something better to work with - which is the ultimate goal of a mulligan.

I'm not saying there is no value in knowing whether or not an opponent takes a mulligan. I am saying that in practice, I think it is a much smaller, less reliable bit of information than the identity of the actual cards in your starting hand.

Said another way, if you have a "20% optimal hand," you're going to mulligan, no matter what your opponent does, right? Similarly, if you have a "75% optimal hand," you're not going to mulligan, no matter what your opponent does. So what is the "middle ground" where what your opponent does changes your decision?

But please, recognize that the thread has long ago concluded that since there is a middle ground (we're just disagreeing about its size), and so the order for mulligans should be initiative order.

We're not debating about the subjectivity of passable hands, we're debating about the value of information gained by taking a mulligan second.

You have to make hard choices in any game of chance, but that doesn't trivialize decisions based on subjective criteria. One might say that, ultimately, is where the skill lies. The people who win competitive events consistently are the ones who make good choices.

I'm not trivializing decisions made on the subjective criteria. I'm asking how often, really, does the single decision to mulligan hinge on whether or not your opponent took one first.

Experiment:

Grab a warlord out of the box. That's your opponent's deck (or, at least all the information you'd have at the beginning of a game). Deal out 5 planets. Shuffle your deck and draw 7 cards. Look at them and ask yourself if, based on them, your deck, your opponent's warlords, and the 5 planets showing, if you'd take a mulligan or not.

NOW, assume that you get to take a mulligan second and your opponent does/does not take a mulligan. Does that change your mind about whether or not to take one yourself?

Undoubtedly, the information gained by taking a mulligan second has some value. How often you change your mind about keeping/taking in this experiment will tell you just how much practical importance you are placing on that information, though.

In my experience, it is never the tipping point for whether or not to take a mulligan myself.

I'm not trivializing decisions made on the subjective criteria. I'm asking how often, really, does the single decision to mulligan hinge on whether or not your opponent took one first.

Every time my hand is neither an auto-keep nor an auto-pitch, so fairly often. Conquest is an interactive game, so my decisions aren't made in a vacuum that consists of only my deck and me.

Experiment:

Grab a warlord out of the box. That's your opponent's deck (or, at least all the information you'd have at the beginning of a game). Deal out 5 planets. Shuffle your deck and draw 7 cards. Look at them and ask yourself if, based on them, your deck, your opponent's warlords, and the 5 planets showing, if you'd take a mulligan or not.

NOW, assume that you get to take a mulligan second and your opponent does/does not take a mulligan. Does that change your mind about whether or not to take one yourself?

Undoubtedly, the information gained by taking a mulligan second has some value. How often you change your mind about keeping/taking in this experiment will tell you just how much practical importance you are placing on that information, though.

In my experience, it is never the tipping point for whether or not to take a mulligan myself.

That's not really a fair example. If we're talking about kitchen table games, then the point of an advantage gained through this type of information is moot. So, I hope we can agree that our conversation is aimed toward the more competitive aspect of the game. In a competitive game a meta will develop, and a knowledgable player should have a good idea of what kind of deck (and thus what kind of cards) his opponent is playing based on the warlord alone. Consider Hearthstone as a similar paradigm.

I think we agree, in a competitive environment, that whether or not an opponent mulligans first is information a player can use in making his own mulligan decision. No one is denying the existence of the variable, as it were. But whereas I don't think it is a particularly important variable in the overall decision, you seem to see it as vitally important. To my eyes, we are differing in the relative weight we each give to the variable in the equation, not on the importance of the decision itself.

There's an old story in research development and marketing circles describing how Company A set out to determine the optimum height for their ironing boards. They brought in thousands of women (this was in a more misogynist time) and measured a bunch of biomechanical values - angle of kneels and elbows, pressure on the lower back, shoulder fatigue, etc. After doing rigorous statistical analysis on the pages and pages of data they collected, they determined the optimum height for their ironing boards was about 35 inches (I don't remember the actual height they came up with, but it's not important). Company B read about this study, which took months, and thought it was overkill. They sent a guy to the local department store. He stood by the ironing boards and asked the first 100 women who came to look at them what height they wanted their ironing boards to be. They held up their hands saying, "This high." The guy measured the height, averaged the 100 values and got ... 35 inches. In one afternoon. The point of the story, of course, is that complex methodology that analyzes many individual variables does necessarily improve results in the long run.

People make their decisions in different ways. The fact that I place different weight on different variables does not mean that I am making decisions in a vacuum. I don't think either of us is wrong in our approach; just different. So unless people feel I am flawed in my thinking and approach to this mulligan decision, such that I am doomed to never develop beyond a certain point as a competitive player, I'm not really sure where this conversation is ultimately aimed. Everyone seems to be in agreement about how the mechanic works.

Well, I certainly don't think we're in danger of casting aspersions at each other for valuing the information differently. You don't think it's very important, and that's fair to a degree. I think it's important enough to be a cause for concern in a competitive environment, where every bit of information helps. That, at least, should be enough to warrant being addressed in the rules.

If you're wondering why we're having this conversation in the first place, it probably has something to do with the hyperbolic comment you made regarding Mars.

If you're wondering why we're having this conversation in the first place, it probably has something to do with the hyperbolic comment you made regarding Mars.

Ah. Sorry. I thought I was just colorfully expressing my opinion about the usefulness of the information, but also making clear that it was only my opinion and I understand that people see it differently. If I was wrong about that clarity, I apologize.

I certainly wasn't saying that a rule would be unwelcome - although perhaps I was saying that until we get an official rule (probably when the tournament rules come out), the "gentlemen's agreement" and common sense interpretation of initiative order should be more than sufficient.

Confirmed today in Tournament Rules. Mulligans are taken/decided in initiative order.