4 minutes ago, xanderf said:

My suggestion is that Rieekan is not the optimal choice if you know you are always going to be playing Swiss.

But the top-level players going into the tournament knew that the final format would be single-elimination, so while Rieekan may not have otherwise been the optimal choice through the Swiss rounds, taking him through Swiss into the single-eliminations gives them the best chance of success overall. And the top players were good enough at the game generally that when playing against randomly-matched opponents, a choice of 'less than optimal for the format' commander is not a big penalty to them.

IE., in the opening days, it was the players, not as much the commander, which determined top placement. In the final rounds, as it had cut to top players from both previous days, we could assume the skill of the players is now closer to being equal, which means the choice of commander will make a bigger difference here.

Ok so the point is not that Rieekan is worse at swiss rather than he will be less needed after the cut due to the lack of elimination system and that could encourage other commanders, am I right?

2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Ok so the point is not that Rieekan is worse at swiss rather than he will be less needed after the cut due to the lack of elimination system and that could encourage other commanders, am I right?

Exactly, yes.

It's theorycrafting, but he's so powerful when you are playing hyper-cautious in single-elimination, I can't imagine that doesn't factor into the decision for the top players to keep taking him year after year. That he then tops tables in the Swiss rounds just a coincidence because the Swiss rounds are random pairing - most of the best players rising to the top there having brought Rieekan in anticipation of the single-elimination rounds.

(I mean, it's theorycrafting I think supported by other data - if you look at tournament results that don't have single-elimination rounds at any point, Rieekan doesn't top those events nearly as often as he always does in Worlds)

2 hours ago, xanderf said:

It's theorycrafting, but he's so powerful when you are playing hyper-cautious in single-elimination, I can't imagine that doesn't factor into the decision for the top players to keep taking him year after year.

I think that playing him hyper-cautious in unfavorable matchup should help a lot during swiss as well.

17 minutes ago, PT106 said:

I think that playing him hyper-cautious in unfavorable matchup should help a lot during swiss as well.

It helps with a technical win, sure, but hyper-cautious play tends to yield very low MoV for that win. And low MoV is bad for Swiss standings, while it doesn't matter at all for single-elimination.

2 hours ago, xanderf said:

Exactly, yes.

It's theorycrafting, but he's so powerful when you are playing hyper-cautious in single-elimination, I can't imagine that doesn't factor into the decision for the top players to keep taking him year after year. That he then tops tables in the Swiss rounds just a coincidence because the Swiss rounds are random pairing - most of the best players rising to the top there having brought Rieekan in anticipation of the single-elimination rounds.

(I mean, it's theorycrafting I think supported by other data - if you look at tournament results that don't have single-elimination rounds at any point, Rieekan doesn't top those events nearly as often as he always does in Worlds)

I understand now. I guess you could be right. I could agree the opposite as well though.

In a eliminatory system the ability to prevent big losses doesn't worry other commanders cause all they need is to win so Rieekan skill is not impressive. Also during the swiss, where big-risk/big-reward is the best way to cut over the top, Rieekan is gold allowing to go big with low risks.

It also match with the results being Rieekan the best way to pass the cut but it is all hypothetical. Definitely is something interesting. Players who purposely choose Rieekan over other commanders could enlight us about their reasons.

But as I said, I see both sides of the coin.

3 minutes ago, xanderf said:

It helps with a technical win, sure, but hyper-cautious play tends to yield very low MoV for that win. And low MoV is bad for Swiss standings, while it doesn't matter at all for single-elimination.

The keyword is unfavorable matchup. The ability to get 5 or 6 points out of bad game vs 2 or 3 (while sumiltaneously denying high MoV win for the opponent and potentially knocking him out of top cut) is pretty useful in swiss.

11 minutes ago, PT106 said:

The keyword is unfavorable matchup. The ability to get 5 or 6 points out of bad game vs 2 or 3 (while sumiltaneously denying high MoV win for the opponent and potentially knocking him out of top cut) is pretty useful in swiss.

This, you dont tend to win swiss by going 10-1 10-1 10-1 (though I have done it ? ), you win swiss by taking the 6-5;s in the tough matchups and winning big in the easier matchups. For some reason Imp players are not doing this, but going aggressive in all games. Sure Demo and Avenger are best when run aggressive, but they can be played patiently too.

5 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Are you arguing that it would vary results, or that it would be a stronger test? Because right now it feels like you are arguing all sides of the coin.

Varied results. Bigger sample size. Different stakes in finals. I think a combination of all these would have given a different result. I'm not trying to say Nathan didn't deserve it. His skill has been proven over years of results. I'm saying that Rieekan is at the top three of 4 lists in a finals at worlds, and not anywhere close to that result in the store champs or regionals leading up to said finals.

(I'm saying this from memory of looking over pre and post FAQ results in that thread that kept up with it. Ill re-read it again to see if I'm right or if an apology is forthcoming.)