I'm sure many of us are modifying our decks monthly with the new force packs that come out. I have a few standard decks that I'll only slightly modify, but a couple others that I'll try weird things with.

Most of these decks I test on OCTGN, but my question is: what is a good win % for a deck? When do I know that the deck I'm testing is solid. A few of my top decks have a 75% win percentage but that's only after about 10 games. I'm thinking that's good but I've also heard of people having something like 95%.

I don't want to end up just changing my decks over and over again to find the right combination. Let me know what you all think.

I think win percentages tell you very little unless you have some control over the types of decks you're playing against and the players who are piloting them.

I prefer to throw new decks up against a couple known archetypes and play several games to get a feel for consistency. Sometimes it's easy and after 3-4 games you realize a synergy that looks great on paper just never happens when you need it to in game. You can also evaluate if you're seeing too many situational cards and can cut a pod from x2 down to x1 and run something else. You might also realize that your deck is amazing in some match-ups but auto-loses to others.

If a deck can win 65% of the time I feel that is pretty consistent.

It really depends on who you're playing against. If you're winning 65% of your games against people in your local game shop who are just learning how to play then either the deck or your own play skill has room to improve. If you're winning 65% of your games against people like TinyGrimes or TGO or Matt Kohls (our nationals winner), then things are looking pretty good. In general though, your play is probably going to be a bigger factor in winning than deck construction once you're to the point where you have a servicable deck.

In my opinion, 100% seems to be the best....

In my opinion, 100% seems to be the best....

But, as others have mentioned, the value of the win percentage is moderated by who and what you are doing the winning against.

For instance, even the worst deck could beat quite great decks reliably, if it was piloted by a veteran player against someone who is just learning the game.

It really depends on who you're playing against. If you're winning 65% of your games against people in your local game shop who are just learning how to play then either the deck or your own play skill has room to improve. If you're winning 65% of your games against people like TinyGrimes or TGO or Matt Kohls (our nationals winner), then things are looking pretty good. In general though, your play is probably going to be a bigger factor in winning than deck construction once you're to the point where you have a servicable deck.

I disagree in part with this comment. For me, there are different kinds of players. When Tiny and I first met in person at an event for a different game, we had a fairly lengthy discussion about winning. To him, winning is fun. In fact, at the time, he let me know that that was the best kind of fun he had in the game was winning. So he took the deck that the best players played frequently and got really, really good with it: and he won a lot of games.

I however am not that kind of player. I get my greatest satisfaction from the interaction with the players and the interactions between the cards. For example, I played a game the other day where I destroyed 3 objectives in one turn. It was due to some combos that fell into place, allowing me to pull off a decently complex combo with devastating results. That was fun for me. In my NM regional championship match, I bluffed a second turn Adm Ackbar drop against a trooper deck that allowed me the ability to take out the objective and a pair of troopers (and focus out Navy Vader). These are examples of things that are fun for me.

This is why I disagree in part with what you are saying. If the OP will only ever play in his local meta, and he can win 65% of his games with a rainbow deck AND that is what is fun for him, then I applaud his efforts and say his deck is effective. We just don't know enough about the OP to make the call.

Well the question was about what winning percentage made a deck "good." That's why I approached it from a pure winning standpoint. Sure, if your primary goal is first to do something cool and second to win games there will be a different answer, but at that point nobody can tell you what a good win percentage is because that becomes a personal question.