As magic players, we spend a lot of time discussing how to win games. Discussions often focus on lines of play that could have more efficiently and more elegantly secured victory. We also like to speak in percentages. “I was 80% to win that game.” “I had a 7% out.” So much of our strategy, analysis, and reflection is put into how we can maximize our choices to increase the chance that we win a game. This is the frame in which we approach strategy: how do I increase my ability to win?

However, there is an obvious opposite to this which gets significantly less discussion. That is the question: how do I reduce my chance of losing? While this may seem like simply rephrasing the question on winning, by thinking in these terms, we come to different conclusions. Before I get into discussing decision strategies I want to explain what inspired this discussion.

I was playing a draft online with a very strong, controlling Abzan deck. It had essentially all the tools you want: multiple [card]Abzan Guide[/card]s, [card]Abzan Falconer[/card], [card]Duneblast[/card], [card]Dead Drop[/card], and [card]Death Frenzy[/card] for the aggressive decks. I was playing against one such aggro Jeskai deck and was playing catch up, trying to stabilize following a turn 3 [card]Mantis Rider[/card]. I was at 11, and had a couple ground creatures and a [card]Watcher of the Roost[/card]. He had the [card]Mantis Rider[/card], a [card]Scaldkin[/card], and a [card]Wetland Sambar[/card]. My hand had [card]Death Frenzy[/card] and [card]Dead Drop[/card] versus his one unknown card. I feel like I have essentially stabilized, and I’m looking to secure that advantage and win the game. The problem facing me is that if I [card]Dead Drop[/card] he sacrifices the [card]Scaldkin[/card] and the Sambar, and I will die to the [card]Mantis Rider[/card]. So instead the line I choose is to [card]Death Frenzy[/card], which will kill the [card]Scaldkin[/card], Sambar, and my Watcher (he’ll probably sacrifice the [card]Scaldkin[/card] to my face) and leave me at the same life total (life gain from the frenzy, damage from the [card]Scaldkin[/card]). That will allow me to [card]Dead Drop[/card] the next turn and kill both his [card]Mantis Rider[/card] and whatever else he plays. However it is his turn and he attacks with the Rider. I don’t block, because I reason that on my turn I will attack with the Watcher, and if he blocks with the [card]Mantis Rider[/card] then it dies to the [card]Death Frenzy[/card], if he blocks with the [card]Scaldkin[/card] I can [card]Dead Drop[/card], and if he doesn’t block it is the same total life swing (gain one from its death and two damage to him) as blocking the [card]Mantis Rider[/card].

How the game actually played out was: I take 3 and go to 8. Then I attack with the Watcher, he doesn’t block. I [card]Death Frenzy[/card] and he sacrifices the [card]Scaldkin[/card] holding me at 8. He then attacks with [card]Mantis Rider[/card] bringing me to 5, and [card]Arrow Storm[/card]s me with his last card for lethal. I die with the [card]Dead Drop[/card] in my hand. I lost because I was trying to maximize the value of my cards. If I had blocked with my [card]Watcher of the Roost[/card] on the first [card]Mantis Rider[/card] attack I would have been at 7 after the second one, out of [card]Arrow Storm[/card] ranger. However, in a vacuum the difference between 7 and 5 is not huge when you are stable, relevant but not huge. However, in a format with a 5 damage burn spell, the difference between 7 and 6 is pretty negligible, but the difference between 6 and 5 is enormous. While that was a fairly long story, the point is that playing the hand slightly differently would have shifted me from losing the game to very likely winning it. The important part is this: I chose a line that increases my chance of winning if I get past the next two turns (my opponent is at less life and I have dealt with his creatures as efficiently as possible), however, I set myself up to be stone dead to a particular card. Thus, the extra percentage points are completely irrelevant.

This is the difference between thinking about “how do I best win this game?” and “how do I not lose this game?” The difference is important. So how do we shift our strategy with this understanding? For starters, we have to start asking the latter question. This is particularly true as we approach a stable position. If we are starting to play towards our outs, we need to be aware of what outs our opponents could be playing to. Evidently a huge part of this is knowledge of the format. While knowledge is key for a variety of reasons, it is impossible to play around our opponents’ outs if we don’t know what they could be.

In general, we want to look for cards in the format that are direct damage to a player or have a falter effect, causing our board advantage to become irrelevant. Wrath effects, while more rare, also fit this category. When we are doing this analysis we should be familiar with the number barriers on the cards. In Khans block this means keeping our life total above five ([card]Arrow Storm[/card]), keeping a blocker with more than three power ([card]Temur Charm[/card]), keeping blockers of more than one colour back ([card]Feat of Resistance[/card]), or keeping them off ferocious ([card]Icy Blast[/card] and [card]Barrage of Boulders[/card]). While it is evidently not possible to play around all of these cards, we have to make informed decisions about both what they can afford to play, and what we can afford to play around.

This theory might seem familiar to playing around combat tricks, and it should. It is very similar. However, unlike deciding where to line up blockers, the cost of them having the right card is much higher: we lose almost immediately. This change in stakes should inform our decisions. The cost of them bluffing goes down significantly (because they are likely to lose if they don’t have it), however, the benefit of getting through with a bluff is significantly lower. For example, forcing your opponent down to five life may change their play pattern (perhaps they play differently to deny you a raid trigger) but it might be completely without benefit if you don’t have [card]Arrow Storm[/card]. This means that understanding your opponents’ motivations on this macro-bluffing level takes on higher importance.

There is also an important side note which is worth addressing. If your opponent is actually paying attention to what your outs are, they may play around them. This means by pretending to have a [card]Temur Charm[/card] when you don’t may force them to reduce their offensive, and may buy you a couple additional draw steps. This is just another reason to add to the mantra of don’t concede before the game is over. You never know what your opponent is playing around, it is even possible they play around cards which don’t exist! How many times have you heard an opponent after a game go “wait, [card]Rush of Battle[/card] isn’t an instant?”

Generally, the concept here is to recognize not only that we need to play around tricks on the board, but also more generally with reference to our game plan. When we select lines of play we want to take into account the possible ways that that line could cause us to lose, as well as how it will lead to our victory. Then we need to try to adjust our plan to be more secure against possible counter plays. I think generally most of us know to do this. We make plays and say I’m fine as long as my opponent doesn’t have X. However, we often don’t take the time to understand the specific cost of them having certain cards.

Let’s finish with another example (this one is shorter I promise). I was playing another draft with a Temur deck against an opponent on Abzan. I was at fairly low life but had a commanding board presence and number of cards in hand. My opponent attacked with both their creatures. My quick assessment was that I could trade my 3/1 for their 3/3 and kill them on the crack-back. I made sure they didn’t have enough mana to [card]Become Immense[/card] their unblocked guy, and finalized my blocks. In a game where I was at more life that would have been safe, a combat trick on their 3/3 would at best be a 1-for-1 and I would still likely win. However, what I didn’t account for was an [card]Awaken the Bear[/card] would give trample and kill me before I could attack back. While adding my 2/3 to that block would open me up to the potential of getting 2-for-1’d, in the scenario where they had the card the alternative would be death. If they didn’t have the card, it was only marginally worse. Luckily, no [card]Awaken the Bear[/card] was seen and the game was mine. However, I very easily could have cost myself the decision by analyzing the scenario using generic theory, and not within the context of the game.

I know that I will be working on being more aware of the avenues that I have for losing a game. If you are someone who is always very careful about what the potential consequences are of your lines, I commend you. If you are not, I recommend asking yourself not just how you are going to