Uhh i think a decent number would be 100 games to get a general idea of how your deck preforms. But if you want to get the complete picture of your deck 200 is probably the minimum amount (mind you these 200 games would need to be played during a stable meta aka 1 to 2 months into an expansion).
If you care more about introducing a viable new deck rather than being on the front page briefly with clickbait and misleading statistics, the more the better. There is no set in stone number where your stats are likely to be reproduceable but i'd second the 100-200 as a decent starting point, but it also depends on what time period that was done over etc. Just do your best to be honest and give as much information as you can, don't be "that guy" who blasts their "85% WR METABREAKER!!!" deck after 25-30 games just to get on the frontpage.
between 100 and 200, if you want to be professional about it. Myself i just mash cards together, trade em out till I have something good for all the matchups I face, and call it a day
"I have seen worlds bathed in the Makers' flames, their denizens fading without as much as a whimper. Entire planetary systems born and razed in the time that it takes your mortal hearts to beat once. Yet all throughout, my own heart devoid of emotion... of empathy. I. Have. Felt. Nothing. A million-million lives wasted. Had they all held within them your tenacity? Had they all loved life as you do?"
or literally just 3, against most of the known good decks in the meta where both decks were played well and on-curve. A single fair match against the best decks gives a whole lot more info than a hundred random matches, win or lose.
I made a Genn Rogue deck back before the Spiteful/Lackey nerf and reached Legend for the first time with it. I knew it was good when I saw Sap, small minions and the hero power give me competitive games against most of the best decks in the format as they often relied on cheating out big things and single-target removal and were fairly slow otherwise! The deck could out-trade faster decks as well thanks to the 1-mana weapon. Hopefully the deck stays relevant somehow as I really liked playing with it (maybe Pogo-hopper's time to shine...?)!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Working a deck guide and want to make it professional. What would be an appropriate sample size of games to show the winrate? 50? 100? More?
Whatever you do it's not theorycraft, so make it quick because the new expansion hits in six days...
Uhh i think a decent number would be 100 games to get a general idea of how your deck preforms. But if you want to get the complete picture of your deck 200 is probably the minimum amount (mind you these 200 games would need to be played during a stable meta aka 1 to 2 months into an expansion).
crap, forgot that the meta is going to change drastically
Depends on what you want.
If you want accurate numbers to actually show how good this deck is, then listen to Jenkum.
If you want many views on your deck, then play one game and win it, so you have 100% wr.
Cancer clickbaits...
If you care more about introducing a viable new deck rather than being on the front page briefly with clickbait and misleading statistics, the more the better. There is no set in stone number where your stats are likely to be reproduceable but i'd second the 100-200 as a decent starting point, but it also depends on what time period that was done over etc. Just do your best to be honest and give as much information as you can, don't be "that guy" who blasts their "85% WR METABREAKER!!!" deck after 25-30 games just to get on the frontpage.
between 100 and 200, if you want to be professional about it.
Myself i just mash cards together, trade em out till I have something good for all the matchups I face, and call it a day
Either 100 or 200...
or literally just 3, against most of the known good decks in the meta where both decks were played well and on-curve. A single fair match against the best decks gives a whole lot more info than a hundred random matches, win or lose.
I made a Genn Rogue deck back before the Spiteful/Lackey nerf and reached Legend for the first time with it. I knew it was good when I saw Sap, small minions and the hero power give me competitive games against most of the best decks in the format as they often relied on cheating out big things and single-target removal and were fairly slow otherwise! The deck could out-trade faster decks as well thanks to the 1-mana weapon. Hopefully the deck stays relevant somehow as I really liked playing with it (maybe Pogo-hopper's time to shine...?)!