| Quiet Speculation

Insider: The Contrarian vs. The Momentum Trade

Posted on September 5, 2016January 17, 2022 by Sigmund Ausfresser

Are you a Quiet Speculation member?

If not, now is a perfect time to join up! Our powerful tools, breaking-news analysis, and exclusive Discord channel will make sure you stay up to date and ahead of the curve.

Learn More

For those unfamiliar with my interests outside of MTG finance, I am extremely passionate about investing in the stock market (some may find amusement in my dubbing this “RL finance”). In fact, the vast majority of my taxable savings lie in stocks and ETF’s---not MTG like many would believe.

With this interest in Wall Street, I tend to extend my research well beyond the realm of MTG finance when determining where to invest new funds. This includes various websites, Twitter users and Podcasts. As I pick up strategies and methodologies from RL finance, I often attempt to reapply the practices to MTG finance where possible. I’d like to think this offers up a unique paradigm for MTG investing that many others wouldn’t readily have.

Recently, I have been hearing debate about stock market strategy that could apply to MTG finance as well. Allow me to explain the concept of momentum investing versus contrarian investing.

The stock market is like a massive truck with poor brakes. Any time there’s a sudden shift in direction, the vehicle overshoots where it ought to end up and momentum yanks it beyond rationality. For this reason, some strategists prefer chasing momentum trades---stocks that are ripping higher day in and day out.

Valuation isn’t important when thinking about momentum stocks---as long as more people are jumping onto the bandwagon the price can overextend beyond any reasonable valuation. Tesla Motors is a momentum stock. Just look at that wild volatility over the past year as the company fluctuates between overbought and oversold territory.

Buying Tesla stock while it is on a run higher---such as back in February---can yield massive profits. On the other hand, buying the stock while it’s falling can lead to an awful lot of pain. Observe how it tanked over 40% in just a couple short months right after the New Year. Clearly this is one truck you don’t want to jump in front of.

Other investors prefer a different strategy of stock trading. This alternate style is best summarized by using Warren Buffett’s oft-quoted wisdom: “Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.” Buffett wouldn’t go near a stock like Tesla Motors. But he certainly does find interest in top-notch companies with beaten up stocks. One example could be IBM, a company Buffett owns a significant amount of.

Observe how the company really fell out of favor most of this year. Instead of panicking, Berkshire Hathaway continued to build its position in the beaten and battered name.

Since the recent bottom, the company has recovered surprisingly well. Even though the stock is temporarily out of favor, faith in management and a great pedigree throughout history may make such a disliked stock a terrific buying opportunity. Someone buying into a disliked name like IBM (or Disney, Macy’s, etc.) could be considered a contrarian investor for buying stock in strong companies that don’t have momentum in their favor.

Parallels in Magic

While Magic cards cannot be directly compared with stocks, there are interesting parallels when it comes to monitoring trends. For example, Magic cards have a tendency to “overshoot” due to momentum-based speculation. Birthing Pod is an excellent example because during its pre-banning hype in Modern the card became expensive very rapidly and unsustainably.

Once Birthing Pod received the ban hammer, you can see how quickly the card was hated. Ultimately, the card became oversold. After bottoming in late 2015, the card has actually increased in value by about 30%-50%. The momentum buyer would have been picking up copies during its 2014 hype, whereas a contrarian buyer may have been the one picking up copies for the long haul during its 2015 low.

The more I research, the more I realize many Modern cards exhibit this kind of “momentum” type behavior. Check out the historical chart of Karn Liberated as another example.

This card’s price never changed gradually---it always seemed to rise in spikes. Karn spiked in 2013, 2014 and 2016 (even after it was reprinted). Momentum has really taken this card temporarily higher, only to sell back off either quickly or gradually afterwards depending on the year.

Momentum buyers would have been buying during each spike; contrarian investors would have picked up copies after each dip (including right now, where it appears to be bottoming yet again).

Which Strategy Should You Take?

There are pros and cons to these two strategies. If there was a clear-cut superior strategy, the other wouldn’t exist---everyone would follow the same trades, and the strategy wouldn’t really be a “strategy” anymore because the opportunity would be erased. Having these two balanced approaches means one can work in some circumstances and the other can work in others.

I like the momentum trade when a major market disruption occurs. This can manifest itself as a buyout or a major metagame shift. Standard rotation can also catalyze significant movement whose momentum can be capitalized upon.

For example, when Reserved List cards were all the rage a couple months ago I enjoyed locating copies at the “old price” or even at a slightly elevated price. This happened most recently with Aluren, which recently spiked. I found a single copy at ABU Games at $16 and I was eager to grab it knowing that the card was seeing significant movement and had potential to jump again in the future.

There was an error retrieving a chart for Aluren

Of course I’m heavily biased by Reserved List cards. I figure if I don’t get my copies at the “old” price to flip for immediate profit, I have no qualms sitting long-term. These are cards that will never be printed again after all.

Beyond those I still like other, narrow opportunities for momentum buying. During a Pro Tour it can be favorable to acquire hot new Standard cards if you’re early enough to buy in (i.e. by Friday). When a card is unbanned in Modern or Legacy there’s also a huge buying opportunity off momentum. Ancestral Vision is a great recent example.

There was an error retrieving a chart for Ancestral Vision

On the other hand, contrarian investing also offers some attractive returns when played correctly. Buying Modern staples during an “off-season” has been a robust strategy for years now.

Dual lands tend to jump, fade, and jump again in price---picking up copies when they’re temporarily down is extremely attractive because you know it’s just a matter of time before they tick higher (especially with Eternal Masters being a thing now). Even Power has a tendency to jump, fade, and jump again.

While momentum trading is best when a card can be sold immediately after it is purchased, contrarian buying allows you a longer time horizon. You don’t have to worry about buying in too late and being unable to sell before the price tanks. Because you’re buying during a local “bottom," you are banking on an increase in price sometime in the future but not necessarily right away.

In reality, some Modern staples are excellent contrarian trades right now. Check out Flooded Strand, which is only $2 off its all-time low.

We all know fetchlands aren’t going anywhere. They’ve been Legacy staples since their printing and they are a dominant force in Modern as well. Therefore, a contrarian investor may be thinking it’s the perfect time to acquire copies. The same goes for a number of Modern staples.

Or how about stuff recently reprinted in Conspiracy 2. One day, many many moons from now, something like Serum Visions or Inquisition of Kozilek will be an excellent pick-up. It’s going to tank in price due to its reprinting, which should yield a reasonable contrarian play for profits.

With contrarian trades you have ample time to move in and out of positions. However there’s one significant downside: reprint risk.

If you’re going to buy something while it’s out of favor with the intent of selling after a long waiting period, you incur risk of having your card reprinted in a subsequent set. Snapcaster Mage can look awfully tempting now that it has pulled back in price, but the risk of reprint in Modern Masters 2017 is enough to keep me away. This is essentially why I prefer to stick to Reserved List staples.

Wrapping It Up

Momentum trading and contrarian investing---there’s a time and a place for both. I tend to prefer picking up cards for longer time horizons. As a result, I think I tend to favor contrarian investing a bit more than momentum when it comes to MTG finance (and RL finance for that matter).

I just can’t stand buying cards when they’re hitting all-time highs. I’d much prefer allocating resources to positions that are suffering in the short term but have great long-term prospects. It’s akin to how Warren Buffett invests.

With this in mind, I continue to target Old School staples as well as playable Reserved List cards that haven’t jumped in price crazily yet. A recent picture I Tweeted (@sigfig8) sums up the kind of stuff I’m after.

Notice any trends? With the exception of Beta Gloom and Unlimited Dingus Egg (two pickups for Old School play), each of these cards are on the Reserved List. They all offer plenty of long-term upside potential. The fact that most haven’t really spiked yet (besides Aluren) means I am picking up these cards in the hopes that one day they do become suddenly more desirable than they are today. If not, I can wait. I got time.

Just as you can find a strong company with a broken stock, I am confident we can find a Magic card with a ton of utility but an out-of-favor price. By targeting powerful cards, you can set yourself up for plenty of upside with minimal downside. Add in the requirement of targeting Reserved List cards and you avoid the turmoil of reprints. This ultimately enables you to acquire your cards and then sit and wait. That’s my kind of MTG finance!

…

Sig’s Quick Hits

I did not realize Engineered Explosives became so expensive recently. There are only a few dozen copies in stock on TCG Player across both printings, with “Market Price” in the $32 range! I could have sworn this was a $20 card just a short while ago. This is a great example of a momentum card---it continues to hit all-time highs day after day. Eventually it will sell off a bit, but as long as it runs higher, people buying in are making decent money on this one!

Another recent all-time high came last weekend in the surprising form of Arabian Nights Ali Baba. I knew the card was rising in price, but I did not anticipate a sudden buyout. I always thought the card was a common, but according to TCG Player it is uncommon so I suppose that makes sense. No wonder there are only ten sellers with copies in stock left on TCG Player. But beware: the $10 price tag on MTG Stocks is highly misleading given the “Market Price” is only $3.22. Still, with Card Kingdom paying well over $4 for Near Mint copies, this card’s price was bound to jump!

The last card I wanted to highlight was one I recently acquired (pictured above): Beta Gloom. Black bordered copies of the black enchantment have really spiked in price lately, driven by utility in the Old School format. There are under ten copies of Alpha and Beta copies in stock, combined. “Market Price” is $10 and $8 for the two sets, respectively, meaning the recent jumps in their price is 100% legitimate. As long as Old School MTG remains relevant, these cards will only rise. They’re not on the Reserved List, but Gloom reprints are meaningless in the world of Old School!

Insider: Entry Fees for Major Events

Posted on September 5, 2016January 17, 2022 by David Schumann

Are you a Quiet Speculation member?

If not, now is a perfect time to join up! Our powerful tools, breaking-news analysis, and exclusive Discord channel will make sure you stay up to date and ahead of the curve.

Learn More

Recently I've noticed that a lot of our local players have reduced their willingness to go to major events like Grand Prix due to the high cost of entry compared to just a few years ago. This got me thinking, why are they so expensive? Do the tournament organizers (TOs) just make a killing in profits? What kinds of costs are associated with these events now?

While I accept that tournament entry fees are not really directly related to the subject of MTG finance, there have been quite a few discussions about them in our forums. This caused me to want to dig in, do some research, and see for myself.

This question is a good example of a Fermi problem. The basic idea is that if you have a difficult-to-answer question (perhaps one that can't be answered at all), you can try to break it down into parts. You logically estimate each part separately and then combine your answers to come up with a relatively accurate solution.

Today I'll approach the question of tournament entry fees in this way. We'll break down the costs associated with running a Grand Prix to get an idea of what kind of entry fee is required for TOs to turn a profit.

Expenses

Venue

Unfortunately, I can't get perfect information on venue rental costs as it seems they're only available to people actually planning to host an event. However, I was able to find one venue to get a baseline idea (granted, I don't believe they've ever hosted an MTG event). Here's the pricing for the Waco Convention Center (in Waco, TX).

First off, the cost to rent the entire venue is only $3,500, which seems really low. We need to understand how big the facility is. We'll just add up the larger rooms (since it would be difficult to have a tournament with people reporting to 4+ rooms and awkward to staff small 100-person rooms). Thus the three largest rooms amount to 61,794 square feet.

In Charlotte the Grand Prix tend to be held in Hall A of the Charlotte Convention Center, which is 100,000 square feet. That is around 1.6 times larger than the entire Waco Convention Center. The population of Charlotte is also six times larger than Waco's, so it's fair to assume demand for the convention center would be much higher.

Let's estimate that the Charlotte Convention Center would cost ten times that of the Waco Convention Center (to be on the conservative side). So our cost to rent the venue is $35,000.

Chairs and Tables

That doesn't include the cost of chairs and tables. Again, the cost in Waco for these is:

So the 8' tables cost $8 each to rent and chairs are $0.75 each.

Now GP Charlotte of this year (the one with the pairings debacle) had 2400-(ish) players in the main event. It's fair to assume there were probably close to 3000 players in attendance, and that thanks to some other 4,000+ player GPs they likely rented enough chairs and tables to hold more than enough people. For argument's sake let's say they rented enough chairs/tables for 4500 players (the maximum they claimed could sign up).

An 8' table can comfortably hold about six players, which equates to 750 tables for play space. Let's say another 64 for vendors (4 tables x 16 vendors). So table rental fees equate to $8 x 814 tables = $6512.

Chair rental fees would equate to $0.75 x 4550 (adding 50 chairs for vendors) = $3412.5.

Staff and Judges

Then we have judges and event staff. WoTC proposes that TOs have at least one judge per 32 players (and then additional higher-level judges based on the size of the event). Again let's assume that the TO followed this guideline. This means they need 142 judges (141 plus the head judge); we'll round this to 150 judges to include scorekeepers, etc.

I found Legion Events' old pay scale for judges. These payouts are for the entire weekend (Saturday and Sunday).

Level 3+
- $598
- 3 boxes of current set product
- One GP judge playmat
Level 2
- $400
- 2 boxes of current set product
- One GP judge playmat
Level 1
- $200
- 2 boxes of current set product
- One GP judge playmat

For a fair breakdown let's assume 100 Level 1 judges, 45 Level 2 judges, four Level 3 judges, and one head judge. We'll also assume the value of the sealed product at cost is $77 per box (the typical going rate for stores from the distributor).

So total judge compensation is:

$900 x 1 (head judge guestimate)
$598 x 4
$400 x 45
$200 x 100
$77 x 300 (150 x 2 boxes)
$3 x 150 (guestimate that the playmats cost $3 to make)

...which equals $64,842.

There's also some support staff who aren't judges that need to be paid (typically they work for the TO). We'll estimate the cost for these people to be $1000 for the weekend.

Miscellaneous Expenses and Total

WoTC pays the actual prize support for Grand Prix so that doesn't come out of the TO's pocket. However, TOs have to bid on hosting the GPs. This is obviously a company secret for each TO, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that cost was upwards of $20,000 (which we'll assume for this calculation).

Next up we have maintenance and security fees at the venue, which are maybe $500 (this is a guestimate, but doesn't seem implausible).

Lastly we have the cost of the playmats/miscellaneous items given out to players who enter. We'll assume these to be around $3.50 per player ($3 for the mat and $0.50 for other things) which is another $15,750.

So let's add up all the expenses. The total estimated expense of running a GP is $147,000 (rounded).

Profits

Now let's figure out what brings in the money.

Being the TO means you get to sell booth space to the other vendors. At GP Charlotte there were 16 vendors. I've heard it costs around $3,000-$5,000 for a booth. We'll stick with the $3,000 figure for this calculation (which is likely on the lower end). This means that the TO can generate $45,000 from vendors (assuming the TO uses one of the vendor slots for their own store, that's 15 vendors x $3,000 each).

This means that after vendor fees the TO is still $102,000 in the negative.

Entry Fee Calculations

Their other source of income is the actual tournament entry fees. If we take the $102,000 and divide it by the 3500 actual players who showed up (rather than the 4500 that might have), we get $30. That entry fee will only let them break even, with no profit.

Now if you're a large company looking to invest $147,000 into a venture you'd want a decent return on that money---say 15% profit. If we calculate for the expected profit on the original investment we calculate the entry fee cost to be ($147,000 x 1.15 [15% profit] - $45,000 [vendor fees])/3500 [players] = $35.50 per player.

What Ifs

Now for the "what if" section. Here we'll cover what happens if we tweak our estimates.

What if the venue fee was twice as much ($70,000); if so then the tournament entry fee (with 15% profit) would need to be $47.

What if your support staff was $5,000 instead of $1000; if so then the tournament entry fee (with 15% profit) would need to be $37.

What if the WoTC bid was $40,000 instead of $20,000; if so then the tournament entry fee (with 15% profit) would need to be $42.

What if the TO wants a profit margin of 25%; if so then the tournament entry fee would need to be $40.

Conclusion

I've heard lots of complaints about the increased costs of GPs, from friends as well as on the forums. A few articles have tried to justify the price increases, but in the end the TOs are acting like a business and if players keep showing up in large numbers to these events and paying whatever the entry fee is, they can charge as much as they think the market will bear.

One solution for this would be to open up GP bidding to additional competitors. The problem there is that the upfront cost of $150,000 is very high and some of the fees likely need to be paid months in advance (which means the TO has to shell out that money with no return on it until the event actually occurs). This upfront cost likely hinders a lot of smaller TOs from even being able to run it.

It's also very important to WoTC (and the players) that the events be run well. I've been to GPs hosted by several TOs and I can honestly say that the most impressive ones were run by Star City Games. This makes sense given the exceptionally large number of bigger events they host every year. They have a lot of practice and have likely run into most of the major pitfalls that can befall a tournament before, which means they are more prepared to deal with them.

I'll also state that personally I rarely play in the main events at GPs anymore, largely because I think the ROI is so bad. Assume you pay $80 to enter a 3000+ player tournament. You have to make Top 180 (the top 6% of the field) to come out ahead. If you don't make Top 32 (the top 1.06%) then you're still only making 2.5x - 3.125x back on your investment. Now the playmats are sometimes worth something as are the promos, but it's still a lot of money and time invested for such little gain.

Of course, if you just love playing highly competitive Magic that could easily be worth the investment. But I do find it amusing how many people I hear complain constantly of paying $70-$80 and then drop by the fifth round who then repeat the same process at the next GP.

More Fair, Don’t Care: Death’s Shadow Blue

Posted on September 2, 2016 by Jordan Boisvert

Are you a Quiet Speculation member?

If not, now is a perfect time to join up! Our powerful tools, breaking-news analysis, and exclusive Discord channel will make sure you stay up to date and ahead of the curve.

Learn More

Another PPTQ last weekend saw me again go 4-2 with Monkey Grow. I beat Jeskai Control, Affinity, and two Burn decks, dropping matches to Delirium Jund and Bant Eldrazi. The matches were interesting, but I'm wary of writing too exclusively for one niche. So I'll spare you the tournament report and unveil a new brew: an especially ferocious take on Death's Shadow Zoo.

Death's Shadow Zoo has been putting up serious numbers this season, and recently solidified its Tier 1 status. The deck has a number of things going for it that I like a lot, including efficient threats and a penchant for straining every resource. But I can't stand how linear it is. After playing a few matches with a standard list, I wondered if there wouldn't be any merit to slowing the deck down to include more disruption.

Big Beaters, Efficient Interaction

We'll start with the list and concept, then move into a discussion about the pros and cons of Death's Shadow Blue over traditional builds of Death's Shadow Zoo. At the end of the article, we'll compare Death's Shadow Blue to one of my older brews.

[wp_ad_camp_1]

Death's Shadow Blue, by Jordan Boisvert

Creatures

4 Death's Shadow

4 Tarmogoyf

4 Grim Flayer

4 Street Wraith

1 Tasigur, the Golden Fang

1 Snapcaster Mage

Artifacts

4 Mishra's Bauble

Instants

4 Stubborn Denial

4 Dismember

Sorceries

4 Thoughtseize

4 Gitaxian Probe

4 Traverse the Ulvenwald

Lands

4 Polluted Delta

4 Verdant Catacombs

4 Misty Rainforest

2 Overgrown Tomb

1 Breeding Pool

1 Watery Grave

1 Island

1 Swamp

Sideboard

3 Feed the Clan

2 Invasive Surgery

2 Natural State

4 Gut Shot

2 Grafdigger's Cage

1 Bojuka Bog

1 Forest

Death's Shadow Zoo spends its life points recklessly to grow its Avatar. The life points aren't wasted, either. They go to the manabase, allowing the deck to consistently access its four colors, and to deck size, allowing the deck to run a functional 48 cards between Gitaxian Probe, Mishra's Bauble, and Street Wraith.

In the traditional four-color build, less life points remain to go to disruption. Thoughtseize is a mainboard staple, but the disruption mostly stops there. Playing fewer colors gives us more life points to work with, and opens up the possibility running a set of Dismember in the main.

Thoughtseize and Dismember give us great ways to remove cards from the hand as well as creatures from the board, and Stubborn Denial fleshes out the disruption suite as an efficient stopper for spells on the stack.

Ferocious is pretty much always live in this deck, and costing just one mana proves ultra-relevant with Death's Shadow. With some cantrips thrown into the mix, turn one Thoughtseize, turn two Death's Shadow plus Denial is an opening few decks can tangle with.

Blue vs Zoo: Pros and Cons

Of course, this new build isn't necessarily better than the already-proven Death's Shadow Zoo. But I think it's different enough to stand alone from that deck.

Pros

Our bad matchups improve. Since they output so much damage so quickly, Burn and Affinity are notoriously difficult for Death's Shadow decks to beat. But Burn has a lot of trouble beating Tarmogoyf, and we essentially play 12 in this deck. Stubborn Denial also gives the deck a hard time. Putting the nail in the coffin, we play so many ferocious threats that Feed the Clan becomes a hyper-reliable answer to the Lava Spike deck after siding.

Affinity struggles to slog through too much disruption. Standard Death's Shadow decks play a pair of Bolts in the main, but any Modern grinder knows that's not enough. Post-board, it hopes to draw into one of a couple copies of Stony Silence.

Death's Shadow Blue ups the ante with a full set of Gut Shot in the sideboard and four Dismembers main. With this removal suite, winning the Affinity matchup becomes trivial, especially considering that Traverse can grab Snapcaster Mage to flash back a Natural State.

Gut Shot also teams up with Dismember to wreck synergy-based aggro decks like Kiki-Chord and Merfolk. Combined, the Phyrexian-mana removal spells make it close to impossible for creature decks to overwhelm us on the board, despite our lowered threat count.

Lastly, interactive combo decks become much easier to beat with Stubborn Denial. Decks like Bring to Light Scapeshift, which play a host of effective answers against Death's Shadow Zoo's creatures and a combo finish, can't actually beat one-mana Negate.

Our good matchups remain favorable. We're still much faster than Tron, and the addition of Stubborn Denial excuses a lowered speed against other linear combo decks. Attrition matchups even improve, since our threats are more resilient to removal than Wild Nacatl and Monastery Swiftspear. Getting hit by Inquisition of Kozilek on the draw still hurts, but having a hard, one-mana answer to Terminate, Path to Exile, and Liliana of the Veil gives us added game against opponents looking to interact.

Interestingly, Dredge gets slightly better on the play and slightly worse on the draw. A turn one Denial can throw that deck way off-kilter. Unfortunately, the card does a lot less once Dredge gets going, and we'd rather our blue spells simply be Temur Battle Rage at that point. Goyf and Shadow still put in a ton of work here, and Cage from the board helps turn the matchup in our favor.

We have better mana. Classic builds sometimes scoop to Blood Moon. Their insurance against the enchantment is to get way under it, landing Nacatl, Swiftspear, or Shadow before opponents are able to tap out for the clunky hoser. But this plan doesn't account for opponents interacting each turn. Against openings of Bolt-Leak-Moon, Death's Shadow Zoo is dead in the water. And that's to say nothing of Vapor Snag and harder removal.

Traverse the Ulvenwald makes Moon into a total non-issue, helping us search out basic lands even after the enchantment resolves. Denial also excels at countering the hoser, which will pump our Goyfs from the grave to boot.

Playing only three colors also allows us the luxury of not taking three damage every turn for making a land drop. We can fetch out our basics and cast spells on the cheap if we need to. Against aggressive decks built to pummel our life total anyway, having this option can prove very useful.

Cons

Death's Shadow Blue is slower. Something like three turns slower, and sometimes more. Sure, we get to interact a lot. But we can't goldfish turn two victories like Death's Shadow Zoo. Against decks that sneer in the face of interaction like Tron or Bant Eldrazi, slowing down puts us at a disadvantage.

As long as we make sure we can still beat those decks, though, there's nothing wrong with taking things slow. We're still ahead of Tron on speed, and countering land search effects or Karn Liberated with Stubborn Denial can put slower games away. Gut Shot and Dismember prove their worth in the Bant Eldrazi matchup, where they eat pretty much everything on the other side of the table while Tarmogoyf goes to town.

Our speed greatly affects our mana. Even with a set of Traverse in the deck, we play an 18th land to accommodate Tarmogoyf and Grim Flayer. Since we're more interactive than regular Death's Shadow Zoo, our games are bound to go longer, and making land drops isn't such a terrible thing.

All that explaining aside, Modern is an extremely fast format. I may have just listed the reasons I don't think losing speed is the end of the world, but there's an endless supply of arguments for the opposite stance. The main draw to Death's Shadow Zoo is its speed, so I'm considering this point a con.

We have trouble getting over certain boards. Like Infect, Death's Shadow Zoo can overcome pretty much any board state. The combination of trample or unblockable-granting effects and heavy-duty pump spells make blocking a losing proposition against a Death's Shadow Zoo opponent with a full grip. The major player here is Temur Battle Rage, which Death's Shadow Blue doesn't run.

We have plenty of available pump spells in green, but none are as efficient as Temur Battle Rage, and none mesh very well with our non-blitz plan of keeping opponents off their game. Mutagenic Growth, my favorite pump spell in Death's Shadow Zoo, doesn't fit very nicely into this deck, since our threats all already resist Lightning Bolt. A big draw to playing that card is its ability to double as Mental Misstep against Modern's best removal spell.

How does Death's Shadow Blue beat Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger? Well, it doesn't. These kinds of creatures are road blocks we're simply not equipped to deal with. My counter-argument for this concern is that Ulamog doesn't show up that often on the other side of the table, since we've (hopefully) killed opponents by the time they hit ten mana.

That said, Temur Battle Rage is sorely missed against streams of chump blockers. Lingering Souls is public enemy #1 for this deck. Grim Flayer can trample through them, but a suite of four Spirit tokens will trade with the bloody human.

Another key omission is Become Immense. This instant combos with Battle Rage to provide a quick 20 damage, so it makes some sense not to include it in a deck without red. The main reason not to play Become Immense, or many delve spells in general, is that it clashes with delirium. We want Traverse the Ulvenwald and Grim Flayer online for the whole game, so these spells are off-limit for us.

Graveyard hate hurts us more. Death's Shadow Zoo has a very elegant answer to Rest in Peace: ignore it. Monastery Swiftspear, Wild Nacatl, and Steppe Lynx could care less about the graveyard police, and will all punish opponents for spending their precious second turn on a spell that doesn't interact with them. Conversely, Death's Shadow Blue has only its namesake creature to lean on should Rest in Peace hit the board. And 2/2 Grim Flayers, but those don't really count.

Compared with Death's Shadow Zoo, This softness to grave hate is the biggest strike against the new brew. In a metagame where everyone expects Dredge, sleeving up Grim Flayer over Monastery Swiftspear is a huge liability.

Remembering Counter-Cat

When you water it down with interaction, Death's Shadow Zoo starts to look a lot like Counter-Cat. That deck also ran permission, removal, a painful manabase, Phyrexian mana spells, and Wild Nacatls. Upon direct comparison, the two decks are strikingly similar. Here's my current build of Counter-Cat, for reference: