Which deck is actually better?

Enter tournament results for cEDH decks. Each rate gets a beta-binomial posterior with a Jeffreys Beta(½, ½) prior, so small samples come with honest uncertainty.

Compare decks by
Credible interval
%
Interval type
Horizontal axis

Posterior win rates

Shaded area under each curve is the credible interval. Hover or drag across the chart to read off probabilities.

Head to head

vs
How this works

For a deck with k successes in n trials (wins in games, or conversions in entries), the likelihood is binomial. With the Jeffreys prior Beta(½, ½) the posterior is Beta(k + ½, n − k + ½). This prior is the standard “uninformative” choice for a proportion: it’s invariant under reparameterisation and adds the weight of just one pseudo-observation.

The head-to-head treats the two decks as independent, so the joint posterior is the product of the two marginals. P(B > A) is computed by numerically integrating that joint density over the region above the diagonal; the difference B − A is summarised from 100,000 posterior draws.

Caveats: the model assumes every game is an independent trial with the same win probability. Real tournament data violates this (pilot skill, pod composition, the meta at each event), so the true uncertainty is wider than shown. In 4-player pods, a 25% win rate is the fair-share baseline.

Export JSON

Your decks and settings. Save the file or copy the text to restore it later with Import JSON.

Download

Import JSON

Paste JSON from Export JSON, or choose a saved file. This replaces your current decks and settings.