Let me first look up both archetypes to confirm they exist in the database!
Let me try some alternative names:
Good — there's a generic "Hollow One" archetype. Let me now search for Boros and Rakdos variants more broadly, and also query the database directly to see if these two versions exist as distinct archetypes:
Interesting — the database only has one Hollow One archetype (tagged as RG color). Let me dig deeper to see if the Boros (Hardened Academic) and Rakdos (Moonshadow) variants are being tracked separately within that archetype or truly lumped together. I'll query at the deck level using those key cards:
Now I have a clear picture. Let me compute clean win-rate aggregates for both variants within the "hollow one" archetype and check their match-level coverage:
Now let me get match-level coverage (opponent archetypes) for both variants:
The match-level W/L data isn't stored per-match in the matches table (only entry-level totals are reliable). Let me get sources and wrap this up:
Here's the full picture. Let me be transparent about what the data shows:
The database tracks both under a single "Hollow One" archetype, so I split them manually using their key defining cards (Hardened Academic for Boros, Moonshadow for Rakdos).
| Variant | Entries | W | L | Winrate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🤍❤️ Boros (Hardened Academic) | 5 | 6 | 4 | 60.0% |
| 🖤❤️ Rakdos (Moonshadow) | 18 | 28 | 30 | 48.3% |
The per-match W/L breakdown isn't stored at the individual game level in the database — the match table records opponents faced but win/loss resolution per matchup isn't populated. I can tell you which archetypes each variant faced, but not the per-matchup winrate:
Boros faced (10 matches total): Affinity, Prowess, Boros Energy, Izzet Cutter, Goryo Reanimator, Azorius Blink
Rakdos faced (58 matches total): Boros Energy (8), Goryo Reanimator (6), Affinity (6), Grixis Reanimator (4), Azorius Control (4), Ramp Eldrazi (3), Living End (3), Amulet Titan (3), and 16 more archetypes
Short answer: not quite enough. The Boros variant has only 5 tracked entries (10 match-level pairings), which is too small a sample to draw reliable conclusions. The Rakdos variant is more represented at 18 entries across 58 matches, but still on the lower end for statistical confidence. The 60% vs 48.3% gap is interesting but not conclusive given the sample sizes.
Both variants are tracked under the same archetype tag, so the database doesn't distinguish them as separate archetypes. If the community starts treating them as separate decks, we'd need more consistent tagging to do a proper split.
📁 Sources — Data from 26 tournaments (69.2% MTGO, 30.8% Melee):