← Back to Sessions

UB Frog Modern Performance August Breakdown

1 requestsStarted 9/30/2025, 4:48:46 PM
tell me everything about UB Frog (only the lists which doesn't play white cards + play Abhorrent Oculus) since August 1st : winrate, good and bad match-up, confidence interval.

I'll analyze UB Frog decks that don't play white cards and include Abhorrent Oculus since August 1st. Let me gather the data step by step.

Let me search for more specific UB variants and query the database directly to find decks with Abhorrent Oculus but without white cards.

🛠️QueryModern Frog Deck Tournament Performance Analysis

Now let me filter this data to only show UB (Dimir) Frog decks without white cards, calculate the overall winrate, and analyze matchup data.

🛠️QueryDimir Frog Deck Performance in Recent Tournaments

Now let me analyze matchup performance by looking at the match results for these specific decks:

🛠️QueryDimir Frog Matchup Performance Across Archetypes

I see the issue - the match result data is showing all 0s. Let me check the match data structure more carefully:

🛠️QueryDimir Frog Matchup Results by Opponent Archetype

Let me fix the query by removing the redundant LIMIT:

🛠️QueryDimir Frog Matchup Results Against Diverse Archetypes

Perfect! Now let me calculate the matchup winrates and get sources:

🛠️QueryDimir Frog Archetype Matchup Performance Analysis

Now let me get some tournament sources:

Based on my analysis of UB Frog decks (without white cards) playing Abhorrent Oculus since August 1st, here are the comprehensive findings:

Overall Performance

  • Sample Size: 1,054 tournament entries with 4,561 total games
  • Overall Winrate: 49.78% (2,172-2,191-198)
  • Confidence: This is a statistically significant sample showing the deck performs slightly below 50%

Key Matchups Analysis

Strong Matchups (60%+ winrate):

  • Ruby Storm: 69.14% (112-50, 168 matches) - Excellent
  • Mill: 66.04% (35-18, 55 matches) - Very favorable
  • Prowess: 66.67% (28-14, 47 matches) - Strong advantage
  • Goryo Reanimator: 62.5% (45-27, 82 matches) - Favorable
  • Amulet Titan: 60.59% (123-80, 207 matches) - Good matchup

Poor Matchups (35% or lower winrate):

  • Orzhov Blink: 27.45% (42-111, 165 matches) - Very unfavorable
  • Esper Blink: 32.43% (12-25, 40 matches) - Poor
  • Affinity: 23.08% (12-40, 52 matches) - Terrible
  • Grinding Breach: 37.97% (150-245, 409 matches) - Poor vs. combo

Even/Competitive Matchups (45-55% winrate):

  • Boros Energy: 46.28% (386-448, 866 matches) - Largest sample, slightly unfavorable
  • Mardu Energy: 50.71% (71-69, 147 matches) - Even
  • Jeskai Energy: 52.78% (38-34, 72 matches) - Slight edge
  • Ramp Eldrazi: 52.94% (198-176, 380 matches) - Favorable
  • Tron: 59.55% (53-36, 93 matches) - Good
  • Domain Zoo: 47.37% (45-50, 102 matches) - Close

Key Insights

  1. Combo Performance: Mixed results - excellent vs. slow combos (Storm, Goryo) but struggles vs. fast/resilient ones (Grinding Breach)
  2. Energy Meta: Roughly even against the energy variants that dominate the format
  3. Blink Problem: Major weakness to both Orzhov and Esper Blink strategies
  4. Artifact Hate: Extremely poor vs. Affinity suggests artifact-based strategies are problematic

Sources: Data from 573 tournaments (66.1% MTGO, 33.9% Melee). Recent examples: https://www.mtgo.com/decklist/modern-challenge-32-2025-09-2812816547, https://www.mtgo.com/decklist/modern-challenge-32-2025-09-2712816532, https://www.mtgo.com/decklist/modern-challenge-32-2025-09-2712816530

The 95% confidence interval for the overall winrate is approximately 48.8% - 50.8%, indicating the deck is performing at roughly a 50% winrate with slight variance below average.