Top Performing Decklists
| Deck | Creator | Record | Best Finish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Esper Pixie | kthanakit26 | 9-1 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769881 |
| Dimir Bounce | enter | 9-1 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 64 #12763190 |
| Dimir Midrange | o_danielakos | 8-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 64 #12763190 |
| Esper Pixie | houseofmanamtg | 7-2 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765757 |
| Esper Pixie | gyrabbit47 | 7-2 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765778 |
| Esper Pixie | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Sultai Roots | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Dimir Midrange | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Dimir Midrange | arianne | 7-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765757 |
| Dimir Midrange | strongmind | 7-2 | None |
Performance Stats (Last 14 Days)
Win Rate Impact
Top Table Win Rate
Meta Trend
Sample Size
Tournament Results
Average Copies
Archetypes Using This Card:
4 Color Repurposing , 5 Color Legends , Azorius Synthesizer , Azorius Tempo , Dimir Bounce , Dimir Cauldron , Dimir Control , Dimir Demons , Dimir Descend , Dimir Faeries
Meta Performance Analysis
Darkslick Shores ranks #407 out of approximately 406 cards in raw efficiency (top 100%).
Game Impact Factor
Color Differential
Colorless average: 63.4%
Performance compared to other Colorless cardsBased on our comprehensive multi-metric analysis, Darkslick Shores is an underperforming card in the current meta.
Recommended number of copies: 1
Win Rate Timeline
Card Efficiency Analysis
Raw Efficiency (Win Rate/Mana)
Relative Efficiency
Performance Efficiency: 37.79 (Win rate × Top 8 rate ÷ Mana value)
At 0 mana, the average win rate in the format is 74.4%. Darkslick Shores has a win rate of 72.8%, making it 2.2% worse than other 0-mana cards.
Top Performing Partners
| Card Name | Type | Deck Count | Win Rate | 1st Places |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thought-Stalker Warlock | Creature — Lizard Warlock | 37 | 78.3% | 15 |
| Knight of Grace | Creature — Human Knight | 51 | 72.1% | 27 |
| Recommission | Sorcery | 9 | 70.8% | 3 |
| Qarsi Revenant | Creature — Vampire | 9 | 69.6% | 2 |
| Sunpearl Kirin | Creature — Kirin | 77 | 66.9% | 25 |
| Wilt-Leaf Liege | Creature — Elf Knight | 76 | 66.1% | 17 |
| Sorcerous Spyglass | Artifact | 8 | 65.0% | 3 |
| Essence Scatter | Instant | 6 | 64.6% | 0 |
| The Mightstone and Weakstone | Legendary Artifact — Powerstone | 10 | 64.1% | 6 |
| Sleight of Hand | Sorcery | 21 | 63.5% | 5 |
Card Synergy Analysis
Cards that perform better with Darkslick Shores than they do on average. A positive synergy score indicates stronger performance together.
| Card Name | Type | Mana | Decks | Win Rate Together | Win Rate Apart | Synergy Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obstinate Baloth | Creature — Beast | 4 | 5 | 81.8% | 74.2% | +7.6% |
| Wilt-Leaf Liege | Creature — Elf Knight | 4 | 9 | 77.6% | 71.5% | +6.0% |
| Sheltered by Ghosts | Enchantment — Aura | 2 | 9 | 80.0% | 75.2% | +4.8% |
| Negate | Instant | 2 | 65 | 76.6% | 73.8% | +2.7% |
| Break the Spell | Instant | 1 | 12 | 77.4% | 74.8% | +2.6% |
| Saiba Cryptomancer | Creature — Moonfolk Ninja | 2 | 12 | 77.1% | 75.0% | +2.2% |
| Dreams of Steel and Oil | Sorcery | 1 | 69 | 74.7% | 72.7% | +2.0% |
| Get Out | Instant | 2 | 24 | 77.5% | 75.6% | +1.9% |
| Three Steps Ahead | Instant | 1 | 14 | 75.6% | 74.2% | +1.4% |
| Hopeless Nightmare | Enchantment | 1 | 116 | 74.0% | 73.0% | +1.0% |
Top Archetypes
| Archetype | Deck Count | % of Archetype | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dimir Midrange | 2067 | 99.8% | 50.5% |
| Esper Pixie | 1562 | 100.0% | 54.5% |
| Dimir Bounce | 494 | 100.0% | 49.6% |
| Dimir Demons | 101 | 100.0% | 51.2% |
| Dimir Control | 71 | 97.3% | 53.4% |
Statistics Explanation
| Statistic | Description | Formula |
|---|---|---|
| Win Rate Impact | How much this card increases or decreases the win rate of decks that include it, compared to the average deck in the format. | (Win rate of decks with this card) - (Average win rate of all decks) |
| Top Table Win Rate | A weighted win rate that gives more significance to performance in higher tournament placements. First place finishes count for 2x, with diminishing weight down to 8th place. | ∑(wins × placement_weight) / ∑((wins + losses) × placement_weight) |
| Meta Trend | Shows if the card is performing better or worse in the most recent period compared to earlier periods. Positive values indicate improving performance. | (Win rate in recent half of time period) - (Win rate in earlier half of time period) |
| Confidence Factor | A measure of statistical reliability based on sample size. The progress bar indicates how confident we are in the statistics (with larger sample sizes providing higher confidence). | log10(Number of decks + 1) |
| Average Copies | The average number of copies of this card included in decks that use it. | ∑(Copies in each deck) / (Number of decks) |
| Card Synergy Score | Measures how well this card performs with other cards compared to their individual performance. | (Win rate together) - (Average of individual win rates) |
| Raw Efficiency | Win rate points per mana invested. Higher values indicate better returns on mana investment. | (Win rate) / (Mana value) |
| Relative Efficiency | How efficient this card is compared to the average card of the same mana value. | ((Win rate) / (Format average win rate for same mana)) / (Mana value) |
| Performance Efficiency | Combined metric that accounts for win rate, tournament success, and mana investment. | (Win rate × Top 8 placement rate) / (Mana value) |
| Game Impact Factor | A measure of how much this card affects game outcomes, based on win rate adjusted by its deviation from the format average. | Win rate × (1 + (Win rate - Format average) / 100) |
| Color Differential | How this card's win rate compares to the average win rate of other cards of the same color. | Win rate - Average win rate for same color |
All statistics are calculated using tournament data from the selected time period. Sample sizes below 10 decks may not provide statistically significant results.