<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Optimal curve construction for aggressive archetypes — the math]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">A 30-card aggressive deck with curve 1-1-2-2-3-3-4 in a 2-2-4-4-6-6-6 distribution produces more consistent turn 3-4 pressure than a 1-2-2-3-3-4-4 curve. The double 1-drops allow mulligan flexibility. I've tested this across 200+ games. The distribution difference isn't intuitive but it's real.</p>
]]></description><link>https://spveforpit.com/topic/667/optimal-curve-construction-for-aggressive-archetypes-the-math</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2026 13:25:37 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://spveforpit.com/topic/667.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 01:37:25 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Optimal curve construction for aggressive archetypes — the math on Thu, 23 Apr 2026 01:37:25 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">A 30-card aggressive deck with curve 1-1-2-2-3-3-4 in a 2-2-4-4-6-6-6 distribution produces more consistent turn 3-4 pressure than a 1-2-2-3-3-4-4 curve. The double 1-drops allow mulligan flexibility. I've tested this across 200+ games. The distribution difference isn't intuitive but it's real.</p>
]]></description><link>https://spveforpit.com/post/1546</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://spveforpit.com/post/1546</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[pike7319]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 01:37:25 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>