Source transparency: This Digest item is based primarily on reporting from MTGGoldfish. TMF summarizes and interprets the news; original reporting remains credited and linked.
A new MTGGoldfish Pauper analysis on October 9 expands the post-Zeta picture to 533 decklist entries over two weeks. It adds a fresh 217-entry weekly sample to the earlier 316-entry week, giving players several event signals rather than a single Challenge finish.
Mono-Red Madness is the most represented individual archetype, with 77 entries, but its aggregate nonmirror win rate is 49.4%. Esper Affinity follows with 49 entries and 49.5%, while Dimir Faeries records 46 entries and 47.7%. The most popular decks therefore are not automatically the best-performing choices in this observation window.
Two smaller established archetypes look stronger on the same measure: Mono-Blue Terror has 35 entries and a 56.8% nonmirror win rate, and Bogles has 34 entries at 55.3%. Those figures are useful preparation signals, especially when considering whether recent card additions have displaced older strategies. They are not guarantees that either deck will reproduce those percentages in a different field.
The Zeta cards have visibly changed deck construction, including Baleful Strix and Dispatch in Affinity shells. However, adoption alone does not establish dominance: Esper Affinity’s popularity and roughly break-even aggregate result are different kinds of evidence. Likewise, Mono-Red Madness’s presence supports taking the deck seriously without proving that its new cards require bans.
This extends the previous first-week report, whose 316 entries highlighted Elves. The extra week supplies a new comparison across the current field, rather than simply repeating that earlier result or treating one winning list as a new trend.
There are important limits. Entries can include the same player across different events, so 533 is not a count of unique players. The win rates exclude mirrors, smaller archetype samples can swing substantially, and the dataset reflects the events available to the author rather than all Pauper play. Some individual attendance figures differ between the article’s prose and weekly table; the conclusions here use the consistent aggregate and archetype figures instead.
The practical takeaway is to distinguish what opponents are likely to bring from what has performed well against the surrounding field. This is a broader post-Zeta metagame signal, with plenty of room for further results to change the ranking.
Mono-Red Madness is the most represented individual archetype, with 77 entries, but its aggregate nonmirror win rate is 49.4%. Esper Affinity follows with 49 entries and 49.5%, while Dimir Faeries records 46 entries and 47.7%. The most popular decks therefore are not automatically the best-performing choices in this observation window.
Two smaller established archetypes look stronger on the same measure: Mono-Blue Terror has 35 entries and a 56.8% nonmirror win rate, and Bogles has 34 entries at 55.3%. Those figures are useful preparation signals, especially when considering whether recent card additions have displaced older strategies. They are not guarantees that either deck will reproduce those percentages in a different field.
The Zeta cards have visibly changed deck construction, including Baleful Strix and Dispatch in Affinity shells. However, adoption alone does not establish dominance: Esper Affinity’s popularity and roughly break-even aggregate result are different kinds of evidence. Likewise, Mono-Red Madness’s presence supports taking the deck seriously without proving that its new cards require bans.
This extends the previous first-week report, whose 316 entries highlighted Elves. The extra week supplies a new comparison across the current field, rather than simply repeating that earlier result or treating one winning list as a new trend.
There are important limits. Entries can include the same player across different events, so 533 is not a count of unique players. The win rates exclude mirrors, smaller archetype samples can swing substantially, and the dataset reflects the events available to the author rather than all Pauper play. Some individual attendance figures differ between the article’s prose and weekly table; the conclusions here use the consistent aggregate and archetype figures instead.
The practical takeaway is to distinguish what opponents are likely to bring from what has performed well against the surrounding field. This is a broader post-Zeta metagame signal, with plenty of room for further results to change the ranking.
Original source: The Power of Pauper: Is Pauper on Fire Yet? ↗MTGGoldfish