The week of March 9-15, 2026, is a post-tournament week of great significance. We will put last week's predictions to the test of historical reality, discuss the performance of various archetypes, and focus sharply on emerging ones. The issue will conclude with the usual bi-weekly update on format prices.
1|Metagame Prediction Verification
RC Torino (March 6-8) is now behind us. It was a big tournament, deeply felt by the community. 1025 qualified players participated in the tournament, and the meta was very diverse. Last week, a special edition of this column was released, extraordinarily on Thursday. It included my metagame breakdown prediction to guide players in the tournament. It's time for a reality check. Let's see if the prediction was valid. Among the Tier1 decks on Day 1 of RC Torino were Izzet 
Prowess with a 16% metashare, Izzet Lessons with 15%, and MonoG Landfall with 11%. This totals 42% of Tier1 decks distributed in the hall. In the prediction, I had indicated exactly these decks and even got their order right. However, I would have expected very similar, if not identical, numbers for the last two decks and a more detached Izzet Prowess. In fact, I wrote that Izzet Prowess would be about 5% more frequent than both other Tier1s. Instead, it was only more frequent than MonoG Landfall, while there was a much shorter gap, of only one percentage point, with respect to Izzet Lessons. Furthermore, there was a deviation, albeit minimal, between the total number of predicted Tier1s (maximum 40%) and the verified number (42%). The prediction, therefore, on one hand was totally accurate (100%) in identifying the relevant tier decks, in hypothesizing the correct sequencing of the Metagame, and in the range of distance between the first and last Tier1 deck; on the other hand, it made a 5% error in the distribution of the field dedicated to the set of Tier1s. Moreover, the meta proved to be more evolved than I thought. The shortening of the gap between Izzet Lessons and Prowess indicated a more mature and less experimental meta than it was reasonable to believe. This means that players opted for more flexible strategies than expected, at the expense of aggressive ones. This is a sign that indicates the possibility of developing advantageous responsive play against the proactive approach, which is always more sensible when the field distribution is totally unpredictable. The average total error across all Tier1 indicators compared to the prediction was 3.4%.
Moving on to emerging Tier1.5 and 2 decks: – 
Elementals ended up in Others, validating my prediction of a low pick rate. Spellementals was also well-framed, reaching exactly 5% metashare (even if an upward surpass of this frequency was considered probable). There was a regular widespread presence of 
Midrange (9%), with the analytical clarifications offered in the previous article, and the indication that Tempo would be more present than 
Tempo was appropriate. Tempo settled at a good 3%, adhering to my abductive view. Finally, Monument slightly surpassed 3%, while Boros Dragons stopped at just under 2% of the field, both reflecting the prediction that saw them brought with a frequency between 3% and 5%. The average total error across all indicators for innovative Tier1.5 and 2 decks compared to the prediction was 0%. I recall that was included in this category with reference to the new tempo brews that also include TMNT cards. These constitute structurally different decks from previous midrange versions, even if they are still grouped together in statistical analyses. Such a mechanism is a conceptual error in game analysis, which was intentionally avoided here.
Continuing with traditional Tier1.5 and 2 decks: Dimir Excruciator achieved 5% presence, similar to 
Rhythm decks (of which 4% was composed only of the version, without other colored splashes). I had hypothesized that both decks would achieve a metashare between 3% and 6% if players were more conservative, while they would decline to between 2% and 4% if players were more innovative. Of the two, the first hypothesis materialized, as demonstrated by the Tier1 distribution. For MonoR, however, I erred on the side of caution. I had assumed it would stop in a range between 2% and 2.5%, but instead, it reached 3%. Oops! I should have written between 2% and 3%. Oh dear! That went wrong. The average total error across all indicators for traditional Tier1.5 and 2 decks compared to the prediction was 6.7%.
Finally, the unexpected Tier3 decks: This part is extremely difficult because it deals with very high variability. For this reason, it is hard to estimate an overall percentage error, and perhaps it would be of little significance. I can say that for all decks in this category, participation was hypothesized not to reach 3% each, and this was the case. I had indicated 10 possible decks to include in this category, and of those, 8 were brought. Esper Pixie was not included in the prediction; shout out to Estratti, who, in addition to playing a poorly positioned deck very well, went far beyond any of my divinatory talents. I am happy, however, to have caught the read on Mono White, which I actually underestimated by 0.5%. The total average error across all Tier3 indicators compared to the prediction was approximately 20%. I am satisfied because it means I hit almost 80% of the undergrowth; the place where the most copious obscurity of vision usually persists. The overall error of my meta reading for the RC Torino was 7.5%. The prediction proved 92.5% correct, and this is the value that was given to players who read it before facing the tournament. We can therefore say that we managed to provide a quality product to readers, considering that (based on the analysis of 40 similar reports on target tournaments from 2024 and 2025) such predictions can be divided into three bands: A) Elite (for the vast majority made by ProPlayers) if the overall error margin is less than 10%; B) Expert if the margin is between 10% and 20%, and C) Casual if the error margin is greater than 20%.
2| Archetype Performance
Regarding the performance of the various decks, I am particularly surprised by analyses that consider Prowess as a deck that "fared poorly." This theorization seems to have a single underlying premise: that it didn't make Top 8 at RC Torino. This is a truly weak foundation, besides being lost in its isolation. The author prefers less hermetic arguments. Let's look at some data and try to provide a more consolidated interpretation. If we take the last 4 largest target tournaments (Magic Spotlight TMNT in Richmond and RCs in Torino, Taipei, and Mexico City), the win rate for Prowess is 53.5% overall. This means the deck performed better than the average of the fields. Moreover, this average is not homogeneous, as it is dragged down by only two negative matchups: Spellementals and Tempo. These decks seem engineered to beat Prowess. The rest of the distribution of recurring MUs is strongly positive. This is a rare quality in current Standard. Only MonoG Landfall enjoys the same benevolent fate. Furthermore, in Richmond, two Prowess decks made Top 8. So, if only the single data point of Top 8 conversion is valid, then nothing can be said because the evidence is contradictory. However, if we delve a little deeper, the WinRates for Prowess by MU do not even remotely indicate its defeat. Its swing is a difficult play, much more difficult than that of its natural predators (which is a qualitative facet that should always be included in considerations). It is also an emerging deck, born last night in the blink of an eye. We should grant it the same mitigating circumstances as other emerging decks regarding deckbuilding time, with the variation that it performs better than its siblings. Moreover, it is a deck against which all players have been careful to set aside multiple answers in both main and side, yet it has still performed optimally compared to other novices who benefited from opponent unpreparedness. Besides these two lines, some previous expectations must be confirmed. Excruciator, for me, struggles to be considered a Tier 1.5 and seems to be getting worse. Cube decks always stimulate everyone else to keep them in check, and whether this has been successful is a matter for discussion (the deck seems underrepresented). I find a certain malleability in the responsive play that follows the colors, in that order. Essentially, Standard can currently be seen as divided into two poles. On one side, aggressive and proactive green bases. On the other, bases, combined in various ways, reacting with acrobatic games of interaction and synergy. At the moment, the two fronts are fighting. When one alignment gains some ground, the other pushes it back. In this intense border war, every now and then, the army of some small village tries to deploy to gain a position.
3| Cut on Emerging Decks
Regarding emerging decks that have surprised, one must have the courage to be technical, rather than being captivated by the fashion of the new. Tempo is a deck that I adore for its design, gameplay, and deckbuilding. It doesn't even perform poorly on the tables. However, it faces horrible matchups against MonoG Landfall, Midrange, Excruciator, Spellementals, and MonoR. Against some of these, it doesn't even have a clear win condition that can be achieved within the opponent's Fundamental Turn. That's a bit much to consider it a deck capable of changing the pre-rotation format. It's certainly a good deck that will acquire cards and plays. But we are far from a revolution. The same applies to Mono White. A beautiful, synergistic deck, kissed by the charm of simplicity, but try playing it against MonoG Landfall, or Excruciator, or Spellementals, and you will see all its limitations. The few interactions it can afford between main and side will always penalize it, until the quality of its threats increases further. That's where the problem lies. Moreover, its solitary play exposes it to not a few jabs from Tier2 or lesser decks, like Airbending. Monument has improved thanks to Cool But Rude, but it remains a questionable choice given that Prowess beats it soundly. Furthermore, it exposes itself to risk in the early rounds of tournaments because it suffers against specific Tier2s like RDW or Tempo. Upon closer inspection, a bizarre circumstance is developing where all these decks, which in themselves could be promising, always have at least one negative matchup against a dominant deck and multiple negative matchups against each other. The only one among the emerging decks that does not have strongly negative matchups at the top tiers is Dragons, which is weak only against Tier2s and Excruciator. For now, I am not crying miracle and I do not share the enthusiasm of many towards new discoveries. My skin does not feel the breeze of revenge. I only note a lot of work to be done on the deckbuilding of these new decks and the hope that the release of new cards will make them something more. For those who think that Mono White has subverted the format just because it managed to reach the top tables of RC Torino, it must be remembered that "Ceux qui font des révolutions à moitié ne font que se creuser un tombeau" (Those who make half revolutions only dig their own graves) and that one tournament does not make a spring; even if it is an important tournament.
4| Standard Prices
And here we are at the update of the Standard MOLE Index, which allows us to have an accurate view of the format's prices. The field distribution compared across multiple meta tracking databases returned an analysis sample of 14 decks ( Excruciator, MonoG Landfall, Lessons, Midrange, Prowess, Spellementals, Tempo, Control, MonoR, Airbending, Dragons, Mono White, Rhythm, Monument). The arithmetic mean has, again, dropped to €374.25, the resistant median follows the same path and falls to €322.74, the geometric mean flexes to €449.94, with the lower outlier being MonoR and the upper outlier being Bant Rhythm. We can therefore observe that the cost of Standard has on average decreased by €94.46, the arithmetic mean and the resistant median diverge (demonstrating a more asymmetrical price-deck distribution than before), and the geometric mean also falls due to the convergence of the two outliers. The geometric mean of the other formats taken for comparison has varied as follows: Vintage €24,826, Legacy €3,950, Modern €688, Pioneer €415, Pauper €132. Taking all formats as a sample, Standard remains the third most economical. If we limit the scope to competitive formats only (Modern, Pioneer, and Standard), then Standard is the middle format but with a difference from Pioneer of only €25, thus negligible. Furthermore, I remind you that this is a comparison of the geometric mean and not the arithmetic mean. The arithmetic mean, more precise but longer to calculate, often sees Standard well below Pioneer, showing its true face as the most economical competitive format and the second most economical overall among constructed formats after Pauper.
"See You Space Cowboy"
Francesco
