Ursarctics are NOT a Good Deck

by ‪@TheRJB0‬ • This is What a Bad Dec...
TheDuelLogs said nothing wrong.
⫸ Rednu's Twitch: / rednu23
⫸ Rednu's Discord: / discord
⫸ Rednu's Twitter: / rednu23
⫸ Join Rednu and unlock emotes and perks! / rednu
#yugioh #yugiohmasterduel

[@Rednu]

Seeing a lot of people seem to use this as an opportunity to attack Abyss or Ursarctics and I just want to make clearer my thoughts on the whole thing. RJ has good intentions and Abyss doesn't deserve harassment or ridicule for something so silly. I just found the video to be needlessly pedantic. Pointing out something so simple like how success is contextual and dependent on the individual, and ignoring the culture that surrounds the game, to me feels like missing the point for the sake of lashing out and defending. I feel like, even if you do accomplish the goal of getting people to back off; you create more people who walk away from that kind of interaction with a sense that the people who take a holier-than-thou stance will intentionally be disingenuous as a means to an end.

[@elin111]

Masahiro Sakurai's vision for Smash Bros. was a casual party games for friends not meant to be taken seriously. Yeah that's not how it played out.

[@mothman2514]

Competitive YGO requires you to spend thousands of dollars on a chance of winning Nintendo Switch. I get the bragging rights,but that is just insane.

[@cfelton2nd]

preach

[@jorgecarvajal5385]

no thousand but some hundreds, if u dont care abot rarity@@cfelton2nd

[@DAMPERSANDD]

this conversation sucks I play deskbots. It is not good. It is a bad deck. It can win sometimes, but that does not make it good. I just have fun with it.

[@Samurrot07]

same, I messed around with it in DL before the pends came out with magnet circle lv2 for swarming (ss 002 from hand, search 003 who can ss another 002 for another search) and concentrating current for absurdly high atk (works better because 003 boosts both atk, and defense which further increases atk). really fun deck

[@thegreatscribbles960]

Seems like a skill issue

[@mattyorshin]

I play only anime decks. I feel the pain

[@MiyaoMeow588]

if a deck is bad, I dont really think people should be playing it at all. they're wasting their time

[@Samurrot07]

@@MiyaoMeow588 So what if they play bad decks in a non competitive setting, like playing with a friend on DB or EDOPRO. If you were there, would you tell them its a waste of time because they're not using x good deck? The correct answer is no. Because if its fun for them, they're getting something out of it, and you not enjoying something isn't correlated with whether someone else does or does not enjoy that same thing.

[@MultiTheGamerman]

Death of the author is the idea that the reader interpretation hold as much ground as the author intention. What mr.Takahashi want Yogioh to be is no longer the same thing as it consumer. And what YGO player want now is hyper consistent decks and see them duke it out. Which sadly create a division between decks but also playerbase.

[@cfelton2nd]

preach

[@brazguard3akabg357]

Yeah, playing a kid's card game shouldn't dictate a person's worth in society and such. This is not the yugioh anime.... -_-'

[@bl00by_]

Can we just all agree on the fact that ursarctic is objectively bad? It doesn't matter if you get Master 1 in MD or win your locals with some random ass deck. It doesn't mean that it's good. People should start to accept that not every deck can be good instead of coping themselves through it. If you enjoy the deck then cool all power to you, but don't act like your pet deck is good. (Looking at you skarlon and dire lol)

[@Honest_Mids_Masher]

Idk man my Dream Mirror deck destroyed full power tearlaments so it's definitely a good deck man, maybe you should try it man you'll totally top a YCS bro.

[@vipersniperpiper6093]

My boy,most decks nowadays are considered objectively bad by the community because of the competitive mindset it has.

[@michaelkeha]

I mean the issue you run into with how competitive is it's a zero sum game of it doesn't matter if this deck is not good right now because of the current meta pool which if say one deck gets axed then suddenly they are tier 0 the deck gets called hyperbolic levels of bad there is no nuance and no real thought behind it and most people don't know why a deck is good they just know because they are told this also if someone manages to get a deck to master 1 in MD with a bad deck how bad can that deck really be

[@sammydray5919]

I liked RJ as a co host with Cimo but man I really do not care for his takes most of the times 😅 Duel logs got so much flak for just speaking facts. The bear archetype is badly designed. Any modern era deck is "playable" Simply because cards have reached that level of base power. But how good a deck is will ALWAYS be measured against the decks around it at the time.

[@michaelkeha]

Thing is you get into relativistic power levels for example if no one at the locals you attend is playing anything better than the bears than yes Bears is suddenly good within that context also let's be honest given how modern archtypes are designed it's not even a question of bad design since every modern deck boils down to the same core playstyle but rather a question which is the most efficient in executing the only gameplay style

[@MidAbyss]

I feel sorry for our man rednu for watching a 9 minutes video of a grown ass man whining about he doesn't like tryhard players to give us content...what a chad😔✊

[@thatjuantoo]

:kappa: > kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJ3OeaSagappotEsi=g50tQu4QOtsYWR29

[@MiyaoMeow588]

i think there is some truth to the idea that most formats are rarely solved in their respective times. There very well could be multiple decks that are secretly good, but they go unnoticed because the top players dont give them any thought. Edison proves this That said, i think we have to draw the line somewhere. Ursarctics? 😮‍💨

[@Honest_Mids_Masher]

Tbh I kinda want to explore and see which are really the worst decks. Dream mirror or Ursarctics?

[@DB1Dragoon]

@@Honest_Mids_Masher Probably dream mirror

[@Honest_Mids_Masher]

@@DB1Dragoon Y'know what considering I played dream mirror I honestly think I might agree with that.

[@michaelkeha]

It comes down to the fact most people don't understand what meta actually means within the context of a card game which is meta is rarely ever the best deck at the time but the most powerful deck the average player can pilot consistently is at any given time in any given card game there is probably 5 or so decks that would crush whatever meta decks are running around flat every time without fail but due to a lack of exposure and often requiring far more from the pilot they don't become popular until the format becomes a historical one where players tend to have far higher skill levels and have the time to discover and learn these hidden decks

[@GreatgoatonFire]

I feel like that person Abyssal went in way to hard on twitter in response to the moon spider's video and then got an unreasonable backlash in return. Plenty YugiTubers use failed or bad exactly the same way and everybody understands what they mean without it becoming a whole thing.

[@phamquang7885]

not unreasonable, its deserved. She went on on with that train until she's exhausted and then made suprised pikachu face when she sees how much twitter clapped back.

[@duyknguyen]

It's actually a dilemma in Gaming and our modern world in general, not just for Yugioh that if you're not playing well 1 game or choose a low winrates champion (in the context of MOBA games) then kids will attack each others for being mentally ill for no reason so I'm not that surprise it's in Yugioh 😅

[@AWPNubDiesel]

I hate people that say anything along the lines of "everything is good" they always, without fail, intentionally miss the point. You can play your bad deck if you want, I play Monarchs in master duel on occasion, but it's still bad. It is harder for me to win when I choose to play Monarchs. Even if we aren't talking specifically about tournament results, a "good deck" is going to be one that is going to have better odds of winning than a bad one, and we can measure that with win rates in X format, in this case master duel, with some degree of accuracy (obviously some decks have very small sample sizes because nobody plays them, muddying the waters). Generally, good in a competitive game is just over 50% win rate, at a bare minimun. ~54%+ is very good, and 60%+ tends to be considered broken. League of Legends is another game that has a very win rate focused balancing philosophy, and conversations about good and bad tend to be over ranked win rates in Challenger and tournaments. You can play your meme champ with 49% win rate if you want, just accept it's a bad champ. It's not some deep conversation about your worth as a player or a person.

[@michaelkeha]

True but the thing is people often don't know why something is actually bad or rather and this is really important just bad right now ie if the meta changes that deck everyone was calling bad suddenly because the environment has changed becomes tier 0 and this is one of the topics lost in the shuffle

[@Citizen_Nappa23]

"childrens card game" ya like a 10 year old can afford a $1,200 Meta deck.😂 Evertime i hear the childrens card game line i feel inclined to slap some common sense into them. Also a deck in modern Era being objectivly "good" are broken with majority of their cards should be sitting on a banlist not allowed for competitive play due to broken board states they create. And objectively "bad" decks aren't those subjectively broken decks within the Meta. Such is concept of Tier 0 and Tier 1 formats that make majority of decks unplayable. Its not that their bad, the Meta is so broken they arent objectively viable. Its when worded "good or bad" it has extremely negetive context. Instead of calling them bad just say not competitively viable, those players will understand where your coming from and wont take it as an insult. Ppl send alot of time and effort making what they do, so degrading gaslighting(even though unintentional) is toxic and unhelpful. If anything makes you look like an A-hole. Instead of saying thats bad why you playing that. Instead Ok well its not the most competitive option but if you play that such and such will really help it out and will better chances of winning matches and show how combos work. Just saying its failed and bad is a terrible way to go abt it, not only that some ppl want to just have fun they give a rats ass about competitive viability the way you were talking sounded like winning is all that matters to you and devalues them. You cant speak to every person you meet in same context as their a YCS competitive player everyone is different. I feel all hes saying that every deck has Worth and dont listen to toxic Meta try hards. Normally i stay out of ranks but i felt a need to say something.

[@Elfking94]

Foreal, we are caught between childrens card game and needing to be a lawyer to comprehend this shit some shit is really simple and some is complicated and to slap a one size fits all on any of it, that would be a mistake

[@Solozocker]

I think if we are talking about the strength of a deck the "0 sum of i win you loose" is sorta the only thing that matters at the end like yeah it is a game but in a tournament setting discussing Deck viability fun isn't really a factor and taking discussions like that out of that context feels almost... Makicious? Like imagine trying to make that point to a football player who plays on world stage. Fun sorta becomes a nonfactor as long as there is a financial insensitive

[@michaelkeha]

Funny thing is there is a rather large list of pro athletes that quit because in their own words it stopped being fun when the fun goes away so does the passion and without the passion they lose that competitive edge and they fall off the mountain

[@randomgenretalk8151]

When it comes to the question what a good deck is in a competitive enviroment vs what you like, there is always the opportunity that your favorite deck can improve with new support or a new format. Unchained was for a long time not a good deck because it wasn't competitive and not that many people played it in tournaments. But with new support and a shifting format, the deck became very popular. Instead of being mad that somebody says that you deck is not good, you can either improve it or look out for new cards to use in your deck. If this current format is not good for your deck, maybe the next and you can see where the trend is going. I play Sky Striker and as much as i hate it pro players don't include it in their tournament tier list, i can understand that. It's a very hard enviroment for this deck but with all the new support and cards that allow you to take control of your opponents monster, that got some of their restrictions lifted, this deck improves. Maybe it becomes a strong contender in the next year or not. I mean even Lightsworns got really good new support that might push the deck, how far remains to bee seen but it got better with that. Good and Bad is always temporarely and is always subject to change. Takahashi is never a good argument when it comes to the vision of the game because he never intended to make a Anime about card games. He was very interested into Archeology and Egypt, he wanted to make an Anime about that. He made a card game that the people play as something that they do inbetween. That's why adventure and ancients civilizations played a bigger plot role in all Yugi centered Animes. For the first 4 years Yu-GI-Oh had no proper rule set nor a clear identity or vision. It slowly improved to the game that we know now, it took a long time until we got archetypes that work properly within themself and with others or how special summoning got more accessable. Oh and let's not forget Takahashi was a fucking hero this man tried to save someone with no hesitation, what a legend.

[@michaelkeha]

Thing is one of the nuances lost in this whole talk is a deck might not even need support to suddenly become good all it needs is the right environment to shine which is the fundamental issue at hand because people just have a zero sum view enforced by youtubers who hold the same bad view of if it's not meta it's irredeemable trash they don't often see the power decks until they smack them upside the head at a YCS and are then told this is good now which is why people who lack this nuanced view will never actually reach the top levels of the game because they suck at card evaluation and the community actively encourages people to be like that

[@GahmehWoot]

Little did we know, this was all a plot to make us play our favorite decks and avoid the meta, for him to go in with a meta deck and score an easy WCS.

[@PrettierNPastel]

Genius

[@hannsandres]

I agree with a lot of the points and ideas he makes, but as a whole it misses the point of DuelLogs video which was about a deck's design for competitive play. It's not that deep. I saw Logs video and he doesn't trash talk the deck, it even ends in a positive note about its viability. Is fine to have a pet deck, but people shouldn't take it personal and be defensive when someone says the deck they like is bad. If Kash Chazz or Ursarctics were "good decks", then there is not really much merit in winning small events with them. What makes those players impressive is that they do well in locals with "bad decks".

[@sora483]

people should understand that not all deck are that good. there is a reason why there are rogue deck in here. At least people need to know what their deck strength and weakness rather than being butthurt by someone saying their deck is bad.

[@thegreatscribbles960]

Mentality fools break the chain become the destiny. Believe in your self to conquer the world

[@michaelkeha]

true but often people don't know how to identity what is good and what is good right now and the same for bad decks ie what decks are just bad and what decks are just bad because of the current meta but if that meta changes they suddenly become very good

[@Nifroth]

Ursarctic synchron was meta in duel links for a bit :) checkmate, atheists

[@TheWitchBoi]

As someone who loves Ursarctic as a theme, the deck is kinda crap! I love the deck, but its not competitively viable at ALL. You neg too hard in the deck, and you get a very miniscule award of having a skill drain monster for extra deck monsters with or without a level? Its not super great. Their overall mechanic of summoning by tributing one from hand is inheirently flawed due to the Ursacrtics not having effects when tributed. Deck could have been better if they all drew 1 card after being tributed by an Ursarctic.

[@bl00by_]

Literally this. Konami realised it and made purrley. The deck also discards a bunch but atleast they replace themselves while having useful effects on the quick plays.

[@golderzoa]

This archetype was only good for staining your underpants

[@minabasejderha5972]

.... Wow, lots of people in the comments seem to have not known the context of this conversation. That's annoying. I don't even necessarily think RJ is making the correct point here. I just think that the backlash to Abyss was the people who entered a room without knowing what the context was, just to get to point and laugh at a mediocre deck.

[@zerocalvin]

considering how broken modern yugioh are.. i dont think there is such thing as a bad deck... it's just a matter of how toxic and overpowered it is when compare to others.

[@Honest_Mids_Masher]

Disagree dream mirrors are terrible. You're either running 2-3 copies of each field spell yet drawing too many is a brick and it's a brick when you draw your starter, the starter dies to ash, imperm, veiler, etc to where the deck literally cannot play if it gets negated, A lot of their monsters specifically the light counterpart serve no purpose and are pretty bad and yet you still have to play them to tag out the dark counterparts, despite being able to play on both turns it is still pretty bad and relies completely on the field spells to do so. The lack of deckspace makes it absolutely terrible too.

[@minabasejderha5972]

Gonna be honest, I think you are off the mark on this one in a number of ways. You are correct to say that there is a preexisting conversation when someone enters the room, but the preexisting conversation was the history of the "failed cards/mechanics" series by DuelLogs. Why do I call it that and not, "Failed Cards, Archetypes and Sometimes Mechanics?" Because the name changed. The series as a whole used to be about covering failed mechanics such as Spirits and Unions, card effects that rely on coins or dice, or cards that gain life. In other words, almost all of the cards he talked about earlier in the series were cards that either seemed to work precisely against the Tempo and Economy of the game, in the case of the former 2 (by requiring too much of a limited resource (the normal summon) for too little reward), or because they are mechanics with no actual win condition, in the case of the latter two. Obviously, that well ran dry at some point and he expanded the discussion to be about failed archetypes. Over time, the series became more and more about archetypes and less about mechanics, hence the tongue-in-cheek name change for the series. But even DuelLogs himself has stated that he regrets using the word "fail" in the name of the series now that he knows the direction he eventually took. In retrospect, he wishes he'd called the series "mid cards and archetypes" or something like that. He said it directly to Abyss during this while fiasco. So the context of the conversation when Abyss enters the room is that Logs has been putting cards in a basket with a sign that says "failures", and his definition was not originally competitive viability, but whether the deck undercut itself. Only, because he needs to keep making videos, he starts expanding the definition to cards which are simply mediocre. Abyss walks in and sees Ursarctic being put in the same basket as Time Wizard and (I would say, understandably) shouts, "Hold on, this doesn't seem fair!" Logs responds, "Yeah, I know. The sign isn't that accurate anymore. But it's too late to change it now." It is at this point that everyone else enters the room, and starts ridiculing and dogpiling Abyss, and, yes, insulting her. They (and you) walked into the room and applied a definition that was not the active definition of fail in the room. You apply one that only makes reference to the modern game in 2023, to viability to take to a tournament right now. But the series has never clearly been about that. It has been a muddy mix of intentions as Logs has shifted what he wanted to make videos about over times. So walking in and telling Abyss that she walked in with the wrong definition is a little silly, I think. Cause y'all just walked in with a different definition, too. Sorry, but Ursarctics don't belong in the same basket as Time Wizard, Susan Soldier, and Pitch Dark Dragon. People who've been watching the series since the beginning know that this series had never been about what you should take to a YCS today. If it was about YCS viability, it would also include videos on decks like Firefist, Mermail, and Six Samurai. It doesn't, because it isn't about success in the modern metagame. With that said, I also think you are off the mark in your Seto Kaiba discussion. Kaiba is not wrong because he plays meta cards. He is wrong because his only metric for evaluating a card is whether or not it has high attack points, whether it is individually powerful on it's own. Yugi instead supports a playstyle that supports monsters with synergistic spell/trap combos, monsters that have low stats but powerful effects, or monsters that are only strong when used together. These are things any competitive players would agree with. Is there a touchy-feely, friendship is magic side to this? Yes, because Yugi supporting his cards with spell and trap cards is meant to be a metaphor for how friends support each other and hold one another up. But... we need to remember, that doesn't mean he was wrong. You *should* evaluate a card on more than it's raw power, but instead on its use within a combo or strategy. There's more I could say, but it probably isn't worth going into.

[@Rednu]

There's no way I will agree that the "preexisting conversation" is anything but the prevailing culture that surrounds the product. If you think most people who click on TheDuelLogs' videos are intently following a series to construct a context and aren't simply taking the title, the starting quote of the video, and his overall sentiment of Ursarctics being trash at face value and under the lens set by the Yugioh community at large, then you are deluded. No matter how Logs will say how he wishes to rename the series in retrospect, the premise and what is being expressed is cut and dry. Saying other archetypes belong in this bucket, or should be excluded when you are admitting the bucket has grown in size and is at this point nebulous when compared to the series at its inception is odd. To me, and just about anyone looking at it with any intellectual honesty, the expression and intent is very simple. Ursarctics are "failed", they're "bad", they're "trash", and in a much higher degree than the archetypes you've mentioned. I would even argue that those archetypes you mentioned can't be considered failures since they enjoyed mainstream competitive viability in their heyday. I've not "missed the mark" here, no amount of essaying will change the context. If Abyss is calling out TheDuelLogs for simply calling her favorite archetype bad and failed, then she's missed the point, and so does this video and its poor attempt at defending her. It's one thing to say "yo, we shouldn't dogpile on someone online for something silly like liking a deck", it's another thing to say "listen, success is contextual and just because you gauge success by the generally agreed-upon context and culture that surrounds our silly card game, doesn't mean my friend here can't call out a youtuber for something he didn't say". Does Abyss deserve ridicule or harassment? Absolutely not. Is some light ribbing or criticism for missing the point warranted? Well, it's certainly not unwarranted. Proceeding to miss the point in order to hop on a soapbox and preach a holier-than-thou sentiment that "all decks are equal and we should try harder to not hurt each other's feelings because success is a contextual term!" is extremely silly and needlessly pedantic. It purposefully misses the point for the sake of validation, which only serves to ensure that the validation falls on deaf ears. On Yugi and Kaiba, you can interpret Kaiba and Yugi's approach to deck building in many ways. Yugi had synergistic combos as much as he had cards in his deck that were useless for the most part and only conveniently fit and excelled in tailor-made scenarios. Kaiba used XYZ Dragon Cannon archetype with less attack power but raw destructive power, as well as strategies with Crush Card Virus. What they represent as characters is concrete and well-defined. Kaiba represents ruthless technological progress, might makes right, and the mechanical nature and rigidity of games. Yugi represents resiliency in the face of overwhelming odds (heart of the cards), versatility over specialization (which is generally NOT the right idea for deck building), and the power of friendship. Is Yugi "wrong"? No, my point was that the villainized traits of Kaiba include his min-max approach to gaming and analyzing cards for what they are at face value instead of their sentimental value.

[@DB1Dragoon]

​@@Rednuthis has summed up my feelings of how disingenuous it feels when people tell me there's no such thing as a "bad" deck, when Ursarctics, while my favorite deck, has clearly had no shine in any tops at almost no point in time.

[@jonathanmartinez7803]

We need to stop calling it a child’s card game. Yugio done grew up and no longer for children.

[@saberflavor5633]

Guy really made a 9 minute video yapping repeating the same shit. Sorry you had to sit through this

[@absolutetruth2481]

W video

[@peredurxiv9174]

Idk, i get it that it is not cool to basically gatekeep players from playing garbage decks. But i think it is also really bad to gaslight people into thinking that their garbage deck is way better than it actually is and then pay like 150 bucks for a deck which will give you like 0 wins at locals.

[@GamerZeroZX]

Everybody has their own opinion on the game. They can play whatever they want. This video itself is your opinion on the game. If you experience locals in different areas, every locals is different. Master duel In itself is it's own "locals" essentially. You aren't going to take a master duel deck to locals in a tcg format because it ain't gonna work. Everyone's Yu-Gi-Oh experience is subjective. including yours. What you have to understand is that there may be a meta but everyone is different. This dude is just trying to get people to play. while your opinion, in my opinion feels like your just catering to KZbinrs and what other people say you should play.

[@michaelkeha]

You know this is how it starts with the hard pushes into really weird politics is first they do their best to try remove any kind of objective standard and redefining words there are good decks and bad decks yes because yugioh is really badly designed and balanced if the game was well designed the gap between rogue and meta would be razor thin but we are at motor sports levels of disparity

[@googlyeyedsenpai5870]

Wow...not gonna lie that guy is kinda cringe to watch his takes. Look success can be whatever you want it to be but in a competitive winning is the default, simply because it's the only quantifiable metric. I can't gauge how much fun people will have with my jank brews but I can gauge how often they'll win or lose. I swear more and more as time goes on I see this nose turning towards competition as if wanting to win at something makes you a bad person and it's frankly kind of sad.

[@thegreatscribbles960]

My sheer hatred of vtubers will always blind me of any opinion you have

[@Rednu]

Yet you watch and leave comments?

[@Honest_Mids_Masher]

​@@RednuLeave him alone. Despite you being a Vtuber that doesn't stop him from having a secret crush on you.

[@Abyssionknight]

You play games to have fun, and losing badly isn't fun. Ursarctics lose way more than they win, and a lot of those losses are blow outs. So the deck isn't fun, and therefore is a bad deck. That's all the thought that needs to go into this imo.

[@Honest_Mids_Masher]

There are people that don't necessarily care about winning or losing however. I don't play evil eye because I want to only win I just play it because the cards look cool. For all you know that could be the reason people play decks like Ursarctics.

[@Abyssionknight]

@@Honest_Mids_Masher Yeah people can play a deck for reasons other than winning. Though the majority of players in all games people have fun when they are either winning, or competitive with the other people they're playing with. Very few people have fun in blow outs where they get destroyed or situations where they have almost no hope of winning.

[@Honest_Mids_Masher]

@@Abyssionknight Can't say I agree with that idea. Especially considering the divide between the community of casuals and competitive. The second part of your paragraph is what casuals complained about. At the end of the day the majority of casuals don't care about winning or losing they just want to play the game but if they're playing against a competitive player or deck while they're playing a casual one it's very one sided and they don't get to play and it isn't fun. Winning or losing isn't the deciding factor of whether someone has fun or not otherwise gg wouldn't have a meaning anymore.

[@momiji7308]

Aight listen up... How is yugioh, a game with a stupid amount of randomness involved even remotely allowed to have serious tournaments? It feels as if the more the game progresses and the more it feels like playing poker. No wonder why Takahashi considered money prizes for winning tournaments something that "gangsters would do", and that's just true, and to me even having tournaments with ANY kind of prizes is just unfair, the game is too dependant on luck, and it takes even more luck to not get matched against a deck that counters yours very well.

[@Honest_Mids_Masher]

Huh? There's always a degree of randomness in card games. Also the game is far less random than it was back in 2005 where games were decided by the cards you drew every passing turn. Meanwhile now decks have extrene consistency to where you'll always be able to combo and make the plays that your deck is supposed to make. Also that randomness hasn't stopped there from being players who've repeatedly won events like Jesse Kotton or Joshua Schmidt. If there was an insane degree of randomness then some random guy could win a YCS despite having gone up against a world champion.

[@kaitohiroyuki122]

If someone is spending over $1k on a deck then yeah it's wild there isn't serious prize support.