UR Ninja Skred

3 or 4 Fjord has been something I've been toggling but landed on 4, (for now), as this is basically a value control deck that tries to answer scary stuff early and slowly out value OP to the point where it doesn't matter anymore what they draw as it will get countered or killed on sight. Ux fae in Pauper is about a mix of value, control and tempo.
Right up my alley! :)
Oh, forgot to mention the amount of R SB card that demand a high Mountain count.

Yea, the SB likely needs tweaking. 2x Geist is probably not correct and can easily be more controlling spells instead. Echoing Truth as a 1 of is definitely a contender.

I got 2 echoing truth and 3 spellstutter sprite in my own stuff.

3 Spellstutter is just incredibly wrong! It is the best card in the deck by a country mile. You just volunteered to make your deck worse by not playing 4. <shaking my head in disbelief>

Well, I use evolution to build it, and so far it's been producing odd but wondrous things.
Everything in my halfdecks compete for its existence, and one of the faeries simply didn't live up to its role in the deck.

Most of the times when that happens it's often because the other versions of the card earn more points, stealing the thunder. It gets removed when it doesn't perform which is a pretty simple thing to measure.

Sorry man but this time for sure your measurements are just completely off the charts. You need to revisit your formula immediately as there is no other card that belongs in this shell that can even remotely compete with the Sprite. Your current formula is creating a worse deck.
I'm sure you are aware of this, but sometimes blindingly trusting statistics is a folly that leads to the wrong conclusions. I fear that in this case the rabbit hole you entered went quite a bit further then you intended to follow.
That said, I hope you can convince all my opponents to only play 3 Sprites as that will significantly increase my win %. :)

People have said stuff like that for as long as magic has existed.
Notably with force of will which was proven to be not as good as people thought it was.

It sort of depends what's being redundant in the deck.

I have had a change in procedures lately which did make me think it gained a little inconsistency, but I've had backup plans in place for a long time by reintroducing older cards to the genepook all the time. If there was a bleep in the measures, the card will simply return again the next generation.

But sometimes I've gotten results that consistently repeated themselves no matter how I felt for them.

Back when I was trying to evolve mill decks, the project always threw out the mill cards and became a control deck.
The only millcard left in that project is two mindshrieker.

Since all this is about math and statistics what would be your argument for 4 spellstutter sprite.
How are you certain that 3 isn't just as sufficient as 4 ?

I've got an old set of rules for it that I'm using.

4 if the deck can't survive without it.
3 if you want it early but want better stuff later.
2 if it's mainboard hatred.
1 if you are testing it.

The thing about spellstutter sprites is that it is dependant on the number of faeries your deck consists of, and since the number of faeries is dependent on which deck you couple your halfdeck with, that number swings wildly, making spellstutter sprite less efficient. I believe my system has "understood" that weakness. Sometimes you just draw a hand where spellstutter sprites is the only faerie you will see for a long time.

I hope this allows you to see that spellstutter sprite isn't always a 4 of, which also applies to force of will (which depends on having blue cards in hand) if a 4 of card has dependencies, it's not always the right thing to play 4 of it, but most people prefer to follow a band wagon mentality on some cards until they get thoroughly beaten by someone who uses 3.

One of my friends always swore at playing 4 force of will until I beat him by just having two.
Since then he's learned to play 0 counterspells in his designs where other people use several.
The ability to counter something isn't always good, not even with THE counterspell (counterspell)

I've even taught him that playing ancestral recall on the opponent during the early game can be a move in 93/94. (Not because you play black vise)

Magic is extremely complex.

How am I sure that 4 of the best card in a deck is better then less then 4 you ask.
Well, let's start with, say, drafting. Everybody at the table have the exact same chance of winning before a pack is opened. I draft 5 copies of an extremely good common and you draft 3 of an equally good common. Who has the statistical edge based on those commons alone?
In constructed you build your deck to support your best and most consistently powerful card. Ex: Death's Shadow, Titan, Hammer to name a few. Here it is Sprite because of the ninja interaction and thus the obvious advantage to in fact use the same Sprite multiple times. Echoing Truth can't do that. Not even close as the use of a Truth on your own Sprite is such a tempo and card advantage negative that it LITTERALLY breaks the entire purpose of this deck.
Your Force example is also incredibly flawed as "Forcing a Force" is not only common but can often be a powerplay as it leaves a more powerful Blue card in your hand to be played afterwards.
I'm amazed that I have to explain this to you! This is almost MTG 101 level stuff.
I say this with the greatest respect but you are right now so far the rabbit hole that I believe that the only way out for you is to put the theory aside and maybe actually play some games at a decent level.
I'm not being mean or anything but Sir/Madam you may just need a reset.

It's you who is too far out
There will always be minimum/maximum models where it turns out going for the maximum us simply wrong.

A simple example is mountains and lightning bolts.

In order to kill, you need a blend of lands and bolts.

You cannot go with maximum by playing just bolts or just lands.

The same kind of balance applies to all existing cards.

There will always be a blend of cards not being maxed for things to work the best.

Anyways your just a troll disputing stuff.

It took you less than a week to break cover after engaging me.

Your account lineage is simply "vi"

Easy to discover, but I let you play out your role just to see how long you were able to appear friendly.

But your whole behaviour was scewed from day one.

Like you were able to being this relatively "new guy" who just happened to find the "partition: ban wickeddarkman" on what was basically your first day in here for a long time.

It was a pretty burried topic.

Second your small stabs at other users (also on day one)

As well as your first post, a spam page that was basically spam itself.

You were damn obvious :)

So, your (sold) decks, are they the lure to get people to start giving you their adress?

And in case you want to try the "innocent person ambushed by wicked" I might display the interety of your strain and comment on the most trollish variants.

Try again, but play friendly for much longer next time, say like half a year...

regarding force of will, you give up on cardadvantage the more you play.

The same mechanics apply to all other cards, where you give up versatility to gain consistency, except being too consistent on a theme makes you lose to a few hate cards.

And disagreeing with me on two similar accounts ?
If I hadn't spotted you on day one, I'd have spottet you on the second disagreement.

Sorry for the late reply, sometimes RL takes precedent over silly online discussions.
Why the name calling?
I criticized your argument suggesting that you might have gotten trapped by statistics that you admitted that you created. Do you see the potential of you possibly being stuck inside a bubble of information causing you to become your own echo chamber?
I hope that is not the case when it comes to you but I have to say that I am a bit concerned on your behalf as you instantly switched to an ad hominem attack after I questioned the basis of your reasoning.
Please understand that when someone questions your logic and/or thought process that is not an attack on you, just your arguments. When you then respond with personal attacks it just comes across as you don't have valid counter arguments to defend your position. Generally not something a person that have faced criticism and have evaluated counter arguments do, but very often something that insulated bubble residents revert to.
Please tell me, what category do you actually belong to?
Oh, and enough with the name calling, that shit is just juvenile.