Haha, I don't think you understand the point I'm making at all if that's how you see it. I said I agree with his statistical analogy itself because the point he's making within that analogy is objectively correct when applied to games like HS and poker. However, I DISAGREE with his application of that analogy to this particular situation. I'm saying that analogy simply CANNOT be applied to this situation because we don't have all the facts/statistics to properly make that analogy here. And I used my personal example with my interaction with Reynad to demonstrate how sometimes Reynad is objectively wrong when making assessments like this.

In my example, Reynad didn't believe it was even possible for OTK Priest to be a viable deck in that meta. Which is why he was so quick to dismiss me by saying "no you didn't" when I told him I got to legend using OTK Priest. He was only able to dismiss me so easily because in his head he was already 100% certain that he knew OTK Priest wasn't good enough to reach legend. However, I had DIFFERENT statistics that actually proved it WAS viable (>60% winrate) within a certain meta. Reynad might be right about many things, but that doesn't mean he has ALL the data in his head to make 100% certain assessments all the time about stuff like this.