No, my arguments aren't contradictory, the problem is you don't seem to understand them. I'm only arguing the correct way to calculate when, on average, you can expect to play Reno. Nothing else.
The point with Alexstrasza seem to have been completely lost on you, so I'll try to make it clearer. When trying to decide whether or not to play Alexstrasza in your deck, you need to consider if you need any other heal (for instance) if you're planning on sometimes using it defensively. When you can expect to draw it, depends on your draw engine. If the draw engine isn't strong enough, and you don't expect to be able to stall the game with no heal until drawn, you may not want to play it or you might add stall, AoE, heal or draw to the deck. Or you might decide that it doesn't fit at all.
This is the point of my argument about Reno. There's a huge difference in expecting to be able to play him on turn 7 or turn 11. In the case of the latter, you might not want to play the card at all. What you are, in effect, suggesting is that it doesn't matter if you can expect to play the card on turn 11, because the effect is able to go off on turn 7.
I took drawing Reno into consideration. Common sense tells that you have 50% chance to draw Reno, and half of the time you cannot use him because either pair has a 25% chance to fail you. So 25%+ is proper.
Well, then you're right, still that factor should not be count with in my opinion. Of course you will not get Reno every time, but you made a whole deck around him, so it's just the matter how efficiently you can trigger the effect when you draw him.
Well, that's a factor that's equally important as no duplicates left in the deck. Not taking it into consideration would be foolish. What good does it do you if you have no dupes in the deck but don't have Reno in hand? I mean, it's self explanatory.
You're all considering Reno as a holy grail that will grant you a win when you draw him and have no dupes in the deck. But that's a pretty foolish angle if you ask me. You definitely should not rely on Reno in every game. That's why only the effect success ratio is important, not a Reno itself.
What are you talking about? I don't even think it's good, I'm certainly not going to play it. So please stop with your straw man arguments.
What is interesting is when, on average, you can expect to play Reno. It's a huge difference if that's 15 cards or 18 cards in. To play Reno, you need to have the card in your hand. It's completely irrelevant only to know when you expect the effect to be able to go off. I don't even understand why I'm forced to explain this. I mean do you use the same kind of reasoning when considering Alexstrasza? It's not interesting at all how long it takes you to actually draw the card, because you can always get the effect off? Some sense, please...
I took drawing Reno into consideration. Common sense tells that you have 50% chance to draw Reno, and half of the time you cannot use him because either pair has a 25% chance to fail you. So 25%+ is proper.
Well, then you're right, still that factor should not be count with in my opinion. Of course you will not get Reno every time, but you made a whole deck around him, so it's just the matter how efficiently you can trigger the effect when you draw him.
Well, that's a factor that's equally important as no duplicates left in the deck. Not taking it into consideration would be foolish. What good does it do you if you have no dupes in the deck but don't have Reno in hand? I mean, it's self explanatory.
No, my arguments aren't contradictory, the problem is you don't seem to understand them. I'm only arguing the correct way to calculate when, on average, you can expect to play Reno. Nothing else.
The point with Alexstrasza seem to have been completely lost on you, so I'll try to make it clearer. When trying to decide whether or not to play Alexstrasza in your deck, you need to consider if you need any other heal (for instance) if you're planning on sometimes using it defensively. When you can expect to draw it, depends on your draw engine. If the draw engine isn't strong enough, and you don't expect to be able to stall the game with no heal until drawn, you may not want to play it or you might add stall, AoE, heal or draw to the deck. Or you might decide that it doesn't fit at all.
This is the point of my argument about Reno. There's a huge difference in expecting to be able to play him on turn 7 or turn 11. In the case of the latter, you might not want to play the card at all. What you are, in effect, suggesting is that it doesn't matter if you can expect to play the card on turn 11, because the effect is able to go off on turn 7.
Do you see the flaw in your logic now?