Definitely some good points, but I had a few thoughts -- some that are more specific to Redemption.
1.) Pros don’t Play to Win casual games – they Play to Learn.This is definitely true, and something I've often struggled with. Sometimes I think that if I don't win casual games with a new deck, how can I expect to win tournament games. However, the key is learning how to use a deck and how to adjust it. In my T2 deck building series on Land of Redemption, one of the
articles was about the importance of refining your deck through trimming and adjusting. (Granted, there are times when a deck idea simply doesn't work at all, even in casual games, and it might be time to go back to the drawing board).
Taking back plays is also something I go back and forth on in casual play. On the one hand, the point of casual games is to practice and learn how to use one's deck so taking back plays (especially in instances where you realize you had a better option) makes sense. On the other hand, there is also value in letting yourself make mistakes/misplays and holding yourself to them because that will help you remember not to make that same mistake in a tournament setting. When that situation comes up, it is more likely to "trigger" your memory if the previous instance was negative. (I've found it's simply human nature to remember the "extremes" when it comes to decision making in a game--you remember the brilliant plays and the epic mistakes, but not as much the times when you made a mistake but then took a "redo" to fix it.)
2.) When making deck selections for an event, pros choose lists driven by theory, not results.Ah, theory vs results...the classic tug of war. I posit that there should be a balance between the two. Theories are great, but at the end of the day we don't crown champions based on theory. A deck that is great "on paper" can still lose a deck that isn't quite as strong because of the great equalizer--chance. My personal definition of a well-built deck is one that is built to withstand a bit of bad luck (which doesn't mean a bad draw, but could be great luck for the opponent). That was one of the main reasons I stopped using defenseless (or very minimal defense) decks--I once lost a game to a player I should have easily beaten "in theory" because he got all his dominants right away, didn't draw any LS and I lost 5-1 in 3 turns after giving up two free LS due to having minimal defense. I realized that if I wanted the best chance to overcome some bad luck, I had to change how I approached my deck builds. Ever since then, I have leaned towards a more balanced deck building style in T1 (T2 is inherently balanced), and I've done quite well.
I also believe that there are so many viable options in Redemption right now, that theory simply cannot account for all of them. Perhaps no better example is 2015 Nationals when a deck with no Son of God took 1st and a deck with mono-Silver/mono-Orange took 2nd. In theory, those do not sound like optimized decks, but the results are there.
3.) Strong players are watching others play games at least as much as they are playing.I disagree on this one. Watching and learning from people who have been playing longer than you is great, but playing against them is better. Perhaps this is true in other card games, and watching other games is certainly better than not watching if playing is not an option, but I have found that there is no better way to get better than by playing and testing. Perhaps watching would be more valuable if you could always see what each player held in their hand...something like the high level playtest games John and Gabe did awhile back.
