@chubbyrain I'm not going to crunch the numbers on it cause I don't have to. I know that having to draw a land AND a 4-of and another specific 4-of is not that likely. It will, of course, happen. Does that mean you can build your deck to EXPECT this sequencing to happen? No. You cannot. That would be irresponsible deck building. That is all I'm saying. I'm not saying it can never happen. I'm saying that the odds are not in favor of seeing turn 1 Lavinia a statistically significant portion of the time (let me be clear that "statistically significant" here means "with enough consistency to rely on it as something to expect and, thus, build around"). Do you disagree?
@ChubbyRain as a matter of general annoyance I have with your comment. I don't have to be an expert in probability or combinatorics to be able to speak intelligently to the general likelihood of a scenario playing out given a deck's design. There are some helpful "rules of thumb" when it comes to specific 2-card combos and general good practices for deck building. For example, through experience and other smarter players telling me so, I have discovered that if I want to see a certain type of effect in my opener I should likely run about 8-9 copies of that effect in my deck. If I want to see a specific card in my opener SOME of the time but not necessarily see multiples over the course of the game I generally run 3 copies of that card (obviously accounting for the fact that some decks run 3-4 preordain and other topdeck manipulation and some do not). If I want to see a specific card over the course of a longer game (or a game I expect to go long) I generally run 2 copies of that card. If I want to have a back-up copy of a card that I generally don't want to see too often I run 2 copies of that card. You can see where I'm going with this. It doesn't take an extensive knowledge of probability and combinatorics to make smart deck building decisions or to recognize smart ones from less-than-smart ones. So I could really do without the condescending comments. Really.