Ugh, it’s been discussed many times, so I’m just gonna quote this, for example:
And, obviously, this too, yes.
I would request a link to an ISO standard for matchmaking, but this is probably pointless, as is reading the bulk of this topic generated by the usual ‘suspects’… Sorry if I’ve missed something substantial while scrolling through all this spam.
These forums are repetitive, yes, as is this notion.
They do delete threads and start it all anew, though. Anyone remember that old tale about Sisyphos?
Yes, I wrote many times about it: https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/hearthstone/search?q=zephrys%20%40SparkyElf-2852 . See also ‘Optimotron’ etc.
It’s refreshing to meet someone with a brain, who notices such obvious things, on these forums, though. A rare sight nowadays…
Hmm, I haven’t thought of that or noticed that it was updated (used to be quite dumb in the beginning, I think, and then… I haven’t really looked), thanks for this bit! It’s not often that someone actually contributes something to my little personal repository of this kind of knowledge about the game or surprises me with some new information of this sort.
Yes. Or it is their job, or their whole sense of self-worth is founded on trolling what they perceive as ‘conspiracy nuts’ (more common then you’d imagine in illiterate ‘saiance’ wannabes), or these aren’t even people, but rather crude chatbots posting the same drivel over and over again… There are some possibilities.
In packs, most likely.
That one knows nothing of statisctics as a maths discpline, I’ve checked (nor do most, in not all, of them). See, for example, this:
As for proof or ‘evidence’, as they like to call it for some reason (armchair barristers and sofa judges, I must assume)… I suppose I’ll just self-quote again:
You know, even if you’d return home after a long absence and found your wife pregnant, they’d probably deny anything fishy has happened and postulate that it was probably Darwinian spontaneous life generation that occurred, not an adulter. 
What? Surely, they’d say, the former possibility would just be an unlucky ‘RNG’ event affecting you, and the latter is a priori inconceivable, because it is inconceivable, and anyone claiming otherwise is a paranoid conspiracy loon and so on.
PS By the way, rational decision-making would imply assuming the most likely option (e.g. when it breaks the 60% probability threshold or something along those lines), even if it turns out wrong, but I guess they didn’t ‘get the memo’, as Americans would say, and blindly defend what is conceivable or comprehensible to them.
For more about behaviour patterns of these characters, see also, for example:
Even their vocabulary and ‘arguments’ (mostly purely fallacious and demagogical, of course) are… predictable. “‘You’ problem”, ‘cognitive bias’, ‘tin foil’, ‘see no evil’ etc.
(UPD: Expanded and edited a bit)
PS I’d like to think that it’s all just someone’s hobby project with those neural networks, but I’m afraid even AI nowadays isn’t that dull.