You’re welcome.
Mind you, I’m not even charging anyone for the lessons here. 
To be more specific:
https://hearthstone.wiki.gg/wiki/Heroic_Brawliseum
.
I remember playing some before quitting the game for years (first Un’Goro, as said many time on these forums), mostly out of frustration, but it probably was Standard. Turns out I was quite correct about the first Wild, though.
Dunno about Wild specifically — you’ve got a point here, not sure if I’ve ever even played it.
The post(s) above are mostly about Standard, but I played also Classic (even without considering the ‘original’ classic… like open beta etc ) and Twist while they still were a thing — more or less the same thing with ‘meta’ decks, even though the modes weren’t very popular either (neither is Wild, I must assume). Oh, and years ago I tried Casual, I think, which was the same as Ranked. And I wanted to to something wacky or whatnot…
Nevertheless, Wild might be different, I just dunno.
Looks like a completely leigitimate move in Standard.
With that said, I have to repeat that thing about that dreaded Octosari Hunter again, I guess:
Also wrote many times about apparent bots with basic decks in Classic… So, all this doesn’t mean anything.
Yes, that exactly why these champions still cannot get out of Silver/Platinum/Diamond while you’ve been playing in Legend for some time. 
The troll ‘psychology’ of forum paladins is truly something.
I dunno. I cannot even take this seriously, let alone reply to it so. 
Consider this your victory, if you will.
Imagine a guy whose socks smell so terribly that everyone avoids him and tries to stay at least ten metres away. He keeps going, though, how everyone envies his skill and therefore behaves so, because it cannot be any other way around, simply because it cannot. They do envy the skill! Yes, they do! How could one possiblye doubt that? If you do, you surely envy it, too. 
I really do not wish to argue with that anymore.
Come to think of it, though, even this is not new on these forums. I’ve already written how you will not win a dispute against a literal dung pile:
So I dunno, I personally wouldn’t savour such a victory too much.
And your parroting that hypothetical ‘MMR’ rubbish… Just above I asked you what the algorithm or formula for it is. No reply, nothing to say, as is always the case with the adepts of the MMR cult. Okay, you don’t know how it’s supposedly calculated, but maybe you can at least tell me what is it? The number, to matter how meaningful (or not)? Oh, no, of course not, it’s hidden , but it surely does sort everything out magically, just trust us. What is this? Russel’s teapot? No, it is those world-ruling smelly socks of skill, I tell you!
Alright, a special mention to the ‘deserving’ part. I don’t even know what to say, I’m at a loss here. Good one! 
Yeah, like this.
Some? Who taught you to speak ‘politically correct’ like that?
Seriously, you’d go far, say, in the EU with rhetorics like that.
You’ve gotta be kidding, right?
I used to make observations and count, like: okay, let’s see how many games today I’ll play without getting a single copy of my four key cards, with specific tutors for them also available, having drawn 20+ cards from my deck, when the opponent will play four-five his unique ones — just the right ones, despite drawing half as many, perhaps. The answer would be of the order of ten — don’t think I play more. I’ve long tired of such little experiemtns.
See also, for example:
, or:
,
or:
Maybe your problem in a dispute is that you completely ignore arguments and just keep going on with your stuff repeatedly instead?
Oh, my dear fellow, have I got a real kicker for you…
Imagine this: for someone to win more (‘better rng’, to put it in your words), someone else has got to lose more, because it’s a zero-sum game.
The whole point of ‘rigging’ is that some clowns win more than they would if skill or whatever was a thing and are happy about it, while others are robbed of their wins to make up for it.
Who are you to … lecture me?
I think I’ve proposed enough terms already even in this very topic. Don’t wanna repeat it — not even for you.
Dat essai, mon…
Sarcasm aside, though…
Oh, I’ve already written about important milestones that woud do the trick from a technical perspective. That’s possibly when it was (or could have been) implemented in practice.
For a fact? Truly?
Everything we discuss here is more or less assumptions or theories (the cited post by yellovvsnovv also highly recommended), more or less reasonable.
For me, a fact would be the source code or something like it.
No, there seemingly wasn’t.
People used to talk about ‘bad meta’ or such, Undertaker Hunter or whatnot, but not ‘kayfabe’. Besides, AI — in the game and in general, I suppose — was much less advanced then (single-player adventures were a good illustration — remember how bossed got much tougher when they upgraded it?), it would have been too tricky to implement any shenanigans like that, most likely.
Nowadays, though, if I were to implement this kind of rigging technology (by the way, many of my ‘exercises’ on the subject here are of such a ‘what-if’ nature: if I were to make it rigged, how would I do it in practice, specifically?), I could probably ask some chatbot AI to gauge players’ IQ by ‘reading’ posts on this forum and spotting obvious idiots in need of ‘help’.
Oh, I remember doing it for the first time back when it was truly ‘Legendary’, what of it?
Oh, does it?
Wrote many times how even bots with basic decks seem to have done it en masse, so it doesn’t mean much nowadays.
You mean good ol’ Popper and all that?
For my conspiracy stuff, it’d be simple: a Big Streamer on a Gaming_Chair™ having some bad luck for once, or incompetent… playarghs, who make one obviois and crude mistake after another, not stomping their opponents consistently anyway, or reports of all those players with ALL DIAMOND and MYTHIC stuff (mentioned also above) having bad luck and loss streaks — why, even the usual topics with complaints on these forums would do, but have you seen any? All of this would falsify such theories, alright.
Of course, if you also remember that ol’ man Thomas Kuhn and particularly that Imre Lakatos guy, you’d remember how a single (experimental) counter-example doesn’t immediately disprove or overthrow a theory or, more specifically, a so-called research programme, it’s a bit more complicated than that… But it’s a separate story.
PS Good question, though, anyway.
Mind you, unlike our crazy conspiracy stuff, there’s seemingly no way whatsoever to test that ‘MMR’ hypothesis (more on that above) empirically, experimentally. And yet they call their opponents names?